Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 16

Explaining revert
Hi, your edit about the Musta'li would need reliable sources (RS). Even with sources that would be too much about this one group, but to mention them at all would need some RS. SarahSV (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, we can definitely mention Bohra, specifically mentioned in RS.--Md iet (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources are still not particularly good. We need sources that are indepedent. This is not Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

; Hindustan Times: Female Genital Mutilation debate puts Bohra women on opposite sides

; newsin.asia: female-circumcision-communities-call-religious-freedom-upheld.

Hope these would be good.--Md iet (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And what do you want to use those sources to say? They are not the sources that were used before.
 * The BBC source is okay. Wondering if she was convicted? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Dawoodi Bohra are already mentioned in the article; we can't really devote more space. Re: the doctor charged in the US, we mention the first prosecution there. There's Female genital mutilation in the United States for more detail. SarahSV (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with SV, that makes sense per WP:DUE weight. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Md iet, I normally encourage editors to start dedicated country articles, such as Female genital mutilation in India. But there would have to be good sources. There is this, but it's a news article, and other similar ones, e.g. . I will look around when I have time to see whether the WHO, UN or Indian government have addressed it. SarahSV (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, agreed. As such the FGM reported is further explained of minor form, even classified as  type 4 or 1a having no proven harms.--Md iet (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They're describing Type I, where the clitoral glans is removed, which is not minor (not just a nick in the skin), though some women aren't sure what was done to them. I looked on PubMed for sources, but couldn't see any. NPR article, BBC. I think there's enough to create a short page if you'd like to. SarahSV (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin I completely agree we need to create another page where 1) all the FGM procedures are not clubbed together and opined as if they all have the same effects. 2) The law isn't universal and needs to be dealt with in accordance to the culture and country and from an anthropological angle 3) the WHO isn't the final authority on the entire world's health 4) Most importantly, it is the WHO that have also referred to Type 1a practiced by the Muslims and Dawoodi Bohras as "FEMALE CIRCUMCISION" - Read "WHO guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation" (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/206437/1/9789241549646_eng.pdf), read Page 14. Hence a page should be dedicated to "FEMALE CIRCUMCISION" and explain the different cultural views on FGM and how club it and some don't.Muffizainu (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The article does explain (WHO Types I–II) that Type 1(a) is called "circumcision", and uses the diagrams from the WHO document you link to as the source (current reference 39). SarahSV (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin. Agreed it does mention it. Thus, shouldn't the page "Female Circumcision" state these details, and that the WHO refers to Type 1a as "Circumcision", instead of redirecting it to the FGM page. There are many social, cultural and religious aspects to female circumcision, and not everyone refers to it as FGM. Muffizainu (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There's consensus within the international community to call the range of procedures FGM. There are some reliable sources (RS) who call it cutting or mutilation/cutting, but very few RS call it, or any part of it, circumcision. As for 1a, there is doubt as to how often this actually happens. What practitioners say is 1a is often 1b. See footnote e from the WHO. SarahSV (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Term 'mutilation' in the FGM denotes condemnation and any one mentioning it need to be cautious using the same till it is well established that activity done is really condemnable. I feel that all above revert/discussion arisen due to that only. Even if few RS agrees with this view, encyclopedia such of Wikipedia should upheld. When I was searching for the RS, one I found is as below:

Book:Female "circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change; edited by: Bettina Shell-Duncan, Ylva Hernlund .| Quotes: “...we agree that term’ mutilation ‘denotes condemnation and will use FGM in context of discourses employing that term....In all other context we will instead use ‘female genital cutting' or  female 'circumcision’.” (Ch.1, page:6,7)... Editors were ‘stuck by different perspectives…’ and ‘inspired them’ to examine the topic in a multidisciplinary manner…”. (preface page vii)

This RS seems to be taken care of different perspectives and examined the issue from all the required angles. There finding to use terms 'circumscion' or FGM need attention.--Md iet (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Lack of Harm in Type 1a Section
I had posted this heading and information, and had deleted it based on the claim of RS. The information I posted was as follows: Lack of evidence of complications or harm for Type 1a Although there are many studies proving evidence of harm from FGM, the evidence provided on harm for FGM is related to Type 1b, 2 & 3, and not type 1a and type 4.[63] WHO confirms they have no recorded clinical evidence of harm against the Type 1a.[75] [76] When specifically asked, the "WHO said it does not compile individual reports but rather looks at the body of evidence from scientific literature to develop its positions about health risks and the public health and human rights significance of the practice", "and within those reports there was no scientific study to prove that Type 1a has caused any clinical harm".[75] The Type 1a procedure is harmless, which is similar to ear piercing which is done purely for cosmetic reasons.[77]

I would like to re-post the information but looking for a re-draft to better the text. It is very important that Type 1a female circumcisioon is differentiated from the other methods, and, most importantly, clearly mention that till date, there is no evidence that Type 1a has caused any form of harm. All the evidence provided by the WHO against FGM relates to procedures other than Type 1a. Please help improve the article. Muffizainu (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation style again
Following my post in March that I was adding wikicite to UN reports, I'm considering again changing the citation style to sfn for journal articles or books that are used repeatedly with different page numbers. I'm not certain yet which sources to do it for, or even whether to go ahead, but I'd like to experiment, so I'm checking here, per WP:CITEVAR, in case there are objections. SarahSV (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Double cropped
In this edit, Wikimandia changed
 * File:Mary Karooro Okurut (cropped).jpg

to
 * File:Mary Karooro Okurut (cropped) (cropped).jpg

That changed the article from permalink to permalink. I suppose there is some technical benefit for the double cropping (more focused on the face) but the original seems more appropriate here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I was about to remove that image anyway as part of an effort to make the page look a bit tidier. SarahSV (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I just helping with an automated request that someone made at Commons to replace the larger file with a closer-cropped file, which seemed like a good faith request, but of course the larger file is still available and can be used when it's preferable. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing Islam Section
The sentence that mentions that since Female Circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran - therefore it is unIslamic - is a misleading statement. This is because MOST of the Islamic practices follolwed by the Muslims is NOT mentioned in the Quran, rather, it is mentioned in the traditions of the Prophet Muhhammed. Thus I removed it. Muffizainu (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I also suggest removing the following sentence "but the practice became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female chastity and seclusion", because only about 3 of the 100s of sources talk about "chastity", all the other versions mention it is done to increase sexual pleasure between male and female couples.Muffizainu (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Muffizainu, I've reverted your edits because they have no consensus and aren't supported by Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. If you have medical or academic sources that you'd like to use, please post them here and we can take a look. Also, please look at WP:MEDRS for the kind of sources needed for biomedical information. For other kinds of statements, we accept (for example) reports by UN bodies, governments, academics who work with them, and other academics who have specialized in FGM. SarahSV (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

