![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Orchid Project was founded in 2011 in London to help end Female Genital Cutting. Julia Lalla-Maharajh, Orchid Project’s founder, was volunteering in Ethiopia when she came across the scale and extent of female genital cutting there. She returned to the UK determined to do something about this. She volunteered with various NGOs working on FGC to discover more about the possibilities for ending FGC. In June 2009, she was on the Trafalgar Square Plinth, raising awareness about FGC. In January 2010, Julia entered a YouTube competition to attend the World Economic Forum. This called for one human rights activist to make a 3 minute video to highlight their urgent cause. In a global vote, she was sent to Davos to hold a debate with the head of UNICEF, Amnesty International and the UN Foundation. This was facilitated by Nick Kristof, co-author of Half the Sky. At Davos Julia met leaders from all over the world. Far from being disinterested, everyone urged her on and the question asked over and again was: “What works in ending FGC? How can we work together to end it?” She found some of the answers to these questions when in early 2011 she visited Tostan, a Senegal-based NGO whose community empowerment programme is leading to widespread abandonment across Western Africa. For the first time, instead of finding people being silenced, talking furtively about a taboo, working on the margins, Julia found entire communities celebrating their ability to choose a life without cutting. Returning from Senegal, she began to realise that an organisation focusing solely on ending female genital cutting was necessary to give the issue the requisite attention it deserves. In 2011, Orchid Project was founded to fulfil this role. [1]
Female genital cutting is an abuse of human, women’s and child rights. It contravenes a girl’s right to a whole body. It happens to girls without their permission and often against their will. It increases and perpetuates gender inequality. When FGC is practised on girls at a young age, it is often a precursor to child marriage, a further violation of girls’ rights. Female genital cutting is held in place by the entire community. Even if one person wants to leave their daughter uncut, it will be hard for them to act alone. The entire community must be engaged in a decision to collectively abandon FGC. Programmes that are based on education and empowerment, allowing communities to understand more about their human rights and responsibilities and also allowing them to talk openly about FGC are the most effective. Female genital cutting ends by an entire community choosing to abandon the practice and then collectively declaring this in front of one another. This means that the existing social norm of cutting their daughters shifts to a new social norm of not cutting their daughters. Once it is acknowledged that the practice is a constructed norm, people realise that FGC is not a useful or positive part of their lives, and they choose to abandon it. To solidify this commitment, public declarations of abandonment are vital. When a group of people stand up and publicly declare that they will no longer practice FGC, they are held accountable by everyone. In addition, the abandoning community must invite its inter-marrying communities to witness the declaration. This is because the witnessing community must be aware that their sons will now marry uncut daughters. The communities witnessing the public declaration also begin to question their own practices. This knowledge spreads through local, national and ultimately regional levels. Abandonment spreads exponentially. Since communities are linked via social networks, abandonment becomes quicker and easier as the movement gains momentum. This process of “organised diffusion” is what we are seeing in Senegal – a country which could completely abandon FGC by 2015. FGC programmes need to be non-directive and non-judgemental. Rather than dictating actions, opening up a conversation on the practice and its health and human rights impacts leads to self-directed questioning of practices and eventual abandonment. Orchid Project is a UK charity with Worldwide reach. [2]
Cyndiegue ( talk) 09:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Orchid Project is a UK-based organisation that seeks to deploy Tostan's human rights based approach to tackle FGC by providing the kind of educational and human rights information that inspires communities to reflect on how they organise themselves and why.
On the issue of gender, The Orchid Project, which is dedicated to ending the practice, gives a wry analysis: “Female genital cutting is required in order to make a good marriage match, because it is thought to indicate purity and virginity. In this sense, men support the practice by only marrying women who have undergone FGC. In order to reach collective abandonment of the practice, men must be willing to marry a woman regardless of whether or not she has been cut. Although FGC puts women at a marked disadvantage in society, the practice is primarily perpetuated by women and passed down from mother to daughter. Men may have a very limited awareness of FGC and its consequences. The practice is very much considered a 'woman's issue' and men tend not to get overly involved outside of the marriage process.” The work of The Orchid Project has been invaluable in showing, with great clarity, the reasons, history and arguments surrounding female genital cutting. For anyone learning about this issue, The Orchid Project is the first and best place to go. They point out that female genital cutting is not a religious issue, that it spans many countries and that it has serious physical and mental consequences for the women and girls who have undergone it. They are also clear-eyed about what it will take for the practice to stop: “Female genital cutting is a [what is known as] social norm. This means that it is held in place by the entire community. One individual acting alone cannot shift a social norm - the entire community must work together collectively.”
In particular, the London charity Orchid Project is working to help Senegal put an end to female genital mutilation — making it the first country where the practice was once widespread to stamp it out. Orchid Project, set up by businesswoman, Julia Lalla-Maharajh, believes “cutting” will be eradicated entirely from the West African country within the next two years.
References
Cyndiegue ( talk) 12:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)I've restored the material Harizotoh9 removed.
To what extent FGM is invariably harmful is also disputed. Anthropologist Richard Shweder cites reviews of the medical literature by epidemiologist Carla Obermeyer, who suggested in 1999 and 2005 that serious complications were the exception. [1] In 2003 Gerry Mackie disputed Obermeyer's findings, arguing that she had exaggerated the claims of the medical literature before dismissing them. [2]
Carla Obermeyer, "Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown and the Unknowable", Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 31(1), 1999 (pp. 79–106), pp. 92–93. PMID 10322603
Carla Obermeyer, "The Health Consequences of Female Circumcision: Science, Advocacy, and Standards of Evidence", Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 17(3), September 2002. PMID 12974204
Carla Obermeyer, "The Consequences of Female Circumcision for Health and Sexuality: An Update on the Evidence", Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 7(5), September–October 2005. PMID 16864215
Also see Richard Shweder, "'What About Female Genital Mutilation?' And Why Understanding Culture Matters in the First Place", Daedalus, 129(4), Fall 2000 (pp. 209–232), pp. 218–219.
I could go either way on this. What do others think? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting this featured! I have to say, I didn't myself realize just how proprietarian this procedure really was. But I don't understand the quote Those men who do manage to penetrate their wives do so often, or perhaps always, with the help of the "little knife." This creates a tear which they gradually rip more and more until the opening is sufficient to admit the penis. I'm not clear on whether the little knife is an actual knife or something else. Wnt ( talk) 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I see my attempt to bring this article into line with our MoS was undone. The issues are: why would we want the images hardcoded to random sizes? They will look daft on some resolutions and screen sizes. WP:IMGSIZE recommends not doing this and instead letting users set their own image size preferences. We also don't normally give photo credits to a non-notable photographer in the image caption. The image file itself is the place for this. Thoughts? -- John ( talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Would anyone object to replacing the <div>...</div>
tags used for blockquotes with more semantic <blockquote>...</blockquote>
tags (with the same styling)?
