Talk:Female genital mutilation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Female genital mutilation is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2015.


Toolbox

Revision as of 05:37, 5 August 2017[edit]

@SlimVirgin:

You have not provided any reason for reverting the edit, even the the WHO citation? The WHO classifies FGM as Type 1a Type 1b, 2, 3, 4 and so on. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/ They do not club them together as this article does. Also, the heading clubs Type 1 & 2 together when they are completely different procedures. Also, since Type 1a is the mostly practiced form of FGM, it is important to explain the difference.Muffizainu (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

In regard to harm in Type 1a, the WHO has said that they do not have any evidence of Type 1a. https://newsin.asia/female-circumcision-communities-call-religious-freedom-upheld/ THey do however have evidence of other types, but not of Type 1a. If you do have any evidence of harm of Type 1a, then please cite it.Muffizainu (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It is WP:SYNTH for an editor to add a prominent heading such as "Lack of evidence of complications or harm for Type 1a" to an article. That kind of edit is a nudge-nudge hint to the reader that some forms of FGM are fine in every way. However, even if the assertion was known to be correct, the heading would be misleading as the claim is merely that no evidence has yet been found. The fact that breitbart.com had to be used as a reference shows how WP:UNDUE is the assertion. Please ask at WP:RSN whether this source would be suitable for making a medical assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Explaining revert[edit]

Hi Md iet, your edit about the Musta'li would need reliable sources (RS). Even with sources that would be too much about this one group, but to mention them at all would need some RS. SarahSV (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, we can definitely mention Bohra, specifically mentioned in RS.--Md iet (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Sources are still not particularly good. We need sources that are indepedent. This is not[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

[2]; Hindustan Times: Female Genital Mutilation debate puts Bohra women on opposite sides

[3]; newsin.asia: female-circumcision-communities-call-religious-freedom-upheld.

Hope these would be good.--Md iet (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

And what do you want to use those sources to say? They are not the sources that were used before.
The BBC source is okay[4]. Wondering if she was convicted? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The Dawoodi Bohra are already mentioned in the article; we can't really devote more space. Re: the doctor charged in the US, we mention the first prosecution there. There's Female genital mutilation in the United States for more detail. SarahSV (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with SV, that makes sense per WP:DUE weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Md iet, I normally encourage editors to start dedicated country articles, such as Female genital mutilation in India. But there would have to be good sources. There is this, but it's a news article, and other similar ones, e.g. [5][6] . I will look around when I have time to see whether the WHO, UN or Indian government have addressed it. SarahSV (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, agreed. As such the FGM reported is further explained of minor form, even classified as type 4 or 1a having no proven harms.--Md iet (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
They're describing Type I, where the clitoral glans is removed, which is not minor (not just a nick in the skin), though some women aren't sure what was done to them. I looked on PubMed for sources, but couldn't see any. NPR article, BBC. I think there's enough to create a short page if you'd like to. SarahSV (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)