, you've not explained your reason for revert. In my explanation I explained 1) The idea that since FC is not mentioned in the Quran and therefore un-Islamic isn't correct, because most Islamic practices are not mentioned in the Quran, including Male circumcision. Islamic practices and the details on how it should be done are found in the traditions of the Prophet Mohammed. So, that sentence in itself is wrong and misleading. You may refer to (Arora KS, Jacobs AJ. Female genital alteration: a compromise solution. Journal of Medical Ethics 2016), where they say: "It is no more possible to define Islam within the four corners of the Quran than to define Christianity (which includes traditions ranging from Presbyterian to Pentecostal to Greek Orthodoxy) solely from a reading of the Bible. Rather, the content of religious belief and practice are guided by interpretive texts and traditions. Thus, many Muslim scholars classify Female Genital Alteration (FGA) as ‘Sunnah’ or practice established by the Prophet Muhammad. Though not prescribed explicitly in the Quran, the practice thus is religiously virtuous. In fact, the colloquial term for FGA procedures in Arabic refers to a ritual state of purity.” For those who aren't aware, even simple "Islamic" practices like praying 5 times a day, or how to pray or fast, are not mentioned in the Quran - the details are found in the traditions and narrations of the Prophet Mohammed. 2) I also cited information that FC was deemed obligatory by certain sects in Islam namely the Shaafi'i and Hanbali, you can view the information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation

That is why I wrote "In Islam, Type 1a female circumcision is praised in several hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble, sunnah (tradition), or waajib (mandatory) - based on the various Sunni Islam & Shia Islam traditions" 3) I didn't make this edit, but I did suggest it, that "the following sentence "but the practice became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female chastity and seclusion", because only about 3 of the 100s of sources talk about "chastity", all the other versions mention it is done to increase sexual pleasure between male and female couples. Thus, you haven't explained on what basis you reverted the edits. I request a vote from editors to confirm my findings as well. Muffizainu (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin did: "no wp:consensus". Discuss here per wp:BRD Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

&  - I am already discussing this and I think this requires a response/counter response. Because when some one reverts, it is their duty to explain their reverts and engage in discussion on talk page as well. Muffizainu (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It has already been explained. Everything on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. See WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source. You removed that FGM isn't mentioned in the Quran. You think that doesn't matter, but reliable sources disagree. We also explain that it isn't mentioned in the Bible. You want to rely on a religious website. You removed the view of the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, sourced to UNICEF. You want the article to say that Type 1a FGM is either a good thing or at least not harmful. But reliable sources disagree with you, including the World Health Organization, not least because they say that what practitioners call Type 1a is, in fact, usually Type 1b. See this WHO fact sheet, updated February 2017, in which they call Type 1a "very rare". SarahSV (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is regularly monitored by page watchers and the "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits" is 44. I am one of those who has agreed with SarahSV's edits but have not previously bothered commenting because everything that needs to be said is has been. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken or have misunderstood what I have said. 1) About Female Circumcision not in the Quran. I have cited above reliable sources WP:RS "Journal of Medical Ethics 2016" above, and in that they say that just because it's not in the Quran doesn't negate the fact that it is an integral path of the Islamic tradition. To add to that, I was just explaining that MOST Islamic practices are NOT in the Quran - for example, Male Circumcision, so, the fact that it's not in the Quran doesn't negate the fact that it is an Islamic tradition. If you want more citiations, then please view this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_(circumcision) 2) About Azhar, I will add some information to the article to show that even within Al-Azhar there are many positions. The rulings Azhar or UNICED aren't absolutist, and have changed over time and highly contested. 3) Type 1a not harmful: You answered your own question. If the WHO fact sheet says that Type 1a is "very rare" and usually Type 1b, that proves that we aren't talking about Type 1b, and that isn't a matter of contention, and they are 2 different prodecures. Hence, I stand by the statement that Type 1a isn't Type 1b, rare or not, and if you disagree, then I request you to bring me ONE citation that clearly mentions the harm in Type 1a (not 1b or above). Muffizainu (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see edits at Khitan (circumcision) like this which indicate a desire to portray certain types of FGM as being wonderful, indeed motivated by a desire to spread pleasure. I don't currently have the energy to spell out how much nonsense is involved in that, but I will note that using http://www.clitoralunhooding.com/ as a reference entirely misses the point as that website concerns alleged benefits of a surgical procedure on consenting and informed adults performed by American gynecologists under the best surgical procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Toronto Star reported in April on a study, "Understanding Female Genital Cutting in the Dawoodi Bohra Community", which apparently says that Type 1b is indeed being performed by the Dawoodi Bohras, not 1a. It is being done by traditional cutters without proper tools on 7-year-olds, who are being told that a "worm" is being removed. SarahSV (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The report (a survey of women who have experienced FGM within that community) shows a mix: 65% (202 women) did not know what had been done to them; 21% said that part of the clitoral hood had been removed; 5% said all the clitoral hood had been removed; 5% said the clitoral hood and part of the clitoris had been removed; 3% reported that their entire clitoris had been removed (that's assumed to mean the visible part); one woman said her labia had been cut too; and two did not respond. SarahSV (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on the Bohra community, but my and talk messages haven't been about that. I have edited or suggested 1) Quran 2) FC in Islam 3) Disagreement about Azhar University Clergy. Yet, you haven't been able to justify your reverts. Secondly, the citations do mention clitoris (Type 1b), although that information, may or may not be correct, I haven't brought it up, and am not making edits in regard to that. What I did say is that Type 1a is different to Type 1b - and whether Type 1b is practiced, it's still not Type 1a - and, if you have ANY information on the harm of Type 1a, then I would like to see it. Thanks Muffizainu (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Azhar University Disagreement
- Can you explain why you have reverted the Azhar University Edits? After citations provided.Muffizainu (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit relied on what seems to be a religious website with a statement from 1981. This article has to follow Verifiability, Identifying reliable sources, and No original research. When the issue is a medical one, sources must also comply with WP:MEDRS. If you could make yourself familiar with those pages, that would help. If you want to say there is disagreement about FGM, we would need (for example) a United Nations body, or an academic source, reporting that disagreement. SarahSV (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of Azhar, it's a theological position on an Islamic position. I don't think the UN is an authority on Islam. Do you?Muffizainu (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a USAID paper about FGM and Islam. You could also look for academic sources. Those are the kinds of sources we need. SarahSV (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit, no university has "unified consensus" on any issue—what would such a thing mean? How can a 1981 statement verify "still a matter of contention"? You could ask at WP:RSN whether the reference is considered a reliable source that supports the edit. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As for Azhar, here's some information to show even the recent disagreements: In 2007, as a response to the statements issued by Mohammed Syyed Tantawi and Ali Jumua wherein the practise of khafd was considered un-Islamic and directed against, a group of jurists and intellectuals re-asserted the 1981 findings of al Shaykh al Azhar Jad al Haq mentioned earlier. https://ar.islamway.net/article/2362/%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B2%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF-%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%89-%D8%B7%D9%86%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AB Dr Mohammed Musayyar in an interview published by Memri in 2007 says that even though all the four Madhahib have different interpretations in the matter varying from obligatory to sunnah to a noble deed. (2007, May 23). Islamic Scholars on Female Circumcision - YouTube. Retrieved July 22, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oI0KmUKq8 In an interview published by Memri in 2007, Dr Mohammed Wahdan- a lecturer in Al Azhar University claimed that the origin of female circumcision is since the time of prophet Ibrahim whose first wife Sarrah was jealous of Hajar. Islamic Religious Experts on Female Circumcision - YouTube. N.p., 23 May 2007. Web. 22 July 2017. . Among the scholars and institutions that support female circumcision according to an article published in 2005 is: Shaykh ‘Atiyah Saqr – the former head of the Fatwa Committee in Al-Azhar, and Dar al-Ifta Al-Misriyah. http:// www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/60314/female%20circumcision%20in%20islam (Munajjid, 2014)

