Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 5

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

6 August 2009 (comment moved from To-Do list)

You need to add Malaysia to your list. 99% of ethnic Malay who are Muslims have it done (hoodectomy)
It is now extremely rare in Indonesia, but male circumcision is universal among Muslims and not in the other groups 75%-80% Indonesian males circumcised —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 114.123.224.147 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC) and has been moved from the To-Do list. —MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 08:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

12 September 2009 (comment moved from To-Do list)

You need to also see a piece in the May/June 2009 issue of World Watch magazine on female circumcision in The Gambia by an anthropologist, Dr. Dawn Starin, who talks about it in a piece called Notes from The Gambia —Preceding unsigned comment was added by Gambianbojang (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC) and has been moved from the To-Do list. —MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 08:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Why isn't Ethiopia listed with the other countries in this article? --Bluee4567 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Ethiopia has just been added with a linke to US State Department report and a UNICEF Documentary video link. Puhleec (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dowsett/HIV

Dailycare has once again added Dowsett et al. to the HIV section.

Dowsett's paper, entitled "Male circumcision and HIV prevention: is there really enough of the right kind of evidence?", is primarily concerned with penile circumcision (hence the title), and in fact it does not even mention FGC, FGM, or FC. It contains a single reference to the female genitals, the sentence reading: "Yet, Langerhans cells occur in the clitoris, the labia and in other parts of both male and female genitals, and no one is talking of removing these in the name of HIV prevention." Dowsett's argument here is, to paraphrase, that the mechanism by which (male) circumcision reduces the risk of HIV is not enough (in Dowsett's opinion) to justify doing it. Dowsett employs FGC as a means of making this argument. Yes, I agree that Dowsett is indeed speculating that FGC might also reduce the risk of HIV, but this is far from Dowsett's main point.

Dowsett should not be cited here, for two reasons. First, Dowsett is taken out of the original context. Secondly, including reference to Dowsett, especially an entire paragraph, gives it an extraordinary amount of weight. It risks giving the reader the misleading impression that Dowsett's speculation is a carefully referenced, detailed argument rather than what is actually a single, vague, off-hand sentence in a paper that is actually about another subject. Jakew (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Concerning the context, I don't see why that would be a problem. The point was made in a paper on genital modification and HIV, and the point relates to FGC and HIV. In fact, even if made in a paper primarily about something different than genital modification, the point itself would still relate to FGC and HIV. Concerning the second point, you're right in that Dowsett doesn't expand on the issue. However I don't agree that the appropriate response is to excise (pun intended) the idea from this article, since Dowsett is not the only source making this point. If you feel that the point needs further sourcing, you can add more sources and/or replace Dowsett with other sources making the same comparison. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
As stated, the paper is about penile circumcision, which is not the subject of this article. The connection to this article is tenuous, consisting of merely a single sentence. If another reliable source can be cited instead, that would be quite satisfactory. What source(s) did you have in mind? Jakew (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, again, we're citing a part that does relate to FGC. There exists a number of sources discussing the theory that Langerhans cells can at least in some situations be infected with HIV, and that the protective effect seen in some studies of male circumcision could be attributed to Langerhans cells. That Langerhans cells are present in female genitalia is similarly widely known (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19093957), so this issue is by no means something the mentioning of which would be counter to WP:undue. --Dailycare (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's one text discussing the issue: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/network-for-student-activism/w/Could_Female_Genital_Cutting_decrease_the_risk_of_HIV_infection_in_a_similar_manner_as_male_circumcision_and_if_so%2C_what_implications_does_this_have_for_Female_Genital_Cutting_eradication_efforts%3F --Dailycare (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately neither of these sources seem suitable. The first doesn't mention FGC (hence usage here would be original research, and the second fails to meet the reliable source requirements for medicine-related topics. What reliable sources have specifically suggested this mechanism for a protective effect of FGC? Jakew (talk)
Hi, unfortunately I notice you've once more removed the material from the article. You may for my part either 1) return the Dowsett reference to the article, 2) write out the langerhans theory and the fact that langerhans cells are excised in FGC (without making the connection), or 3) seek dispute resolution to resolve the inclusion or exclusion of Dowsett. Merry Christmas, --Dailycare (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If Jake's description at the top of this thread is accurate, then the Dowsett ref has no place in this article: although it mentions the concept of FGC, it doesn't, in my opinion, make any statement about FGC but merely mentions FGC while making a point about male circumcision. If Jake's description is accurate, then citing Dowsett here violates WP:OR in my opinion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I don't agree on your concept on WP:OR since Dowsett specifically does make this connection. I'll break now for Christmas and think about DR after that. I don't have easy access to journal contents, so if you or Jake do, I'd ask you to do some searching for other authors making the same point as I recall seeing it before. We're discussing a minor point here. --Dailycare (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to initiate some kind of dispute resolution, Dailycare, I'm happy to participate. Jakew (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Dailycare. Certainly you can initiate processes as listed in WP:DR if you wish (possibly an article-content RfC or a post to the WP:NPOV noticeboard) and I'll cooperate insofar as I have time available; but the first and most important step in DR is for us to try to work this out amicably among ourselves, so let's give that a good try.
Dailycare proposes adding the sentence "Dowsett (2007) has speculated that a mechanism seen as responsible for a partial protective effect against HIV in male circumcision, might also convey a partial protective effect against HIV in female circumcision.". I don't think I have access to the reference, but Jake says that the only mention of something like FGC in the reference is this: "Yet, Langerhans cells occur in the clitoris, the labia and in other parts of both male and female genitals, and no one is talking of removing these in the name of HIV prevention." Dailycare, could you please clarify: is the sentence you're proposing to add to the article based on this sentence that Jake quoted, or is there some other mention of FGC in the reference that you're basing it on?
In my opinion, the quoted sentence from the source doesn't support the sentence you want to add to the article, Dailycare. It's not entirely clear what assumptions Dowsett is implying. It's possible that Dowsett means that FGC would also provide a protective effect; but it's also possible that Dowsett means that neither male nor female circumcision provides a protective effect. Either of these assumptions would support Dowsett's argument against male circumcision.
Even if Dowsett were more explicit, changing the wording and putting it into the context of this article significantly changes its significance. Dowsett is merely making an argument against male circumcision; he's not proposing that maybe we should circumcise females; in fact, he says "no one suggests", which sounds pretty much against FGC. But the sentence you propose to put into the article makes it look as if Dowsett is actually suggesting FGC as a solution.
I agree that Dowsett does make a connection, although implicit; however, I'm not at all convinced that Dowsett would agree that your sentence is an accurate representation of the sentence in the reference. I don't think this reference should be used at all in this article, as I've explained above; if it is, in my opinion a more accurate representation of what Dowsett said would be "In the context of male circumcision and HIV, Dowsett mentions that female genitalia also contain Langerhans cells, but dismisses the idea of cutting these off."
I look forward to reading your response some time after you return from vacation, Dailycare. All the best, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading and dubious statements in the medical consequences section

