Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 2

message: This page has no mention of voluntary instances of the more extreme forms of genital cutting, such as this one, which could also serve as illustration on a subpage, if use rights could be obtained.
This is sometimes practiced in BDSM contexts. Zuiram 05:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voluntary clitoridectomy et al

message: This part of the article contains much unsubstantiated information. I believe that it should he linked to credible information or the unsubstantiated information should be removed. Michael Glass 08:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clitoridectomy

message: I am removing the table of links about abuse lodged within the (still of questionable neutrality?  do we still need that lable?) FGC and HUman Rights section.  If whoever put that in there insists on equating this ritual practice with abuse, you are welcome to insert a non-pov paragraph discussing who believes this and why with citable sources.  I will then offer a follow up paragraph with citable sources that do not believe all or even most fgc rituals qualify as abuse.  ~FreddieResearch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddieresearch (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 September 2005
:I agree with this. A cultural tradition should not be deemed 'abuse'. the followup free title reeks ethnocentrism. -Dr.Huang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.12.221 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 May 2007
:I'm not sure why a cultural tradition should not be deemed abuse. Could you elaborate? Ciotog 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that one cannot use a term like "abuse" because it is ethnocentric is to deny the fact that within these very cultures, there are plenty of people who think it's abuse. You side with only one group within these cultures and affirm that people there must live lives of static, unchanging values dictated by an authority, if you stifle debate in this way. Terms like ethnocentrism are more accurately used to question use of heavily laden terms like "civilized" or "savage". QuizzicalBee 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You absolutely cannot claim that forced operations are not abuse. If this is what you are claiming, you are wrong and are knowingly spreading disinformation for your own purposes. A practice such as described in this article deserves no such protection from being described as abuse simply because it is a ritual or a cultural norm. I can give you a number of examples of cultural norms and rituals that would be widely considered to be abusive and illegal.  Mrsteveman1 13:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can do if they've got the cites. What they can't do is remove other's cited material saying the opposite.WolfKeeper 14:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding "Abuse" link set

message: The Canada bit says "Canada, just running the risk of female genital mutilation is already sufficient reason to obtain the political asylum status". Can someone confirm it is all forms of FGC? If so, we should change the wording to FGC for consistency and neutrality purposes. If it only applies to certain forms, this should be clarified and the FGM bit removed... Nil Einne 18:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada

message: There was inconsistency in the statements about Indonesia. In the bit about where it is practices it states " In Indonesia the practice is almost universal among the country's Muslim women; however, in contrast to Africa, almost all are Type I or Type IV (involving a symbolic prick to release blood) procedures". However in the bit about Type II/clitoridectomy it stated: "It is, however, quite common in Indonesia and many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, east-Africa, Egypt, Sudan, and the Arabian Peninsula". I am pretty sure the first statement is correct and so have removed Indonesia from the bit about type II. If you are confident I am incorrect, you're welcome to correct the article but please provide evidence if possible... Nil Einne 18:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10102.htm supports my theory Nil Einne 19:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Indonesia

message: With regards to Malaysia, a few quick searches and from what I recall having read and heard before (I'm Malaysian) female circumscion is quite common among Malaysian Muslims (or at least Malaysian Malay Muslims). As they make up 65% of the population, the 'certain ethnic groups' as per the original article doesn't sound right. I'm not really sure whether the practice is nearly 'universal' among Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims, I suspect not so I've also clarified this. If you can find evidence or are resonably it is nearly universal, go ahead and correct it. Nil Einne 18:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Malaysia

message: I feel the article needs a bit more with regards to the different forms of HGC and human rights etc issues. To my knowledge, most condemations and human rights groups tend to concentrate on ending type II & III but don't care so much about type I and type IV prick type circumscion. While many may still be against I and IV it generally doesn't appear to be a big concern for them. For example, you don't here much of a fuss about FGC in Malaysia and Indonesia. In fact, I don't know if any women's groups from there have ever even had it as part of their agenda (c.f. Africa). The article does mention a bit about the way the different types are treated and regarded but IMHO not enough. Nil Einne 19:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The different forms with regards to human rights etc

message: Would it be possible to get hold of some? Be good to break up the article, maybe, and clarify things.
::Will this one do? Zuiram 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a couple sites, maybe could get permission to use the pics?  FGM pictures and graphics Stop FGM --Thoric 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures or photos or diagrams 

