Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 12

Prevalence section: stats paint a misleading picture
I changed the title (to the above) as the old title (left below) was being misinterpreted.

Dubious
I just added the following regarding the prevalence stats :

The above statistics are only for women aged 15–49, so they reflect only a fraction of practice changes in recent years, because most FGM is of infants <1 year old; it'll be >15 years 'till they reach 15, and would be included in the table above. Where practices are changing dramatically, these statistics can paint a very incomplete picture. For example, FGM in Eritrea is reported above at 89%. By dramatic contrast, it was 4% in 2013 among girls <5 in Eritrea and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. All of these statistics are from UNICEF. In other words, the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about 4%, not 89%.

So progress has been huge!?-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 08:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The proposal is interesting, but I will revert it for the moment because there are some problems. Currently the article is of a high quality and new material would need better integration, and would need to address the points below.
 * From the source (UNICEF Annual Report 2013 – Eritrea):
 * p. 3: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) is still relatively high (83 per cent) among women 15-to-59 years old. There is evidence, though, that the Government proclamation against its practice is working, given that the prevalence of FGM/C is lower (68.8 per cent) among the 15–19 age group (see EPHS2010, p.347).
 * p. 22: In Anseba Zoba, a clinical assessment study for under-5 girls was undertaken. The research findings revealed a reduction in the practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) from 25 per cent in 2009 to 4 per cent. In addition, clinical assessment commenced in 12 Health Facility among 6,043 under-five children revealed a 0.7 per cent FGM/C prevalence.
 * The text proposed for the article makes a valid point, but it would need considerable reworking because it contains too much WP:SYNTH (the general conclusions are fairly obvious, but a secondary source would still be needed), and it would need to be written in a more encyclopedic fashion. Also, the article cannot cover everything, and the core facts are presented correctly in the existing text which clearly shows that the table is from a 2013 UNICEF report and applies to women aged 15–49. Also, the final paragraph in the Prevalence section starts "In 2013 UNICEF reported a downward trend in some countries." Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the constructive feedback, Johnuniq.  Are you (or anyone else reading this) willing to give a shot at writing a better version?  Please do.  I guess I'm too close to see the SYNTH.  My (OR) observation is that the dropping stats are buried, which makes the problem seem more intractable than it is, but I made no mention of that.  (E.g. the 4% and 0.7% are on p.22, and only the 89% (in RED, no less) is in this infographic. Also, there's UNICEF text to that makes the point that the impact on the main FGM stats will only be seen 14 years later, in case you're thinking that's OR or SYNTH: , "The retrospective periods involved (that is, time lags). For instance, in the case of a country where girls are cut before 1 year of age, most girls in the youngest cohort (15 to 19 years of age) are generally reporting on an event that took place 14 to 18 years previously. Any change that occurred after this period will therefore not be reflected in the data.- , which should be taken into account too. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Elvey, there's a separate article for detailed country reports at Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Anything about prevalence needs a strong secondary source, because there can be many reasons for apparent dips and rises within particular age groups in certain regions. For example, in some studies women have said their daughters had not been cut when they had been; and sometimes women answer no when Type I is involved because they don't view it as an example of FGM. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think SlimVirgin has identified the key point, namely that details should be in the separate article. Apart from issues regarding the length of any additional text here, there is the potential for confusion as the edit calls into question the table of prevalence figures by pointing out that in at least one country it is possible that current rates of FGM are significantly lower than those shown in the article, and it is likely that they will be much lower in the near future. The source is very interesting as it shows that a dramatic decline in rates of FGM in Eritrea is likely in the next few years. However, we are not really in a position to contradict the UNICEF 2013 report on world-wide FGM issues. I think it's one of those cases where we'll have to privately note that the figures are (or soon will be) significantly different from those in the article, but at least the article is accurate and consistent in that it shows what the most recent world-wide report stated at a particular date. When the next such report is published, the article can be updated. It looks very much as if Elvey is correct about the trend in Eritrea—I'm not doubting that—I just think that the UNICEF 2013 figures were accurate at a time in recent years, and if we are going to add text suggesting a dramatic decline we would need a source which specifically makes that point. Also, the source would need to consider more than Eritrea (population 6.5 million). Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, note the term, "clinical assessment". Doesn't that mean this is NOT based on a questionnaire?  If it is, you're right.  Also apropos "Anything about prevalence needs a strong secondary source," are you saying that the source we're using for reporting the UNICEF stats in the first place is better?   It seems that a UNICEF annual report is a strong source when it comes to what other UNICEF reports say.  We mustn't appear to be cherry picking from a source.  Again, I ask that someone give a shot at incorporating this information we're discussing.  I concur with "details should be in the separate article", but then the compacted table should be there too, no?.  Alternately, we could put some of this info within the collapses section so theta they appear iff the table is uncompacted.   A key facet of this is what 'rates of FGM" means - If there have been no new foobaritis disease cases for 2 years, the rate of foobar has dropped to zero, even though people who had foobar are still alive, no?  Just to drive the point home: Consider the linguistics.  Female Genital Mutilation is an action.  If an action stops, the rate of action drops to zero.  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 20:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't know (based on the source you posted) what kind of information was collected during the clinical assessment or what kinds of questions were asked; I assume "clinical assessment" means the children were examined, but the source doesn't make that explicit. It seems to have covered just one area of the country. We don't know whether the children not cut now will be cut in future, or whether the form of cutting will change. The 2013 UNICEF report on FGM (which we use as a key source) mentions that the age at which cutting takes place can change. It also says (p. 98) that prevalence levels for 0–14 were available at the time of publication only for Egypt and Sudan. See pp. 98–112 for a discussion of how recent changes are not reflected in their data. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will try, but please be patient because an enormous amount of work is going on at the moment (SlimVirgin is doing all the work—I'm goading her). See the peer review (it says "closed" at the top, but that's just because it's taking a long time—in fact, it's ongoing). Your source reveals that the prevalence figures in the article are probably outdated, and something needs to be done about that. However, I don't see it as an urgent issue for a couple of reasons. First, it is ok for an encyclopedic article to report the situation as it was in the most recent (2013) world-wide report—the article does not claim that the numbers apply now, and there are no claims that the high prevalence is causing anything, so there is no error that needs to be corrected. Second, I quoted the two relevant extracts from the source on Eritrea above, and the first of those shows there is only a minor discrepancy from the article (article: 89% for women aged 15–49; source: 83% for women aged 15–59). The real issue presented by your source is that a dramatic decline in FGM prevalence may be occurring, and that information would be important for inclusion in the article. That's where the need for a secondary source comes in—I quoted all the parts of the source relating to FGM above, and it merely says there is a decline in Anseba Zoba and 12 health facilities, and that a report will be produced on other regions in 2014. As our article mentions, measuring prevalence depends greatly on which ethnicities are investigated, and we have to wait until a source announces results collated for a large area. Also, while I agree with your analysis, it's not really up to us to write that there is evidence of a dramatic decline because rates for young girls is very low, and if those trends continue the overall numbers will be much smaller in a couple of decades. Finally, this article is reporting the global situation, and we can't assemble numbers from different reports to paint that picture because there is a large variability in methods used, and for consistency a single source is needed—that source affirms the figures are comparable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Johh, you will try what? I think it's OR to claim that some UNICEF stats are more reliable than others.  Let me redirect to you the question I posted to SV, above: "are you saying that the source we're using for reporting the UNICEF stats in the first place is better?"  You are putting one set of stats on a pedestal and dismissing another - they're all from UNICEF - it's not like one set is primary and the other is secondary, or one is not an RS.   If it's clear the stats are no longer even close to correct, no it's not OK to to report them as correct and not even allow a tag that indicates the picture is changing.  But to anyone aware of the facts I've uncovered, the current article has quite the appearance of a cover-up.  I'm not saying there is one; I'm saying we shouldn't be deleting tags that keep the article from having that appearance.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 00:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is some information in this 2012 UNICEF-UNFPA report about Eritrea:


 * "By far the most aggressive application of the law was seen in Eritrea, where 155 cutters and parents were convicted and fined" (p. 11).
 * "In Eritrea, where leaders from all four major faiths have made a commitment to FGM/C abandonment, 170 religious leaders and 20 elders (traditional leaders) are now community advocates on FGM/C abandonment, de-linking FGM/C from religion. Furthermore, during Zero Tolerance Day, six Muslim and six Christian religious leaders publicly addressed their communities, stating that FGM/C is not recommended in their respective holy scriptures" (p. 29).
 * "Eritrea’s evaluation of the UNICEF-UNFPA 2007-2011 Joint Programme was concluded in March, 2012. The results of this evaluation matched those of EPHS 2010, which found a decrease in FGM/C prevalence among girls under 5 and under 15, estimated at rates of 12.9 per cent and 33 per cent respectively. Unfortunately, as noted in the EPHS, an increase in prevalence was documented in the Southern Red Sea Regions. To respond to this alarming trend, the country programme plans to scale up mobilization activities in remote and hard-to-reach communities in these sub regions. However, this process may be hampered by a lack of resources" (p. 43).

SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Elvey, I've removed this, because it would be engaging in OR. If you see above, there was a drop in prevalence in some parts of the country and a rise in others. We would need high-quality secondary sources to evaluate any primary material and place it in context. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added to the prevalence section: "UNICEF notes that the women who respond to these surveys are reporting events that occurred years ago, so the data may not reflect current trends."