In the "medical consequences" section there are several dubious claims that appear to be meant to mislead the audience. First there is the mention of a 2007 WHO study followed by a "citation" the citation in question refers only to the wikipedia article on the WHO. Furthermore in the third paragraph there is a discussion of supposed statistics within the "study" which sum up to a number greater than 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eh1537 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving the article

I noticed there was a request at the human rights Wikiproject to move this page. The suggested new title is indeed more encyclopedic. I will change that now, if there are no objections. Zujine (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • As evidence to bolster the claim for this, the policy on article naming states that Wikipedia should use the most common name. I searched both terms and the results make it clear. "Female genital cutting" gets 71.200 hits, whereas "Female genital mutilation" gets 537.000. So the latter is far more used. Zujine (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not move the article. There has been previous long (and heated) debate on this. Check the archives. The consensus for the existing term exists, and should not be changed by one editor, or one request. For the record, in the previous discussions I advocated for the FGM term. But after discussion, it is quite complex,I agree that the neutral term is better for this article. One factor is that your ghits method is actually not accurate. There are other reasons than that however. One of which is that NPOV requires a balance and neutrality between the terms. Female Circumcision is advocated by one group vehemently, and Female Genital Mutilation is advocated vehemently by another group. Female Genital cutting is in the middle.

So, please leave the article title alone. Atom (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Atomaton; there is a conflict between WP:UCN and WP:NPOV in the case of this particular article, and WP:NPOV should prevail. Moving the article would be a mistake, and at the very least should only be done after going through the appropriate forum. Jakew (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the background. Please accept my apology. I saw a 'request' on the Human Rights Wikiproject and thought I was doing the right thing. Zujine (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! You asked whether there were objections, which was the right thing to do. It's a wiki -- you can be bold. Mistakes can be fixed.
My own take is: FGC may be a less common term, but is used often enough in published sources to be usable here; and it's the more neutral term between the two common terms FGM and FC, each of which is further towards one end or another of a POV spectrum. I did some statistics on this using web searches, which I described in a discussion here. (I think the most recent discussion re moving FGC was there, i.e. at Talk:Circumcision.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to add a clarification of my position: I'm not contending that the term which lies at the median of usage along a POV spectrum should always be chosen. One could instead look at the distance between the median of the usage of each term from the overall median, and also give some consideration to frequency of usage. In this case, I think FGC wins out, as I argued. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I can see how what you say makes sense. —Zujine|talk 00:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

History

Why does this article not have a section on the history of this practice? That seems to be a fairly glaring oversight. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Medical reasons"

Studiodan has added (and later reverted my removal) a section entitled "medical reasons". The text is as follows:

  • Contaminated smegma, retained smegma or smegmaliths usually clear up when the cause is removed. The same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female. (Reference cited: C.F. McDonald, M.D. [1] "Circumcision of the Female")

There are several problems with this material:

  1. The first sentence is barely comprehensible. It is completely unclear why this has anything to do with medical reasons for female genital cutting. Indeed, it isn't even apparent that it is related to female genital cutting.
  2. The second sentence is non-neutral, and consequently violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia should not assert that reasons for FGC are valid or invalid.
  3. On closer inspection, it emerges that both sentences are actually quoted verbatim from the source, but are presented as Wikipedia's own prose. See WP:PLAGIARISM

For these reasons, the material should again be removed. Jakew (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edited:
  1. Fixed by reordering the two sentances.
  2. Reworded to show that this is stated by McDonald, and not whether it's valid or invalid.
  3. No longer quoted verbatim.
--Studiodan (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I've again removed the section.
Reordering the sentences does not address the fundamental problem — that "Contaminated, and retained smegma (smegmaliths) usually disapear when the cause is removed" has no obvious relationship to the subject of the article.
Also, while the opinion is at least attributed, there remains a severe undue weight problem with citing an obscure opinion from the 1950s, especially when only that opinion is cited. Here are some modern opinions:
  • "There are other differences, of course, between the removal of male and female preputial tissue. For instance, although there is some evidence about the medical value of male circumcision there is none about a comparable benefit in females." -- Benatar M, Benatar D. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48.
  • "The critical distinction between female genital mutilation and male circumcision is the potential medical benefits of male circumcision. These potential benefits warrant a parental role in decision making about this procedure." -- Lannon CM. Circumcision—The Debates Goes On [author's reply]. Pediatrics 2000; 105 (3): 681-4.
  • "In her reply, the Special Rapporteur [to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights] made a point of mentioning that the circumcision of male children did not concern the United Nations as only female circumcision was deemed a harmful practice to be eradicated. Consequently, it would seem inappropriate to consider under one head both female circumcision which is harmful to health and male circumcision which has no undesirable effect and it even considered to be beneficial." -- United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The implementation of the human rights of women traditional practices affecting the health of women and children: Follow-up report of the Special Rapporteur on traditional practices affecting the health of women and children. 1997.
Jakew (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Those are interesting dissenting opinions (which could be elsewhere in the article), but not a reason to exclude this section.--Studiodan (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Please work out the issues between editors first, and then make changes to the article. At a glance, it seems to me that one reference from 1959 discussing a technique for resolving an rare medical issue does not deserve prominence in the article. Surely there are more references, and more recent references if it is notable? Atom (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mboto et al. (2009) and HIV-FGC Link