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: I've gone through the article and standardized all references to "FGC".  I don't personally agree with the use of the term, but a majority of editors on this issue seem (to me) to prefer it for reasons of NPOV.  As it was, the article was saying FGC in some areas and FGM in others.  I'm certainly up for debate on changing it to "circumcision", though, since that's what the article is currently titled.  -Kasreyn 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FGC 

message: This term is POV and biased. FGM can be said the same. The only between is FGC, so I don't know why this page was moved to Female circumcision. I'll be moving it back and if there's an objection, we can discuss. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female Circumcision? 

message: I removed the text regarding awareness of the ability to call the police, from the Law and Order bit.  It's not sourced and it's not derived from any other information included in the article, so it's clearly original research.  Furthermore, I don't know (and doubt the person who added it knows) whether female genital cutting is illegal in NYC or not.  Law and Order is set in a fictionalized New York, anyway; the show's writers can alter actual laws as much as they need for plot purposes.  -Kasreyn 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV material was reinserted by Kchishol1970.  I've taken the liberty of re-removing it.  Law and Order is not a reliable source on whether things are legal or not.  Also, the closing sentence of the paragraph includes POV language which there is a consensus against using.  I can only conclude that the additions to the section were intended to bias the reader.  Kasreyn 11:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling the Police original research 

message: I thing they shall be no FGC's.
Gemini531 02:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article's talk page is not an appropriate place for advocacy of a position.  We are not here to discuss the merits of FGC.  We are here to write a neutral article about it.  Kasreyn 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Thinks They Shall Not FGC?

message: I posted the following paragraph to the end of the medical consequences section, to discuss a recent WHO study which I think adds a significant concern to the list of possible medical consequences:
"A recent study by the WHO, published in the Lancet on the 1st of June 2006, has cast doubt on the safety of genital cutting of any kind. This study was conducted on a cohort of 28,393 women attending for singleton delivery at 28 obstetric centres in areas of Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal and Sudan with a fairly high proportion of mothers having FGC. According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for type I, 32% for type 2, and 55% for type 3). Mothers with FGC type III were also found to have 30% more caesarean sections and a 70% increase in postpartum haemorrhage compared to women without FGC. It was estimated from these results and a rough estimate of the proportion of mothers in Africa with different kinds of FGC that in the African context an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies die during delivery as a result of this process."
Does everyone think this is a fair treatment of the study in question, and fair to include in the article?  I've basically given the results as the WHO reported them, except for using "FGC" in place of "FGM"
::Lancet is a great authority.  I'd say we do this, lets put three studies together and that will give a good view of how medicine deals with this issue. We'll use the Lancet article, the Carla Obermeyer articles (1999 and 2003) in the MEdical Anthropology Quarterly that critiques the type of information produced above (though written before the lancet article it still seems very relevant) and also a recent article in the latest MedAnthQuartrly that maintains some very thoughtful ambivilence (sp?).  So basically it will look like this "Lancet says FGC bad.  Obermeyer says FGC probably not so bad.  Latest MAQ on the fence."  I'd be happy to organize this maybe next week.  Whaddaya think?  -freddieresearch
:::Go for it Procrastinator supreme 06:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WHO Study

message: I have restored all quoted instances of the traditional "Praise Be Upon Him" to this paragraph.  Note that including the traditional blessing is inappropriate in original encyclopedic content (as established at article Islam), but when we are directly quoting a source, such as Mr. Abu-Sahlieh, the exact words of the source must be reproduced.  This is not showing any POV favoritism towards Islam as the blessing is clearly within quotations and ascribed to Mr. Abu-Sahlieh.  Kasreyn 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have once again restored these after being removed again.  If we are to quote a source, anything within quotation marks must be a direct quote, unless a lapse is indicated by ellipsis.  Kasreyn 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And again.  Kasreyn 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again.  Kasreyn 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again.  Anyone mind if I put an inline hidden comment in the article asking editors not to damage quotes?  Kasreyn 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is entirely correct to include PBUH in the event that the person being quoted used the phrase. Removing it, for what reason I can't imagine, is inaccurate and foolish. I am not a Moslem. Youssef51 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasreyn is correct. Skinnyweed 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu-Sahlieh Quote and PBUH 