 * SlimVirgin (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I appreciate the effort at a compromise, but I'm sorry, that addition won't do. The stats are misleading and what you've added in no way changes that fact; no reader is going to figure out "The retrospective periods involved (that is, time lags). For instance, in the case of a country where girls are cut before 1 year of age, most girls in the youngest cohort (15 to 19 years of age) are generally reporting on an event that took place 14 to 18 years previously. Any change that occurred after this period will therefore not be reflected in the data.-, which should be taken into account too.  You wrote, "It also says (p. 98) that prevalence levels for 0–14 were available at the time of publication only for Egypt and Sudan. " but this is at best, irrelevant- I already cited a source that provides a graphic that gives a detailed per-country breakdown regarding the ages at which girls undergo FGM.  I already wrote, "90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age" - the age of 1 - using that citation.   I'm angered by what seems to be a dismissive attitude.  Please don't edit war over the tags I added until yo8u've actually addressed my legitimate concerns.  If the wording of the tags needs improvement, feel free to try improving them.  I strongly urge you not to remove them.  Your claim that "  " is OR is quite a stretch.  The best data available indicates that the historical data does not come close to representing the current situation.  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 00:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My concerns are valid, and if you're working to improve the article, great. Leave the tags in until you've done so.  As John and I both noted:


 * The Government proclamation against its practice is working, given that the prevalence of FGM/C is lower (68.8 per cent) among the 15–19 age group (see EPHS2010, p.347).
 * p. 22: In Anseba Zoba, a clinical assessment study for under-5 girls was undertaken. The research findings revealed a reduction in the practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) from 25 per cent in 2009 to 4 per cent. In addition, clinical assessment commenced in 12 Health Facility among 6,043 under-five children revealed a 0.7 per cent FGM/C prevalence.


 * AFAICT, your edits to the article have not addressed those facts at all. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 00:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious that no one wants to have misleading statistics in the article. Issues that need to be addressed include:
 * It is ok for an encyclopedic article to report the situation as it was in the most recent (2013) world-wide report.
 * The article does not claim that the numbers apply now, and there are no claims that the high prevalence is causing anything, so there is no error that needs to be corrected.
 * If there is a problem in the article, what is it?
 * The first point from the source (at "From the source" above) shows there is only a minor discrepancy from the article (article: 89% for women aged 15–49; source: 83% for women aged 15– 59 ).
 * The second point from the source suggests that a dramatic decline in FGM prevalence may be occurring (if a trend continues). The source says there is a decline in one region and 12 health facilities (probably less than a fifth of the country).
 * Measuring FGM prevalence depends greatly on which ethnicities are investigated, and we have to wait until a source announces results collated for a large area.
 * It is not satisfactory for editors to take prevalence reports for parts of a single and small country, and combine that with information from another source to write the conclusion, "...these statistics can paint a very incomplete picture ... By dramatic contrast ... the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about 4%, not 89%."
 * The article does not mention the odds that a girl born today will be subjected to FGM because no source reaches a conclusion on that point.
 * It may well be that the next world-wide report concludes that the rate of FGM is dramatically declining. This article will have to wait for that report. Further details belong at Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with John and SV here that we cannot do our in in-depth interpretation and project of the statistics and trends we're supplied with the sources we got. The "for example, in Eritrea..." math is entirely unacceptable SYNTH and other OR.  We summarize the sources accurately, we should not undermine them.  I disagree with the tag and do not see support for it, and unless solid arguments for it are supplied I plan to remove it.   04:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Zad68, what you say about what I wrote is blatantly untrue, not to mention insulting. There is no math.  Re: "it was 4% in 2013 among girls <5 in Eritrea and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. All of these statistics are from UNICEF." - this is not based on math I did.  Those are facts in the source.  The source is provided. Likewise, "By dramatic contrast" is paraphrasing, not SYNTH or OR.  I can't force you to read it, but I will say that you appear to be unwilling or unable to read the source, and unwilling to suggest verbiage that is inline with the sourced facts I've given. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 19:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a great source which supports the map in question. I do not yet see consensus for its removal and think it is useful. Thus restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The statistics’ are misleading since it comes with no explanation on current situation for Eritrea and other countries. Eritrea has banned the practice of FGM since many years and the country has since then seen a dramatic decline. If only UNICEF statistics are used in this article it should be mentioned that this only applies to UNICEF FGM statistics. To write that "The article does not claim that the numbers apply now, and there are no claims that the high prevalence is causing anything, so there is no error that needs to be corrected., is stating that something is wrong but not doing anything about it. If these numbers lack the ability to explain the current situation it should be updated and be explained in the correct context. Every credible source should and can be used on Wikipedia. A suggestion is to add a section with map of countries that has banned this practice and where the practice has decreased in recent years. This would broaden the content in the article so the statistics can be presented in contrast to the current situation and the improvements/progress for some of these countries when it comes to FGM. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Vertrisimino0, the article to discuss FGM prevalence in detail, or the rates in particular countries, is Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Or you could create Female genital mutilation in Eritrea if enough sources exist for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Vetrisimino0 is right. This article discusses and presents the etas in detail.  It is deceptive.  But some here, it seems, are intent on insisting on not getting that point and reverting blindly.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 19:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand that the Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country is the right place to discuss the details regarding the prevalence. However, this page does link and refers to UNICEF prevalence statistics. This article lacks information on how the presented FGM prevalence statistic should be interpreted. Just by reading the statistics without fully explaining the background gives a wrongly impression that the prevalence is higher than it actually is since the statistic presented does not take in consideration todays situation, and how high the risks are of being exposed of FGM as new born /child today for example. Therefore it is of high importance that the information is presented and explained in correct manner. By leaving out some aspects the data becomes misleading. Especially when it comes to Eritrea where new information has been presented.Vetrisimino0 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, no one wants to have misleading statistics in the article. However, everything must be based on reliable sources, and the reason there is no commentary about how the FGM prevalence statistics should be interpreted is that no secondary source with such commentary has been located. It would be good to have information on the risks of a newborn girl experiencing FGM today, but we cannot add our own analysis of those risks—a secondary source would be needed. Also, there is not much point in focusing on figures for part of Eritrea when the article is aimed at a world-wide overview—the probability of newborns experiencing FGM would need to known for several countries to make mention in this article worthwhile. UNICEF reported that 89% of women ages 15–49 in Eritrea had experienced FGM as at the latest figures available in 2013. That figure is still close to 89%—many more years will have to pass before the figure is wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi, I see you've restored the tag. Instead of tagging, please post here the sentence or sentences you'd like to see added to the article, including where you propose that they be placed, along with sources that support the text. Bear in mind that, if the proposal mentions a decline in one part of Eritrea, it will have to include that there was a rise in another part of the same country (see my post above, 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)). That will give us something concrete to discuss. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In case you missed the above, it is from the UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme evaluation:


 * Source: "UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme", Annual Report 2012, p. 53.


 * SlimVirgin (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * SV; Admit or deny that the Prevalence section requires cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Are you willing to do that? -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi & John, I see you've removed the tag. Instead of untagging, please fix the article. I HAVE added to the article and you've reverted. There is plenty concrete to discuss. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 19:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Layout of prevalence section
Hi, re: the layout of the prevalence section, the table has to follow the sentences that introduce it. That is, it should ideally come after:

"Information about its prevalence has been collected since 1989 in a series of Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).[72] ... A 2013 UNICEF report based on 70 of these surveys indicated that FGM is concentrated in 27 African countries, as well as Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan.[73] UNICEF estimates that 125 million women and girls in those countries have been affected.[4] The report grouped the countries according to the prevalence among women aged 15–49:"

That means the map has to come after the table, because there's no space for it at the top right-hand side. I don't really mind whether it's at top centre (as here, which is how it appears on mobile), or bottom right (as here), though I prefer the former. But placing it top right pushes the table out of the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Just wanted to remove some white space. Feel free to change the position. I am happy with  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, I'll change it to the position you linked to. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm happy with putting it back where it was before I touched the article.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 19:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

FAC and WP:OWN and removing deserved tags in a quest for FAC status. Most FGM in Eritrea IS conducted on infants!

 * Noting that I posted the following on Elvey's talk page, not here, and I didn't write the heading. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, please don't disrupt FGM. It's a carefully written article, which is about to be nominated for FAC (or it was, until you arrived). You've misunderstood the sources, and you mistakenly believe, as you wrote, that most FGM is conducted on infants (it isn't). The article has to be based on MEDRS-compliant sources for claims about prevalence. That means review articles and position statements from international bodies.

You've removed carefully sourced content twice, and tagged the section five times,  despite being invited to propose some reliably sourced sentences; but instead you want someone else to do it. That's not how tags are meant to be used.

Please suggest the edit you want to make on talk, along with sources, so that we have something concrete from you to discuss. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (moved by Elvey from a new section on his talk page entitled FGM)


 * Please don't assume you know better than me, SV. It's you have misunderstood, in my view.  You mistakenly believe I think that most FGM is conducted on infants.  What I actually believe is that most FGM in Eritrea is conducted on infants, because that's what the UNICEF stats say, which is why I wrote "~90% of FGM  in Eritrea  occurs by that age", about 5 times .  If at one point I said that about FGM in general  I misspoke.  If you think I'm wrong, prove it.
 * I don't see why I should care about your quest for FAC status enough to not tag the article with tags that it deserves. I'm not being disruptive, however it seems my tag is a problem for your quest for unwarranted FAC status.  I agree - "The article has to be based on MEDRS-compliant sources for claims about prevalence." In fact, I have said as much, in comments you seem to be willfully ignoring.
 * I'm familiar with this, and most importantly, THIS which is hard to link to in context; it's here, but you must click "READ MORE" to see it.  { I guess we can use it in the article since we're using that other graphic in this section; I can confirm and upload it. Struck; I see  cloned the copyrighted image; the same is needed for this one.}  The underlying source is FGCM_Lo_res.pdf (on the page marked as page 50), which makes the graphic a secondary source, an issue, I remind you, you've been selectively both harping about and ignoring.
 * I take your accusation of disruptive activity as abuse of your position as an administrator to gain advantage in a content dispute you are involved in. Please chill out and retract the accusation.  It's in bad faith. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, SlimVirgin?  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 18:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Cloning may be unneeded; perhaps THIS is PD, as the facts are not copyrightable, and the rest may not meet the Threshold of originality (see here and Feist_v._Rural)  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 17:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Elvey sorry but your comments don't appear connected to what I see actually happening here. There's no evidence at all the SV is engaging in "abuse of [her] position as an administrator" or questionable behavior per WP:INVOLVED.  She's acting as a normal editor here like everyone else and has made no statements at all (much less taken any action, the real standard of problematic behavior), either here or on your User Talk, that indicate she's trying to use her admin bit to gain an advantage--none. Further, what article content changes are you still proposing?  I do not see any unaddressed concerns at this point so I don't see what SV has to respond to your "Hello" ping about.   20:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss the content, instead of any "questionable behavior", OK? I'd like  SlimVirgin to respond to the post above the Hello, most importantly to this.  As I said "and most importantly, THIS"....  FS!   Most FGM in Eritrea IS conducted on infants! -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 22:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd be delighted if you'd stop bringing behavior topics here on this article Talk page. Regarding the article content, what exactly still might be the issue regarding its coverage of prevalence in Eritrea?    22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes this is copyrightable. It does not take much. You need to recreate your own graph or ask UNICEF for release. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please include
I've provided the sources. My edits have been reverted.