Besides Azhar, there are many other Islamic Organizations that have validated the tradition of Female Circumcision. That should also be added. Muffizainu (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please engage with the discussion and respond to the points raised. The current situation appears to show an eagerness to insert a point of view into the article using any technique available with no regard for a coherent discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the points raised. The original text said that the Azhar University disagreed with the practice. I provided information that the University itself has disagreements within itself, and thus, that information is irrelavant on the page. I provided the citations. If you want to keep the Azhar disagreeing, then you can also put the citations that Azhar agrees with female circumcicision as well. This will give both sides of the story. If it all it has been I who've been discussing on the talk page, and User Slim Virgin is deleting without providing any justification. Muffizainu (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment at WP:DRN but the section has been closed. I will post the start of my thoughts here although I do not propose engaging in much more back-and-forth because the issue is so clearly one of an attempt to argue against the most reliable sources available which have been chosen for the article.
 * The July 2007 reference states "Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, the highest religious authority in Egypt, issued a statement saying FGM/C has no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions and that it is harmful and should not be practiced." That is a quote from a UNICEF news report that refers to the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research. A claim that others at the university where the Council is located disagree is not relevant. After-the-fact sources with claims that the purpose of s certain form of FGM is to increase sexual pleasure of the couple cannot be used to balance UNICEF. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Muffizainu, I can recommend two ways forward. First, open a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, and lay out your sources for them. That will attract independent editors who will offer an opinion as to whether your sources are policy-compliant for the points you want to make. Second, write to a few authoritative scholars of Islam in mainstream universities, and ask them to recommend an up-to-date scholarly overview on the position of Islam, or branches of it, on FGM. Explain that the aim is to write a very brief summary (a couple of sentences) for Wikipedia. The Islamic studies department at Harvard might be a good place to start. When you've collected some sources, or even just one, we can decide whether to use that material to update this article. SarahSV (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq I will be providing you multiple citations about the position of Azhar and other Islamic organizations. As for increasing sexual pleasure. Almost every classical Islamic text says it. I will be providing you citations for those as well. These sources predate the existence of the UN, and these are the Classical and Modern basis for the practice oof Female Circimcusion in Islam.

As for the Islamic position, I have even cited the Journal of Medical Ethics 2016, which you have completely ignored. And the Islamic position cannot be ignored. I will quote it again for your information. (Arora KS, Jacobs AJ. Female genital alteration: a compromise solution. Journal of Medical Ethics 2016), where they say: "It is no more possible to define Islam within the four corners of the Quran than to define Christianity (which includes traditions ranging from Presbyterian to Pentecostal to Greek Orthodoxy) solely from a reading of the Bible. Rather, the content of religious belief and practice are guided by interpretive texts and traditions. Thus, many Muslim scholars classify Female Genital Alteration (FGA) as ‘Sunnah’ or practice established by the Prophet Muhammad. Though not prescribed explicitly in the Quran, the practice thus is religiously virtuous. In fact, the colloquial term for FGA procedures in Arabic refers to a ritual state of purity.”Muffizainu (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And the UNICEF statement regarding the Council is irrelevant? Why? The Council is irrelevant? Why? Is it ritual purity or sexual pleasure? Or is it whatever is currently useful to rebut an unwanted response? Please follow the above recommendation about the reliable sources noticeboard but keep it focused on just a couple of points. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq I never said the "UNICEF statement regarding the Council is irrelevant". Infact, I agreed that statement should stay, but at the same time, it must be clarified that the same council has in the past deemed in favour female circumcision. Plus, there are many more scholars, from the University, and other Islamic organizations that have said the same. I have proposed that that statement should be updated with information from both sides. And if the new information is not welcome, then the one-sided statement should be deleted. That is what I have been proposing all this time. And, along with the Quran statement, I have proposed to add a list of all the classical Islamic scholars that have either said (on accord of the Prophet) that it is either compulsary or reccomended. You can't have one-sided information and blatantly ignore the other side because it doesn't serve the narrative. Muffizainu (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Break

 * Muffizainu, if this situation continues, someone is likely to ask that you be topic-banned from this issue. Wikipedia must reflect the mainstream view and significant minority views, according to the most reliable sources. The most reliable sources—for the issue you want to include in the religion section—are (reasonably) up-to-date medical and academic secondary sources, and position statements from national and international bodies.


 * This article does include views that object to the mainstream international position; see Female genital mutilation. We could perhaps include there the view that Type 1a is practised, and that certain groups recommend it as harmless. But it would have to be written and sourced very carefully. That is why I think your research should start by writing to scholars of Islam in mainstream universities so that you can gather the best sources.


 * Also, I'm concerned about this focus on the Dawoodi Bohra, given the criminal charges that were filed in the US in April this year. SarahSV (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In between fair discussion, sudden inclusion of Topic ban seems giving a threat. When discussion is on Azhar university stand naming particular sect also looks like diverting the issue. All the stands taken by any one of Azhar to be taken care of and let the viewer decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.9.169.222 (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not publish "all views" per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also see wp:Tendentious editing regarding topic bans. Jim1138 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not repeatedly making your perceived Tendentious edits. If you see, I am talking only on talk page and merely want to get a response on what I recommended to be a part of the article. If I was inserting my preferred version of content into the article repeatedly, and if that version was considered tendentious, then a topic ban may be in consideration, but I am not. Therefore, I suggest that you don't use such words and suggestions to stop the debate which infact is something that is the way of Wikipedia. Now that we have cleared that and every one is on the same page that we are all discussing here on talk page or through proper dispute venues, there is nothing wrong with behaviour and all the proper dispute channels are being followed. I am sure wikipedia doesn't block editors who "lose" a dispute as in every dispute there has to be some kind of consensus. I don't want to make minority views appear to be majority views here. As per wikipedia policy of WP:DUE, I want to include alternative views which are also covered in reliable sources. If you have a problem with my sources being reliable, I will be happy to get them checked with other editors on noticeboard but before we do that, I think they will ask that we've discussed the issue here on talk page. If you are willing to revert, you should also be willing to discuss why you reverted.
 * Coming back to User:SlimVirgin's response, let's try a compromise version that is acceptable to mainstream sources as well as the ones that I am presenting.Muffizainu (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are pushing your POV here; you keep asking the same question expecting a different answer. It has been explained why those sources are not RS. You have not gotten the point. wp:Consensus here is that your source is not RS. If the source is not RS, there is nothing to compromise. Discuss the reliability of your sources on wp:RSN, not here. Also, please format your talk per wp:talk page guidelines; it is policy, not a suggestion. Jim1138 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Muffizainu, your questions have been asked and answered several times. If you wish to pursue these issues, please proceed to the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions. Re: tendentious editing, it can indeed apply to talk pages. It also applies to repeatedly restoring the talk page of a redirect. SarahSV (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am not as proficient with you with wikipedia talkpage formatting, I'm learning but I will try to format it better. It does say it's a guideline not a policy - still I know it makes things easier and I will try to follow as closely. Feel free to point out if I make a mistake as we are all volunteers here and no one is an expert. Secondly, I'm not pushing my POV. I am seeking taklpage consensus. If I was pushing my POV, I would have still been reverting. So please assume good faith which is too a wikipedia recommendation. I did not go directly to RSN noticeboard because talk page is the first place to discuss the dispute. It is incorrect to say discuss there, not here. Now that we have had an initial discussion, I will be happy to take it to RSN if you dont agree and I will follow all proper channels as I dont want to break any rules. Furthermore, if you think there's no consensus on my edits, I seek to change that consensus because this consensus is between just the three of us as of now and Consensus can change. I will first verify my sources and then involve other neutral editors here on talk page. I do not intend to enforce my own opinion without consensus so nothing to worry about.Muffizainu (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose: close discussion as no consensus Jim1138 (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but it is a little stronger than no consensus. I haven't said much recently but I see no reason for adopting the proposals, and I'm still concerned that some issues raised have been dodged rather than answered. At any rate, the discussion has passed its used-by date. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