message: While reading this section I noticed that in the anecdote about the conversation between Mohammed and Um Habibah the words 'Praise Be Upon Him' are repeated after each mention of Mohammed's name. I understand that this is common in Islamic writings, and that Muslims are obligated to say it after speaking the name, however I am not sure if this gives an impresion of neutrality. I think that a balence between the curent state of this section and a religion-free version could be reached by limiting the phrase 'Praise Be Upon Him' to it's first occurance only, which is curently linked to an explination page, or by replacing the phrase with 'Peace Be Upon Him' which I believe is also aceptable and has a more neutral tone. What say you?  --Wirewood Shadow 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The words are used in a direct quote. Any change to the words would harm the integrity of the quote.Christopher 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have repeatedly explained the purpose of leaving these edits in, higher up on this talk page.  If you wish, we can quote Mr. Abu-Salieh using ellipsis ("...") to highlight only the important parts of his quote.  However, everything within direct quotes must be accurate.  The abbreviation "PBUH" is generally considered acceptable by Muslims, from what I've seen.  Kasreyn 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  I may have made a mistake in restoring them, then.  The earliest time I can remember reading the quote, it had the PBUH's in it.  I do not have a copy of the book cited.  I assumed that because the PBUH's were listed in an older edition of the page, that they were added by the original editor who added the quote.  Now I see that you were indeed the originator of the quote and that it lacked the PBUH's.  So, I will remove them.  Sorry about this, but please note that those who removed them did so without any edit summary so I had to assume it was vandalism to remove them.  Kasreyn 19:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh wrote 'Praise Be Upon Him' in his book, then inside of the quotation marks, we have to include Praise Be Upon Him. I don't think that PBUH is an acceptable alternative but I am not an expert on that. I am going to leave the article as you edited it because, as I can't find the original quote, I am going to assume that you are correct about the erroneous addition.Christopher 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Edit to Clitoridotomy Section 

message: Please do not revert modified page until you have adressed the pre-existing discussion under the heading "No Pictures?" above.  The photo remains on the page, but i have moved it to the infibulation section of the page because it illustrates the first half of the infibulation process.  I have also modified the caption to make the picture more accurate.  Once again, it is still there, you just have to scroll down a little to see it.  Do not replace until you respond here in the talk page. Freddieresearch 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to Haham hanuka 

message: Seems to be say that fgm only occurs or mostly occurs in sub-saharan africa.  I ask people to look at this because it primarily occurs in the muslim arabian nations and not sub-saharan africa.  Egypt has the highest rate on the map and it is not in sub-sahran africa.  I know people are going to object to me so I amtelling you now to go research it because you will see it is a Islamic practice or practice done in primarily islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and not subsahran africa
::It is commonly practiced in Kenya, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone.  Those are the three I've studied specifically, other contributors can fill you in on the rest.  The last Medical Anthropology Quarterly has a great article on the current role of female circumcision in Kenya.  Read Shell-Duncan and Hernlund's Female Circumcision in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change for examples on Sierra Leon and Nigeria.  I dont remember other sources for other Sub-saharan nations, can anybody help him out with that?  I believe the article does acknowledges the frequency of the practice in Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia and Egypt.  ~Freddieresearch
:The article goes in to a fair amount of detail in the areas of practice section. It mentions a number of Muslim countries. There also appears to be a fairly vast difference between the Muslim & Arabic cultural practice which primarily appears to be clitoridotomy whereas the African practice is primarily infibulation. A number of experts have also come to various conclusions which are discussed. If you believe you know more then these experts, you're welcome to publish your findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal. If you believe we have missed something, you're welcome to tell us which references you know of to back up your claims... Nil Einne 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article bias 

message: Is there any significance to the fact that cUmdat as-Sālik (Reliance of the Traveler) says that circumcision for men and women is obligatory? It follows the Shāficī madhhab, and the commentary also discusses how the Shāficī position differs from that in the Ḥanafī and Ḥanbalī madhāhib. Kitabparast 20:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <sup>c</sup>Umdat as-Sālik 

message: I don't fancy with the popular cultural explanation of FGM. Because if you look at the map carefully, the areas where FGM is often exercised are Sub-Saharan countries. I think this must be due to the famine. Local people might have adopted this tradition in order to curb the birth rate by controling the female sexuality, so that the already lacking natural resources would be sufficient to the living people. 
Any ideas?
:You might find it worth your while to read WP:NOR.  Such speculation may be interesting, but doesn't really contribute much because it can't be used in the encyclopedia.  Kasreyn 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somehow related to Famine? 

