Jump to content

Talk:Prevalence of female genital mutilation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
KRLS (talk | contribs)
413 edits
m changed domain from uab.es to uab.cat, avoid redirection
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=C|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=C|importance=}}
}}
}}

== No accessible data for claim ==

The claim for 38% of FGM in Kuwait as per this article is supported by one paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country#Kuwait

I tried to source the paper mention. There is nothing in the abstract that talks about the study being *conducted* in Kuwait. The background of the authors is one from Kuwait, the other from Saudi Arabia (Dammam). How come it was concluded this was for pregnant women in Kuwait?? I tried to get the full article but I'm not paying $60 just to find out the details for this. FGM is unheard of in official hospital and not practiced by Kuwaitis so this information in the Wikipedia article is misleading. I will edit it, and unless someone can post a reliable full text of this *study* then using it as a reference is questionable.


== Incorrect sourcing ==
== Incorrect sourcing ==

Revision as of 15:28, 10 February 2018

No accessible data for claim

The claim for 38% of FGM in Kuwait as per this article is supported by one paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country#Kuwait

I tried to source the paper mention. There is nothing in the abstract that talks about the study being *conducted* in Kuwait. The background of the authors is one from Kuwait, the other from Saudi Arabia (Dammam). How come it was concluded this was for pregnant women in Kuwait?? I tried to get the full article but I'm not paying $60 just to find out the details for this. FGM is unheard of in official hospital and not practiced by Kuwaitis so this information in the Wikipedia article is misleading. I will edit it, and unless someone can post a reliable full text of this *study* then using it as a reference is questionable.

Incorrect sourcing

An image taken from UNICEF is incorrectly credited to a user's "OWN WORK" instead of crediting UNICEF 162.213.136.97 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of FGM in North Caucasus

Hello, the sources indicate that FGM is practiced widely in North Caucasus

http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpDocuments)/0DA1EBF8138BD5E3C12574F60046DD52/$file/WHO+15+Jan.pdf

The source quotes:

Chechen Republic:

"...Significant number of surgical operations carried out on female genital organs indicates the scale of the problem in the area..."

The other sources which was reffered to as "compass" (http://www.eycb.coe.int/compass/en/chapter_5/5_7.html) is the official name of a project called "European Youth Centre Budapest" done by the Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=quisommesnous&l=en), this is not a blog, it is an official organisation like the WHO, maybe not that famous but that doesnt mean that they have less valid and less professionell informations.

The source states:

"Female Genital Mutilation... In Conflict Areas... violence against women were reported in Bosnia, Cambodia, Chechnya, Haiti..."