Mboto et al.'s 2009 article is cited as an example of research that found an "increased risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC," but Mboto et al. actually did not find an association between HIV and FGC in their study. They write, "Furthermore, the observation that HIV (not HCV and or HIV/ HCV co-infection) was significantly associated (p<0.05) with both circumcised and uncircumcised women may suggest a non-contributory role of female circumcision in HIV transmission in the region. Several studies have previously shown that female circumcision may play a significant role in facilitating the transmission of HIV infection" (2009:307). I can see how their wording could be a bit confusing, but they are basically just saying that although their current study found no link between FGC and HIV, other authors have reported a link. I will move this citation to the list of sources that found no statistically significant association between FGC and HIV prevalence. Mvdecatur (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the full text of Mboto et al in front of me, but are you sure that quote is correct? It doesn't make much sense for there to be significant associations with both "circumcised" and "uncircumcised" women, unless they mean associations between HIV and something other than FGC status. The quote doesn't seem to support your assertion that they found no association.
I should point out that Mboto et al. conclude: "The prevalence of female circumcision may be a contributory occurrence factor in the transmission of HIV but not in that of HCV." Jakew (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with you that it seems strange to say that HIV is significantly associated with both circumcised women and uncircumcised women, and that is exactly what makes Mboto et al.'s discussion of their results rather confusing. I do have a copy of the full text in front of me, so I am completely confident that the quote is correct (I copy-pasted the quote directly from the text). That first quote was taken from the article's conclusion, and it is a reiteration of an equally confusing statement they made earlier in the article:
"HIV was significantly associated (p=0.033) (OR: 8.9474; 95% CI: 1.93– 25.004) with men with a history of urethral discharge and among those who claimed never to have had STD (p=0.005) (OR: 0.035; 95% CI: 0.04–0.33), however, no such association (p>0.05) was found with HCV or HIV/HCV co-infection. HIV and HCV rates were not statistically significant in women with previous history of STDs and STD related symptoms. Similarly, though more than one third (341/938) of the women admitted having been circumcised, HIV rates (not HCV and or HIV/ HCV) was significantly associated (p<0.05) with both the circumcised and uncircumcised" (2009:306). (directly copy-pasted from the article's text)
The way that Mboto et al. have written these statements, it unclear exactly who both circumcised and uncircumcised women have a significantly higher rate of HIV than. Earlier in the article's text Mboto et al. state that HIV infection rates were significantly associated with age and sex where women had a significantly higher rate of HIV infection than men (Specifically, "The prevalence rates were 78/928 (8.4%) (CI, 6.7–10.4) and 23/572 (4.0%) CI, 2.8–6.0) in women and men respectively" (2009:306)). Given this, I believe that Mboto et al. mean that both circumcised and uncircumcised women have a significantly higher rate of HIV infection than men (and this is surprising because Mboto et al. expected to find a higher rate of HIV prevalence in circumcised women), and so circumcised and uncircumcised women were statistically equally more likely to be HIV positive than men. FGC would therefore not be associated with a statistically significant risk of HIV infection compared to uncircumcised women.
And you are correct in that, in the article's abstract it does state that, "The prevalence of female circumcision may be a contributory occurrence factor in the transmission of HIV but not in that of HCV." However, none of the data discussed in the article actually shows FGC as a contributing factor, so it is completely unclear why Mboto et al. include this statement in their abstract. Moreover, they do not conclude this in the actual text of their article and in fact they explicitly state that their data may "suggest a non-contributory role of female circumcision in HIV transmission in the region" in the article's conclusion. It is possible that a mistake was made in the write-up of their abstract. The abstract also states that HIV prevalence was found to be higher in males than in females and this is unequivocally not what is stated in the article's text. In my opinion this is not a good example of research showing an association between FGC and HIV because of these inconsistencies and confusions in the article. Mvdecatur (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, that is puzzling. Perhaps data are in a table somewhere? It seems odd that the conclusion should appear in the abstract without support in the body.
Incidentally, while it seems likely that the authors were performing a comparison of the risk against that in men, I do not see any evidence that the risk was equally more likely, as you suggest, so your conclusion that "FGC would therefore not be associated with a statistically significant risk of HIV infection compared to uncircumcised women" seems unsupported. Jakew (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no data table in Mboto et al.'s article that includes information about circumcision status. And while I agree it does seem odd that information in an article's abstract would conflict with the article's actual findings, it does seem to be the case for this particular article. The wording of their discussion of the circumcision data is sufficiently confusing in the article's text that I could potentially see disagreement about what exactly they mean. However, they very explicitly state twice in the article's text that women had a higher HIV prevalence than men and yet in the abstract it is states that men were found to have a higher HIV infection rate. The abstract has some inaccuracies, and that is immediately clear if you read the actual article.
In regards to your second comment, it is true that Mboto et al. provide no specific statistical information about the different between HIV prevalence in circumcised and uncircumcised women. However, their statement in the text is immediately followed by the assertion that this data "may suggest a non-contributory role of female circumcision in HIV transmission in the region." And this is why I believe that there was no statistically significant difference found between circumcised and uncircumcised women. A "non-contributory role" means that circumcision in women was not found to "contribute" to the HIV prevalence. My conclusion is directly supported by Mboto et al.'s own conclusion about their data.
Based on your comments, it sounds like you have not yet had the chance to actually read Mboto et al.'s article. Until you have read the actual article and not just the article's abstract, I'm not sure that this discussion can continue much further. I would be in favor of just removing Mboto et al. (2009) as a source here if that is agreeable to everyone. Mvdecatur (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed something else: In the paragraph about HIV prevalence, Mboto et al. state that 78 of 928 women (8.4%) were HIV positive compared to 23 of 572 men (4%). They go on to say that 20 of the women were HIV-2 positive (2.2%) compared to 8 of the men (1.4%). This data shows a higher rate of HIV prevalence in women than in men. However, in a table of their data labeled Distribution of Subjects according to Age, Sex and History of STD's Mboto et al. state that 7 (1.2%) men were seropositive and 2 (0.2%) women were seropositive. This table seems to be in conflict with the numbers reported in the text, but closer inspection of the text reveals that the 1.2% men and 0.2% women numbers are for HIV/HCV co-infection rates. It would be easy for a reader to mistakenly assume that more men were HIV positive than women because of this confusing table. I wonder if someone other than Mboto et al. wrote the article's abstract and perhaps that explains the incorrect portrayal of the findings in the abstract. Mvdecatur (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have e-mailed the article's author asking for clarification on the issue of HIV prevalence in circumcised versus uncircumcised women, and I'm sure that the response will clear up all of this confusion. Mvdecatur (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Jewell, an author of the Mboto et al. article, was kind enough to respond to my e-mail and clarify this confusion about HIV prevalence in circumcised versus uncircumcised women in the study. He said that the abstract is misleading and that, "Both circumcised and uncircumcised women had a higher HIV infection rate than men, and more circumcised women were HIV positive than uncircumcised women but the difference was statistically not significant." The Mboto et al. article should therefore remain cited with the other studies that did not find a statistically significant difference. Mvdecatur (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Genital mutilation in USA