message: This seems incorrect. I seem to recall reading that Medicare(or Blue Cross or whoever) covered FGC until the mid seventies.
Even assuming that no doctors took advantage of this coverage, surely the 1996 bill outlawing FGC would have been significantly less necessary if there was not a chance of a doctor performing FGC on them. Christopher 15:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AHA! I didn't read that just anywhere, I read it in this article! It was sometimes practiced in English-speaking nations well after the first half of the Twentieth Century, ostensibly to stop masturbation. [10]. Blue Cross Blue Shield paid for clitoridectomies in the U.S.A. until 1977 [11]Whis figure is correct? Reference 11 leads to a website that does not seem to have the facts, but I seriously doubt that clitorectomy  stopped in 1958. I wouldn't be suprised if one could still 'get the snip' by simply finding a really old doctor.Christopher 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FGC practiced by doctors in the USA until 1958 

message: I think there is a template for this kind of thing, but this will do.
*The all 42 refercences need to have proper labels attached.
*The references need to be searched for duplicates. Seems like a job for a script.Christopher 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do: 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*  Support The practice is widely known as "Female Genital Mutilation" which gets 969000 hits on Google  while "Female Genital Cutting" only gets  133000 hits . Rename to "Female Genital Mutilation".--CltFn 12:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Support Please don't try to rename things that already have common, technically and medically correct names just because you don't like a word. My reasoning: (sorry it is long, but I think all points are seperately important. Please consider each).
definition of mu·ti·late from [dictionary.com] (emphasis added, of course):
1.  to *injure*, *disfigure*, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
2.  **to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.**
OR
Mutilation in Online Medical Dictionary:
"*Disfigurement or injury* by *removal or destruction* of a conspicuous or *essential part of the body*."
While "Mutilation" may elicit a negative emotion it is both accurate and appropriate in a linguistic and medical sense. "Cutting" on the other hand is both wrongly insufficient and disingenious (see below).
Amputation, cancer, haemorrhage, decapitation and many other words also accurately and correctly used to describe forms of damage to a body may elicit a similar emotional response - that is because we don't like thinking about the damage, not because they are improperly biased words. In fact, it is just that they do convey that there is damage done that they affect us so. It is not a *moral* judgment, which is where this must remain neutral. "Horrible female genital mutilation" would not fly, but FMG is correct.
I don't see how it can be argued that cutting in these forms does not "injure" the genitals. Removal of the clitoris certainly fits the second definition! If you think otherwise I suggest you poll the women you know and ask them if it should be considered an essential part. Essential for what? How about clitoral orgasms? There are multiple types of orgasms, that is just one. Retained ability to have other types does not at all imply the clitoris is not essential for clitoral orgasms.
FGM is the term used ~nine times more frequently in the literature (e.g. 459 uses vs. 51 in pubmed), declared propper by the WHO and the rest of the UN, and is the term people will be looking it up by.
Lastly, "cutting" is disingenious. When used in reference to wounds it strongly implies a linear penetration, rather than amputation or the other various wounds this involves. Cutting also implies to some degree that it could heal to original or near-original state, but, again, it often involves amputation and/or grave scarring that is intended to close off the vagina. If your hand was cut off in an accident I doubt you would even begin to understand why someone insisted that mutilate was an incorrect term and insisted you say you "cut your arm", even though they could show you definitions of cut that suggest it could be used. 
--Fitzhugh 08:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: I would be interested in NPOV (neutral point of view) of the article.
IMHO, it is damaged to some point, by calling also male circumcision a "mutilation".
The difference between male and female circumcision should be stated clear. We ought to go past shame and false morals and scientifically and theologically skim over the matter.
Male circumcision is a sign of Abraham's covenant. It's meaning could be in doing something ritual to male penis, so it is no longer like the one of Adam, so it's function should be dedicated to Jahweh, and no longer to the one whom Adam and Eve listened and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Sacrifice for doing this must include blood. This does not severe ability to enjoy sex, but symbolically represents dedicating sexuality and offspring to LORD.
The religions demand male circumcision on 8th day. St Paul says circumcision is no longer required in NT as we have the better sacrifice, the Lamb of God.
Female circumcision is never mentioned in Bible, neither I have found the reference in Qor'an, for the latter not being an learned scholar.
We should technically have both terms: female circumcision and female mutilation. Surgical removal of clitoris is quite clearly the latter (it is removed, not circum-cised, cut around). Rationale: male circumcision does not reduce man's ability to enjoy sex (many witness the contrary)- top , most sensitive, part of penis is not removed, rather an unimportant part of skin with function as important or less than appendix.
With female removal of clitoris, the woman's ability to enjoy sex is severed, therefore it is mutilation, not circumcision. It is henceforth a very cruel act.
Female circumcision as a term would define operation similar to male circumcision, as a symbolic rather than harmful act, as a religious ritual performing removal of insignificant part of female genitalia's skin which would not reduce the ability to enjoy sex, but would include letting of blood for ritual purposes. I know I will be attacked for this, but a religious rite cannot be banned, for it will continue in hidden, a non-harmful substitute must be found, or re-invented.
(Reader may ask with right: "Why keep anything Scripturally not requested and seemingly barbaric?", yet a girl may not be actually saved for life by merely "saving" her from clitoral extraction - she could and on average would be stigmatized, considered demonic, uncircumcised, less worth tahn circumcised, banned from marriage with circumcised man, considered predestined for fornication, promiscuity & prostitution and used that way. Some African religions will demand doing something that includes letting of blood to female genitalia to pronounce her clean, and her sexuality and offspring dedicated to good spirits instead of to demons. Of course, having Lamb of God, we have no need for such sacrifice or ritual, and it will even be found spiritually damaging for a Christian girl, same as St Paul considered circumcision for Christian men ("If you circumcise yourselves, you must fulfill all Law!").)
Similar as top of penis is not removed, female clitoris should not be removed, but rather some functionally (and aesthetically) unimportant part of genitalia skin, for the practice to be considered circumcision, not mutilation. Clitoris is no doubt an organ created by God Himself and not by Devil so harming it without a valid reason (and there seems not to be medical one in these practices) is quite clearly a sin. Clearly thereof will follow the difference between circumcision and genital mutilation, while one may find both practices existing.
Consequently and finally, woman's virtue would be very poor and sad if it would be based on inability to feel sexual pleasure rather than on spiritual strength and willful self-restraint. -- Mtodorov 69 14:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and think the article, while in need of some small fixes, is admirably close to NPOV.  In any case, theological arguments are inconsequential in terms of modifying Wiki articles.  Ford MF 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both sides of the story 