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Just noting here that today's Guardian seems to have its figures slightly wrong. It reports that in 1997 the CDC said 168,000 women and girls were living with FGM in the US in 1990. In fact, the CDC said 168,000 had undergone it or may have been at risk (p. 372).
Today the Guardian reports that it has obtained a new CDC report, as yet unpublished, which reports 513,000 living with FGM in the US. That raises the question of whether it is, as before, 513,000 with FGM or at risk.
There's no way to check so I've included it, but added "reportedly":
In the United States the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated in 1997 that 168,000 women and girls living there in 1990 had undergone FGM or were at risk.[220] A more recent, unpublished, CDC report, obtained by The Guardian in February 2015, reportedly estimates that 513,000 women and girls in the US have undergone FGM.
Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This article is still using a few old primary sources. This article, while fascinating, may be one example ? http://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=_1plUsryMYLWtAbv9YCIAg Some editors get very cross and cut out some such primary references from analogous articles such as the male Circumcision article. In general, but not exclusively, secondary sources are preferred, particularly for TFA articles.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 17:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This is due to go out as TFA in a few hours, yet there are still problems with it. A Featured Article should not contain material like this, and a TFA never should. Then there is the image problem noted above. I suppose it is too close to the cut-off to replace this with a more thoroughly-reviewed article. Note to self; be more vigilant in reviewing TFA queues ahead of time. As this stands, I am not confident it represents our best work. -- John ( talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi DRosenbach, it may seem like a minor issue, but regarding the change in the lead from "concentrated" to "primarily performed," do you mind if I change that back? "Concentrated" is a word several RS use, including UNICEF. Also, from a writing perspective, one word is better than two, and with "primarily" and "typically" in one sentence, another word would flow better. Do you feel that "concentrated" is unclear? Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I was particularly impressed at the comprehensive and well-balanced nature of this one. Good job! Brutannica ( talk) 03:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the repeated removal of the link to the map of Africa. [2] [3] It's there because most readers almost certainly aren't familar with its geography, so I placed it underneath the prevalence map so that they could see what the blank spaces represented. It was promoted with the link, so please gain consensus before removing it again. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I read your article, and I think you've done a great job overall of presenting the topic. The writings looks just fine, but like John, I have to take issue with some of the formatting. Most of it is nonstandard, some in the extreme. For example, there is an abundance of external links in the body of the article. Some may be appropriate there, but looking them over, I think most probably belong in an 'External links' section. Also, I noticed one instance of using "(above)" to indicate the position of a photograph being discussed in the text, which is generally discouraged. But, perhaps more importantly, the African map being linked above the color-coded map (the one to which John has above objected) is actually out of date (Sudan is listed as a single country). I think this would have benefitted from a good once-over before FAC to correct some of the more nonstandard items.- RHM22 ( talk) 20:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The intro states: "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics." This sounds like a rather politicized statement to me. Could this be reworded in a more neutral way? Essentially there are two views here: that of Westerners, who view the practice as a form of inequality, and that of the participants, who view the practice as socially important. This sentence directly endorses the Western viewpoint, rather than attributing it to sources. 67.188.230.128 ( talk) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that this "standard view" is still a point of view, and this should be presented as such. There are a lot of absurd practices (some very harmful, some not) such as genital mutilation, and stating that any practice is rooted in "gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics" is not provable. We could state that all mutilatory practices are rooted in those things too. How can this be demonstrated as "the standard view"? It would be better to state that many people believe it to be such, and provide a source. Awernham ( talk) 16:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Yohannesb, just to explain my revert, [4] I've used Lightfoot-Klein as a source in the article to describe the partial deinfibulation on the wedding night, because it's a standard description. The orgasm claims are less clear, and to juxtapose that source with peer-reviewed material is arguably a violation of WP:MEDRS (our medical sourcing guideline). Also, the conclusion of your edit, that the clitoris doesn't matter, doesn't follow from the previous sentences. The degree of damage is a major factor.
On the other hand writers do talk about the differences in sexual responses. If that section is ever developed (and I think a daughter article would be a better place, because it's a complex issue), Asma El Dareer's Woman, Why Do You Weep? is a good place to start, along with Lightfoot-Klein and more recent African academic and medical sources. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
We thought, we finally have found a medium that is neutral from biases. However, you are making this article only one sided. The whole issue of FGM has been around this myth, that is, it kills women's sexuality. After it was researched over 5 years, it has been found false by renowned medical journal. I don't think women's evolution has changed over the past 30 years. Therefore, your argument, because your finding is from recent journal doesn't make any sense. We, Africans, have been called "Savages" because of this issue. But, when it was found that it has no effect on women's sexuality, you cannot swallow the truth, the brutal truth. Yohannesb ( talk) 15:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The research conducted and the conclusion reached is not Meta-analysis. It is one sided and biased. In order that article to be Meta-analysis, the paragraph I've added must be included. All "15 studies involving 12,671 women from seven countries" were living in the UK. It is not clear how long they have lived in the UK. Any circumcised woman that have lived in the UK for a long period of time has already been brainwashed to believe that her sexual pleasure is less enjoyable. Moreover, the finding doesn't talk before and after FGM. This FGM issue has been grossly exaggerated beyond any proportion.
There is different king of FGM. In Sudan, they call it Pharaonic circumcision...it involves by putting together fleshy layers and leaving a narrow hole as it is shown in the picture. The write's findings is that the first time, "the Sudanese bride undergoes conditions of tremendous pain...". However, afterwards, her sexual pleasure is not so different from uncircumcised women. Therefore, the Sudanese women interviewed are not brainwashed to believe that their sexuality is less pleasurable than, say, white women. Yohannesb ( talk) 23:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), The argument of "ethnographic contexualization" is very weak. Human beings are physically the same regardless of their ethnicity, race, or national origin.
This article says << Feelings of shame and betrayal can develop when women leave the culture that practices (sic) FGM and learn that their condition is not the norm, but within the practicing (sic) culture they may view their FGM with pride, because for them it signifies beauty, respect for tradition, chastity and hygiene. >>
So, the article admits that there is a psychological influence of the women that leave the culture that practices FGM. Thus, interviewing circumcised women in the UK will produce different results than interviewing women in Sudan. Therefore, this article is biased and one sided. It is wrong to report it as Meta-analysis. Yohannesb ( talk) 15:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), 5 years of research and over 800 people interview is not lower quality of research. The lower quality research is this article, that is, an article written in the UK by interviewing women after brainwashing them that their sexuality is inferior because of the FGM. How do the women know the difference? It is like telling a man woman's sexuality or telling a child about maturity.