-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 02:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

most FGM in Eritrea is of infants <1 year old;
Per chart above.

Where practices are changing dramatically, these prevalence statistics can paint a very incomplete picture.
For example, clinical examinations found that FGM was <5% in 2013 among girls <5 in Eritrea and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. In other words, the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about <5%, not 89%. While there's been a bunch of editing, it has not addressed the fact that

To provide the prevalence stats uncritically, and to the exclusion of rate information is a violation of UNDUE.

As User:Colin Special:Diff/451230207 has asked, "There's more to the subject than just prevalence. The incidence per year is shocking. The trends over time not covered. Has legislation changed anything?"

The answer is yes. The sources are given and reliable and secondary. But the edits to add that info have been reverted. The edits to flag that it's missing have been reverted ~5 times. Even though they use tags for exactly what they're designed for.

-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 02:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has changed so would you mind outlining your proposed edit as of now? The article says "In half the countries for which there are data, most girls are cut before the age of five, including over 80 percent in Nigeria, Mali, Eritrea, Ghana and Mauritania." Also, I don't see any response to the points I raised in my comment at 01:11, 14 October 2014 above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It hasn't been improved to address my concerns including the ones I just listed.  I propose that edits address them and that a tag indicate that they're needed as long as they're not addressed.  That's how tags are supposed to work.  The article hasn't changed to include any new facts about Eritrea.  It should.  It should include the chart, rather than cherry-picked stats - e.g. the "including over 80 percent in" bit.  I've added the chart.  Would you object to removal of the cherry-picked (commentary on the) stats?-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 03:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that File:Chart - Female Genital Mutilation by country by age range at cutting.png was a copyvio, but others will have to evaluate that. It's quite a complex chart and I don't understand its value in the article as it just shows that some do it early, and some do it late. The table and map showing prevalence rates seem more helpful as they present information that is more directly pertinent. By contrast, the "Percentage distribution of girls who have undergone FGM/C..." calls out for interpretation. The text "over 80 percent in Nigeria, Mali, Eritrea, Ghana and Mauritania" seems reasonable—if that's cherry picking, so is selecting any information from a source. Cherry picking is when text is selected to present a misleading picture—one contradicted or at least not implied by the source taken as a whole. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that chart is better, but I won't fight over it further.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c)

Selective reporting
SV quoted from https://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2013/UNICEF-UNFPA%20Joint%20Programme%20AR_final_v14.pdf but what she has said is contradicted what I find in her source; it says, for example, "In one example, the Eritrean Ministry of Health exercised great leadership in integrating FGM/C prevention messages into pre- and post-natal and immunization services at all health facilities – a crucial step in any country where FGM/C is commonly performed at infancy." (page ix)  SV notes that it reports rates of 12.9 per cent as of the EPHS of 2010 but folks stonewall my every attempt to address the exclusion of these facts. Why? That number includes the apparent increase in Southern Red Sea Regions that SV did note here on the talk page. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 03:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the current proposal is, but this talk page lists several reasons for not including text like "The above statistics are only for women aged 15–49, so they reflect only a fraction of practice changes in recent years". In brief, the source used for that concerns one fifth of Eritrea, total population 6.5 million, whereas the article shows that 125 million women have experienced FGM. As mentioned above, it is likely that future world-wide reports will agree with your conclusion that prevalence rates will soon dramatically decline—nevertheless, we have to wait until those reports arrive. Meanwhile, nothing in the article is wrong—there are still 125 million women affected. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What the hell is wrong with you? "your conclusion that prevalence rates will soon dramatically decline"??  Please don't fabricate.  I said something quite different.  I said that rates of FGM plummeted (I used the past tense, for fuck sake!) in Eritrea.   "prevalence rates" is a lousy term.  You seem intent on continuing to muddle the distinction I have drawn between prevalence of FGM and rates of FGM.  STOP.  Do you not understand the distinction between current rates of cutting and prevalence that I have drawn?
 * Here's in bold is part of what you said that I don't see any factual basis for: "the source used for that concerns one fifth of Eritrea. As mentioned above, it is likely that future world-wide reports will agree with your conclusion that prevalence rates will soon dramatically decline—nevertheless, we have to wait until those reports arrive.  Meanwhile, nothing in the article is wrong "
 * -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 04:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "one fifth": my comment at 00:39, 10 October 2014 mentions what the source says and has a link where it can be seen that roughly a fifth of Eritrea is involved. Re "until those reports arrive": stating that FGM prevalence has plummeted is clearly wrong given that prevalence relates to all affected women, so you must be saying that the FGM rate for females born today has plummeted. Perhaps that's so (and it certainly is correct in many areas), but I only see a source that talks about a part of Eritrea. What is the fundamental problem with the article that has led to all this? Is the concern that important information is omitted by failing to mention that world-wide FGM rates for females born today has plummeted? Is there anything wrong in the article apart from that omission?
 * By the way, SlimVirgin added "(also see table)" (the chart Elvey added to the article) to the ref supporting "most girls were cut before the age of five". Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The FGM rates for females <1 and < 5 in Eritrea have plummeted, and the article in no way mentions either, despite the abundance of RS. That's the crux of the issue.  Which isn't quite what you said, which is why I didn't just say yes.  (I'm not saying it's plummeted in all countries, or that the rate for females "born today" has plummeted; since FGM isn't performed the day of birth, your use of the term just serves to muddle the distinction further.  The crux of the issue is that you and other flks are blocking every effort to have the article indicate in any way that the FGM rates for females <1 or <5 in Eritrea have plummeted, despite the abundance of presented RSes.   -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am saying it's weird to report most prominently stats that exclude all <15 year-olds. Yes, that seems to be what UNICEF does. But to report prevalence rather than rates at which the procedure is performed per year is weird - we don't report car accident rates cumulatively, or much of anything cumulatively; this choice to report prevalence is odd. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Revise
Original: The above statistics are only for women aged 15–49, so they reflect only a fraction of practice changes in recent years, because most FGM is of infants <1 year old; it'll be >15 years 'till they reach 15, and would be included in the table above. Where practices are changing dramatically, these statistics can paint a very incomplete picture. For example, FGM in Eritrea is reported above at 89%. By dramatic contrast, it was 4% in 2013 among girls <5 in Eritrea and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. All of these statistics are from UNICEF.[1] In other words, the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about 4%, not 89%.

Improved: The above statistics are only for women aged 15–49, so they reflect only a fraction of practice changes in recent years, because in some countries most FGM is of infants <1 year old; it'll be 14-18 years 'till they would be included in the table above.


 * Re "one fifth": You say this is about a fraction of Eritrea. It's not.  In fact the source states that this is a problem in the "case of [every] country where girls are cut before 1 year of age".  You found a source that says it about a fraction of Eritrea; so what; that doesn't matter because it's true in the "case of [every] country where girls are cut before 1 year of age" and that's what we're talking about.

Where practices are changing dramatically, these statistics can paint a very incomplete picture. For example, FGM in Eritrea is reported above at 89%. By dramatic contrast, it was dramatically lower among girls <5 in Eritrea (12.9 % in a larger 2010 study and 1 to 4% in small clinical exam-based studies in 2013 and 25% in 2009), and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. All of these statistics are from UNICEF. In other words, the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about 4%, not 89%.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 04:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the lack of response/discussion to the proposal above, or to my 00:11, 14 October 2014 comment about this, or to related comments from Vetrisimino0, and an unexplained revert, I just swapped in this:
 * UNICEF notes that the impact on the main FGM prevalence statistics for some countries will only be seen 14-18 years later, writing that it's due to "the retrospective periods involved (that is, time lags). For instance, in the case of a country where girls are cut before 1 year of age, most girls in the youngest cohort (15 to 19 years of age) are generally reporting on an event that took place 14 to 18 years previously. Any change that occurred after this period will therefore not be reflected in the data."
 * I guess discussion is too much to ask for. I was reverted. No discussion.  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 03:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Synth
"Girls not cut at age 0–14 are still at risk, because they are significantly more likely than the 15+ group to be cut at a later date." was recently added by SV. To my eye, this is SYNTHesis; it goes far beyond the accompanying quotation from the source.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 03:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there does seem to be a problem with that wording—thanks for checking. I'm not sure that the point is worth making. Clearly a girl who is uncut by age 15 is less likely to be cut in the future than a girl who is uncut at age, say, 3. Nevertheless, being uncut at age 15 is not an assurance of remaining uncut. Perhaps those observations are not needed in the article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , there is definitely no SYN, and the point is an important one. These three sentences go together:




 * It's important to explain why UNICEF focuses on 15+ and recommends caution for 0-14 stats (namely that a woman's FGM status at 15 is probably her final status re: first-timing cutting). It's the cut-off point that UNICEF has chosen to reduce their margin of error. If not explained, one of the FAC reviewers will probably ask why not. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Expressed like that, I totally agree. At any rate, you have edited the text and the result is good, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Points of potential agreement

 * Can you please acknowledge that FGM rates in Eritrea - unlike in other countries - were remarkably uniform among different populations/ethnicities? They were between 80% and 100% - See here. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 04:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello? SV? John? --Elvey(t•c) 07:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just happened to come across some sources which some I think has been referred to earlier in the discussions, and these sources verifies that the FGM rates prevelence/practice was as low as 68 % for women between ages 15-19 years old in Eritrea 2010. "In 2010 the prevalence of female circumcision among the young women age 15-19 was 68.8% while 93.1% of those women aged 45-49 were circumcised which shows that overtime there is a decline in FGM prevalence rate among the young girl population which was a cause to celebrate, and bulit the confidence that soon FGM will be history."