PTSD and FGM
...speaking of PTSD:


 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27838460?dopt=Abstract


 * Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Rollback
Noting that I had to use rollback to undo Md iet's edits, because I wasn't able to load the page to do it manually. I tried several times and got a "secure connection failed" message. It's not the first time I've had problems loading this page. SarahSV (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good revert. You can, of course, use a WP:Dummy edit to explain why you made an edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't think of doing that. SarahSV (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for active participation to combat against the practice with wrong method being used. Our first aim should be to make life of the involved safe. In doing the total eradication process, method is to evolved such that human beings are at least made safe till the process is complete.

In the matter a part of discussion is copied here from my talk page to reply here at the concerned page:

"...To help aware the menace of doing FGM using whatever methods available and making the life of innocents venerable, a better approach is required to control the dangerous practice.--Md iet (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with the edit is that it relied on a 29-year-old non-MEDRS source for a health issue. SarahSV (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oldness and type of the report is not so important if it is based on actual survey done. Only matter most is whether it is authentic.--Md iet (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Age and type of report matter a great deal. For health issues, sources must comply with WP:MEDRS. SarahSV (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)"

All the source must comply with WP:MEDRS seems a very harsh condition, when the issue is of so grave nature and multi aspects including religious angle affecting faith of a person is involved.

We need to have thorough discussion on matter, I suppose.--Md iet (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External images
I think as per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:OM, the currently external images should be directly included in the article, if the image license does not allow it, another image should be chosen. Besides some of them are returning 403 errors. Franciscouzo (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the dead links. The problem is that we can only use images with certain types of free licence. SarahSV (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

FGM, non-MEDRS Source, and Health
FGM is such an issue which is affecting life of many innocents in the name of faith. This issue need a complete new approach to handle it. In the name of faith, religion and nonsense issues politics is played and there is heavy loss to human beings. FGM is also a similar faith issue, which is playing menace.

Definitely FGM can be termed as cruelty to children, but it is harming them more if practice is not made under control and to perform FGM non scientific means are used. This issue need an open mind thorough discussion on subject making all the issues very clear to the communities where it is in practice.

There are no indication of effect of various control being used to abolish the practice. Legislation will never give any full proof solution in the matter of faith and people may find some other means, which may harm more. This is perfectly position on FGM.

When practice is legally acceptable for male with all surgical procedure used on children, as it is proven to be advantageous. Although many research is done on FGM, there are always some scope left when we see that even new elements and planets are discovered now and then. Restricting non MEDRS sources is restricting same as restricting thoughts and discussions, then how can further research can be initiated.

Our main aim should be to restrict dangerous practice in the way it is done, whatever approach we take. Wikipedian's views on this serious subject are welcome.--Md iet (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a paper published on the subject with Abstract:

"Despite 30 years of advocacy, the prevalence of nontherapeutic female genital alteration (FGA) in minors is stable in many countries. Educational efforts have minimally changed the prevalence of this procedure in regions where it has been widely practiced. In order to better protect female children from the serious and longterm harms of some types of non-therapeutic FGA, we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia. We offer a revised categorisation for nontherapeutic FGA that groups procedures by effect and not by process. Acceptance of de minimis procedures that generally do not carry long-term medical risks is culturally sensitive, does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and does not violate human rights. More morbid procedures should not be performed. However, accepting de minimis non-therapeutic f FGA procedures enhances the effort of compassionate practitioners searching for a compromise position that respects cultural differences but protects the health of their patients." ...Paper: "Female genital alteration: a compromise solution" by: Kavita Shah Arora,1,2 Allan J Jacobs3.

This paper is very reliable and can be a guide line toward protecting innocent victims. Editors requested to put forward their views on inclusion of the ideas in this feature Article. --Md iet (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The paper is pushing a tiny-minority position, namely that removal of the clitoral hood (Type Ia), some form of excision (Type II), and ritual nicking (Type IV) should be permitted in countries that have criminalized FGM. There's no reason for us to expand the article with "some doctors have argued this or that". We would need sources that showed this was a significant-minority view among reliable sources. SarahSV (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is pushing, dragging or, knocking any minority/ majority tiny/big position is not the issue but the main issue is whether rejecting this view altogether helping the cause? Banning and criminalizing the practice is not a solution to control the practice which is related with faith of people.

Faith religion is a such issue which better can be resolved through guiding the affected through proper channels. Women are affected because of this and they only are most rigid on following the faith. Men concerned many times even do not know of the existence of the practice in their family.--Md iet (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

FGM, non-MEDRS Source, and Health
FGM is such an issue which is affecting life of many innocents in the name of faith. This issue need a complete new approach to handle it. In the name of faith, religion and nonsense issues politics is played and there is heavy loss to human beings. FGM is also a similar faith issue, which is playing menace.

Definitely FGM can be termed as cruelty to children, but it is harming them more if practice is not made under control and to perform FGM non scientific means are used. This issue need an open mind thorough discussion on subject making all the issues very clear to the communities where it is in practice.

There are no indication of effect of various control being used to abolish the practice. Legislation will never give any full proof solution in the matter of faith and people may find some other means, which may harm more. This is perfectly position on FGM.

When practice is legally acceptable for male with all surgical procedure used on children, as it is proven to be advantageous. Although many research is done on FGM, there are always some scope left when we see that even new elements and planets are discovered now and then. Restricting non MEDRS sources is restricting same as restricting thoughts and discussions, then how can further research can be initiated.