message: Ethipia should't be on there. the map is not correct. Ethiopia is almost 90% christian and do not particippate in this ritual. The only Ethiopians that might participate are the Islamic ones and that is 10% or less of Ethiopians.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.151.151 (talk • contribs) 
:So basically what you're saying is "some Ethiopians practice FGC"?  Also please sign your comments using four tildes: ~~~~.  Ford MF 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if you read the following page http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10098.htm, you will find that 72.5% of women in Ethiopia (from statistics taken from 65 of the 80 tribes in the country)have undergone some form of female genital cutting. The person who made the observation that Ethiopia is 90% Christian (not correct as the stats are more like 45-50% Muslim, 35-40% Christian) is also claiming in their statement that ONLY Muslims practice female genital cutting, also another incorrect assumption. Female genital cutting is a tradition going back to the Pharaohs of Egypt and the reasons it is still practiced today amongst many different African groups, regardless or race, religion or culture ranges from many different reasons including but not limited to traditional reasons (because it has always been done, because the mother of the child had it done, coming of age ceremony) to social reasons (increases a girls marriage prospect, is closely linked to the honor of the family, men are afraid to marry a women who has not undergone FGC as it may mean she is not a virgin) to self interest reasons (it is a source of income for the midwife/person doing the cutting, girls who do not undergo the cutting think that they will not be attractive to the opposite sex, men have a need to control the sexual behaviour of women). The reasons why FGC does still exist and continues to exist despite the increased awareness of its needlessness (in terms of the modern worlds perspective) or the health problems associated with it needs to be highlighted a bit more in the FGC wiki page. --BigMick101 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopia 

message: "The procedure was legally practiced by doctors in the United States until 1996, and is still common in many developing countries, some at rates exceeding 95%."
Please cite this, or we will need to remove it. Atom 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just the facts ma'am 