 * From 2012 there numbers that tells us that FMG prevelance among girls under 5 are 12.9% and for girls under 15 the prevelence are 33%. "Eritrea’s evaluation of the UNICEF-UNFPA 2007-2011 Joint Programme was concluded in March, 2012. The results of this evaluation matched those of EPHS 2010, which found a decrease in FGM/C prevalence among girls under 5 and under 15, estimated at rates of 12.9 per cent and 33 per cent respectively."


 * Here is another one: "Since the ban (2007), it appears that traditional birth attendants and circumcizers have increasingly dropped the practice and become advocates for change. UNICEF Eritrea’s goal is to attain a 30 per cent reduction in the practice of FGM/C by 2011."'' ...  
 * So this source verifies that the goal of 30 % was achived for the lower age groups of course. This should be mentioned on every FGM-practice/prevelance statistics. And certainly this page and the Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country. I will start writing, a line or two about this soruces and after that the textcan be reviewed by some of you. After that we can possibly add it to some of the sections, hopefully we could change the map for the prevelance statistics since these stats are way of compared of the statistics of today. Or simply add a new section that present todays practice of FGM since this is certainly the statistic a user/person looks for when looking at statistics for how common FGM is in some parts of the world. This would prevent the user from being misled and paint a more real "picture" of the situation of today. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to change the map because there is no reasonable way for editors to collate world-wide statistics. That might be possible with a straight-forward topic like population density where the number of people currently living in a particular area is usually easy for reliable sources to estimate. However, a variety of techniques are used to measure FGM prevalence, and they normally involve talk rather than a medical examination, so different sources may not produce compatible figures. We should not mix statistics produced by different sources at different times. All that can occur in an overview article like this is that the last available world-wide source (UNICEF 2013) be used for the big picture, with brief notes on trends, as has been done at Female genital mutilation. It might be useful to draft notes for a "Current practice" section, but it would be difficult to provide much useful information—you have some sources for Eritrea, but what about other countries with much higher populations? Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"Current practice"
Per above - draft notes for a prevalence in "Current practice" section that paints an arguably more relevant picture than the often 14-18 years plus dated prevalence of past FGM in the population.

Undue weight to support/toleration of FGM

 * Section title shortened from "Undue weight to support/toleration of FGM (FGM is officially defined by the UN, Council of Europe etc, as violence against women and human rights violation)".

The lede reads: "The opposition is not without its critics, particularly among anthropologists. Eric Silverman writes that FGM has become one of anthropology's "central moral topics," raising difficult questions about cultural relativism, tolerance and the universality of human rights"

Then, there is a huge section 'Criticism of opposition'.

I think that the view that FGM must be accepted in the name of tolerance of other cultures is given undue weight - in that it is a fringe view in the context of the international discourse on human rights. UN, Council of Europe, and other such organizations officially consider FGM as a serious violation of human rights and a form of violence against women; and this must be stressed more clearly in this article.

The official UN definition of violence against women (VAW) (and VAW is defined as a violation of human rights) clealy includes FGM:

The 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women reads:


 * Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not be limited to, the following:


 * a. Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence and violence related to exploitation;


 * b. Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring within the general community, including rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere, trafficking in women and forced prostitution;


 * c. Physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the State, wherever it occurs.

The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) also lists FGM as a form of VAW (VAW is defined as both human rights violation and as a form of discrimination against women - Article 3 – Definitions reads: "“violence against women” is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women"). Article 38 of the convention reads:

Article 38 – Female genital mutilation


 * Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the following intentional conducts are criminalised:


 * a.  excising, infibulating or performing any other mutilation to the whole or any part of a woman’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris;
 * b.  coercing or procuring a woman to undergo any of the acts listed in point a;
 * c.  inciting, coercing or procuring a girl to undergo any of the acts listed in point a.

Also see this definition of VAW from the Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the protection of women against violence:


 * "violence occurring in the family or domestic unit, including, inter alia, physical and mental aggression, emotional and psychological abuse, rape and sexual abuse, incest, rape between spouses, regular or occasional partners and cohabitants, crimes committed in the name of honour, female genital and sexual mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, such as forced marriages"

Also see the World Health Organization page on FGM. It reads: "FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women".


 * My point is this: FGM is recognized internationally as a human rights violation, a form of violence against women, and a form of discrimination against women. This must be stated clearly in this article. The view that FGM must be tolerated out of respect for different cultures is a fringe/minority view and should be presented as such (now of course there are many people who think that FGM is "just" a cultural practice and that "it's not that bad"; but there are also many people who think the same about forced marriage, child marriage, honor killings etc and we don't present their views as 'valid').2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A075 (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has pages like WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE to provide guidance on issues like this, but it is not easy to apply them to a cultural practice, particularly one that is in the process of significant change. It is only forty years since the term "mutilation" became widely used, and twenty years since significant bodies called for an end to FGM, and ten years since major work on eradication became established. At the moment, Female genital mutilation is still a significant if minority view, and I'm not sure there would be any benefit from erasing it as merely FRINGE. It is an encyclopedic fact that there is an opposition, and from a world-wide perspective, it is probably too soon to dismiss that opposition as being unworthy of mention given that millions of people perform FGM. You make a good point about forced marriage, child marriage, and honor killings, but are there significant scholars (anthropologists) who have written current criticisms of opposition to those practices? Also, the opposition section in the article has a significant rejoinder with "Martha Nussbaum argues that the key moral and legal issue with FGM is that it is mostly conducted on children using physical force." Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see something else in what that IP wrote, Johnuniq. I see "The view that FGM must be tolerated ... should be presented."   I imagine the IP feeling unheard and misrepresented.   Perhaps your assertion that the IP is suggesting that all of [#Criticism of opposition] or all discussion of tolerant views of FGM be erased from the article is a bit extreme.  Can you tone it down a bit?  I think what the IP is suggesting is quite reasonable.  WP:FRINGE has info on what should (not) go in the lead, prominence, etc, though applying it certainly does pose challenges, as you note.  I see this section has been edited a lot recently.  I think the article currently does a good job following the guidelines in this respect.  I don't see undue weight to support/toleration of FGM.--Elvey(t•c) 06:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood something, but on re-reading I still think the IP is saying that the article presents the "criticism of opposition" in a manner that suggests that it may be valid to criticize those who oppose FGM. I think the IP is also suggesting that the article should say (using appropriate language) that a very small number of people have offered criticisms of the opposition to FGM, but those criticisms are weak and very much a minority view. I think the IP's point is that forced marriage does not have a section in favor of forced marriage, so why should this article present views that effectively condone FGM? I'm saying that attitudes towards FGM are in transition, and that means it's a bit awkward to know how to balance a general article at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm asking you to consider whether your assertion that the IP is suggesting that all of [#Criticism of opposition] or all discussion of tolerant views of FGM be erased from the article is a bit extreme. Can you tone it down a bit? I again  ask whether upon re-reading not just what the IP wrote, but what YOU WROTE TOO, you see that, or not.  That's the only question I asked, but I don't see a response.  It seems like you're backing away from that assertion, but I'm far from sure.  Please be clear. --Elvey(t•c) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

the percentage of girls aged 0 to 14 years who have undergone FGM (as reported by their mothers) in Eritrea is 33%
Johnuniq, User:SlimVirgin, please participate in this discussion. Does the chart SV recently created (yay!) not merit the addition of Eritrea and its 33% figure that Vetrisimino0 found in a reliable secondary source at (and that's the 4th time it appears on this page; SV has posted it here too, citing 2012 UNICEF-UNFPA report, p.53 (Just URL differs?)...)? Hello??? You can upload a new version of File:FGM_prevalence_0–14_(2).jpg over File:FGM_prevalence_0–14.jpg; no need for 3 live versions IMO, SV.--Elvey(t•c) 06:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this what you were following up on, SlimVirgin, when you started discussing sources?

The 33% is also in following graph is from the source you are asking Johnuniq to use at so surely it's good enough in your mind for this too? --Elvey(t•c) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's there. See File:FGM prevalence 0–14 (2).jpg. I do think there is too much noise here, too many demands, too much talk page pressure on the primary editor, not to speak of the templating on the user page. I couldn't work this article under any circumstance - it's an enormously difficult page to write, yet also enormously important - I'd probably give up under these circumstances. Just saying. Victoria (tk) 00:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , thanks for saying this. The effect of the noise is to slow things down. Instead of being able to go calmly through the list of things to check, there's an insistence that certain issues be prioritized, so that other things get overlooked or aren't dealt with as quickly. A period of stability and calm would very helpful at this point. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Finally - looks like it went in today! Glad to see some progress with respect to  stats in the article that paint a misleading picture, after 3 weeks.  The main page says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.".  If there's a policy page to remind pesky editors that there's something called a  primary editor™ that requires deference, I'm not aware of it.  Please forgive my ignorance of such a policy, if indeed there is one.    --Elvey(t•c) 03:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While the resulting chart is great, honestly Elvey it'd be much appreciated if you'd improve your tone of your comments.  03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy
Rougly The same thing is said 3 times about "Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan" - it's where infibulation is predominant. Repetitive.--Elvey(t•c) 07:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello? Editing now to fix this.  (I'm not sure how a fifth country's name, "Ethiopia. " got into the quotes, but I've removed it.)  It's "Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan" that appears 3 times. --Elvey(t•c) 04:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

copyright comment in an illogical place

 * Have removed the chart until copyright is sorted out. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Points of agreement


Reverting and OR
The reverting and OR have started up again. There seems to be a confusion between prevalence and incidence. This article describes how 125 million women in 29 countries are living with FGM, and outlines where they are by giving the prevalence rates. The recent edits are trying to cast doubt on that by saying that incidence rates are declining. It seems they are, and that is great. But it doesn't change the fact that a high percentage of girls and women aged 15–49 are living with the health consequences of FGM in the 29 key countries.