Our main aim should be to restrict dangerous practice in the way it is done, whatever approach we take. Wikipedian's views on this serious subject are welcome.--Md iet (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a paper published on the subject with Abstract:

"Despite 30 years of advocacy, the prevalence of nontherapeutic female genital alteration (FGA) in minors is stable in many countries. Educational efforts have minimally changed the prevalence of this procedure in regions where it has been widely practiced. In order to better protect female children from the serious and longterm harms of some types of non-therapeutic FGA, we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia. We offer a revised categorisation for nontherapeutic FGA that groups procedures by effect and not by process. Acceptance of de minimis procedures that generally do not carry long-term medical risks is culturally sensitive, does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and does not violate human rights. More morbid procedures should not be performed. However, accepting de minimis non-therapeutic f FGA procedures enhances the effort of compassionate practitioners searching for a compromise position that respects cultural differences but protects the health of their patients." ...Paper: "Female genital alteration: a compromise solution" by: Kavita Shah Arora,1,2 Allan J Jacobs3.

This paper is very reliable and can be a guide line toward protecting innocent victims. Editors requested to put forward their views on inclusion of the ideas in this feature Article. --Md iet (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The paper is pushing a tiny-minority position, namely that removal of the clitoral hood (Type Ia), some form of excision (Type II), and ritual nicking (Type IV) should be permitted in countries that have criminalized FGM. There's no reason for us to expand the article with "some doctors have argued this or that". We would need sources that showed this was a significant-minority view among reliable sources. SarahSV (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is pushing, dragging or, knocking any minority/ majority tiny/big position is not the issue but the main issue is whether rejecting this view altogether helping the cause? Banning and criminalizing the practice is not a solution to control the practice which is related with faith of people.


 * Faith religion is a such issue which better can be resolved through guiding the affected through proper channels. Women are affected because of this and they only are most rigid on following the faith. Men concerned many times even do not know of the existence of the practice in their family.--Md iet (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Further suggestion to tackle the issues pointed above is requested.--Md iet (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia. From that, it follows that there will often be dissatisfied people who find that their edits are not retained. There is not much that can be done about that because once explanations have been given there is no point in repeating them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the problem here is not of satisfaction but of solution. Comment as below is added to clarify the horrible situation prevailing on the subject topic:


 * "None availability of medically trained practitioner to the person who are unaware of FGM complication has worsen the situation. Some solution is to be found to unwanted side effects of the undesired. "


 * This is deleted without giving any explanation. Comments?--Md iet (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If there is no explanations for deletion / further comments/suggestions on my this inclusion,  let me presumed it ok?--Md iet (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Interpreting what has happened on this page and in the edits at the article as "ok" would be a very big stretch. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let us cover that BIG stretch to help victims not aware. Suggest solution.--Md iet (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting "Female Circumcision" page issues
1. The page "Female Circumcision" redirects to the FGM page. The problem with this redirecting is that it equates Female Circumcision = FGM. This is incorrect. Female Circumcision is a name given to a procedure/practice, and FGM is an umbrella term by the WHO, given for many (about 6) different procedure/practice from which female circumcision is one of them. Just like piercing is also a practice that comes under the FGM umbrella term. Therefore, Female Circumsiion ⊆ FGM (FC is a subset of FGM), not Female Circumcision = FGM. 2. This is further established by the WHO themselves who refer to Type 1a as female "circumcision" on page 2 of. Reference: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/management-health-complications-fgm/en/ WHO guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation 3. Therefore, in order to be clear, I propose having a short description of "female circumcision", describing Type 1a clitoral hood procedure as per the WHO document. And then mention that the WHO considers this FGM. Below this, have a "see more" tab below it then linking it to the FGM page. Muffizainu (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above is based on an assumption that there is a clear and universal definition of each term. That is not correct. Some people think FGM is fine while others think otherwise, and different groups of people use words to mean what they want them to mean. An encyclopedia has to cover the general topic, based on the most reliable sources. Having another article would be a WP:POVFORK. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * When WHO refer some type with special designation then that should be treated as clear definition when WHO guidelines are treated as Bible for this major issue affecting children worldwide. The term need to be specifically clarified before redirected to general term.


 * FGM is referred in this article as "Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision". When there is no 'clear and universal definition of each term', how come they equated in one go without giving any clarifications.  -Md iet (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Continuing discussion on the Female Circumcision talk page, as the discussion is about that page.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_circumcision Muffizainu (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is only one topic, and that topic is covered in this article using WP:DUE material from reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq How is it one topic? When there are two terms?

FGM and Female Circumcision. One is a practice, and one is a term given to a collection of practices. And that is why the redirecting is problematic.

[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]]What exactly is your argument here? The FGM article uses a the term "FGM", solely because it was coined by the WHO. And here, i'm providing a citation that the WHO themselves called Type 1a "female circumcision". So what more information do you need? If it wasn't for the WHO, you wouldn't have the term "FGM".

If you're looking for more sources, look no further that the Britanica Dictionary. It calls the Islamic practice of Type 1a "FEMALE CIRCUMCISION"
 * https://www.britannica.com/topic/khafd
 * https://www.britannica.com/topic/khitan-Islam

So, you have the WHO and a Dictionary statement.

Hence, what I propose is not to do a blanket re-directing. First clarify the term "Female Circumcision" according to the WHO guidelines and dictionary. They say that the WHO considers it amoungst one of the practices of FGM, and then have a "See more" tag to the FGM page. Muffizainu (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The term female circumcision is used to refer generally to female genital mutilation. It is also used to refer to Type Ia FGM, the removal of the prepuce only, which the World Health Organization says rarely happens alone. (p. 25) That is, circumcisers who say they are performing Type Ia are usually doing something else. The WHO bases this information on surveys of women and of medical examinations in which women were found to have undergone more extensive cutting than they realized. SarahSV (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The one topic is the traditional cutting of female genitalia, and this article obviously covers that. An attempt to develop another article would be an assertion that there is a thing called female circumcision that is a different practice from that described in this article. Ultimately the issue would be resolved with an WP:AFD deletion discussion which I believe would result in the deletion of any WP:POVFORK from this article. Another approach would be to acknowledge that there has been no "female circumcision" article for several years. Is that likely to be accidental? Is it likely that a missing article related to this topic has somehow been overlooked? Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You just answered the question. WHO referes to FC as "the removal of the prepuce only". If something else is happening, then it can't be called "female circumcision", right? All the more reason the term "female circumcision" needs to be defined clearly. By providing the different definitions of the word from the communties that practice and and the WHO if you may.


 * @Johnuniq there isn't "another thing". FGM is an umbrealla term for multiple practices, and FC is one of those practices, and thus should have it's own article to describe what the practice is, just like Britanica does: https://www.britannica.com/topic/khafd
 * And then give different explanations of the term "female circumcision".
 * Example, "Medicine" is a science/term, and dentistry is a practice that falls under that umbrella term. Make sense?Muffizainu (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Muffizainu, you read only part of my post. The term female genital mutilation includes what used to be called, and what some groups still call, female circumcision. Female circumcision is a category of FGM. It is a type of FGM. And (this is important), it is a type that the World Health Organization says is rarely performed. People who support FGM claim that it's all about a painless nick in the skin. As a matter of fact, that is not what normally happens, even when practitioners say that it is. That is one of the reasons that the term female circumcision is mostly avoided now. SarahSV (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I somewhat agree with your statement. 1) If you agree that "female circumcision" is a category or type of practice, then why shouldn't it have a separate page to describe the various definitions of the term "female circumcision" by various authorities, and also include the WHO's definition if you want - as one of those defintions. Everything doesn't need to revolve solely around the WHO's stance.
 * 2) The term "FGM" was coined by the WHO, so, the FGM page can be limited to the WHO's stance on the subject. Muffizainu (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It was the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children who started calling it female genital mutilation, in 1990, and the WHO then started using the term too. FC is not only a type of FGM (one rarely performed). It is also an equivalent term for FGM. More people use it to mean any and all types of FGM, than use it to refer to FGM Type Ia. SarahSV (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, You are perfectly right that FC is 'not only a type of FGM' but also an equivalent term for FGM'. Hence FC definitely is a type of FGM but it is used as equivalent term for FGM means FC definitely is not equal to FGM.