Be that as it may, after a long denial, you've finally admitted that, according to the research of genuine women (whose brain was not brainwashed), women in Sudan do have sexual pleasure despite going through FGM. Yohannesb ( talk) 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the article is missing same or part of an important issue the "social norms" behind FGM cutting. The most resent statistical report by Unicef [5] mention that this practice is based in social norms in which family choose to cut her daugher becouse other member important to them have their daugthers cut, and because they think these other members of community think they should have their daugther cut (see figure 3.1). Also to follow this "social norms" could give to the these girls "sexual restraint, femininity, respectability and maturity" according to the community and not to follow these "social norms" to social exclusion (only these is explain briefly in the article) harassmend, exclusion from important communal events and support networks, as well as discrimination by peers. [6] these "social norms" deeply embedded in the community are a source of great pressure in the girls population to conform these norms, if a girl do not carry FGM, marriage and childbearing will be denied for them [7]. Now days the European Commission and also USAid utilize the term [8] [9] also the US department of state [10]. So why no us too?-- Bsea ( talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Editors of this article may be interested in this discussion about whether the issue of FGM should be discussed in the Somalis in the United Kingdom article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there is an issue of the reliability of some sources used in the article, or at least the reliability of their representation. A recent edit was reverted for not using a 'secondary source' (although the source it did use is quite highly regarded and well-cited in the field, so should at least be included in the article to indicate the contentiousness and uncertainty of the issue of sexual pleasure in women who have undergone a genital cutting procedure). Very many sources in the article are not secondary sources (as far as can gather from the Wikipedia guidelines). Furthermore, the secondary source actually used in that section is not accurately represented. The source itself identifies the unreliability of its own results by saying "Caution is warranted in interpreting the results of our systematic review, given the quality of the evidence was too low to warrant conclusions about a causal relationship between FGM/C and sexual consequences, largely due to the weaknesses of the observational design of all included studies." This unreliability is not evidenced in the description of the result in this article which thus fails to exercise the caution advised by the authors of the study.
One primary source (which I'm taking to mean not a literature/systematic review of multiple publications, although I'm unclear on Wikipedia's exact definitions) which is cited without sufficient scrutiny is the WHO study on obstetric outcomes of FGM. This study has been criticised elsewhere as employing some creative use of statistics -- see point 7 in the linked article. Moreover, there are other large scale studies which have been neglected entirely and provide different results (e.g. that of Morison et al.). I don't think primary sources should be excluded from the article entirely, nor edits reverted with the sole justification of not using 'secondary sources' (although I do think the addition in the original reversion I mentioned was flawed, I think it should have been amended, not removed entirely). On the contrary, a variety of high-quality primary sources should at least be mentioned in order to give more accurate coverage of the actual research on the topic, and the fact that the black-and-white public perception of the effects of female genital cutting is completely at odds with the academic discussion which is far more unclear and contentious.
An asymmetry of scrutiny of sources risks fostering inaccuracies. Outsightful ( talk) 17:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Whilst I don't have direct knowledge of female genital mutilation, I have a male friend who at 43 is somewhat traumatised from having his penis cut about as a child. I find the passage "Until the 1980s FGM was widely known as female circumcision, which implied an equivalence in severity with male circumcision" somewhat insensitive. Nick Hill ( talk) 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Magioladitis, can you please gain consensus here – per WP:CITEVAR, WP:STYLEVAR and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle – before changing the citation formats or splitting up paragraphs? You've moved the order of references, [11] [12] unbundled references, [13] [14] split up a paragraph in the lead, [15] and added lots of templates. [16] With every AWB edit, you add unnecessary white lines between the headings and subheadings ( Yobot, Magioladitis).
I'm about to revert the changes, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop until there's consensus here on talk that the changes are needed or preferable. Many thanks, Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
<p>
with {{
Paragraph break}} is done for accessibility reasons to allow those using screen readers easier navigation and be able to read the entire article. This is made clear on the doc page of {{
Paragraph break}}.<p>
has nothing to do with
WP:CITEVAR nor
WP:STYLEVAR as it does not change the style or referencing structure.So I am working to translate key medical topics into more than 100 languages with my partners at Translators Without Borders. And this is one of those key articles. I hate all these fancy template that only work on En Wikipedia. We need less of them not more of them. Here is what happens with the {{Paragraph break}} template in Swahili [17] It doesn't work. The <p> however works just fine. Thus I have restored the <p> If you get your fancy new template working in all 278 languages than you can use it. Currently this decreases accessibility not increases it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
<p>
with {{
Paragraph break}} is done for accessibility reasons to allow those using screen readers easier navigation and be able to read the entire article." You are now denying those with screen readers. Please state a reason to deny ANYBODY the ability to read the entire article. Also, you pointed to the Swahili Wikipedia page, which has completely different template than any other Language Wikipedia page, of course it wouldn't work.
Bgwhite (
talk)
07:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
<p>
. I've been down this road before with TOC placement and this exact template. If there is content between the TOC and first section header, screen readers do not "see" it. Screen readers have to do a special key, but when no article anywhere on English Wikipedia has content between TOC and first section header or <p>
tags in references like this, then the users does know to press the special key. Other example is blank space between lists, which you cannot have. It breaks it into multiple lists of one item, which becomes very hard to navigate, thus is not allowed.Now there are a number of solutions that may solve this issue.
Lets give Slim some time to comment / some time for discussion to occur. These "p" have been in the article for many months. A few more days is not the end of the world. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay so population of the world is 7.3 billion minus 1 billion equals 6.3 billion. [18]
Anyway so I take it you are unhappy with <div></div> as a compromise? You appear not to be willing to even discuss it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
While the Template:Paragraph break says that this is how it works. And if one looks at the inside of it one sees <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite, it was Magioladitis who added the no-bots template. [19] I don't know what it means to say it was "illegally applied."
I'm going to ask a developer what the problem is with <p> between ref tags, and whether it can be fixed; and if it can't whether they can suggest a more elegant solution than adding dozens of templates, and one that won't affect translations. It makes sense to try that first.
The <p> tags are only one of the issues. There's the shuffling around of the references and the constant addition of white space (though these edits may stop if AWB edits do). It would be good if the edits could be replaced by discussion about whether these changes improve the article. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
<p>
became an effort to remove a few months back. There haven't been many in refs like this... 20 pages at most. Which is one reason it hasn't been much of an issue in the past.
Bgwhite (
talk)
09:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
HTML tidy removes <div></div> from a page. It doesn't work.It is also explained in the previous talk page discussion at [22] and how it is dependent on the site's common.css file. You have insulted me too. Stop that "I'm perfect" routine. For someone who doesn't care, you keep bringing it up. This is not a language "accessibility" issue as you say. It is an issue of taking 30 seconds to find/repace {{ paragraph break}} with <p>. The accessibility issue is adding the template for the benefit of millions blind people. You just do not get it that I find it highly insulting that you label 30 seconds an accessibility issue and the blind not an accessibility issue... and you keep bringing this up.
