Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Female genital mutilation/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lay sources[edit]

Here's a sample from another article of the type of format generated by the cite journal template when an original medical journal article and a laysource are both linked:

  • Johnson CP, Myers SM, Council on Children with Disabilities. Identification and evaluation of children with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics. 2007;120(5):1183–215. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2361. PMID 17967920.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, here's a sample for how to search:

  1. Click on the PMID link above to get to PMID.
  2. Put the following title in the search line: Ritualistic Female Genital Mutilation: Current Status and Future Outlook
  3. You'll see this page comes up
  4. Look down towards the bottom, you'll see the PMID comes up as PMID 9326757
  5. Just add the number preceded by PMID to the citation.

I can look for more later, out the rest of the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful, thank you. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive and MEDMOS[edit]

Just home-- I haven't had time to check your work, but I'll outline the next step in case you can get to it before I can. WP:WIAFA requires a thorough search of the highest quality literature (in the case, medical journal articles); in the case of a medical topic, that would mean accessing the most recent, highest quality secondary reviews. A search of PubMed indicates that there are 257 reviews of Female genital mutilation (put the term in the PubMed search engine, and then on the right hand side of the screen, click on "Reviews" to narrow the search to secondary reviews)-- many of those are quite recent, and in the first ten search results returned, there is at least one that is free full text. These are just a few samples-- WIAFA requires that you have done a comprehensive literature search of (at least, in this case) the most recent reviews to make sure nothing of significance is left out and no medical information is outdated. Could you look over all of the reviews since about 2008 and make sure everything is covered and is up to date? (Actual full text articles should be consulted, since abstracts, the lay press, and press releases aren't typically complete or correct) ... Some samples from PubMed search:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on just a cursory look at the first link, which is a 2011 secondary review, it appears that the article could be expanded (see WP:MEDMOS) and could rely much more on journal articles than the lay press, since a good deal of higher quality literature is available. I'm a bit concerned now if some of the lay sources are accurate-- I haven't yet found, for example, any recent reviews mentioning the HIV risk, and the sources cited are old. I'm getting a (very preliminary) impression that the info necessary to include the sections for a full medical treatment (per MEDMOS; e.g., treatment, prognosis, epidemiology, etc) is available in secondary reviews, and a more comprehensive medical literature search would not be hard to complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, thanks for looking at it. I don't see this as a medical article, and didn't write it as one (and couldn't, even if I wanted to). FGM is approached more as a human rights issue, though of course there's a lot in the medical literature about it. All I could hope to do is have one section on that aspect here. Ideally, we would have summary-style articles for the health issues, legal issues, cultural issues. But this article is a general overview, based largely on non-medical researchers who have reviewed the medical literature, but who write about it from a human rights/anthropological perspective.
I did send it to an FGM specialist before I submitted it, which I've done with a few FAs in the past, just to make sure I hadn't missed out a key issue.
I do agree about the two HIV sentences; they were in the article already, but reviewing the literature on it I couldn't tell how representative they were, so I think I'll remove them. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't had a moment to review your new additions (construction still, ugh), but here's another recent-ish review that I just came across that really should be consulted:

  • Kelly E, Hillard PJ (2005). "Female genital mutilation". Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 17 (5): 490–4. PMID 16141763. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