 * When FC has different specific characteristic as also defined by WHO then it is to be specifically clarified in Wikipedia when there exist a separate page on FC. If people refer all other type of FGM forcibly as FC doesn't mean that FC is not clarified at all for benefit of genuine.-Md iet (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added a source to the lead, per Muffizainu's request. (The source was in the terminology section and didn't need to be copied to the lead, by the way, but it's there now anyway, along with a quote.) It says: "Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature."


 * Very few sources use the term "female circumcision" now (anthropologists are the most likely to use it). The Wikipedia community has decided to follow the bulk of the sources and call all the procedures FGM, per WP:COMMONNAME. SarahSV (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Read below, I've posted a few sources that have used the term "female circumcision". Since the WHO themselves use the term "female circumcision", and since FGM is also a WHO umbrella term, the WHO's usage of all the terms should be clearly defined. Muffizainu (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As for copy pasting in the lead, that's not required. If you should, you should copy past the WHO's defitinion in which it refers to Type 1a as "female circumcision". Muffizainu (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FGM = FC definition incorrect or citation required
The first sentence of the article is incorrect because it says FGM is "also known as" female circumcision. FGM is an umbrella term by the WHO, where as FC is one practice that falls under the WHO's coined term. I have added a tag to confirm the defintion of FGM = FC. If not then then I propose it should be reworded.Muffizainu (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirginTerminology section doesn't refer to how FGM is also known as female circumcision. Please TALK or add suitable reference. You may want to refer to this article for a better idea on the term: https://www.britannica.com/topic/female-genital-cutting Muffizainu (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a movement to end FGM led by Bohra women in India, WeSpeakOut. It is usually performed there on girls aged seven. WeSpeakOut organized a recent study involving 81 Bohra women who had undergone Khafd (Guardian, Reuters). Key findings:


 * "Though supporters of Khafd in India claim Bohras only practice Type 1a (removal of clitoral hood only) and Type 4 FGM/C (pricking, piercing, cauterization), participants in the study (including a medical doctor (OB-GYN) who observed Khafd in his Bohra patients) reported that both Types 1a and 1b (partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or clitoral hood) are commonly practiced with very few cases of Type 4 FGM/C (p. 2)."


 * The study concluded: "[T]here is no consistency or uniformity in the practice of girls Khafd in India. Accounts indicate that Types 1a, 1b, and Type 4 FGM/C are practiced by Bohras in India." When performed by a doctor, according to to the study, Khafd is more likely to be Type Ia or IV. When performed by a traditional circumciser, it's more likely to be Ia or Ib (p. 42).


 * It seems that there is a counter-movement within the Bohras to advocate for FGM and persuade people that it's just cutting the skin, i.e. Type Ia. They have set up a website. Anyone editing Wikipedia about FGM who is also, nvolved in off-wiki campaigning about it would have a conflict of interest. See Conflict of interest, specifically WP:COICAMPAIGN. SarahSV (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And your reason for posting the above information is why exactly? The Muslims called "Female Circumcision" analogous to Male Circumcision, and both are limited to the prepuce. That's what's in the Islamic scriptures, and that's what the WHO calls "Female Circumcision". Everything you're posting is actually agreeing with what i'm saying. The term "Female Circumcision" needs to be defined from different view points. As for the WHO, FC is a part of FGM, but the words are not synonymous. I've noticed you've inserted a quote by "Martha Nussbaum (Sex and Social Justice, 1999)" to substantiate that FGM and FC are the same words. You may want to read up on the following to understand the difference between "Female Circumcision" and FGM in terms of defintions. And you will realize there is another POV, and that should be taken into account:
 * https://www.britannica.com/topic/female-genital-cutting
 * Female circumcision in multicultural Singapore: The hidden cut: Gabriele Marranci1,2 1Macquarie University; 2Centre for the Study of Islam in the UK, Cardiff University
 * The Practice of Female Circumcision among Muslims in Kelantan, Malaysia - Author(s): Ab. Rahman Isa, Rashidah Shuib and M Shukri Othman Source: Reproductive Health Matters, Vol. 7, No. 13, Living without Children (May, 1999),pp. 137-144 Published by: Reproductive Health Matters (RHM) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3775716
 * Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy in the United States_ A History - Sarah B. Rodriguez
 * https://femalecircumcision.org/a-problem-of-definition-female-circumcision-vs-fgm/ Mohammed Zakir - WHO’s Stance and the Criminalization of Female Circumcision The Protection of or Violation of Human Rights


 * Muffizainu (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * To respond to your comments off topic and on me, on the FGM talk page, I do not have a conflict of interest as I am not among any one campaigning for or against WHO. I am making my remarks based on sources and evaluating sources in a topic of interest (FGM). Hope that clears that part of the discussion and you will not continue to accuse in favour of civility. Let us just discuss the content on FGM talkpage. Muffizainu (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting news report about FGM in the Dawoodi Bohra community. First, per WP:DUE, the article must reflect majority and significant-minority views as expressed by reliable sources, but not tiny-minority views. Our article does include some minority views, but we can't give them more space.


 * You wrote that you're "not among any one campaigning for or against WHO". If you're involved in any off-wiki activism about this issue, there might be a conflict of interest. WP:COICAMPAIGN says: "Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest."


 * The English term "female circumcision" has been used for decades to describe all forms of female genital mutilation. In the early 20th century, researchers and others began calling it "mutilation", and from 1990 the IAC called it "female genital mutilation". The WHO followed suit in 1991. From 2011 the English Wikipedia did too.