The article is structured around the 2013 UNICEF report, because that's the most authoritative source on prevalence. When they next update their figures, we will update ours. This has been explained by several editors, so it's hard to know what else to say. I'm pinging as an uninvolved admin who has been keeping an eye on this. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. @Elvey: There is no reason to urgently tag this article. If you have some doubt that a source supports wording used, explain the issue here (and please do not post on user talk pages or ping them unnecessarily—you know that SV and I are watching everything here; I have not responded in a couple of places above because all that could be said, has been said). SV has made enormous improvements to the article in recent months—if there are some points that need attention, they can be calmly examined here. There has already been a discussion concerning Eritrea, and it has been explained that UNICEF 2013 is a recent and authoritative source for a world-wide report—editors should not "improve" bits of that report by extracting figures from other documents. Likewise, there is no reason to doubt the source used for the infibulation statement, and a suggestion regarding the wording should be made here, not with a tag. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Facts in the article that seem to fail verification, perhaps due to ambiguous wording

 * What been called "OR" and reverted is me adding this tag:


 * with the reason string, "Source doesn't say FGM is most common today. It reports on prevalence in '08, which is a result of how common FGM has been over a lifetime."


 * SlimVirgin seems to be assuming that when I'm speaking of where FGM "is most common today", I am talking about prevalence, not incidence. I could have been clearer, and there was no reason to assume the worst of me.  She would be wrong to assume that I was talking about prevalence - in fact I was talking about, and I think that was fairly obvious, given that it's been the focus of my edits and comments, that I was talking about, the rate at which FGM, the procedure, is being done nowadays.  I think the article should use clear language so that it's always clear whether it's speaking of incidence or prevalence or what.  That is why I placed the fv tag. SlimVirgin, you impute bad faith motives when you say I'm "trying to cast doubt [on prevalence rates]".  I'm doing no such thing.  That is not respectful, civil behavior.  I'm asking you to be civil. I was trying to eliminate the confusion between prevalence and incidence that the article perpetuates, but you are (unintentionally, I assume) taking steps to keep it confusing.


 * So, let me try again and be extra-extra-clear. Here's the problem: The sentence I tagged currently says that the practice is most common in ... Eritrea, ...  The practice .  As I see it, practice is NOT a reference to prevalence.  Practice, as I see it, refers to the rate at which FGM, the practice, is being done nowadays.  If you disagree and think practice refers to prevalence, can you at least admit that it's ambiguous in the sentence I tagged, and shouldn't be?  If so, please fix it.  If not, please explain why not.   I've made several improvements to the article that have been left in; please keep that in mind; it may help you AGF.  Also you say "a suggestion regarding the wording should be made" but seem to have missed that I had made one; it's link #1 of 3 in SV's post just above.  If you don't like my suggestion regarding how to make the article less ambiguous, it would be constructive of you to suggest another one. --Elvey(t•c) 21:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above is too aggressive for me to want to read at the moment. Any chance you could tone it down so collaborative readers can see the point? What text currently in the article is a problem? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note about sourcing: As I understand it, UNICEF began researching FGM prevalence rigorously in 2004. Data from individual country reports and population and health surveys is fed back to UNICEF's Data and Analytics section, and they produce nationally representative sets of figures. They produced a report in 2005, a second in 2013, and updates in 2014. Those are the sources the figures in this article are based on, and we'll try to keep it updated going forward. There are some other sources that augment those figures, but if anything seems to contradict UNICEF, or presents prevalence in a different way, we defer to the UNICEF specialist FGM reports. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We're talking about this edit adding a fv to the lead? It's hard to even understand how it could be seen as reasonable to add that, given the content, the cited source, and the relevant quote from the source provided in the references.  I'll just WP:AGF and assume it was a misreading that's resolved now.   22:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, please respond to my concern, which is about facts in the article that seem to fail verification, perhaps due to ambiguous wording. This section is not about sourcing.  If you finally want to talk about sourcing again, great - but can we put/move your response to place it after the extant comments that discuss sourcing? --Elvey(t•c) 23:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything that fails verification. The issue is simple and verbs help: women have been cut, are cut, and will be cut. We can't report on those who will be cut; the figures of those who are being cut are inclusive; UNICEF reports figures for those who have been cut and are of childbearing age. All the women have undergone the same practice (FGM) which is the subject of this article. As said on the other thread above, once cut they cannot be uncut. Victoria (tk) 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Elvey although you're calling out SV here, I really don't see how she can respond because what you're saying appears to be based on an incorrect premise.  03:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My line of questioning is intended to ascertain wherein our disagreement lies, in order to resolve it. I.e. what are we interpreting differently that leads me to say it fails verification, and you to disagree.  So it's frustrating when you don't respond to my questions.  So let me ask again, and this goes for both of you: If you disagree and think practice refers to prevalence, please say so, and let me know whether you can see that it's ambiguous in the sentence I tagged.  If not, please explain why not.   --Elvey(t•c) 04:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So, User:Zad68, you are saying practice can refer to prevalence. I don't think it can.  Then again, this article is so full of bad grammar...  Mind if I add a subject to this sentence, which is missing one, "The highest was in Gambia at 56 percent (76 percent)?"  Better yet, that data belongs in a table, not prose.  And why is "percent" spelled out about a hundred times?  What's wrong with "%"?  Any support/objection to my doing a search and replace on that one?--Elvey(t•c) 05:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Facts in the article seem to fail verification, perhaps due to ambiguous wording
Note: Special recipe version - cooked, by request, UNIQely for John!

Johnuniq, let me try yet again to be super clear and readable. Here's the problem: The sentence I tagged currently says that the practice is most common in ... Eritrea, ...  The practice. As I see it, practice is NOT a reference to prevalence. Practice, as I see it, refers to the rate at which FGM, the practice, is being done nowadays. If you disagree and think practice refers to prevalence, please say so, and let me know whether you can see that it's ambiguous in the sentence I tagged. If you agree it shouldn't be, please fix it (I tried and was reverted). If not, please explain why not. I've made several improvements to the article that have been left in; please keep that in mind; it may help you AGF. If you don't like my suggestion regarding how to make the article less ambiguous, it would be constructive of you to suggest another one. --Elvey(t•c) 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

''Note: This section is clearly intended for conversation between John and I, Zad68 won't move or let me move his comment (below) out. -Elvey''
 * Article Talk pages cannot be used for exclusive one-on-one conversations, see WP:TPG, will explain further on User Talk. -Zad68


 * The cited source says "Infibulation is practiced largely in countries located in northeastern Africa: Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan.", the article content says "Over eight million have been infibulated, a practice found largely in Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan." The article content summarizes the source accurately.  This is at the end of a paragraph that talks about prevalence, and doesn't mention rates at all.  Chance of misinterpretation is below the threshold of what's reasonable.  What is the problem?   04:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

FGM map
Hi, I was wondering if you'd be able to update File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2013.svg to reflect the 2014 UNICEF update for the 15–49 age group. It's a tweak to five countries (Guinea, Eritrea, Nigeria, Yemen and Benin), marked below by an asterisk:


 * Somalia: 98% (2014); 98% (2013)
 * Guinea: 97% (2014); 96% (2013) *
 * Djibouti: 93% (2014); 93% (2013)
 * Egypt: 91% (2014); 91% (2013)
 * Mali: 89% (2014); 89% (2013)
 * Sierra Leone: 88% (2014); 88% (2013)
 * Sudan: 88% (2014); 88% (2013)
 * Eritrea: 83% (2014); 89% (2013) *
 * Gambia: 76% (2014); 76% (2013)
 * Burkina Faso: 76% (2014); 76% (2013)
 * Ethiopia: 74% (2014); 74% (2013)
 * Mauritania: 69% (2014); 69% (2013)
 * Liberia: 66% (2014); 66% (2013)
 * Guinea Bissau: 50% (2014); 50% (2013)
 * Chad: 44% (2014); 44% (2013)
 * Cote d'Ivoire: 38% (2014); 38% (2013)
 * Kenya: 27% (2014); 27% (2013)
 * Senegal: 26% (2014); 26% (2013)
 * Nigeria: 25% (2014); 27% (2013) *
 * CAR: 24% (2014); 24% (2013)
 * Yemen: 17% (2014); 23% (2013) *
 * Tanzania: 15% (2014); 15% (2013)
 * Iraq: 8% (2014); 8% (2013)
 * Benin: 7% (2014); 13% (2013) *
 * Togo: 4% (2014); 4% (2013)
 * Ghana: 4% (2014); 4% (2013)
 * Niger: 2% (2014); 2% (2013)
 * Uganda: 1% (2014); 1% (2013)
 * Cameroon: 1% (2014); 1% (2013)