message: I can't say I'm happy with the 4 + 1 reasons given for this section. 1, 3 and 4 are pretty much the same thing. The first sentence of that paragraph is pretty loaded, as well. Is there a way to say it without being quite so dramatic? Ciotog 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural and religious aspects 

message: user:Ed Poor recently moved the terminology discussion to around half-way into the article, and I moved it back near the top.
Regardless of your feelings about FGC vs. FGM, the terminology debate is a principle one with this issue and deserves some prominence in the article. Furthermore, someone unfamiliar with the practice of FGC might be confused as to why so many referenced websites refer to the practice as "Female Genital Mutilation" without that clarification coming sooner.
This is similar to the reason why a note about disambiguation appears at the top of other wiki articles, rather than at the bottom or somewhere else.
Please do not move this section without reaching a consensus here first. Ciotog 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Uncle Ed 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position in article of terminology clarification 

message: Moved these from main article to talk page for discussion: 
  Joie de Vivre 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reinstated these comments but I removed them again because they are here.  They're not clearly written enough for anyone to do anything about them, I don't even know what the writer wants.  Joie de Vivre 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from main article

message: Here are several comments without sources.  They have been cut from the main article and placed here.
:Cultures that practice female genital cutting consider the alteration it causes to the female form to be the natural way for women to look. 
:It is considered to be a mark of beauty and a transition into womanhood and marriage.
:FGC is never performed out of hatred or anger, in fact quite the opposite is true as fathers and mothers fully believe that they have their child's best interest at heart. 
:When discussing the whole issue of sexuality and FGC many women are surprised that western, uncut women have any sensation between their legs or can enjoy the act of lovemaking.
:To them to be cut is the "natural" way and in the same way that the West perceives that FGC is horrific, they feel that they would feel less feminine without it. 
Hopefully, someone can source these.  --  Joie de Vivre 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced comments

message: I'm a newbie making my first post, so please forgive (and educate) any naive errors  but I have a factual question that may be significant with regard to neutrality. 
Personally, in the interest of disclosure, I find it difficult to maintain cultural relativism on the subject. I find the disclosure of my own bias useful here because that difficulty is so common among other Westerners and an analogous bias in the opposite direction may well be found among people from cultures where these rituals are practiced.  As such, the overlooking of intermediate cases (gray, or at least grayer areas, if you will), is both likely and problematic.  
 
I can only cite a class lecture (If this would be helpful, I can and will.  I have a saved form peppered with AAA style citations of the same lectures but I don't know whether that would be useful or annoying.  I can also ask my professor for her bibliography if that would help), which is why this is a request for information, rather than an edit or correction, but in my gender in cross-cultural perspective class, I learned that some forms involve cutting of the labia only, whereas the article seems at least partially to overlook those cases that lie between partial or total clitoridectomy and a ritual involving only gestures symbolic of cutting. 
Another thing that my professor pointed out was that a more complex understanding of the phenomenon can actually help Western feminists to work with local feminists' efforts at reform. Western feminists taking an absolute stance on the issue can sometimes give short shrift to local women's agency, which can cause them to fail to recognize, and/or have difficulty working with, local women working in the same direction as themselves.
Randomundergrad 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for fact check on range of forms of female genital cutting 

message: Eritrean government recently (5 april 2007) prohibited female genital cutting. I think this info should be added into the article.--Abdullais4u 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: News

message: There is absolutely no factual/actual evidence of Female Genital Mutilation in Iran, ever, yet it is mentioned twice on the page. First it is defined as ‘circumstantial evidence’, then goes into ‘shia’ tradition and claims it is ‘common’ practice.  In Iran?! Why and who is making fictional claims about Iran in Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PrivateCitizen999999999 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fictional claims, by whom and why? 

message: . . . I am curious as to why items which have no proper citation are left as ‘information’? The situation of  women under theocracy in Iran is bad enough, there is no need to make things up about it with intent of deliberately distorting and misrepresenting.   : PrivateCitizen 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  . . . 