As evidenced by the above discussion, the assertions of User:SlimVirgin, User:Johnuniq and User:Zad68 don't constitute a consensus. Why does their version of the article take precedence over mine? Isn't reverting my changes more than 3 times in 24 hours still edit warring? PolenCelestial ( talk) 17:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The lead is likely the only bit most users would really read, thus precision there is by far more necessary than elsewhere.
"27 African countries" is FAR too vague. It should read "Egypt, Sudan and 25 Sub-Saharan African countries". Egypt is not only the "group leader" in terms of percentage and absolute numbers, but is also in most ways much rather part of the Arab world and the Middle East than it is of the "black continent". I see little chance of ingenuous counter-arguments to this. Sudan is a borderline issue, should be added for accuracy in the use of terminology. Arminden ( talk) 12:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Arminden
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Female_genital_mutilation&diff=659223604&oldid=659223495
All the sources necessary for my edit are cited in the prevalence of female genital mutilation by country article as I stated in the summary. Do I need to copy and paste all 238 of them in order to include it? Obviously it's convenient to revert because "unsourced" when the real reason is censorship. PolenCelestial ( talk) 01:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)References
This is not an article written by an attributed author who may be assumed to take responsibility for its conclusions and any calculations that it contains. At Wikipedia, and particularly with an article like this, it is necessary to wait for reliable secondary sources to catch up—we cannot overrule UNICEF's conclusions. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Closed per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#RfC vs. DRN |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The information I'm trying to include is being continually reverted by users who claim that UNICEF is the only reliable source for FGM statistics, despite other sources being cited in prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Discussion: [26] PolenCelestial ( talk) 04:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
RfC Refocusing:
(-: OnlyInYourMind( talk) 08:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
|
This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a current dipsute. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Female genital mutilation".The discussion is about the topic Female genital mutilation.Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Mark Miller ( talk) 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer).
"The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics. It is usually initiated and carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion." -Random Unregistered User, 11 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.154.148 ( talk) 07:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And are we able to use additional wording in a few places where we have "infibulated" to ensure that lay person can easily grasp it without scratching their head at "infibulated"? Perhaps at least a hyperlink to the page on "infibulation" but better in brackets a short explanation - could it be "severely cut", is that how one would say it to a lay person? Same with "defibulated", I think I have seen the word "restored" used? EvM-Susana ( talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I had added this information but it was removed by SlimVirgin: "On a practical daily level women who have undergone FGM may take a lot longer to empty their bladder than women who have not been cut. It may also be difficult for cut women to hygienically manage their menstruation, and some menstrual hygiene products, like tampons and menstrual cups may not be usable for them. citation needed" I understand that for an article of this high quality, the tag "citation needed" is not good. However, I strongly feel that this article is not paying sufficient attention to the daily struggles of cut women. The things listed under "complications" may or may not occur. But what I described about the longer urination time occurs pretty much always (for severely cut women from the Massai in Kenya for example). I was hoping that someone who is more into the topic of FGM could easily bring up a good reference to cite? I know this information only from talking to female Kenyan friends, but I am sure it is also documented in some reports somewhere. Can someone help me find it? Perhaps "complications" is not even the right heading for it, but rather "consequences" or "unwanted side effects"? EvM-Susana ( talk) 10:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Thank you for taking my concerns seriously. This is such a high quality article and I congratulate all the editors who have worked on it and kept the quality so high! About citing, may I point out though that this sentence in the article also has no citation and nobody has a problem with it? "An infibulated* girl may be left with an opening as small as 2–3 mm, which can cause difficult and painful urination. Urine may collect underneath the scar and cause small stones to form." - I think we should remind ourselves that FGM and its consequences are not purely a medical issue, but also a societal, gender, power, psychological etc. one. Therefore, only looking in the medical literature for sources that talk about the problems of cut women would be taking a view that is too narrow, woulnd't it? I actually come from the angle of sanitation (menstrual hygiene management) but there are so many different angles to look at this. You cannot just rely on top quality medical articles, there might also be a need for "lesser quality" literature if it relates not to medical problems but to other issues. Just in case someone is interested, I put here the link to a discussion forum where I was involved in a discussion (and also here). Sorry, not trying to advertise this discussion forum but just giving you some context where my deliberations are coming from. * Come to think of it, a layperson won't know what "an infibulated girl" is (the term infibulation is explained and hyperlinked at the start but the term "infibulated" should in my opinion be explained not just once, as readers may not read the article from front to end). Are we sure that only those women that are most severely cut experience such problems with urination? This is what the sentence implies as it stands now. To summarize, I think we need to better present the issues of urination (and menstrual hygiene management) for affected women. Hopefully we can track down some more information on that. EvM-Susana ( talk) 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This source certainly passes RS standards and addresses these issues in broad terms, as does this one with regard to both points. Neither puts the issue in the exact terms of increased time spent in the act of voiding, but they do speak to "poor urinary flow", "slow and painful menstruation and urination", that "micturition is also difficult as reported by the women" and that "urinary problems were most common as late complications". I share the sentiment that there must be sources out there which speak as to the issue of slow micturition, and much as I'm a stalwart defender of the need for explicit sourcing in general, I'm somewhat inclined to call it overkill to keep this content out pending discovery of that source, since all of the involved editors who have commented so far agree that it is not really a controversial statement but indeed a rather obvious consequence of the procedure for rather obvious reasons. That being said, if there remain concerns along those lines, there remains the possibility of at least referencing "urinary retention", as we have many hundreds (if not thousands) of high-quality sources in which that wording is employed, with detailed discussion of the physiology involved, and discussing both the medical implications and practical complications with regard to urination and menstruation. Snow let's rap 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I remember seeing a newspaper article about a clinic in Berlin that "reconstructs" the vaginas of cut women. I searched through the article but couldn't find any reference to the otions of reconstruction - perhaps a different term is used (once the term defibulation is used, but only once in passing), but I also couldn't find it by looking at the headings. Could this be useful to add, even if it is just a hyperlink to another page, if it's dealt with on another page? EvM-Susana ( talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I got this information from the afore-mentioned discussion forum and it made me wonder if the history section could be expanded with this type of information which is not there yet (pending finding something to cite of course): Re FGM in Egypt: In the mid 1970s when I was in Cairo during grad school, "safe" FGM surgical procedures were still part of the curriculum at Al-Azhar University medical school. EvM-Susana ( talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Nigeria has banned FGM. [28] [29] 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA30 ( talk) 21:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Orchid Project was founded in 2011 in London to help end Female Genital Cutting. Julia Lalla-Maharajh, Orchid Project’s founder, was volunteering in Ethiopia when she came across the scale and extent of female genital cutting there. She returned to the UK determined to do something about this. She volunteered with various NGOs working on FGC to discover more about the possibilities for ending FGC. In June 2009, she was on the Trafalgar Square Plinth, raising awareness about FGC. In January 2010, Julia entered a YouTube competition to attend the World Economic Forum. This called for one human rights activist to make a 3 minute video to highlight their urgent cause. In a global vote, she was sent to Davos to hold a debate with the head of UNICEF, Amnesty International and the UN Foundation. This was facilitated by Nick Kristof, co-author of Half the Sky. At Davos Julia met leaders from all over the world. Far from being disinterested, everyone urged her on and the question asked over and again was: “What works in ending FGC? How can we work together to end it?” She found some of the answers to these questions when in early 2011 she visited Tostan, a Senegal-based NGO whose community empowerment programme is leading to widespread abandonment across Western Africa. For the first time, instead of finding people being silenced, talking furtively about a taboo, working on the margins, Julia found entire communities celebrating their ability to choose a life without cutting. Returning from Senegal, she began to realise that an organisation focusing solely on ending female genital cutting was necessary to give the issue the requisite attention it deserves. In 2011, Orchid Project was founded to fulfil this role. [1]
Female genital cutting is an abuse of human, women’s and child rights. It contravenes a girl’s right to a whole body. It happens to girls without their permission and often against their will. It increases and perpetuates gender inequality. When FGC is practised on girls at a young age, it is often a precursor to child marriage, a further violation of girls’ rights. Female genital cutting is held in place by the entire community. Even if one person wants to leave their daughter uncut, it will be hard for them to act alone. The entire community must be engaged in a decision to collectively abandon FGC. Programmes that are based on education and empowerment, allowing communities to understand more about their human rights and responsibilities and also allowing them to talk openly about FGC are the most effective. Female genital cutting ends by an entire community choosing to abandon the practice and then collectively declaring this in front of one another. This means that the existing social norm of cutting their daughters shifts to a new social norm of not cutting their daughters. Once it is acknowledged that the practice is a constructed norm, people realise that FGC is not a useful or positive part of their lives, and they choose to abandon it. To solidify this commitment, public declarations of abandonment are vital. When a group of people stand up and publicly declare that they will no longer practice FGC, they are held accountable by everyone. In addition, the abandoning community must invite its inter-marrying communities to witness the declaration. This is because the witnessing community must be aware that their sons will now marry uncut daughters. The communities witnessing the public declaration also begin to question their own practices. This knowledge spreads through local, national and ultimately regional levels. Abandonment spreads exponentially. Since communities are linked via social networks, abandonment becomes quicker and easier as the movement gains momentum. This process of “organised diffusion” is what we are seeing in Senegal – a country which could completely abandon FGC by 2015. FGC programmes need to be non-directive and non-judgemental. Rather than dictating actions, opening up a conversation on the practice and its health and human rights impacts leads to self-directed questioning of practices and eventual abandonment. Orchid Project is a UK charity with Worldwide reach. [2]
Cyndiegue ( talk) 09:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Orchid Project is a UK-based organisation that seeks to deploy Tostan's human rights based approach to tackle FGC by providing the kind of educational and human rights information that inspires communities to reflect on how they organise themselves and why.
On the issue of gender, The Orchid Project, which is dedicated to ending the practice, gives a wry analysis: “Female genital cutting is required in order to make a good marriage match, because it is thought to indicate purity and virginity. In this sense, men support the practice by only marrying women who have undergone FGC. In order to reach collective abandonment of the practice, men must be willing to marry a woman regardless of whether or not she has been cut. Although FGC puts women at a marked disadvantage in society, the practice is primarily perpetuated by women and passed down from mother to daughter. Men may have a very limited awareness of FGC and its consequences. The practice is very much considered a 'woman's issue' and men tend not to get overly involved outside of the marriage process.” The work of The Orchid Project has been invaluable in showing, with great clarity, the reasons, history and arguments surrounding female genital cutting. For anyone learning about this issue, The Orchid Project is the first and best place to go. They point out that female genital cutting is not a religious issue, that it spans many countries and that it has serious physical and mental consequences for the women and girls who have undergone it. They are also clear-eyed about what it will take for the practice to stop: “Female genital cutting is a [what is known as] social norm. This means that it is held in place by the entire community. One individual acting alone cannot shift a social norm - the entire community must work together collectively.”
In particular, the London charity Orchid Project is working to help Senegal put an end to female genital mutilation — making it the first country where the practice was once widespread to stamp it out. Orchid Project, set up by businesswoman, Julia Lalla-Maharajh, believes “cutting” will be eradicated entirely from the West African country within the next two years.
References
Cyndiegue ( talk) 12:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)I've restored the material Harizotoh9 removed.
To what extent FGM is invariably harmful is also disputed. Anthropologist Richard Shweder cites reviews of the medical literature by epidemiologist Carla Obermeyer, who suggested in 1999 and 2005 that serious complications were the exception. [1] In 2003 Gerry Mackie disputed Obermeyer's findings, arguing that she had exaggerated the claims of the medical literature before dismissing them. [2]
Carla Obermeyer, "Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown and the Unknowable", Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 31(1), 1999 (pp. 79–106), pp. 92–93. PMID 10322603
Carla Obermeyer, "The Health Consequences of Female Circumcision: Science, Advocacy, and Standards of Evidence", Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 17(3), September 2002. PMID 12974204
Carla Obermeyer, "The Consequences of Female Circumcision for Health and Sexuality: An Update on the Evidence", Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 7(5), September–October 2005. PMID 16864215
Also see Richard Shweder, "'What About Female Genital Mutilation?' And Why Understanding Culture Matters in the First Place", Daedalus, 129(4), Fall 2000 (pp. 209–232), pp. 218–219.
I could go either way on this. What do others think? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting this featured! I have to say, I didn't myself realize just how proprietarian this procedure really was. But I don't understand the quote Those men who do manage to penetrate their wives do so often, or perhaps always, with the help of the "little knife." This creates a tear which they gradually rip more and more until the opening is sufficient to admit the penis. I'm not clear on whether the little knife is an actual knife or something else. Wnt ( talk) 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I see my attempt to bring this article into line with our MoS was undone. The issues are: why would we want the images hardcoded to random sizes? They will look daft on some resolutions and screen sizes. WP:IMGSIZE recommends not doing this and instead letting users set their own image size preferences. We also don't normally give photo credits to a non-notable photographer in the image caption. The image file itself is the place for this. Thoughts? -- John ( talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Would anyone object to replacing the <div>...</div>
tags used for blockquotes with more semantic <blockquote>...</blockquote>
tags (with the same styling)?