The only colour change I can see is Benin, which has fallen into the yellow. Source: UNICEF 2014. Each country contains an overview, so if you go to Benin, p. 4 (the last page), you'll see the charts called "Inter-country statistical overview," and it's the first of those. I've updated the figures in the article. I've also removed the prevalence table for now. I don't think the changes made any difference to the high-to-low prevalence groups, but I wasn't sure about mixing and matching. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a new map at File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2014.svg so the 2013 prevalence map can be shown with the 2014 map, if ever needed. I downloaded the zip of all the July 2014 reports and confirmed that they show the above, except the pdf for Uganda shows some groups with a non-zero prevalence, but the total for women aged 15–49 is given as 0% (presumably that means it is less than 0.5% over the whole country). The report for each country includes an "Inter-country statistical overview" section where a bar chart shows the percentages for the 29 countries for ages 15–49. In that chart, Uganda is shown as 1%, so I used that. I did not check all of the reports, but the Uganda chart is incorrect and shows 2013 values for four countries (Benin shows 13% instead of 7%; Nigeria shows 27% instead of 25%; Eritrea shows 89% instead of 83%; Guinea shows 96% instead of 97%; Yemen correctly shows 17% which is the 2014 value). I also changed the legend so it shows yellow as 1 – 9% (instead of 0 – 9%). Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , thanks, that looks great, and thank you for checking the figures too. I've added the new map and restored the table, with a note underneath the five changed figures that they were adjusted in 2014; also noted in the footnote. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright
Hey User:Moonriddengirl what are you thoughts on the copyright of this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This says copyrighted by UNICEF  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * no shit. A commons admin has spoken: "Not a copyright violation." Restoring.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 17:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I agree that the information is public domain, at least as far as the US is concerned, which is the factor that matters on English Wikipedia. Originality of visual presentation, I have to say, is not my area - one of the reasons I stay out of image copyrights is that I'm really not all that visually oriented. If you want a second opinion, I'd suggest WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the input. I've asked UNICEF for a release, which would be the easiest way to deal with this. In the meantime, I'd prefer to remove the image and replace it with an external links box, so that readers can click on it to view. When I nominate the article for FAC, I have to be able to defend everything in it, but I can't defend the image if it's not released (and I don't know enough about the "threshold of originality" to argue the case). SlimVirgin (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:SlimVirgin. That would be ideal. :) Thanks for reaching out to them! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The file is presumably uncopyrightable in the United States. Since the file is on Commons, it must also be in the public domain in the source country. What is the source country here? It comes from an international organisation which operates in many countries. In the European Union, there is the database right which is designed to protect databases which are below the threshold of originality, as they would otherwise not be subject to any copyright protection. The image could maybe count as a "database" under European law. Databases get most of the standard rights in copyright law, but the term is much shorter. Also, at least in Sweden, databases are not subject to any moral rights, unlike other kinds of materials. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting information, but the image is now not used so its copyright status is no longer an issue for this page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wondering what this means
Several UNICEF FGM profiles offer information about type of FGM in particular countries with a chart (e.g. Tanzania, p. 2/4), which is introduced with this statement:

Does this mean the chart refers to FGM performed (a) on the 15–49 group; (b) on the 15–49 group and their daughters; or (c) on the daughters, i.e. "by type of FGM/C performed [on the daughters, according to the mothers]")? I've assumed (a) for now.

In other profiles (e.g. Niger, p. 2/4), they introduce the same charts with no mention of daughters:

Any thoughts would be very welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are my thoughts (but not an answer to your question) thinking about Tanzania only. "DHS 2010" is given as the source of the chart data and this leads me here. The final report, here has Table 17.2 showing, for women 15-49 the percentages with different types of FGM. Now, 17.4 deals with daughters and starts off saying "Women interviewed in the 2010 TDHS who had daughters were asked if any of their daughters had been circumcised, and if not, whether they intended to have their daughters circumcised." The table is headed "Table 17.4 Daughter's circumcision experience. Among women with at least one living daughter, percentage with at least one circumcised daughter and percentage who intend to have their daughter circumcised, according to background characteristics, Tanzania 2010". It seems to give some percentages of mothers according to the circumsision (strange terminology) experience of their daughters (strange statistic). This table shows 0.5% to 9.9% of women with a  circumsised daughter, depending on the age of the mother. However the pie chart relates only to circumsised individuals and I suspect considers the type of the daughter's circumsision, over all mothers 15-49 with circumsised daughters. I suspect the percentages are of the "girls and women" and the type is what has been done to the daughters. Maybe better worded

I am not sure, of course, but this looks like your (c). Originally, I had supposed (a). I think (b) must surely be wrong. The raw data may be buried here. Thincat (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Thincat, that's extremely helpful. I've used one of these charts as a source in the article, but now can't find where I used it (not for Tanzania). I'll look again later and try to figure out whether to change the figures or just remove them. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Thincat: Thanks for the links. I had intended looking for them, but never got around to it. It's interesting to see more detail.
 * I examined FGMC_TZA.pdf (the Tanzania profile in the OP) and FR243[24June2011.pdf ] (DHS 2010 for Tanzania, found by Thincat). From the DHS: pp. 422–423 (pp. 450–451 of pdf) has the FGM questions (addressed to women). An interviewer asks the woman about her experience, and asks about the daughter who was most recently circumcised, if any. Reading chapter 17 shows that whereas they asked about the type of practioner for both the mother and the daughter, only the results for the daughter are included. That makes sense because it is the daughter's experience that provides more information about likely trends. Regarding SV's question: The page in question shows a bar chart (age) and two pie charts (practitioner and procedure).
 * Re age: The DHS 2010 figures for mothers are not compatible with those in the profile, but they are compatible with the figures for daughters. I have to say "compatible" because the age ranges in the profile are different from those shown in the DHS—the numbers only add up correctly using the values for daughters.
 * Re practitioner: DHS has no values for mothers; DHS values for daughters equal those in the profile.
 * Re procedure: DHS has no values for daughters; DHS values for mothers are not compatible with those in the profile. Conclusion: The profile "procedure" values are for daughters.
 * Overall conclusion: The age + practitioner + procedure values are for daughters, although that is not easy to verify! Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, John. It certainly makes more sense that it would be the daughters, otherwise why mention them. It was when I saw the Niger example (which doesn't mention daughters) that I realized my initial interpretation (a) probably wasn't right. So what they are saying is: "this is the type of FGM that women aged 15–49 say they arranged for their daughters." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Would someone mind checking that I have this right, in the second sentence below? I used these charts for this one sentence about Eritrea and Somalia. It previously said: "For the 15–49 group in Eritrea, the figure was 38 percent in 2002, and in Somalia 63 percent in 2006." Following this discussion, I've changed it to: "In Eritrea, for the daughters of the 15–49 group, the figure was 38 percent in 2002, and in Somalia 63 percent in 2006."

Djibouti is more straightforward, because its chart is clearer, but I'm leaving it here for context.

SlimVirgin (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my reading of the three profiles, but it's a bit confusing as the reader is going to wonder why it's suddenly talking about daughters. I tried looking for the MICS data to get a feel for what it says, but the data appears to require registration, and some are in French. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It does look a bit odd to jump to daughters. I'll look around again to try to find the figures for the 15–49 group. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got busy and haven't been keeping up, but when I looked at the chart when SV first posed the question I thought it referred to mothers whose daughters had undergone the procedure. I'll have to look at all the other files linked here and at that file again to remember what gave me that impression; but I thought it had to do with the degree to which mothers who have undergone FGM have their daughters undergo FGM. I'll get caught up on this thread and strike my comments if I've muddied the waters or think I've misread. Victoria (tk) 19:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a very interesting question but it doesn't seem to be one they were asking. Because the "mothers" are 15-49, the "daughters" could be tiny babies up to 34 (say) years old and therefore could be mothers or even grandmothers themselves. I haven't checked if they restricted the age range of the daughters but I see they asked the age of the daughter at questions 1223 and 212/215. Really quite a strange population to be considering. Thincat (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Daughters usually means 0–14 and this is always spelled out. But these particular charts are worded differently. The issues are (a) if it's mothers, why mention daughters? and (b) if it's daughters, why not just say 0–14, as usual? But it could be exactly what Victoria suggests. I think I'll ask them about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence and based it on a different chart, which makes clear it's about daughters (and all three countries are about daughters now, so it doesn't look odd). So instead of:

it now says:

The "statistical snapshot" chart doesn't give the years, but it's clear that the figures are based on the same surveys as the country profiles. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about some medical studies
I'm making my way through the list of things to check, and I've reached the issue of the medical studies cited by critics of the opposition to FGM. The studies say that FGM is not as harmful as is often claimed. I currently deal with them briefly only in the criticism section, like this:

I'm wondering if that's the right thing to do. Should these be discussed instead in the complications section and are they MEDRS-compliant? The review articles that we use as sources in the complications section (the first version of which was written by a gynaecologist) don't mention these studies.

Carla Obermeyer is a medical anthropologist and epidemiologist at Harvard. Linda Morison is a statistician who used to specialize in reproductive and sexual health. Morison's argument is that opposition to FGM should be based on the human-rights issue, not the medical consequences, because the latter are unclear.

To recap, the studies are:


 * 1) Carla Obermeyer, "Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown and the Unknowable," Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 31(1), 1999 (pp. 79–106), pp. 92–93.  (review)
 * 2) Carla Obermeyer, "The Health Consequences of Female Circumcision: Science, Advocacy, and Standards of Evidence," Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 17(3), September 2002.
 * 3) Carla Obermeyer, "The Consequences of Female Circumcision for Health and Sexuality: An Update on the Evidence," Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 7(5), September–October 2005.  (systematic review)
 * 4) Linda Morison, et al, "The long-term reproductive health consequences of female genital cutting in rural Gambia: a community-based survey", Tropical Medicine & International Health, 6(8), August 2001, pp. 643–653. }}

Sorry, I know these are difficult questions and time-consuming to deal with, but if anyone has an opinion, it would be helpful. The question again is: should we deal with them as we currently do (in passing in the criticism section), or bring them into the main complications section as an alternative point of view? Pinging and  as medical editors, and,  and. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify some more: Linda Morison's study in the Gambia is just one study and it focuses on Type II, so it isn't really inconsistent with the mainstream view, which stresses that consequences depend on type, and the worst is obviously Type III. Because it's just one study, we probably can't include it per MEDRS. In fact I'm thinking I should remove it entirely, even from the criticism section (except perhaps as a "see also" sources in the complications section). It may be that Shweder (an anthropologist with fairly extreme anti-opposition views) has cited the study to bolster a view it did not imply.