Soon coming to a hospital near you

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/-248862--.html
http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2010/05/10/sanctioning-barbarity-american-academy-of-pediatrics-and-the-new-york-times/


NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Pediatricians now reject all female genital cutting

Removal of Serbia

Removed the following paragraph:

"Other regions - Serbia This is the unique European country, where a traditional FGC of Type III (infibulation) is practicised during centuries, chiefly in Sumadija county of central Serbia. It was applied there almost on the females of Gedje tribe, being the Orthodox slavicized descendants of ancient Balkanic aborigines (see Bibliography: G. Buschan 1935; R. Sträuli 1992). Thus before WWII, about 1/5 of Serbian females were infibulated and now nearly 10% are included mostly older ones. In Serbian Moslems, and in ethnic Serbs out of Serbia, this practice is almost unknown."

There is no such thing as the "Gedje tribe".

There are no verifiable references or citations.

The UN UNFPA FAQ page "In which countries is FGM/FGC practiced?" does not make any mention of Serbia. http://www.unfpa.org/gender/practices2.htm#12

The World Health Organization web page "Prevalence of FGM" does not make any mention of Serbia. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/prevalence/en/index.html

The World Health Organization "Eliminating Female genital mutilation - An interagency statement" document does not make any mention of Serbia. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf

The Amnesty International "What is female genital mutilation?" does not make any mention of Serbia. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT77/006/1997/en/3ed9f8e9-e984-11dd-8224-a709898295f2/act770061997en.html

Simply stated, there is no evidence of FGM practice in Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.196.254 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Serbia

I have to question the inclusion of Serbia in this article. I read the paragraph about Serbia in total disbelief. I've lived in Serbia for a dozen years in the 80s and have never ever heard of any kind of genital mutilation of any sort. Furthermore, I cannot find anything supporting evidence on the web. The paragraph in question does not cite any references whatsoever.

I would suggest that the paragraph about Serbia be removed until it is supported with citations and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.196.254 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore Google does not show any results for the "Gedje tribe" mentioned in the paragraph as perpetrators of female genital mutilation in Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.196.254 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Until and unless the information is sourced, it does not belong in the article, per WP:V requirements. (However, please user edit summaries for your edits). Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

None of the sources in this paragraph say anything about Saudi Arabia: "The practice occurs particularly in northern Saudi Arabia, ... In the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, it is practiced mainly among foreign workers from East Africa and the Nile Valley. " Noloop (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Male genital cutting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_genital_cutting

sounds very much more positive than this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.185.14 (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a clear reflection of the POV of Wikipedia editors vis-a-vis human genital cutting. WP:NPOV is a valid ideal but it has yet to take hold in this area, nor is there any will for it to take hold. Blackworm (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