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Just noting here that today's Guardian seems to have its figures slightly wrong. It reports that in 1997 the CDC said 168,000 women and girls were living with FGM in the US in 1990. In fact, the CDC said 168,000 had undergone it or may have been at risk (p. 372).
Today the Guardian reports that it has obtained a new CDC report, as yet unpublished, which reports 513,000 living with FGM in the US. That raises the question of whether it is, as before, 513,000 with FGM or at risk.
There's no way to check so I've included it, but added "reportedly":
In the United States the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated in 1997 that 168,000 women and girls living there in 1990 had undergone FGM or were at risk.[220] A more recent, unpublished, CDC report, obtained by The Guardian in February 2015, reportedly estimates that 513,000 women and girls in the US have undergone FGM.
Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This article is still using a few old primary sources. This article, while fascinating, may be one example ? http://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=_1plUsryMYLWtAbv9YCIAg Some editors get very cross and cut out some such primary references from analogous articles such as the male Circumcision article. In general, but not exclusively, secondary sources are preferred, particularly for TFA articles.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 17:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This is due to go out as TFA in a few hours, yet there are still problems with it. A Featured Article should not contain material like this, and a TFA never should. Then there is the image problem noted above. I suppose it is too close to the cut-off to replace this with a more thoroughly-reviewed article. Note to self; be more vigilant in reviewing TFA queues ahead of time. As this stands, I am not confident it represents our best work. -- John ( talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi DRosenbach, it may seem like a minor issue, but regarding the change in the lead from "concentrated" to "primarily performed," do you mind if I change that back? "Concentrated" is a word several RS use, including UNICEF. Also, from a writing perspective, one word is better than two, and with "primarily" and "typically" in one sentence, another word would flow better. Do you feel that "concentrated" is unclear? Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I was particularly impressed at the comprehensive and well-balanced nature of this one. Good job! Brutannica ( talk) 03:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the repeated removal of the link to the map of Africa. [2] [3] It's there because most readers almost certainly aren't familar with its geography, so I placed it underneath the prevalence map so that they could see what the blank spaces represented. It was promoted with the link, so please gain consensus before removing it again. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I read your article, and I think you've done a great job overall of presenting the topic. The writings looks just fine, but like John, I have to take issue with some of the formatting. Most of it is nonstandard, some in the extreme. For example, there is an abundance of external links in the body of the article. Some may be appropriate there, but looking them over, I think most probably belong in an 'External links' section. Also, I noticed one instance of using "(above)" to indicate the position of a photograph being discussed in the text, which is generally discouraged. But, perhaps more importantly, the African map being linked above the color-coded map (the one to which John has above objected) is actually out of date (Sudan is listed as a single country). I think this would have benefitted from a good once-over before FAC to correct some of the more nonstandard items.- RHM22 ( talk) 20:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The intro states: "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics." This sounds like a rather politicized statement to me. Could this be reworded in a more neutral way? Essentially there are two views here: that of Westerners, who view the practice as a form of inequality, and that of the participants, who view the practice as socially important. This sentence directly endorses the Western viewpoint, rather than attributing it to sources. 67.188.230.128 ( talk) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that this "standard view" is still a point of view, and this should be presented as such. There are a lot of absurd practices (some very harmful, some not) such as genital mutilation, and stating that any practice is rooted in "gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics" is not provable. We could state that all mutilatory practices are rooted in those things too. How can this be demonstrated as "the standard view"? It would be better to state that many people believe it to be such, and provide a source. Awernham ( talk) 16:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Yohannesb, just to explain my revert, [4] I've used Lightfoot-Klein as a source in the article to describe the partial deinfibulation on the wedding night, because it's a standard description. The orgasm claims are less clear, and to juxtapose that source with peer-reviewed material is arguably a violation of WP:MEDRS (our medical sourcing guideline). Also, the conclusion of your edit, that the clitoris doesn't matter, doesn't follow from the previous sentences. The degree of damage is a major factor.
On the other hand writers do talk about the differences in sexual responses. If that section is ever developed (and I think a daughter article would be a better place, because it's a complex issue), Asma El Dareer's Woman, Why Do You Weep? is a good place to start, along with Lightfoot-Klein and more recent African academic and medical sources. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
We thought, we finally have found a medium that is neutral from biases. However, you are making this article only one sided. The whole issue of FGM has been around this myth, that is, it kills women's sexuality. After it was researched over 5 years, it has been found false by renowned medical journal. I don't think women's evolution has changed over the past 30 years. Therefore, your argument, because your finding is from recent journal doesn't make any sense. We, Africans, have been called "Savages" because of this issue. But, when it was found that it has no effect on women's sexuality, you cannot swallow the truth, the brutal truth. Yohannesb ( talk) 15:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The research conducted and the conclusion reached is not Meta-analysis. It is one sided and biased. In order that article to be Meta-analysis, the paragraph I've added must be included. All "15 studies involving 12,671 women from seven countries" were living in the UK. It is not clear how long they have lived in the UK. Any circumcised woman that have lived in the UK for a long period of time has already been brainwashed to believe that her sexual pleasure is less enjoyable. Moreover, the finding doesn't talk before and after FGM. This FGM issue has been grossly exaggerated beyond any proportion.
There is different king of FGM. In Sudan, they call it Pharaonic circumcision...it involves by putting together fleshy layers and leaving a narrow hole as it is shown in the picture. The write's findings is that the first time, "the Sudanese bride undergoes conditions of tremendous pain...". However, afterwards, her sexual pleasure is not so different from uncircumcised women. Therefore, the Sudanese women interviewed are not brainwashed to believe that their sexuality is less pleasurable than, say, white women. Yohannesb ( talk) 23:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), The argument of "ethnographic contexualization" is very weak. Human beings are physically the same regardless of their ethnicity, race, or national origin.
This article says << Feelings of shame and betrayal can develop when women leave the culture that practices (sic) FGM and learn that their condition is not the norm, but within the practicing (sic) culture they may view their FGM with pride, because for them it signifies beauty, respect for tradition, chastity and hygiene. >>
So, the article admits that there is a psychological influence of the women that leave the culture that practices FGM. Thus, interviewing circumcised women in the UK will produce different results than interviewing women in Sudan. Therefore, this article is biased and one sided. It is wrong to report it as Meta-analysis. Yohannesb ( talk) 15:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV), 5 years of research and over 800 people interview is not lower quality of research. The lower quality research is this article, that is, an article written in the UK by interviewing women after brainwashing them that their sexuality is inferior because of the FGM. How do the women know the difference? It is like telling a man woman's sexuality or telling a child about maturity.