 * Trying to insist that "female circumcision" really refers to FGM Type Ia ignores that the WHO says Type Ia rarely happens alone. Women in your own community have said they've experienced Ia and Ib under the guise of what you call "female circumcision". The sources you produced above do not (that I can see) support your view, or are discussing Type IV (ritual nicking), or are not reliable. This article follows WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MEDRS (for the health aspects, which includes any claims about harm). Please see WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:POVFORK. SarahSV (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You wrote about campaigning conflict of interest.
 * I already clarified that I am not involved in a campaign off or on wiki and that you should stop assuming the same repeatedly because I said it clearly. It would be civil to discuss the user instead of the content as this is already behind us. I am not trying to insist a single claim based on my own knowledge rather would be willing to back it up with sources. I hope you do agree that making a claim with references is not disruption on the article rather due process. If you disagree with the content, sure, you can point it out here on talk and I will only insert it in to the article with consensus. I have registered your mentions of "NOTADVOCATE" and "POVFORK" and these are not my intentions. I am creating those for content wise differences, not in anyway to avoid the same editors who are on this page. You can surely join in and participate in consensus there too, once it is published, to keep that article NPOV too. Furthermore, WHO is not the sole authority on all topics concerning health. This is an article on Wikipedia, not a WHO site and WHO shall be given only WP:DUE weight as given to any other reliable source. With that said, any minority views, can be reflected as minority views. I'm not saying that we even mention minority views as a fact, rather attribute that view to that minority with sources that there are such views that exist too. Wouldn't excluding that would be censorship? If you agree with the good faith point at hand, we can move on to discussing sources and those minority views. I will try to keep it as such that there is no misunderstanding that the views are presented as global facts. We can ofcourse have the article in a way that it does show that none of the views are global facts, rather some backed up by WHO sources while others attributed (intext) to other sources so that there is no misunderstanding at the reader end.Muffizainu (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * When there is fare discussion on FC vs FGM going on, how come there is sudden change of topic and advocacy/conflict of interest etc has come in picture.

It seems there is some other pressure tactics being utilised. -Md iet (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with other procedures
I added something that compared the ethics of male genital cutting (MGC) to female genital cutting (FGC) in the comparison with other procedures section, and was reverted with this explanation: "this is a long article about a procedure on females and it does not seem WP:DUE to mention views on male circumcision". First of all, what I wrote was only a sentence long. Furthermore, why can we compare FGC to rhinoplasty, breast enhancement, intersex genital mutilation, dieting, and body shaping, but not MGC? Also, it seems a little WP:POV to include a sentence that is pro-FGC/MGC, but not a source that is anti-FGC/MGC. Prcc27 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018
change Female Genital Mutilation to Circumcision (female) Beepilicious (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that the reliable sources should be followed and the terminology is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Voluntary FGM vs. involuntary FGM
In the article, I cannot find the words ′voluntary′ or ′involuntary′ at all. These two words are relevant to the debate concerning the legality and morality of FGM. So why not? VarunSoon (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * From the lead, "In half the countries ... most girls are cut before the age of five." That kind of issue makes it hard to see what "voluntary" would mean. Is there a reliable source suggesting that a significant number of cases are voluntary? There are sure to be a few but I don't think a source would claim the percentage was significant. It's hard to know what voluntary would mean in most of the communities where the practice occurs due to societal expectations. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion
Please ref edit difference. There is exclusive specific mention of one community in reference to region covering complete India. When issue has religious link of 12th century old community tradition, how can one bifurcated specific community which came in existence in 16th century is specially targeted on a sensible article of responsible world renowned encyclopedia.

The correction is done with proper citation, there is unexplained deletion. Comments invited to sort out the issue.Md iet (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert you, but from my perspective section is about the epidemiology (prevalence) and therefore information about history is not relevant in that particular section, so I agree the information should not go there. Perhaps the information could go elsewhere in the article or on a Dawoodi specific page. If you wanted to add information about the current prevalence in different regions or sects of India that are not already mentioned, I'm sure that would be welcome.Mvolz (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The information added is related with current prevalence only. All the sect bifurcated from 12th century Taiyabi Bohra are very much present now in India and all claim to be true Taiyabi. When issue is of religion base clarified in citation provided, mention of one specific sect exclusively here seems improper.Md iet (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There are other Taiyabi Bohra groups claiming to be headed by rightful Dai are very much in existence in India. In 1591 when Dawoodi Bohra sect came into existence, Sulaymani Bohra dai Syedna Sulayman bin Hassan claimed in in Akbar’s royal court that “he was the rightful Dai”. There was one more bifurcation in taiyabi in 1621Ad, when Alavi Bohras Dai Syedna Ali bin Ibrahim claimed of “true successor of his grandfather”.

The statement stating: "...reports suggest that FGM is also practiced ...., by the Dawoodi Bohra in India.", here in the article categorized as of "highly sensible" definitely single out a small sect. When the issue is having vast religious base involving all the Muslim communities in large, there are ample possibilities that this faith based practice may be continuing in many more and it has to be tackled in such a fashion that solution can be found to make people more aware and people should become safe. Targeted statement makes people defensive and delay proper solutions. Md iet (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

NSW Australia case
A group of people were convicted of FGM NSW Australia. However recently, all 3 were acquitted because the 'khatna' procedure they carried out did not equate to FGM. This case has been reported here: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5b68d25ce4b0b9ab4020e71c%7Cpublisher=New http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-11/genital-mutilation-convictions-overturned/10108106 https://femalecircumcision.org/not-a-mutilation/ I will add the information as a efn in the article. Muffizainu (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The decision doesn't say what you're implying. It's too long to read through, but the key point is that the court appears to have accepted the defence claim (or ruled that the Crown failed to establish otherwise) that the defendant(s) hadn't carried out "khatna" but "symbolic khatna".


 * The issue seems to be a flaw in local legislation, which the court suggests be corrected: "For completeness, if the intention of the legislature when enacting s 45 of the Crimes Act was to encompass all forms of female genital mutilation, then in our opinion, legislative amendment is necessary in order expressly to incorporate the fourth classification of female genital mutilation recognised by the World Health Organization and recommended to be prohibited by the Family Law Council" (para 523; also see para 524).


 * In any event, even if it had concluded otherwise, one case in Australia has no bearing on the sentence: "Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised ... by the Dawoodi Bohra in India." Sources: Diane Cole, "UNICEF Estimate Of Female Genital Mutilation Up By 70 Million", NPR, 8 February 2016, and Pam Belluck, "Michigan Case Adds U.S. Dimension to Debate on Genital Mutilation", The New York Times, 10 June 2017. SarahSV (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect:
 * 1. The case concluded that the procedure done to the two Bohra girls in Australia did NOT amount to a "mutilation". Its stated on para 521, cited below again for your reference:
 * "For the reasons set out above, we have concluded, on balance, that the extrinsic materials relied on by his Honour do not permit a construction of “mutilates” that departs from its ordinary meaning and we consider that its ordinary meaning connotes injury or damage that is more than superficial and which renders the body part in question imperfect or irreparably damaged in some fashion. It follows that we have concluded, with the greatest of respect for his Honour’s careful analysis of the legislation, that his Honour misconstrued the meaning of “mutilates” and hence misdirected the jury as to an essential element of the offence. "


 * 2. Your focus on the word "symbolic khatna" is also incorrect. Yes, the circumciser had said that during cross examination, but this judgement does not give that any weight. The trial judge decided that extent of what was done was irrelevant and that no matter what the extent, it ought to be regarded as a mutilation. The appeal judges overturned that and clearly said that it was NOT a mutilation and therefore not a crime. The UNICEF article you cited also confirms that "the data is not robust” in regard to the Dawoodi Bohra community.


 * 3. To answer your question. Yes, one case in Australia DOES have bearing on the sentence, because the entire debate revolves around whether the practice of 'khatna' or 'khafd' by the Dawoodi Bohras equates to FGM or not. Australia was the first ever case involving the community, and that confirmed there was no "mutilation".