NPOV means expressing the many applicable viewpoints. It does not mean that an article should be "neutral" and avoid describing viewpoints that are non-neutral." Male Genital cutting -- an act that is voluntary body modification, is much different than a father hacking off his baby daughters clitoris (or clitoris and labia and sewing everything closed) so that she will not be tempted to "sin" when she is older via the experience of sexual pleasure -- with his Imam's blessing. Atom (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I am discussing non-neutral and gender biased article titles. You are discussing something else, and spouting fallacies in the meantime. Blackworm (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The term "male genital cutting" is barely used in reliable sources (Google Scholar returns 72 results, and 5 of the 10 on the first page appear to be matches for the hyphenated "fe- male genital cutting"). Jakew (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
One issue is why "male genital cutting" does not redirect to "circumcision" (which only discusses male circumcision), but "female circumcision" redirects to "female genital cutting." How do your WP:OR, sometimes misleading Google searches throw light on that apparent strangeness? Blackworm (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Female genital cutting" is a fairly well-established term with a well-defined meaning (basically, any form of modification of the female genitals). "Male genital cutting", on the other hand, appears to be a neologism (arguably a protologism) that lacks a well-established definition. Taken literally it obviously means anything involving cutting of the male genitals, of which circumcision is but one form. In my opinion, the "male genital cutting" redirect should really be deleted as a neologism; in the meantime genital modification and mutilation is probably the best match. Jakew (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The appropriate title for the Female Genital Cutting/Mutilation/Circumcision article has been discussed many many times before, hence the use of the more "neutral" title. You suggest that there is gender bias in the article title, when in fact, the use of female versus male genital cutting is a function of culture, and the many reasons for either defined by culture. The Wikipedia article title is merely descriptive of the cultural use of the act, and the term. Atom (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
"Female genital cutting" means the cutting of female genitals. "Male genital cutting" means, well, you get the idea. Blackworm (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

I looked at this page in the context of an RfC on photographs for Genital modification and mutilation, and I must say that I'm surprised that there's not a single photograph in this article. One would certainly enrich the article for those who have no idea what such a procedure looks like. I note the discussion above, but, frankly, an "emotive" picture would be better than nothing at all. I also have a vague suspicion that arguments of that ilk are just attempts to slip around WP:Censor. The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I could handle an image, and it would show what the procedure was like. But the 'shock' factor should also be considered, No? If it were possible to embed the image, so the user had to press a button to see it (such as the show button), then that may be an acceptable compromise. —Zujine|talk 03:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I would have an image of the whatever the 'final product' looks like available in the article without embedding - no real difference between that an a circumcised or pierced penis (of which we have many) in imagistic terms. With regards to a photograph of the procedure being performed - all images I've seen on Google are horrifying. I am somewhat uncertain about embedding, due to WP:Censor, but I wouldn't object to it. The Rhymesmith (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Cries of censorship without even having a specific picture in mind are basically nonsense. If and when there is a specific image that someone wants to include, there will be something to discuss. Nsk92 (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No. I am not crying censorship (presuming you're referring to me). I am merely remarking that this is an article which should have a photograph, and that on articles such as this, there are often folk who would prefer that "shocking" images, etc., not be included, for a spectrum of reasons. You would appear to be one of those individuals - a remark about as inane as yours. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This conversation is going nowhere fast. Talking about whether or not we would or would not include a photo without a specific proposal is pointless. Nandesuka (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
So, does anyone have a specific proposal, then?—Zujine|talk 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
On Wikicommons there is this file FGC that is used by the DE Wiki with the note "FGC Type I and partial II with clitorides still present". For the pictures that The Rhymesmith mentioned on google, I've seen them too, but I don't know how is with the copyrights for them, in principle I don't have anything against them.--Dia^ (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The picture illustrating Type III circumcision is seriously misleading in context of FGM, as there is male subject on this photo. See this article for details. Please, remove the photo! --84.50.182.154 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Title

In case anyone here is interested, there's a discussion at Talk:Circumcision about whether to move that title to Male circumcision, and have a dab page at Circumcision that lists some of the relevant male and female articles, with a suggestion here as to what the dab page might look like. Anyone interested in joining the discussion please see Talk:Circumcision#Title. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Type "1a" and other types...

I was just reading through this article, as I had been hearing a fair bit of discussion lately about the similarities and differences between male and female circumcision. From my reading of "type 1a," it does sound quite similar to male circumsion, as only the "clitoral hood or prepuce" is removed. As far as I understand, that part of the female anatomy is analogous to the male foreskin or "prepuce." It says in the article that "some view" it as analogous, which implies that others don't. Who has which view on this, and why? I'd like to see more information there.

I was also a bit confused as to why the complete removal of the clitoris was classed as merely being a variation of this - "type 1b" - when it seems more analogous to the complete amputation of the penis. I would think that makes it different enough to be classed as a completely separate type, but I guess Wikipedia is just reporting the classification system that the WHO came up with...

I didn't see any discussion about which types of cutting are most prevalent. For instance, what percentage of female-cutting is roughly equivalent to male circumcision - such as type 1a? What percentage involves a more total removal of the external genitals - such as amputation of the whole clitoris or of the clitoris and labia? What percentage is relatively minor modification - such as certain types of "type 4" where the clitoris is merely "pricked with a needle" or "pierced"?