That would mean getting hold of the full text of the review. I don't think, per WIAFA comprehensive requirement and thorough literature search requirement, that this article can be considered ready if it doesn't cover all aspects (including medical) and include a thorough search of the medical literature-- approaching the topic from only a human rights aspect won't meet WIAFA. Think chicken and egg: if it weren't for the serious medical issues, would it be such an enormous human rights issue? Consider male circumcision-- it's not called "male genital mutilation" because there aren't such serious medical consequences (depending on who you ask, anyway). Enlisting WT:MED folks may help (and some of them have access to full text medical articles-- which I don't). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, I'm looking through reviews on PubMed as I write, but so far I haven't found any key issues that are missing. The article is first and foremost about an important, and odd, human rights violation—odd, because as the article explains its apparent victims appear to be its central actors. This makes it very difficult to deal with, because you have women who, as girls, had their genitals changed without their consent, then again as they get older they are once again told what to do when they have children—told they are "mutilated," though they may not feel that way, and told they may not have the infibulation closed again, if they're in a non-practising country. So it's an enormously complicated legal and cultural issue. But medically it's relatively straightforward—as the articles I'm currently reading confirm—and so although a lot could be written about it, it would be detail of interest to physicians, not to a general reader.
The medical sources in the article who are FGM specialists are Nahid Toubia, a Sudanese surgeon, and Comfort Momoh, a Nigerian midwife. They have both spent their careers working on FGM. We also rely on the World Health organization, and several sociologists, anthropologists, and legal scholars, which gives a good overview. There's no reason to choose sources who are writing medical reviews but are not FGM specialists. And I wouldn't want to see the article medicalized, in the sense of turned into a technical, detailed description of the medical consequences, because it would make it less accessible. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm what SlimVirgin had said about the PubMed articles, I used my own access through my university to search relevant medical and social science databases for the term "female genital mutilation" or "female genital cutting". In the case of medical journals, any of the material which could be included is already present in the article through other sources (namely the WHO and other UN organizations which seek to reduce the instances of FGM), the rest is comprised of case studies or medical research which is either not relevant or simply beyond the scope of the article. Most tellingly I found 2030 results on the search from PubMed, whereas on ProQuest Research Library I got 13787 results for the same term. This is less of a medical ethics issue and more in the realm of social science research because it is by its nature a cultural institution with practices that are rarely performed by medical professionals or in any sort of medical environment. Likewise, the opposition to the practice is at its core based on a clash of Western based values of human rights and freedoms with those who practice FGM. As such, the chicken and the egg does not really apply in this case, because FGM did not come to be recognized as a human rights violation because medical professionals decided it qualified as one. Opposition to the practice in fact began when colonial powers came into contact with cultures in Africa in the 1800s, and culminated in the situation today where it is recognized as a human rights violation. To sum up, there are of course serious physiological, psychological, and sociological consequences to FGM. But when it comes to explaining the medical consequences it is as SlimVirgin says, relatively straightforward, and I can find no studies on PubMed which look directly at those medical consequences in a way that is any more direct and clear than the very reputable sources that are already in the article. Vietminh (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've continued to read up on recent reviews, but I'm not finding any key issue that is missing from our article, or anything that our article gets wrong. Also, most of the medical reviews dwell more on the legal and cultural background, and they are taking their information (including their medical information) from sources we already use in the article. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments against correct sourcing are insufficient, IMO. First, the notion that the article had already been vetted by experts or considering high quality medical reviews falls down when we consider that the HIV text had to be removed (I don't have access to the medical journal articles, so don't know why that was included). It doesn't appear that the medical literature was consulted. Second, there is a problem with considering/using only what we might consider "advocates" as the most reliable sources, while overlooking the medical literature. Third, the laypress almost always gets it wrong, including the BBC and the New York Times, and there is no reason to use them as sources when there are recent reviews that cover the human rights, cultural, legal and social issues (and that article hasn't been consulted). Until the proper sources are consulted (and it still doesn't appear they have been), we don't know if the article is accurate, and there are sections missing per MEDMOS, that info is available, and limiting the scope of this article to a human rights issue is not comprehensive, does not meet WIAFA, and may be introducing POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I will say again and in more plain terms, every source on this issue is an advocate. When the issue is whether a culturally ingrained practice violates a human right, there is no objective third party that can be consulted. These are inherently subjective arguments offered by inherently subjective actors. That said, we can pick the most authoritative of the bunch, which we have done. So I don't accept that using United Nations agencies as sources constitutes a problem with this article. Secondly, as SlimVirgin indicated, the medical sources that can be found cite the sources used in the article for their information on the medical, social, and legal aspects of FGM. So again, if they are getting their information from the UN agencies then I do not see how that constitutes a problem with sourcing. Lastly, the article is not limited in its scope to a human rights issue, FGM is purely a human rights issue. I quote two relevant passages from the WHO website: "Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons." and "FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women." Vietminh (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, the HIV text didn't have to be removed; I just used a more recent source that said the same thing. I've asked Ekem to look at it (he has an MD and specializes in gynaecology), and he has kindly revised the health consequences section. He has also suggested saying more about the repair aspects, and has suggested using this review article as the source, so I'll try to add a brief subsection about repair over the next couple of days, or others are welcome to jump in and make a start on that. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catching up, as far as I can tell, the earlier HIV statement that was not based on medical sources was, in fact, removed; [1] that is an example of the kind of text that is likely to creep into the article if it isn't correctly sourced to peer-reviewed secondary medical reviews rather than advocacy publications. However, a text search on HIV turned up something different than I originally noted. But, the next sentence brings up the kinds of sourcing problems I'm concerned about:

Momoh writes that around 10 percent of subjects die immediately from haemorrhage and hypovolemic shock.