Be that as it may, after a long denial, you've finally admitted that, according to the research of genuine women (whose brain was not brainwashed), women in Sudan do have sexual pleasure despite going through FGM. Yohannesb ( talk) 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the article is missing same or part of an important issue the "social norms" behind FGM cutting. The most resent statistical report by Unicef [5] mention that this practice is based in social norms in which family choose to cut her daugher becouse other member important to them have their daugthers cut, and because they think these other members of community think they should have their daugther cut (see figure 3.1). Also to follow this "social norms" could give to the these girls "sexual restraint, femininity, respectability and maturity" according to the community and not to follow these "social norms" to social exclusion (only these is explain briefly in the article) harassmend, exclusion from important communal events and support networks, as well as discrimination by peers. [6] these "social norms" deeply embedded in the community are a source of great pressure in the girls population to conform these norms, if a girl do not carry FGM, marriage and childbearing will be denied for them [7]. Now days the European Commission and also USAid utilize the term [8] [9] also the US department of state [10]. So why no us too?-- Bsea ( talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Editors of this article may be interested in this discussion about whether the issue of FGM should be discussed in the Somalis in the United Kingdom article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there is an issue of the reliability of some sources used in the article, or at least the reliability of their representation. A recent edit was reverted for not using a 'secondary source' (although the source it did use is quite highly regarded and well-cited in the field, so should at least be included in the article to indicate the contentiousness and uncertainty of the issue of sexual pleasure in women who have undergone a genital cutting procedure). Very many sources in the article are not secondary sources (as far as can gather from the Wikipedia guidelines). Furthermore, the secondary source actually used in that section is not accurately represented. The source itself identifies the unreliability of its own results by saying "Caution is warranted in interpreting the results of our systematic review, given the quality of the evidence was too low to warrant conclusions about a causal relationship between FGM/C and sexual consequences, largely due to the weaknesses of the observational design of all included studies." This unreliability is not evidenced in the description of the result in this article which thus fails to exercise the caution advised by the authors of the study.
One primary source (which I'm taking to mean not a literature/systematic review of multiple publications, although I'm unclear on Wikipedia's exact definitions) which is cited without sufficient scrutiny is the WHO study on obstetric outcomes of FGM. This study has been criticised elsewhere as employing some creative use of statistics -- see point 7 in the linked article. Moreover, there are other large scale studies which have been neglected entirely and provide different results (e.g. that of Morison et al.). I don't think primary sources should be excluded from the article entirely, nor edits reverted with the sole justification of not using 'secondary sources' (although I do think the addition in the original reversion I mentioned was flawed, I think it should have been amended, not removed entirely). On the contrary, a variety of high-quality primary sources should at least be mentioned in order to give more accurate coverage of the actual research on the topic, and the fact that the black-and-white public perception of the effects of female genital cutting is completely at odds with the academic discussion which is far more unclear and contentious.
An asymmetry of scrutiny of sources risks fostering inaccuracies. Outsightful ( talk) 17:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Whilst I don't have direct knowledge of female genital mutilation, I have a male friend who at 43 is somewhat traumatised from having his penis cut about as a child. I find the passage "Until the 1980s FGM was widely known as female circumcision, which implied an equivalence in severity with male circumcision" somewhat insensitive. Nick Hill ( talk) 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Magioladitis, can you please gain consensus here – per WP:CITEVAR, WP:STYLEVAR and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle – before changing the citation formats or splitting up paragraphs? You've moved the order of references, [11] [12] unbundled references, [13] [14] split up a paragraph in the lead, [15] and added lots of templates. [16] With every AWB edit, you add unnecessary white lines between the headings and subheadings ( Yobot, Magioladitis).
I'm about to revert the changes, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop until there's consensus here on talk that the changes are needed or preferable. Many thanks, Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
<p>
with {{
Paragraph break}} is done for accessibility reasons to allow those using screen readers easier navigation and be able to read the entire article. This is made clear on the doc page of {{
Paragraph break}}.<p>
has nothing to do with
WP:CITEVAR nor
WP:STYLEVAR as it does not change the style or referencing structure.So I am working to translate key medical topics into more than 100 languages with my partners at Translators Without Borders. And this is one of those key articles. I hate all these fancy template that only work on En Wikipedia. We need less of them not more of them. Here is what happens with the {{Paragraph break}} template in Swahili [17] It doesn't work. The <p> however works just fine. Thus I have restored the <p> If you get your fancy new template working in all 278 languages than you can use it. Currently this decreases accessibility not increases it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
<p>
with {{
Paragraph break}} is done for accessibility reasons to allow those using screen readers easier navigation and be able to read the entire article." You are now denying those with screen readers. Please state a reason to deny ANYBODY the ability to read the entire article. Also, you pointed to the Swahili Wikipedia page, which has completely different template than any other Language Wikipedia page, of course it wouldn't work.
Bgwhite (
talk)
07:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
<p>
. I've been down this road before with TOC placement and this exact template. If there is content between the TOC and first section header, screen readers do not "see" it. Screen readers have to do a special key, but when no article anywhere on English Wikipedia has content between TOC and first section header or <p>
tags in references like this, then the users does know to press the special key. Other example is blank space between lists, which you cannot have. It breaks it into multiple lists of one item, which becomes very hard to navigate, thus is not allowed.Now there are a number of solutions that may solve this issue.
Lets give Slim some time to comment / some time for discussion to occur. These "p" have been in the article for many months. A few more days is not the end of the world. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay so population of the world is 7.3 billion minus 1 billion equals 6.3 billion. [18]
Anyway so I take it you are unhappy with <div></div> as a compromise? You appear not to be willing to even discuss it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
While the Template:Paragraph break says that this is how it works. And if one looks at the inside of it one sees <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite, it was Magioladitis who added the no-bots template. [19] I don't know what it means to say it was "illegally applied."
I'm going to ask a developer what the problem is with <p> between ref tags, and whether it can be fixed; and if it can't whether they can suggest a more elegant solution than adding dozens of templates, and one that won't affect translations. It makes sense to try that first.
The <p> tags are only one of the issues. There's the shuffling around of the references and the constant addition of white space (though these edits may stop if AWB edits do). It would be good if the edits could be replaced by discussion about whether these changes improve the article. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
<p>
became an effort to remove a few months back. There haven't been many in refs like this... 20 pages at most. Which is one reason it hasn't been much of an issue in the past.
Bgwhite (
talk)
09:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
HTML tidy removes <div></div> from a page. It doesn't work.It is also explained in the previous talk page discussion at [22] and how it is dependent on the site's common.css file. You have insulted me too. Stop that "I'm perfect" routine. For someone who doesn't care, you keep bringing it up. This is not a language "accessibility" issue as you say. It is an issue of taking 30 seconds to find/repace {{ paragraph break}} with <p>. The accessibility issue is adding the template for the benefit of millions blind people. You just do not get it that I find it highly insulting that you label 30 seconds an accessibility issue and the blind not an accessibility issue... and you keep bringing this up.