I'm also wondering whether it's NPOV for Wikipedia to refer to all types as "mutilation," when certain types seem no more severe than male circumcision. -Helvetica (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The WHO advocate against female circumcision, and advocate in favour of male circumcision. That makes it clear why that categorization is chosen by them. Why we adopt that categorization as our own, is unknown. It is similar to our adoption of the WHO's vague prevalence categories for male circumcision (20-80% is one category, implying non-importance of variance within that range).
I am not surprised by your confusion on these questions, despite the articles. The confusion is a reflection of the confused state of sources and the strong advocacy both in favour of male circumcision and against female circumcision. The topic is a nebula requiring days of study and varied sources to form a source-based view, and there is great interest in maintaining that low level of understanding, contributing to Wikipedia's difficulty in presenting articles on the topic that answer the most basic questions a reader may have. Blackworm (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Blackworm for shedding a bit of insight. I wonder if there are other sources besides the WHO which might help shed more light on this issue. Also, do you happen to know if there's an article here to compare male circumcision with the various types of female circumcision (or "cutting," or whatever word one prefers)? I've also heard that there are some other variations of male circumcision which differ from the more common variety, such as a vertical cut done by some Aboriginal tribes in Australia....I went ahead and changed "mutilation" to "cutting" in the type1 section to better fit with NPOV. ~-Helvetica (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of good sources cited in the articles, I suggest if you are interested to begin with those. Advocacy websites on all sides may be good pointers to other reliable sources, but their added interpretations, and choice of material are often biased and should be considered in a skeptic light. Primary sources seem to often contain good, unbiased information, even if rarely, inexplicably strongly biased or extremely questionable assertions are made, which can be capitalized upon by editors keen on having their POV reflected in the articles. Secondary sources are useful for illustrating the way a topic is presented to a wider audience, and sometimes contain useful information. Unfortunately there is some undue bias against secondary sources in the articles, especially in the male circumcision article, apparently based on an argument that the entire topic is a medical topic, and thus only the medical community's primary sources are neutral enough to be used. I dismiss that argument as an undue narrowing and compartmentalizing of the topic, which I believe goes as far as to violate WP:NPOV policy. This has caused a lot of heated discussion, and I invite you to review the archives if you have the stomach for long, sometimes bitter disputes. I'm glad you've found my comments helpful, and hope you find the answers you are seeking. Blackworm (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, if you look at older versions of articles, you may find some other sources other editors found useful. Again, interpretations may be biased or incomplete. For example, one interesting source [2] uses different categorizations of female circumcision than the WHO; but these are still called "Type I," etc. That source was in the article in 2007,[3] but since has been removed from the article. Blackworm (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Another source from that period since cut from the article is the UNFPA. Note the paragraph on "circumcision," under the heading, "Different terms are in use to describe FGM/FGC. What do they mean?" Blackworm (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


@Helvetica: You have been misinformed about a claimed analogous nature of male/female circumcision. It would be quite tricky (and pointless) to remove a tiny flap of skin (the prepuce) above the clitoris in an infant. Removing the prepuce is a byproduct of the cutting required to slice out the clitoris, with drastic consequences for the girl (stimulation of the clitoris "may produce sexual pleasure in the female and orgasm, and is considered the key to females' sexual pleasure"). According to the WHO (see below), removal of the prepuce only is very rare. Your recent edit (diff) changed "mutilation" to "cutting" for NPOV. However, the section in question is about the view of the WHO, and they unambiguously refer to the procedure as "female genital mutilation". Here is what the World Health Organization[4] currently says (underlining added; only "type 1" shown):
Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types.
1. Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "According to the investigators, these findings contribute to a better understanding of sexuality outcomes in cut women and provide evidence to negate the argument of female genital cutting proponents that cut women experience reduced sexual sensation [...]."[5]
  • From the article: A five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that "sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by the majority ["nearly 90%"] of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences."[6]
Blackworm (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, you say that I "have been misinformed about a claimed analogous nature of male/female circumcision." But what I said that seemed to be analogous was not all types of female circumcision/cutting, but rather "type 1a," where the prepuce and only the prepuce was removed. Now I'm not a doctor, but it's my understanding that the female clitoral hood is analogous to the male foreskin, and they are both refered to as "prepuce." I don't see the relevance (to this immediate issue) of how rare or common this variation might be. The relevant question for this particular issue is whether or not this variety of female circumcision is or isn't analogous to male circumcision, and so far I haven't seen any argument cited as to why it isn't.

You say "It would be quite tricky (and pointless) to remove a tiny flap of skin (the prepuce) above the clitoris in an infant." As to the difficulty, I'm not a doctor, so I don't know. I do know though that female cutting is not always done during infancy, and the same is also true for male circumcision. For example, most Muslims circumcise their boys much later in childhood. Your statement about pointlessness doesn't really seem to address the issue at hand either. The question was about whether the two procedures (male circumcision and removal of the clitoral hood/prepuce) are analogous, not about the utility of either procedure. Most Europeans would probably say that male circumcision was "pointless" too. Anyhow, many, if not most, rituals are done more because of tradition and/or pleasing of god(s) than any utilitarian function. For example, if you ask most Orthodox Jews why they circumcise, they'll say "because g-d commands it," as they would with keeping "Kosher," etc. It's the more modern movements in Judaism which have reinterpreted older traditions in more utilitarian ways.

Now, regarding my edit, you say that my "recent edit (diff) changed "mutilation" to "cutting" for NPOV. However, the section in question is about the view of the WHO, and they unambiguously refer to the procedure as "female genital mutilation" In that section, I left alone where it said "The WHO—which uses the term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)—divides the procedure into four major types." I also left it where it said "The WHO defines Type I FGM as the partial or total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce (clitoral hood); see Diagram 1B." In both of these cases, it it made clear that Wikipedia is *presenting* the view of the WHO. Wikipedia is reporting on what the WHO says. But the sentence which I changed had read "When it is important to distinguish between the variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed:" In this case, it appears that Wikipedia is *asserting* that FGC is in fact mutilation, which violates NPOV. So that is why I changed that particular sentence. -Helvetica (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The intro and 'consent'

The intro makes a couple of references to 'consent' (some unsourced), which seems a bit out of place as the idea of 'consent' is not really well established in the cultures where it takes place. I'm loathe to alter the lede on an article which I imagine is quiet controversial, but someone needs to look at this. Ashmoo (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Prevalence

For the one who is deleting my text in prevalence, plz leave it. It contains valuable information and is written out of a neutral perspective.

