Talk:Female genital mutilation in India

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brynneparkman. Peer reviewers: Alexmolini, Nanhezhu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Dead reference
The article referencing a statement from Mufaddal Saifuddin is pointing to a non existing link at http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31804&articlexml=CLARIFING-HIS-STAND-Circumcision-a-religious-rite-but-07062016008042 : 'The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, has stated that male and female circumcision (respectively khatna and khafz) are required as "acts of religious purity".[3]'

The only other related source, albeit from the same author on the same network but a different URL, is only liberally "interpreting" Mufaddal's statements (https://timesofindia.com/city/mumbai/Bohra-cleric-urges-female-genital-mutilation/articleshow/52031699.cms), and kind of "putting words in to his mouth". Also, the article fails to link to the alleged "viral audio clip" and so, it is hard to unambiguously confirm that Mufaddal "stated" anything at all the way it is claimed to be on this Wikipedia page.

I'm going to remove the blatant misdirection from this page unless anyone can revive the original source and/or provide evidence beyond doubt about what is being claimed without putting words into anyone's mouths or liberally interpreting anything to suit their personal bias.

Disclaimer: I'm a practising Dawoodi Bohra. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the dead link and clarified what was said. SarahSV (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've made an edit and requested citation for "total removal of clitoral hood" as a mandated religious practice among the Dawoodi Bohras. Naturally, any citation for that would have to come from someone well-versed in religious jurisprudence on matters concerning the Dawoodi Bohra faith. Citations to Dawoodi Bohra women interviews and comments complaining about Type 1b or Type 2 or other forms of FGM is insufficient in proving what's actually "mandated" by the faith itself; though, it is indeed sad that such a thing should come to pass in the name of religion. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted that edit. It seemed to involve a lot of WP:OR and specifically WP:SYN violations. For more information on the policy, click on those links. In short, your sources must discuss FGM in India or FGM as practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra and must be consistent with what is known about FGM. You should also consider whether you have a conflict of interest editing in this area. SarahSV (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've skimmed those. I get why the edits here need to be supervised.
 * Appropriate to discuss the edit here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=956773093
 * or is a new talk topic apt? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * or is a new talk topic apt? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * or is a new talk topic apt? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Replace "respect the law of the land" with verbatim quote
- The statement also emphasized the need to "respect the law of the land"

+ The statement also emphasized the need to "be loyal and law-abiding citizens"

Since, I believe:

1. Respect fails to capture "loyalty"

2. One's a verbatim quote from the referenced article, the other's not, unless I misread or missed something. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't follow that: "respect the law of the land" is in the article as a quote from the source. Are you saying the quote is not in the source? It certainly was at the time this article was written. Are you saying another quote from the source (Prophet Mohammed's "be loyal and law-abiding citizens") should replace the text in the article? Why? This is not about whether people should be loyal—the point of the existing quote is that the statement said that Dawoodi Bohras should respect the law of the land and that may limit what would normally be required as acts of religious purity. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't elaborate and left it a bit ambiguous there. I meant "respect the law of the land" isn't a hadith (from Mohammed).

> Are you saying another quote from the source (Prophet Mohammed's "be loyal and law-abiding citizens") should replace the text in the article? Why?

Yes, since the "religious obligation" around circumcision also take source from Mohammed, I thought it was only appropriate that it be juxtaposed with another of Mohammed's quote that Jamaat's statement invokes of requiring Muslims to be loyal and law-abiding citizens, too.

> the point of the existing quote is that the statement said that Dawoodi Bohras should respect the law of the land

...which is also a religious obligation precisely because it is a Prophet's hadith. Simply saying "respect law of the land" doesn't quite capture that information, I feel. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We're simply summarizing the statement; "respect the law of the land" is clear enough. SarahSV (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair. I've summarized it better, I feel. The statements echoing Islamic prophet Muhammad to "respect the law of the land" was not made in isolation but in the context of the bohra high-priest asking of his followers to not break local laws at any cost. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Mention alt-names for FGM/C in a single sentence?
- The term khafd is also used to describe the practice.

I think the statement should be merged with the preceding statement which goes "in a form known as khatna or khafz involving the total or partial removal of the clitoral hood" as:

+ in a form known as khatna, khafd, or khafz involving the total or partial removal of the clitoral hood

Thoughts?