 * In case it's helpful, the complications section relies on:


 * Elizabeth Kelly, Paula J. Adams Hillard, "Female genital mutilation", Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 17(5), October 2005, pp. 490–494 (review).
 * Jasmine Abdulcadira, et al, "Care of women with female genital mutilation/cutting", Swiss Medical Weekly, 6(14), January 2011 (review).
 * Emily Banks, et al, "Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries", The Lancet, 367(9525), 3 June 2006, pp. 1835–1841.
 * Amish J. Dave, Aisha Sethi, Aldo Morrone, "Female Genital Mutilation: What Every American Dermatologist Needs to Know", Dermatologic Clinics, 29(1), January 2011, pp. 103–109 (review).
 * Rigmor C. Berg, Eva Denisona, "A Tradition in Transition: Factors Perpetuating and Hindering the Continuance of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) Summarized in a Systematic Review", Health Care for Women International, 34(10), 2013 (review).
 * S. Sibiani and A. A. Rouzi, "Sexual function in women with female genital mutilation", Fertility and Sterility, 93(3), February 2010, pp. 722–724.


 * So the main question is what to do with Carla Obermeyer's work. Should we regard it as a tiny-minority view? (I currently think we should.)


 * SlimVirgin (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be guided by opinions from medical editors. However, if no definitive statements are made, my inclination would be to leave things as they are—retain mention of Obermeyer's work, keeping it in the "Criticism of opposition" section. My guess is that the studies suggesting that "serious complications were the exception" do not have parity with the sources in the "Complications" section, and there is no reason to suggest that the statements regarding complications may be wrong. It's likely that the next year or two will bring more definitive results as FGM seems to be getting more attention, and I think we can wait to see developments. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnuniq in regards to opinions from medical editors. I'm not qualified to determine whether these sources are MEDRS compliant. I've read Obermeyer and Mackie - and can see that there's a huge gap in opinion. On the face of it Obermeyer's research methodology appears to be fine, but Mackie's argument is persuasive. After reading Obermeyer, I wondered, too, whether this should be mentioned in the "Complications" section; but after a second read I'm not sure. It fits well in the "Criticism of Opposition" – and if I'm reading Obermeyer correctly, her emphasis is an analysis of oppositional views (i.e., complications, education, sexual pleasure, etc.,). Not sure this helps, but I think bottom line is my inclination would be to leave as it is. Victoria (tk) 16:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and, I'll leave Obermeyer as is. I think I'll move Morison as a "see also" source to the complications section. I'm concerned that, in allowing her to be cited by Shweder (but otherwise not mentioned in the article), we're aligning her with the critics of the opposition. But I see she has written alongside some of the opposition sources. So she might not appreciate being cited like that. Her point in her article was that the medical issues are not clear enough, so focus on the human-rights issue instead (but Shweder doesn't like the human-rights aspect either). SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see now where you're going with this. I hadn't read Morison when I replied yesterday but have now. Because her study for morbidity is based on actual examinations, unlike Obermeyer, who compiled data from studies, my tendency is to agree that Morison's study should be mentioned in the "Complications" section, but defer to opinion from medical editors. Victoria (tk) 17:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed her from the criticism section for now, and will have a think about where to place her. I think I'll read MEDRS again and see if it sheds light on what to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Somalia again
Middayexpress is elaborating on the source material over a point about Somalia, and adding words to a second point that mentions Somaliland. Bringing them here for discussion.


 * Rates
 * The article says: "In northeastern Ethiopia and Kenya, which share a border with Somalia, the Somali people practise FGM at around the same rate as within Somalia."


 * The source says: "The ethnic Somalis of northeastern Ethiopia and northeastern Kenya practice FGM/C at about the same rate as do the Somalis within Somalia."


 * Source: Yoder, Wang and Johansen, 2013, p. 198.


 * Middayexpress is changing this to:


 * "In most parts of Greater Somalia, a territory spanning several national borders, the Somali practise FGM at relatively uniform rates." Or:
 * "In Somalia, the Ogaden region in Ethiopia, and the North Eastern Province in Kenya, ethnic Somalis practise FGM at roughly uniform rates."

I would prefer that we stick to what the source says; the point is a straightforward one within a discussion about ethnicity and national boundaries.


 * Somaliland
 * The article says: "In Somaliland female members of the bride and groom's family may watch the opening of the vagina to check that the girl is a virgin."


 * Source: Ismail, "Female Genital Mutilation Survey In Somaliland", 2009, p. 14.


 * Middayexpress is changing this to:


 * "In the northwestern Somaliland region of Somalia, female members of the bride and groom's family may watch the opening of the vagina to check that the girl is a virgin."

I would prefer that we stick with "in Somaliland"; the second formulation is wordier, draws more attention to the point, and more strongly implies that it only happens there, whereas it may happen elsewhere too.

SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The paragraph appears to be on countries rather than regions, so some sort of qualifier is needed for the Somaliland region like the one provided elsewhere for the Kurdistan region of Iraq. The circumcision practised there is also not any different from that practised in Somalia's other regions. Also, since this is mentioned within the body, the very different prevalence rates in Somaliland and Puntland (in the 20% range) should perhaps be mentioned in the body as well. Regarding the prevalence rates, the Yoder link indicates that "the ethnic Somalis of northeastern Ethiopia and northeastern Kenya practice FGM/C at about the same rate as do the Somalis within Somalia." It does not indicate that this is the situation in "northeastern Ethiopia and Kenya". The latter inaccurately implies that ethnic Somalis primarily inhabit northeastern Ethiopa versus Kenya as a whole. I tried to correct this by linking to the actual parts of Greater Somalia that the link is alluding to there besides Somalia proper i.e. the Somali Region/Ogaden in Ethiopia and the North Eastern Province in Kenya. This must be corrected for the sake of accuracy. I suggest the following phrasing: "In Somalia, the northeastern Ogaden region in Ethiopia, and the North Eastern Province in Kenya, ethnic Somalis practise FGM at relatively uniform rates." Middayexpress (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to correct the language used to describe the situation in that area, you would need to start by having the source corrected. In what way is the text posted by SlimVirgin above inaccurate as a paraphrase of the source? Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see that the term "Greater Somalia" is a well-accepted, mainstream term. It appears to be a politically-charged term used by nationalists who would like the current borders of Somalia to change, see for example this.  We should not be using this term.   01:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and I agree with SV on the the points about the other edits regarding wordiness, the extra wording added isn't directly supported by the source and isn't necessary.  01:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Greater Somalia" is an English translation of "Soomaaliweyn", which is the traditional Somali language term for the Somali territories in the Horn of Africa. The point was to highlight that the original passage by Yoder and Johansen specifically pertains to the traditionally Somali-inhabited parts of present-day Ethiopia and Kenya rather than to non-traditional areas. At any rate, the term is not part of the suggested new phrasing. Middayexpress (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I've managed to find the full context of the original Yoder and Johansen passage. It reads as follows :
 * "in Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. In these countries, we find little variation in FGM/C prevalence by ethnic group (not shown). The ethnic Somalis of northeastern Ethiopia and northeastern Kenya practice FGM/C at about the same rate as do the Somalis within Somalia".

As can be seen, the emphasis in the original passage is on Somalia and ethnic Somalis, so the focus should remain as is. The wikitext, however, uses the passage as an example of something completely different. That is, to demonstrate that a given nation's overall prevalence rate may be reflective of high rates among certain ethnicities within its borders rather than a generally high nationwide occurence of the practice (it reads "a country's national prevalence may reflect a high sub-national prevalence among certain ethnicities, rather than a widespread practice"). This may or may not be true for Ethiopia and Kenya; regardless, it is not the point that Yoder and Johansen actually make. They do not suggest that the female circumcision rates in these nations are higher because of ethnic Somalis within their borders. They instead indicate something more basic i.e. that there is little variation in female circumcision within the Somali ethnic group, regardless of which side of the various modern national borders they happen to live. Given this, the paragraph should be split from the preceding and succeeding ones, which don't appear to have anything to do with the point that Yoder and Johansen are actually making. The phrase should also be contextualized per what they are in fact indicating. Something along the lines of the following would thus work better: "In Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Sierra Leone and Guinea, the FGM prevalence rate by ethnic group does not vary much. Additionally, ethnic Somalis in Somalia, northeastern Ethiopia and northeastern Kenya practise FGM at relatively uniform rates." Middayexpress (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the points the paragraph makes is that FGM is sometimes an ethnic marker and sometimes nationality overrides ethnicity. A lot of sources mention this, which is why it's included. I've moved some sentences to make the point clearer:




 * SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I realize that that is the point the wikiparaph attempts to make. However, as demonstrated above, it is not the point that Yoder and Johansen (the footnoted #80) make in their actual paper. They do not suggest that the female circumcision rates in these nations are higher because of ethnic Somalis within their borders. They instead indicate that there is little variation in female circumcision within the Somali ethnic group, regardless of which side of the various modern national borders they happen to live. To fix this, I thus suggest that the paragraph be split as well as the following new wording, which includes a prefacing phrase establishing Yoder and Johan's point here: "In Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Sierra Leone and Guinea, the FGM prevalence rate by ethnic group does not vary much. Additionally, ethnic Somalis in Somalia, northeastern Ethiopia and northeastern Kenya practise FGM at relatively uniform rates." Middayexpress (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin: What do you make of the suggested new phrasing above? I think it much more closely adheres to Yoder and Johan's point. Middayexpress (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's so close to Yoder, Wang and Johansen that we would run into close paraphrasing, so it might need in-text attribution, which complicates things (e.g. are they the only people saying this, and how to describe them?). The point is a simple one (sometimes ethnicity overrides nationality and sometimes it doesn't), followed by one example of each (Somalis and Fulani).