This kind of statement certainly needs support from high quality secondary medical sources; yes, I've read the article about who the author of that book is, and she is not the sort of source that we should be using for medical data (further, I note that her book does not seem to provide her source for the data). Again, the notion that this is not medical article rather a human rights article and doesn't need to conform to encyclopedic sourcing standards needs to be put to rest; it's not even important whether it's human rights, medical, whatever-- we have encyclopedic sourcing standards that should be followed, and we shouldn't be sourcing this kind of article to the laypress, or to human rights advocates. I would like to see what secondary medical reviews published in high quality journals (there are many available) have to say about the risks of death; we shouldn't be in the business of giving one advocate's opinion, and covering that by inline attribution-- we should be stating medical facts as reliable sources give them. That this review article does not mention such a high rate of death is a good indication that this data may not be something we should be reporting in an encyclopedia; is that data covered anywhere by a secondary peer-reviewed medical source? I would like to see a thorough search done on recent medical reviews, and the sourcing redone to conform to medical standards-- the sources I mention above also contain a good deal of information about this practice that is of interest to readers and relevant to comprehensiveness that is not included in the article, which could benefit from expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news, SV, (and the kind of progress I'd hope to see, and that will entice me to review the article and sources thoroughly as soon as I have time); Vietminh's arguments seem to reflect a lack of knowledge of FAC and WIAFA. I'd sure like to see more of what you suggest above, including the other peer reviewed article I linked, if someone can locate it. Sorry, but we shouldn't be citing the laypress (like BBC or NYT), except in some limited situations (which I will review more carefully once the article relies more heavily on secondary medical peer reviews). And of course it's a medical condition, Vietminh, in addition to a human rights issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer the nomination to be withdrawn while we sort this out, or do you think we can fix it in situ? I'd be fine either way. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for being so swamped IRL-- I really haven't had time to look closely enough to opine on how much needs to be done (and it's not helped by the fact that I would have to get free full text of medical articles via e-mail from someone)-- when I first looked days ago, the article appeared to be in very good shape overall, it's only the sourcing concerns and whether some medical content can be expanded to include more of what we typically see per WP:MEDMOS that I'd be looking at, so my best guess would be that unless things get "hairy", try to fix it while the FAC is up?? Also, I keep meaning to mention that whenever there is a PMC, that is an incredible resource-- it means the text will always be available at PubMed even if the individual journal takes it down, so you should watch for those and add them when they are available ... I'll do one sample now, and that's all I have time for until a bit later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good, so let's play it by ear. And please don't apologize for being swamped; what you've suggested and added so far has been helpful in itself. If it gets to the point where you feel the nom is up too long, or is getting bogged down, then as far as I'm concerned you can archive it, and we can try again in a few weeks, or whenever is allowed. And thanks for the PMC tip. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oopsie, while I was in there doing PMC, I saw AAFP, and happened to check their article ... there appears to be a copyvio problem, which might complicate issues.

Women in countries that practise FGM call it one of the "three feminine sorrows": the first sorrow is the procedure itself, followed by the wedding night when a woman with Type III has to be cut open, then childbirth when she has to be cut again.[16]

looks to be lifted verbatim from AAFP. All FACs are up long these days, so I wouldn't worry about that-- also, I recused, since I will likely review if I ever Get This Bloomin' House Finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that sentence so it's definitely my writing:
"Women in countries that practise FGM call it one of the 'three feminine sorrows': the first sorrow is the procedure itself, followed by the wedding night when a woman with Type III has to be cut open, then childbirth when she has to be cut again."
I gave two sources as examples:
(1) AAFP which says: "'three feminine sorrows': the sorrows on the day of mutilation or circumcision, the wedding night when the opening must be cut and the birth of the baby when the opening must be enlarged."
And
(2) Momoh 2005: "Health complications of FGM have been described as a the 'three feminine sorrows'. ... Sorrows on the day FGM takes place, the night of the wedding where often the women has to be cut prior to intercourse and when the woman gives birth and the vaginal opening is not large enough for a safe delivery."
SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Female_genital_mutilation/archive1&oldid=1078972238"