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=956773093 Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That diff includes "citation needed" which is not satisfactory for an addition. An advantage of the current text is that it closely follows two clear sources. Two of the terms are said to involve the total or partial removal of the clitoral hood, but no source says that regarding the third term. The terms are a bit vague in the book by Christina Julios, "Female Genital Mutilation and Social Media". Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Julios
Julios' book has this statement which I quoted "The ban on female circumcision violates the religious rights of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim sect whose religious beliefs explicitly forbid human mutilation of any form and whose form of female circumcision ranges from no excision of the prepuce (clitoral hood), in the case where the prepuce is too small, to a maximum excision of 1 to 2 mm."

I don't see what's vague about it? To me, it is pretty clear indication of what's required by "religious practice" as mandated by the Dawoodi Bohra clergy. I request a "citation" for "total removal of clitoral hood" as a mandated religious practice among the Dawoodi Bohras because, I feel, someone well-versed in religious jurisprudence on matters concerning the Dawoodi Bohra faith needs to be on-record (there do exist independent experts like Farhad Daftary, for instance, who could verify this) that total excision of clitoral hood is mandated on religious grounds. I don't see that, instead, I see citations from interviews from Dawoodi Bohra women and comments left on an online forum complaining about Type 1b or Type 2 or other forms of FGM they have had to go through, which though reprehensible is also insufficient in proving what's actually "mandated" by the faith itself.

On the topic of vagueness: The opening statement in the Occurrence section, "FGM is practised by the Dawoodi Bohra", is what I'd call vague, since FGM is an umbrella term and what Dawoodi Bohras practice specifically is classified under Type 1a (and I cited source for it in the diff that was reverted).

Ref: https://dbwrf.org/press_details/125 Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. You say the Dawoodi Bohra require Type Ia (total or partial removal of the clitoral hood). But you also say that removal of the clitoral hood is not mandated. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. They say that the Dawoodi Bohra practice some form of FGM, type unclear. I'm aware of one informal study that found different types. Not much is known independently of the Dawoodi Bohra. SarahSV (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * total or partial removal of the hood, if I am not being totally daft, is Type 1a or minimal FGM, as classified by WHO. the Bohra faith does NOT require Type 1a FGM per Julios. these statements are both true. what the cited sources say are anecdotes of whoever WeSpeakOut surveyed having experienced an (unfortunate) "Type 1" cut, instead. what actually is mandated by the faith is mentioned in Julios' book (this is as "independently of the dawoodi bohra" as it gets, imo), which I cited in a edit that was reverted.
 * re: "type unclear": where'd you get that from the sources cited? I only see "Type 1" in all of them (for ex, here's the theguardian source from the article https://archive.is/sxLwY), with Julios being the most specific with may be Type 1a or may be even not that. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * re: "type unclear": where'd you get that from the sources cited? I only see "Type 1" in all of them (for ex, here's the theguardian source from the article https://archive.is/sxLwY), with Julios being the most specific with may be Type 1a or may be even not that. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Film
Film on FGM

Remove: "Based on this pending case[35]" Because: nothing of the sort in the cited source: https://archive.is/KQ2We

Remove: "...which won several accolade and was premier at Jagran Film Festival [37]" Because: Nothing of the sort in the cited source (which is also a garbage source): https://archive.is/C5rwi

Remove: "...at Kanpur, Prayagraj, Varanasi, Gorakhpur, Indore, Jamshedpur, Raipur and Hisar." Because: Uncited.

I intend to WP:BOLD rv the above if this talk topic goes unheeded. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging active editors and   Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing my attention to the problem. I have edited the article to tweak some text and remove the film section added in some edits in January 2021. If there are some useful sources regarding the film, a reworded section might be added. I am sorry to report that SlimVirgin died a few weeks ago, a great loss. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edits. Appreciate it. Re:Sarah: That's super super sad indeed. RIP. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by Aisnotokay (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

school assignment
hi, I'm also working on the same class assignment it will be done on December 20th please stop deleting the updated sections. Feel free to work on the article in whatever way you'd like prior to December 20th thanks! SophL09 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)