As evidenced by the above discussion, the assertions of User:SlimVirgin, User:Johnuniq and User:Zad68 don't constitute a consensus. Why does their version of the article take precedence over mine? Isn't reverting my changes more than 3 times in 24 hours still edit warring? PolenCelestial ( talk) 17:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Female genital mutilation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The lead is likely the only bit most users would really read, thus precision there is by far more necessary than elsewhere.
"27 African countries" is FAR too vague. It should read "Egypt, Sudan and 25 Sub-Saharan African countries". Egypt is not only the "group leader" in terms of percentage and absolute numbers, but is also in most ways much rather part of the Arab world and the Middle East than it is of the "black continent". I see little chance of ingenuous counter-arguments to this. Sudan is a borderline issue, should be added for accuracy in the use of terminology. Arminden ( talk) 12:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Arminden
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Female_genital_mutilation&diff=659223604&oldid=659223495
All the sources necessary for my edit are cited in the prevalence of female genital mutilation by country article as I stated in the summary. Do I need to copy and paste all 238 of them in order to include it? Obviously it's convenient to revert because "unsourced" when the real reason is censorship. PolenCelestial ( talk) 01:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)References
This is not an article written by an attributed author who may be assumed to take responsibility for its conclusions and any calculations that it contains. At Wikipedia, and particularly with an article like this, it is necessary to wait for reliable secondary sources to catch up—we cannot overrule UNICEF's conclusions. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Closed per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#RfC vs. DRN |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The information I'm trying to include is being continually reverted by users who claim that UNICEF is the only reliable source for FGM statistics, despite other sources being cited in prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Discussion: [26] PolenCelestial ( talk) 04:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
RfC Refocusing:
(-: OnlyInYourMind( talk) 08:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
|
This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a current dipsute. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Female genital mutilation".The discussion is about the topic Female genital mutilation.Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Mark Miller ( talk) 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer).
"The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics. It is usually initiated and carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion." -Random Unregistered User, 11 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.154.148 ( talk) 07:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And are we able to use additional wording in a few places where we have "infibulated" to ensure that lay person can easily grasp it without scratching their head at "infibulated"? Perhaps at least a hyperlink to the page on "infibulation" but better in brackets a short explanation - could it be "severely cut", is that how one would say it to a lay person? Same with "defibulated", I think I have seen the word "restored" used? EvM-Susana ( talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I had added this information but it was removed by SlimVirgin: "On a practical daily level women who have undergone FGM may take a lot longer to empty their bladder than women who have not been cut. It may also be difficult for cut women to hygienically manage their menstruation, and some menstrual hygiene products, like tampons and menstrual cups may not be usable for them. citation needed" I understand that for an article of this high quality, the tag "citation needed" is not good. However, I strongly feel that this article is not paying sufficient attention to the daily struggles of cut women. The things listed under "complications" may or may not occur. But what I described about the longer urination time occurs pretty much always (for severely cut women from the Massai in Kenya for example). I was hoping that someone who is more into the topic of FGM could easily bring up a good reference to cite? I know this information only from talking to female Kenyan friends, but I am sure it is also documented in some reports somewhere. Can someone help me find it? Perhaps "complications" is not even the right heading for it, but rather "consequences" or "unwanted side effects"? EvM-Susana ( talk) 10:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Thank you for taking my concerns seriously. This is such a high quality article and I congratulate all the editors who have worked on it and kept the quality so high! About citing, may I point out though that this sentence in the article also has no citation and nobody has a problem with it? "An infibulated* girl may be left with an opening as small as 2–3 mm, which can cause difficult and painful urination. Urine may collect underneath the scar and cause small stones to form." - I think we should remind ourselves that FGM and its consequences are not purely a medical issue, but also a societal, gender, power, psychological etc. one. Therefore, only looking in the medical literature for sources that talk about the problems of cut women would be taking a view that is too narrow, woulnd't it? I actually come from the angle of sanitation (menstrual hygiene management) but there are so many different angles to look at this. You cannot just rely on top quality medical articles, there might also be a need for "lesser quality" literature if it relates not to medical problems but to other issues. Just in case someone is interested, I put here the link to a discussion forum where I was involved in a discussion (and also here). Sorry, not trying to advertise this discussion forum but just giving you some context where my deliberations are coming from. * Come to think of it, a layperson won't know what "an infibulated girl" is (the term infibulation is explained and hyperlinked at the start but the term "infibulated" should in my opinion be explained not just once, as readers may not read the article from front to end). Are we sure that only those women that are most severely cut experience such problems with urination? This is what the sentence implies as it stands now. To summarize, I think we need to better present the issues of urination (and menstrual hygiene management) for affected women. Hopefully we can track down some more information on that. EvM-Susana ( talk) 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This source certainly passes RS standards and addresses these issues in broad terms, as does this one with regard to both points. Neither puts the issue in the exact terms of increased time spent in the act of voiding, but they do speak to "poor urinary flow", "slow and painful menstruation and urination", that "micturition is also difficult as reported by the women" and that "urinary problems were most common as late complications". I share the sentiment that there must be sources out there which speak as to the issue of slow micturition, and much as I'm a stalwart defender of the need for explicit sourcing in general, I'm somewhat inclined to call it overkill to keep this content out pending discovery of that source, since all of the involved editors who have commented so far agree that it is not really a controversial statement but indeed a rather obvious consequence of the procedure for rather obvious reasons. That being said, if there remain concerns along those lines, there remains the possibility of at least referencing "urinary retention", as we have many hundreds (if not thousands) of high-quality sources in which that wording is employed, with detailed discussion of the physiology involved, and discussing both the medical implications and practical complications with regard to urination and menstruation. Snow let's rap 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I remember seeing a newspaper article about a clinic in Berlin that "reconstructs" the vaginas of cut women. I searched through the article but couldn't find any reference to the otions of reconstruction - perhaps a different term is used (once the term defibulation is used, but only once in passing), but I also couldn't find it by looking at the headings. Could this be useful to add, even if it is just a hyperlink to another page, if it's dealt with on another page? EvM-Susana ( talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I got this information from the afore-mentioned discussion forum and it made me wonder if the history section could be expanded with this type of information which is not there yet (pending finding something to cite of course): Re FGM in Egypt: In the mid 1970s when I was in Cairo during grad school, "safe" FGM surgical procedures were still part of the curriculum at Al-Azhar University medical school. EvM-Susana ( talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Nigeria has banned FGM. [28] [29] 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA30 ( talk) 21:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)