I have absolut no idea why you erased it two times. Your reason was "misc tidying up & removal of original research)" I please you, the WHO homepage itself contains these information, why i used the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted this material because it is unsourced or poorly sourced, thus failing our content policies. To be specific:
  • No sources whatsoever were provided for the paragraph reading: "As a result of immigration, the practice has also spread to Europe, Australia and the United States. Some tradition-minded families have their daughters undergo FGM whilst on vacation in their home countries. As Western governments become more aware of FGM, legislation has come into effect in many countries to make the practice of FGM a criminal offense. In 2006, Khalid Adem became the first man in the United States to be prosecuted for circumcising his daughter."
  • In the paragraph beginning "FGM was officially practiced in Egypt until 2007", the cited source does not appear to support the text reading "but it is excpected that the black numbers are still high and will be for the next decades."
  • The paragraph "Saudi-Arabia started with campaigns against the practice" is sourced to a blog. Blogs are generally unacceptable as sources. Please see WP:SPS.
  • The source http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html is cited in support of the paragraph "A lot of sources exist for the practice, but all sources point into different directions. It is obvious that the FGM is mainly practiced in Africa and islamic countries. Therefor a goal is not achieved by blaming the practice on just one ethnic group or by defining down the practice because the numbers are under 30% and it would be "unpleasant" to mention. Even if a country official forbids or denies the practice, it is often in the sociological structure as a tradition. Its hard to get such behaviour out of the line of generations because its part of the believing and religion. The meaning of freedom of religions is often abused in this context to justify FGM because it can be seen as a practice in the religion", but it does not support what is stated. Where does this source comment on sources pointing into different directions? Where does it assert that it is obvious that it is mainly practiced in Africa and Islamic countries (and what does "obviousness" even mean in this context)? Where does it say anything about blaming ethnic groups? Where does this the 30% figure come from? As far as I can tell, the source says nothing of the sort. This is nothing but original research, with a link masquerading as a source for the paragraph. Jakew (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Santiago, if you want to make a positive contribution to this article, I suggest you start with one or two small changes or additions. English obviously isn't your first language, so any edits you make will need to be improved to be grammatically correct. Also, as Jakew said, many of your edits seem to be not 100% supported by the source you provide. I think it is better if you do one edit, let us all make it conform to wikipedia standards, and then make another edit. Ashmoo (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The text of your first point wasnt even written by me. To your second point, Egypt practiced it until 2007. It is also a logical Conclusion that the Circumcision is not erased over night. To your third point. Ok if it is a blog then i will agree to delete it. To your fourth point. This text is very important for me, because i want to exspress the context between cultural tradition and problems to stop the circumcision. To your fifth point. My intention is based on a positive contribution. "if you want to make a positive contribution to this article, I suggest you start with one or two small changes or additions. English obviously isn't your first language, so any edits you make will need to be improved to be grammatically correct" i feel very offended with this text. I can see a subtile outclass youve done togehter with a provocation. I dont like you. This site doesnt belong to you or Jakew. You cant discriminate someone, erase texts by others and only support each other with special edit permissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To address these issues in turn:
  • I'm not interested in who wrote the text; I'm interested in ensuring that it meets our content policies. Since you reverted my removal, it's your responsibility to fix it, per WP:BURDEN.
  • Regarding the second point, we cannot include our own conclusions, however logical they may seem. Please see WP:NOR.
  • Regarding the third point, fine.
  • Regarding the fourth point, I understand that it's important to you, and I encourage you to find suitable sources making these arguments. But we cannot include original commentary. That's policy.
I will let Ashmoo respond to the remainder of your comment. Jakew (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed point two and three. To point four... my text is based on the middle part of the official WHO Homepage, as you can see by the source. if iam not allowed to sum up the content of the original WHO homepage, then entire wikipedia would only show links to sources without any texts. but i also altered my text that no personal comments appear inside. if you still see any personal statements which doesnt belong inside there. please tell me or make suggestion how to express my intention otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Santiago, I wasn't trying to provoke you or belittle your contribution in any way. I was simply trying to give you some friendly advice, to make your time in wikipedia easier and more fun for you. There are many other things I could say, but I think it would be easier if you just read wikipedia policy WP:AGF with an open mind. Ashmoo (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah sry, please ignore my previous text that i wrote here "You erased the content that FGM is practiced in kurdish based Regions, these are new researches. Leave it on this site. You have no right to alter new studies just because they represent something that you have not knewn. And if something is wrong with my statements, dont erase them but start discussing with me. This Page doesnt belong to you. I only wanted to give new evidence, and this is absolut ignored by you two." I have not seen that you moved the evidence of kurdish regions to another point. Thank you that my changes have been recognized and that any mistakes ofm ine have been corrected. For any previous statements i have to appologize. --Santiago84 14:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC) --94.220.219.138 (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.219.138 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a two last requests. I reread the sources and my text. I recognized that southern Jordania is also named. If you agree i would like to add south Jordania too. I also recognized that there are two statements of mine which could be named as a POV: "The practice can not be blamed on just one ethnic group, or be defined down because the appearance of the practice falls under a tollerable amount, or because it would be too "unpleasant" to mention. "I would like to delete the last parts of the sentence that it reads "The practice can not be blamed on just one ethnic group and may not be trivialised in these regions." --Santiago84 02:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Those edits sound good. Ashmoo (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement, but I've two further suggestions:
  • Change "be blamed on" to "be attributed to", as this will be more neutral. (While most Westerners think of FGC as a bad thing, for which it is reasonable to talk about "blame", that viewpoint is not universal.)
  • I don't fully understand what is meant by "may not be trivialised in these regions". Specifically, what regions? Can we clarify? Jakew (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

With the expression "may not be trivialised in these regions" i want to express that in a country which already has an ammount of 10 or 20 % that these numbers may not be ignored, even when they arent that high as in other countries. --Santiago84 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs)