 * What issue with the current version needs to be fixed, in your view? You wrote above: "They do not suggest that the female circumcision rates in these nations are higher because of ethnic Somalis within their borders." Agreed, but our article doesn't suggest that they are saying that. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think two points in that paragraph need fixing. First, the wiki rendering of Yoder and Johansen's assertion that "the ethnic Somalis of northeastern Ethiopia and northeastern Kenya practice FGM/C at about the same rate as do the Somalis within Somalia". The wiki phrase instead currently indicates that "in northeastern Ethiopia and Kenya, which share a border with Somalia, the Somali people practise FGM at around the same rate as they do in Somalia". This is problematic because it obscures the fact that Yoder and Johansen are specifically referring to northeastern Kenya rather than to other parts of that nation. I thus suggest the following alternate phrasing: "ethnic Somalis in Somalia, northeastern Ethiopia and northeastern Kenya practice FGM at relatively uniform rates."


 * Second, I think the wiki passage that immediately precedes the one above also needs adjusting. It indicates that "the practice is sometimes an ethnic marker and sometimes differs along national lines". While true, Yoder and Johansen do not indicate the latter part, which appears to allude to groups like the Fulani with apparently widely differing intra-ethnic prevalence rates. They instead assert that a) the custom's prevalence can vary significantly between different ethnicities within a single nation ("the variable of ethnicity has proved to be the most differentiating variable in the distribution of FGM/C; prevalence has varied by ethnicity by as little as 1 percent and as much as 97 percent in a single country"), b) in certain countries there is little such variation in prevalence rates between resident ethnic groups ("in Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, and Sierra Leone[...] in these countries, we find little variation in FGM/C prevalence by ethnic group"), and c) there is little variation in the prevalence rate within certain ethnic groups across national lines as well ("the ethnic Somalis of northeastern Ethiopia and northeastern Kenya practice FGM/C at about the same rate as do the Somalis within Somalia"). Given this, I suggest rewording the phrase as: "the practice is also sometimes an ethnic marker, with little variation across national lines." The Fulani passage would then be prefaced with a phrase indicating the opposite (e.g. "In other areas, FGM prevalence rates within a single ethnic group can vary significantly between countries. Thus, 99 percent of Fulani women in Guinea have experienced it against 12 percent of the Fulani in Chad, while in Nigeria the Fulani are the only large ethnic group in the nation not to practice the custom."). Middayexpress (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Maracatos
According to Jerónimo Lobo, the population inland from Mogadishu that practised infibulation were the Maracatos. This was the Portuguese name for the Garre, a Somali subgroup inhabiting that region ("According to Lobo, the Maracatos also practised infibulation of women which is, of course, a traditional Somali custom" ). This needs to be specified in the wikitext. Anton Friedrich Büsching and Jean-Pierre Bérenger (1782) also note the practice of infibution by the Maracatos. Middayexpress (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not possible for an article on FGM to correct the terminology used by sources to describe groups or places. Apart from the fact that WP:SYNTH would be needed to give the name the source should have used, it is not important for the point, namely that a document from 1609 shows that infibulation was performed on slaves. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Lobo and Büsching and Bérenger, João dos Santos is also referring to the Maracatos specifically. Here is what Santos actually writes in the original Portuguese :
 * "Estes maracatos costumam cozer as femeas, quando são meninas de tenra edade, por não poderem conceber quando forem grandes, pelo que são muito estimadas; e ordinariamente fazem isto as mocas captivas, para as venderem por mais preco, e assim valem mais que as outras, por serem mais castas, e terem occasiao tirada de serem ruins mulheres, e por esse respeito fiam mais d'ellas seus senhores, entregando-ile suas despensas e o governo de suas casas."
 * Here is a formal English translation of the Santos passage :
 * "Magadoxo is in 3. 30'. Within the Land are the Maracatos, which have a custome to sew up their Females, specially their Slaves being yong to make them unable for conception, which makes these Slaves sell dearer both for their chastitie, and for better confidence which their Masters put in them".
 * The identities of the masters (the Maracatos), their subjects (captive young females), and the authors (Santos, Lobo, Büsching and Bérenger) are all equally important. The Egyptians are identified in the same wiki paragraph, so the Maracatos should as well. I thus suggest the following phrasing, which can be sourced in part to the formal English translation above: "Mackie cites the Portuguese missionary João dos Santos, who in 1609 wrote of a group inland from Mogadishu "the Maracatos, which have a custome to sew up their Females, specially their Slaves being yong to make them unable for conception, which makes these Slaves sell dearer both for their chastitie, and for better confidence which their Masters put in them." Middayexpress (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The source used in the article is Ending Footbinding and Infibulation: A Convention Account p. 1003. That source says:
 * "In 1609 Dos Santos reported that inland from Mogadishu (Somalia) a group has... quote as in article " (Fr. Joao dos Santos, Ethiopia Oriental, in Freeman-Grenville 1962)."
 * That is all the Mackie source says on that issue which is given in a series of examples showing that infibulation has historically been used on slaves. Mackie is a secondary source that draws together various primary sources, and Mackie is the correct source for an article like this. Mackie decided that mentioning Egyptians was useful, and there is no reason for this article to explore further details as there is no need for us to second-guess which items Mackie should have found to be equally important. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mackie is not a secondary source on Santos, but rather a tertiary source. It's Greville Freeman-Grenville that's the secondary source on Santos. Mackie just uses Freeman-Grenville to support his hypothesis. As Freeman-Grenville does identify the Maracatos, I suggest sourcing the new phrasing above to him in the footnotes (The East African Coast: Select Documents from the first century to the earlier nineteenth century ). Other second sources on Santos' Maracatos include the Hayklutus Posthumus and Kishlansky and Lively, which have the full translation of the passage. Middayexpress (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:SECONDARY (it's not a matter of counting), but regardless of that, the essential issue concerns why the proposal would benefit the article. The point of the text concerns Mackie's view about the origins of FGM, with one of the steps being the use of infibulation on slaves. The precise names of the groups involved is not relevant here; further, it is not our role to pad out what Mackie wrote. Are editors to suggest that Mackie's statement was inadequate, so we have probed the sources to extract important details that Mackie missed? What does Freeman have to say about the origins of FGM? Would it add anything to this article? Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. The thing is, Freeman-Grenville, the Hayklutus Posthumus, and Kishlansky and Lively all specifically identify the Maracatos as the Somali group that Santos indicates practiced infibulation on their subjects. This is important because not all groups in that southern region traditionally practiced it or held captives. Mackie himself points out elsewhere that another adjacent southern group, the Sab, did not practice infibulation until the custom was introduced to their area from the north during the 20th century. The Maracatos thus must be specified as the actual practising group. Middayexpress (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What you say would be relevant if the point of the text was to provide an historical account of precisely where and when FGM was performed. However, the section is merely showing Mackie's views regarding steps in the origins of FGM, with one of the steps being the use of infibulation on slaves in various places—the fact that an adjacent group did not use FGM is not relevant. You appear to want certain words added to the article, but why? What wrong would be righted? Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The section is ostensibly on the practice of FGM in antiquity. As such, I don't understand what harm comes from actually identifying the ancient practicing group that Mackie is alluding to here. He is, after all, merely relaying what Freeman-Grenville indicates Santos wrote. Why leave readers uncertain about what inland group Santos is actually referring to when one word, "Maracatos", can fix that? Other historical practicing groups, the Meroites and Egyptians, are identified, so it seems logical that the Maracatos should too. Are you uncertain that Mackie is referring to the Maracatos? Middayexpress (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The criterion for adding information is that there should be a justification for inclusion—not that there has to be a justification for exclusion. The primary issue is as I have explained above—Mackie is a secondary source that chose certain text to illustrate a view regarding the origins of FGM. Editors would need a good reason to correct Mackie's text by adding words that should have been used. Your analysis regarding "Maracatos" may be correct, but it is undesirable for editors to use source A for its views on FGM origins, and combine that with source B (which has nothing to say about the origins of FGM) to produce a composite statement regarding the origins of FGM. The section is not an account of which groups did what in 1609. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I understand now where you're coming from. You appear to be concerned about potential synthesizing of the phrase. But is it really synthesis if Freeman-Grenville, who Mackie cites, specifically identifies the Maracatos as the inland group practicing the custom? If Mackie himself were to indicate that he is referring there to the Maracatos and that their identity is important, would you be alright with noting that one word in the phrase ("Maracatos")? Middayexpress (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Type of FGM
In the section "Type of FGM" I think the percentages are all percentages of women who have undergone FGM, not the percentages of all women. So, for example, "Most women have experienced UNICEF's ..." should say "Most women who have undergone FGM have experienced UNICEF's ...". I am not changing this myself because the article is at WP:FAC and I don't want to make for difficulties there. In a case where I have immediate access – 30% type III for Djibouti is stated at http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_country_profiles/corecode/30/Countries/FGMC_DJI.pdf in the figure headed "Percentage distribution of girls and women aged 15 to 49 years with at least one living daughter who has undergone FGM/C, by type of FGM/C performed". Thincat (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, . I'll add some clarification. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

WHO definition
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines FGM as comprising “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons” (Ssotis421 (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC))


 * Good idea but the article already has a version of that wording. See Female genital mutilation. I have not yet looked to see which version is more recent, but the two definitions are extremely similar. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)