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.208.177 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the claim regarding the North Caucasus region because the sources do not support the claim, as outlined in the following.
  • Old source: Book "Daghestan: Tradition and Survival".
    The page number in the reference is p.320, but the book has 311 pages. Searches do not show any reason to think the source supports a claim about FGM. Google shows the book saying that female circumcision was widespread up to the 1970s but "It is not clear why it decreased or stopped..."—that says nothing about the current situation.
  • Old source: http://www.eycb.coe.int/compass/en/chapter_5/5_7.html
    This source does not support any claim about FGM except that it is practised in Africa. The text has a heading "Examples of violations of women's rights", followed by subheadings for various violations. One subheading is "Female genital mutilation" (which refers to Africa), and the next is "In conflict areas..." which talks about violence against women (nothing to do with FGM).
  • New source http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpDocuments)/0DA1EBF8138BD5E3C12574F60046DD52/$file/WHO+15+Jan.pdf
    This source does not mention FGM in any form that I can see, and it certainly does not support the claim in the article. The text "Significant number of surgical operations carried out on female genital organs indicates the scale of the problem in the area of reproductive system diseases" is nothing to do with FGM (the WHO use the term "FGM", not some coded reference to surgery).
Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the first source i have no idea, i dont own that book. The second source reffers to chechnya, not Africa. FGM is part of Violence against women and is present in these conflict areas. The third reference means FGM, dont be naive, these are doctors wo live in the north caucasus region, do you think they will have used the terms FGM? you know how often persons even here try to belittle FGM. But let me express it oterhwise, the practice is called FGM, doesnt matter if doctors use the term genital modification, circumcision or surgical operation. it also doesnt matter if the reason belongs to a reproductive system desease or cultural traditions. At first female genital organs are altered here en mass and this is, what our experience should tell us, female genital mutilation. When you see a cartridge next to a death body, than you think, "oh this man has been shoot" and not "oh this man must have broke his neck after he sliped over the cartridge". For your argumentation that the sources are to old, please read my other section on the talk page, the entire article is reffering to old sources, especially the map of africa. another point would be, even if they are old, it happened to that time there on a "significant number" scale, its very unlikely that it disappeared widely, as our logic and experience should tell us. This is simply applied logic, i dont want that it will end up in an edit war, due to iam an unregistered user, but i simply want to point out on evidence which are very likely to represent the reality and therefor the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.112.32 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "old source", I simply meant that the source was previously in the article (I'm not suggesting that the source has a problem due to its age). The "new source" was one added in the edit that I reverted. Please do not introduce analogies as they are not helpful; instead, if you have any information that contradicts what I wrote above, please present it. None of the three sources say anything about FGM (or about any clearly equivalent procedure) in the North Caucasus region. Please read the second source again, after re-reading my above explanation. There is not much more that can be said because the simple English used in the source cannot be misunderstood if read slowly. Re the third source: I doubt if a document from the WHO would use veiled language to refer to FGM, but if they did, that is just too bad because editors cannot interpret "surgical operations carried out on female genital organs indicates the scale of the problem in the area of reproductive system diseases" as a reference to FGM (that would be extreme original research). Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


On the FGM talk page are callings for a renaming of "female genital mutilation" to a more non offensive term. The article shares the policy that "mutilation" describes the practice best. If such a question about a term happens in an encyclopedia, then such a question also appeared for these doctors living in such a region. The sentence "surgical operations carried out on female genital organs" is such a belittlement. Persons with a criminal background, un-moral persons, and especially those who belong to a culture or region in which FGM takes place will always belittle their behaviour and try to set a different moralic yardstick to justify their behaviour and convince others that their actions were not wrong. This is simple psychological manipulation. "surgical operations carried out on female genital organs indicates the scale of the problem in the area of reproductive system diseases". Btw. i guess the term reproductive system diseases are reffering to inferity, but this is only an assumption. What else could this reffering to when we know that violence against women is present in these regions? This source (3rd) is valid, it was only released by the WHO, not created. For the second source, again, it is divided into sub categories. On top it is called "Examples of violations of women's rights" Then 3 examples follow: "Domestic violence", "Trafficking of women and girls "and "Female genital Mutilation" the last point is "...in conflict areas" it is related to region examples where this "violations of women's right" occour. There is real evidence that FGM is practiced in North caucasus Region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.223.222 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but patience is needed when editing Wikipedia. What definitely cannot happen is to add a claim with sources that are clearly bogus, and I explained above that the two old sources are completely bogus. The third ("new") source does not mention FGM in any way: perhaps the mention of surgical operations is a coded way of saying that FGM is prevalent in the region, but it is not acceptable to use that as a basis for adding a claim to the article. Wikipedia cannot include all "true" facts—claims need to be verifiable. At one time, it may have been acceptable to mention the region in the article and add "citation needed" in the hope that a reference would turn up one day. However, the fact that the information had been included with two bogus sources means it is not acceptable now—a good source with unambiguous information is required. Please forget the second source: it does not say what you think. Johnuniq (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could now argue until we repeat all our argumentaions again and again, i guess we will not come to a solution here, ok i cant do anything about it. I understand your point that you think the sources are not enough for a real proof and to be named as elligible reference, i disagree with this because of the reasons i already explained. So much for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.29.23 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map about prevalence of FGM

Hello,

i wanted to remark that the map of Arica is very old, incorrect and in conflict with current informations given by statistics about the prevalence of FGM. Are there newer maps? or is there a way to make an actual one based on the data of actual statistics? As far as i can tell the map is based on informations of the 90's, which were incomplete, because research only took place in a few countries. I know that starting with the year 2000 a major research campagin started. The UN also used the term "millenium goals" for african countries that they reach a status of effectivly given human rights, it also included basic laws for violence against women and therefore Female genital mutilation.


Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.208.177 (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a crappy map. What does "local" mean and what does the color green indicate?
made new map, based on [1] Wormcast (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New maps indicate Iran, Indonesia, Columbia & Peru http://www.womanstats.org/substatics/Prevalence%20of%20Female%20Genital%20Cutting_2011tif_wmlogo3.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9V6z7kU0AANSf5.jpg http://www.mgf.uab.cat/eng/images/demo/slider/fgmmap_world.png https://uefgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/carte-excision-_-MODULE-1.jpg 91.61.203.181 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of FGM table

If nobody objects, I will remove the table. It uses outdated sources - for some countries the data is from the 1980s (!) - and it is contradicted by other data in this article, or by other sources (this [2] for instance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD6F (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New source: [3].2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD6F (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
made new map, based on above source Wormcast (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Now I'm going to remove the old outdated table.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A1BB (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About recent changes to section on Africa

In Africa, according to the source used (the UNICEF report [4]) there are 24 countries with laws against FGM.

At page 9, there is a table which reads: "Twenty-four of the 29 countries where FGM/C is concentrated have enacted decrees or legislation related to FGM/C"

In the table there are listed 22 countries in Africa and 2 outside Africa (Yemen & Iraq).

But at page 8, the report says "Twenty-six countries in Africa and the Middle East have prohibited FGM/C by law or constitutional decree. Two of them – South Africa and Zambia – are not among the 29 countries where the practice is concentrated."

Zambia and South Africa are indeed excluded from the table at page 9, because that table deals only with countries where FGM/C is concentrated.

So, there are 24 African countries with laws against FGM:

  • 22 among countries where FGM is concentrated (listed at page 9 in table)
  • 2 among largely non-nonpracticing countries - Zambia and South Africa (stated in the report at page 8)

2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:3B38 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital mutilation is present in blah blah blah

FGM is present everywhere, so if you don't have some statistics about its prevalence in a country don't add a new section for that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.237.136.78 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A list would be awesome

With just the country, the percentage of women mutilated, and the absolute number of women. I thought I'd throw the idea in here and see if someone more skilled than me can make that happen! --Houjou (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I find this article very odd. The country with by far the most cases of FGM is Indonesia and yet what is shown first is a map of Africa and the adjoining Middle East and most of the text concentrates on this region. This gives a very misleading picture of the worldwide prevalence suggesting as it does that it is concentrated in this region, in fact it states: "The highest known prevalence rates are in 30 African countries, in a band that stretches from Senegal in West Africa to Ethiopia on the east coast, as well as from Egypt in the north to Tanzania in the south", which is simply not true as the prevalence in Indonesia is higher. The whole weight of the article is based on the one UN report which only looked at these countries in Africa and the Middle East. The world map when it does come only shows these countries covered in the UN report again totally misleading.

I suggest a major change! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyreric (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYING OUT

This is problematic:

About 50% of the women in rural areas undergo Type III with stitching to close vulva, while Type I and II are more common in urban areas. Overall, about a third of all women in Eritrea undergo Type III FGM with stitching.[1] Most FGM (68%) are performed on baby girls less than 1 year old, another 20% before they turn 5 year old.[2] About 60% of Eritrean women believe FGM is a religious requirement.[3] The prevalence varies with woman's religion, as well as by their ethnic group; FGM is prevalent in 99% of Muslim women, 89% of Catholics and 85% of Protestants.[4]


Why? It's no longer true. While prevalence remains high, total incidence (once 93%) has been dropping and is closer to 10%. See chart 1 and chart 2 report 1. Correcting tense accordingly. --Elvey(t•c) 22:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Female Genital Mutilation/ Cutting: Data and Trends: UPDATE 2010 UNICEF, Page 7
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference dkerit was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Female Genetic Mutilation/Cutting was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference unicefstat2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation&oldid=824948952"