Forgive me if I've misunderstood your explanation. But it against wikipedia style to tell the reader what they should care about and what they shouldn't. Wikipedia just gives the fact, it doesn't tell people whether a social problem is 'trivial' or not. Ashmoo (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Prevalence repeated info

I see there are 3 sections that seem to have the same information, or at least, lots of cross over: Prevalence, Prevalence & Laws and Attempts to end the practice. I propose merging the 2 'prevalence' sections and moving 'attempts to end the practice' that involve legal restrictions into this section. Ashmoo (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


I see the Problem and now know what you meant with declining my text to be posted in the prevalance section, because there is too much explaination of reasons for FGM inside. My thoughts of having some sentence for the reason of FGM inside prevalance section was to ensure that persons, who only want to know where it is practiced and who doesnt scroll to other parts on this site, still recieve a few additional informations. But we can also delete any content that doesnt belong inside there including my text. I guess a person who cares about this issue will not read every content, will it be a benefit to the building of the site if we would give it a more clearly represented view? How about writing a short introduction sentence or text to the Prevalence section?, which include that the List is not complete due to different problems of determination of Prevalence. But this is only a thought.

I would also agree by moving prevalence sections together.

I guess the "Laws and prevalence" Section should be updated too with Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Oman, United Arab Emirates --Santiago84 00:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs)


Why? (was: Why is there no section on motives/causes?)

If someone would like to work on that, then you can find sources in this article.--Snoopydawg (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a section called "Medical Reasons" with legitimate medical journal citations. But wikieditors keep removing it because it makes them uncomfortable.--Studiodan (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Is that what those removing the info say? That it should be removed because it makes them uncomfortable? That sounds odd. —Zujine|talk 11:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the history of/reasoning for this? All that's listed are vague references to "tribal ethnic culture", "traditional customs" and "religious views". I understand that the history is probably vague but as it's still going on today, some explanation should be available. Surely all the practitioners don't hold on to it simply because "it's what we've always done"? --70.142.34.215 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i would suggest that the section should be named "Reasons for Female Genital Mutilation". I already opened a section, i would be thankfull if others improve this part due to i only collected basic informations of official sources and studies. thank you. --Santiago84 09:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs)

Removed sections from Laws and prevalence

The user 24.20.202.34 removed the following sections from Laws and prevalence (Middle East section):

Lebanon
All forms of female circumcision are illegal in the Lebanese Republic.
Oman
United Arab Emirates

The rest of the section provides citations for various countries, but doesn't provide any claim to source. It doesn't really make sense to have a list of countries without relating it to the article, so if these countries are listed for a reason then they need claims and sources, otherwise they need to be deleted (in fact might already be deleted). As I don't speak Arabic it would be difficult for me to find a source for the Lebanon claim, so this is a request for assistance determining whether there is or is not a law regarding FGC in Middle Eastern countries. Ciotog (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

First step at providing content for the Middle East section is done - it certainly could use more work. Ciotog (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i know what you mean. I absolut agree with your additions, but i would like to ask if we can alter the mentioned sources in the sentences "According to the Christian Science Monitor and the Kurdish Human Rights Project, circumstantial evidence suggests the practice exists in Syria" because, in other wikipedia articles the source is never mentioned inside the text. If we start here to add the sources inside a sentence the meaning of it would get an unserious touch, in my point of view. --Santiago84 21:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs)

Maybe it would be better to put "circumstantial evidence" next to the country (in brackets like the other sections), and give the ref tag to that. The description attached below generally describes governmental and legal information for the country, so maybe something could be found to describe how each country is handling FGC. I wish there were more hours in the day...Ciotog (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good idea, i already collected some sources of the World Health Organisation (statistics and fact sheets), newspaper releases and other informations, but due to blogs are not allowed, its hard to find any useful informations. Hm... would it be possible that we use maths to get real percentages of female gender cutting among a country? For example, in Turkey we know that among the kurdish population FGM is practiced. When we now take the population of 73.000.000 in Turkey and take the population of Kurds of about 18 % (13.140.000 people), can we then use the 18 % to add a vague percentage to the prevalence? But in this calculation no other kurdish nationalities in turkey, like iranians, irakis or syrians would be included and the practice would be restriced to just kurdish persons.

I have not read everything yet, but here a some sources for the FGM section:

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88058

http://www.khrp.org/khrp-news/human-rights-documents/doc_download/220-the-practice-of-female-genital-mutilation-fgm-in-the-kurdish-regions.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0810/p06s01-woiq.html?s=t5

http://www.missio-aachen.de/Images/MR%20FGM%20Sudan%20de%20en%20fr_tcm14-7200.pdf

http://www.genderandsecurity.umb.edu/Women%20and%20Gender%20in%20MENA-Nusair.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/techareas/fgc/index.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

--Santiago84 12:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs)

Female gender mutilation Turkey, Iran, Irak and Syria. Related to these behaviour of pracitcing FGM, other violent forms of communication and supressing the reality and truth of a single individual takes place, like violence against women and family or to ensure that a theoretical honor, through the method of fear, is given which is based on ideologies of an elder one for example. Would such thoughts be an approval to the article? I often believe that you automatically name FGM as a single behaviour, and ignore other forms of violence that is given with these practice. If you ignore other behaviour "related" to FGM you would also ignore the possibility that such a practice is not unique to a single group but also present in cultures which are seperating FGM from their normal culture behaviour, which is also called violent in a civilization not practicing FGM, because of the different attitudes toward life. FGM is never present without other given violence, i hope that there is a way to make this information worthly naming it in articles related to FGM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.115.61 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/Archive_5"