Jump to content

Talk:Prevalence of female genital mutilation

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:2f0a:501f:ffff::50c:dd6f (talk) at 18:33, 24 July 2013 (→Prevalence of FGM table). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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?

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 [1] 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: [2].2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD6F (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation&oldid=565647045"