 * Secondly, the article you cited about the Michigan case clearly mentions the lawyers counter position: "“What she did does NOT meet the definition of female genital mutilation,”. That case has yet to start, so there's no reason to jump to conclusions on the practice and whether it is or isn't FGM. Let the courts decided that.


 * This position (that the Dawoodi Bohra practice isn't FGM) is also being tested and challenged in the India High Court. You may refer to the following articles:

https://www.livelaw.in/female-genital-mutilation-dr-singhvi-objects-the-illusory-classification-between-male-and-female-circumcision/ http://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/khatna-not-construed-female-genital-mutilation-technically-no-mutilation-sc-told-53660


 * So, concluding, the Australia case clearly states it wasn't "mutilation". If we can agree on that, it would add useful information to the Dawoodi Bohra practice in the larger debate of FGM, because as you may already know, the “M” in FGM is for the word “mutilation”. This is why it needs to go into the notes. Muffizainu (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming what you say is correct, the conclusion would be that a single court in a single case in a single country reached a decision regarding whether the legal definition of "mutilation" applicable in that jurisdiction and the judge's statement on that definition were sufficient to find particular people guilty in a particular case. That would be WP:UNDUE in this article, even as a footnote because there would be no limit to the number of footnotes that could be added regarding cases in different regions. What counts in this article is how reliable sources such as UNICEF regard the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well if that's your position for "reliable sources" then the article cited is NOT a UNICEF article, it's a private Blog. Plus, the section is about the communities "NOT accounted for in the latest UNICEF report". So, there's no UNICEF report on the Dawoodi Bohras. It is also unclear how reliable UNICEF and WHO are on this particular issue, as they have become advocacy engines rather than presenters of facts.
 * I agree that the article shouldn't have multiple notes, however, till that there has only been only 1 case relating to this community, and that too has confirmed there's no "mutilation". The people practicing it do not identify with the term FGM. So at the very least there should be room to give information from both sides of the spectrum NPOV . Muffizainu (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, what one court in Australia rules has no bearing on the sentence in this article: "Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised ... by the Dawoodi Bohra in India."


 * The judge's view included that if the Australian government wanted its legislation to match the WHO definition, they should amend it. You've ignored that part of the ruling. This article does follow the WHO definition.


 * You're also ignoring anecdotal evidence from Dawoodi Bohra women who say they were cut. For example, Tasneem Raja: "As little girls, nearly all my female Bohra friends and I underwent khatna, the sect’s term for this practice. None of us remember being 'wiped.' We were cut. Some of us bled and ached for days, and some walked away with lifelong physical damage." This from another Dawoodi Bohra woman, Mariya Karimjee:


 * "When I was seven years old and living in Karachi, Pakistan, my mother took me to the pediatrician. While I sat on a stool, polishing imaginary dirt off the buckles on my Mary Janes, my mother quietly asked if it was time for me to get the bug removed. According to my mother, a bug was growing in an egg down there-- her language, not mine-- and that it would hatch and eventually crawl to my brain unless we removed it, she said. My pediatrician agreed. It was time to see the woman who removes the bug. ... [Afterwards], [f]or two days, I wore what I can only describe as a big-girl diaper, wet with blood. Peeing was so painful that I tried to last for hours without going, until my mother explained that I could give myself an infection. ...[Years later], I visited a doctor who specialized in victims of FGM. ... This doctor, unlike so many of the gynecologists I'd seen before, didn't wince when she peered between my legs. She didn't over-apologize or pat my knees. She didn't murmur in a hushed whisper, like the medical resident at Columbia, "oh, bless your dear heart." Instead, she silently examined me. She'd heard of the religious sect that I belong to and had examined other girls like me.She explained that because the cutting is done in the living room without proper medical equipment, for girls in my sect, the results varied. Some of the girls can easily go on to have great sex lives. But for me, the main difference was in the extensive scar tissue and the nerve damage. ... She told me what I'd long suspected. I'd probably never have a wonderful, easy, uncomplicated sex life. Instead, sex for me would likely involve many careful conversations with my partner, a sex therapist, and a willingness to trust a human beyond what I could imagine.""


 * Clearly, where traditional cutters perform these procedures, you're going to end up with a variety of outcomes. SarahSV (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the responses. I think we're missing the point
 * 1. We're debating an article on "Wikipedia". This is not a WHO article, and thus, according to Wikipedia's NPOV stance, both sides of the arguments must mentioned.
 * 2. SarahSV is focusing on the bearing of one sentence and that isn't my contention. I am not challenging the sentence. Using that same logic, my question is, since we now have only ONE case about this community, and that ONE case has negated the term "mutilation", and since this article talks about "mutilation", shouldn't this article - at the very least - be allowed to add a simple note for the readers reference? Why is it that SarahSV can cite 2 random articles, and a legitimate court ruling in Australia cannot be added as a note, let alone a part of the actual text? There are some serious neutrality issues here that are pushing a one sided POV.
 * 3. SarahSV. I have not "ignored" the part of the ruling highlighted by you. However, that legislation has yet to be past. When it is, please feel free to add it. At the same time, what HAS been already passed, should also be allowed, at least as a note.
 * 4. SarahSV. I don't know why you've cited random anecdotal articles about alleged claims of FGM by some, no one is ignoring anything. Like I've explained in Point 2, that isn't the contention, and that's a debate for another day. If your reasoning is to cite anecdotal evidences, then what is your justification for ignoring the voices of 70,000 women who say it's not FGM?
 * In order to be neutral, if you're citing based on the arguments of one side, you should, at the very least, cite the other side of the spectrum.
 * 5. As User:Johnuniq pointed out, since "reliable sources" haven't cited FGM with the Bohra community, then there should be a discussion whether that sentence should be mentioned at all. But that's a debate for another day.
 * Concluding. This Wikipedia article must have a NPOV. It revolves around the word "mutilation", and that word should be defined, and relevant material should be cited and noted in this article. And that is why this case judgement, which is the first of it's kind, must be cited.Muffizainu (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: "It revolves around the word 'mutilation', and that word should be defined". We follow the definition of the United Nations (UNICEF, WHO, etc), per community consensus. What seems to have happened in this case is that it relied on legislation that did not follow that definition, which is why the judge made reference to updating the law.


 * Re: "both sides of the arguments must mentioned". Please read WP:UNDUE. This is the FGM parent article, and it covers FGM all over the world. Legal cases occur regularly and legislation is updated. We can't add a sentence or footnote about every single case; we've alluded to a few that had significant legal implications, but otherwise not. The Australian case belongs in the Dawoodi Bohra article (I've added it) or in Female genital mutilation in Australia (but don't create it to cover this one case or to make this case overwhelm it). SarahSV (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is my understanding of the Australian case. The defendants were charged with performing khatna. The defence said: "Our clients did not perform khatna. They performed only 'symbolic khatna'". This was not accepted at trial, either because not true, or because, if true, it was still FGM. It was accepted by the appeal court, which told the government: "If you want your legislation to cover "symbolic khatna" too, you'll have to amend it.

Which part of this, if any, have I misunderstood (succinctly, please)? SarahSV (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)