message: On May 28 I reverted to version 132129033 for a number of reasons, too many to list in the edit summary. My concerns are as follows:
 A name and e-mail address is not sufficient for a reference.
 Simply providing the text of Al-Tin 95:4 is not sufficient to back up the claim made, that Islam doesn't condone FGM. 
 The "popular culture" section already has a "cleanup-laundry" tag, it doesn't need a trivia tag as well (in fact the items mentioned are not trivial in the same sense that most other items in "popular culture" sections tend to be, which is why the tag was chosen).
As far as the pop culture list goes, I think some time in the near future I'll create a new list article and move everything there. I agree  that an open ended list shouldn't be in a larger article, but the list items do have their own merit. Ciotog 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits from May 20 to May 28 

message: It's good to see that the issue concerning the proper usage of an acronym, FGM vs. FGC,  has finally been properly addressed and discussed within the article.  I wanted to pass along a "thank you" to the editor(s) who incorporated this, somewhat contentious, subject matter into the article.  Great job. 
pixiequix 10:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Job 

message: Someone added a section on sexual consequences of female genital cutting, sourcing Hanny Lightfoot-Klein's book Prisoners of Ritual. They misquote it, citing only things that demonstrate it increases women's sexual pleasure, which is not the conclusion the author comes to. That's massively NPOV as well as quoting out of context, and should not be on this page. Why is it still there? I don't even see any discussion here about it.QuizzicalBee 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sexual consequences of FGC

message: This statement found in the artical is either very confusing or contradictory.   
For instance, prohibition of the procedure among tribes in Kenya significantly strengthened resistance to British colonial rule in the 1950s and increased support for the Mau Mau guerrilla movement. During that period, the practice became even more common, as it was seen as a form of resistance towards colonial rule.
===Complications of ban===
Yes, it has been banned in Egypt.  Yet, the government needs to stiffen and enforce penalties and needs to investigate potential persons conducting the surgery.  One needs to note that the practitioner in the Badour Shaker case was operating a clinic that was illegal in the first place.  Additionally, as is apparent by a CNN report, even barbers conduct this practice. Thus, while Egypt has banned this practice, the ban does not necessarily end the wide-spread execution of this practice.   Dogru144 09:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts to end the practice of FGC 

message: Yes, it has been banned in Egypt.  Yet, the government needs to stiffen and enforce penalties and needs to investigate potential persons conducting the surgery.  One needs to note that the practitioner in the Badour Shaker case was operating a clinic that was illegal in the first place.  Additionally, as is apparent by a CNN report, even barbers conduct this practice. Thus, while Egypt has banned this practice, the ban does not necessarily end the wide-spread execution of this practice.   Dogru144 09:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complications of ban

message: In case some haven't noticed in the article, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa said "It is prohibited, prohibited, prohibited."  Dogru144 02:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Condemned by Islam

message: It's unclear when :Image:Fgm_map.gif was updated.  There's a 2005 map at  which was apparently constructed from public domain sources.  The same data could be used to create a Wikipedia map.  Though NPR  is reporting that the incidence in Egypt has dropped to on the order of 70%. -- Beland 19:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map update? 

message: It was surprising to see that this article made no mention of anthropologist Richard Shweder's much-discussed article in the Fall 2000 Daedalus. It is fascinating and highly informative, and could not be more relevant. Here are the first few paragraphs with the link. I highly recommend a careful reading of the whole thing. Perhaps someone closer to the editing process of this page could insert it as a reference in the appropriate places. -- Alan2012 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shweder's Fall 2000 Daedalus Article on "FGM" 

message: I just omitted the last portion of THIS passage, from the "Medical Consequences" section:
"The failure to use sterile medical instruments may lead to infections and the spread of disease, such as HIV, especially when the same instruments are used to perform procedures on multiple women.[10]"
Reference number 10 is:
 EAST AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, Volume 69 Number 9: Pages 479-482,
 September 1992.
 THE RISK OF MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS AFTER FEMALE CIRCUMCISION 
 M. A. DIRIE and G. LINDMARK 
.......... the full text is available online, and it says nothing about HIV or AIDS. 
Is there some other reference which establishes a relation?
-- Alan2012 14:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FGC & HIV/AIDS? 

message: Further along the lines of Shweder and Boddy:
This book is too new to be in most libraries or for there to be more detailed online
reviews available. Nevertheless, from the brief descriptions and chapter titles one can
get the gist. 
Note the mention of "frequent marginalization of African women's voices in debates over
FGC". This is emphasized by Shweder and others. There's a lot of racism, classism and (even!)
sexism in this whole mess, along with cultural imperialism. 
-- Alan2012 15:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hernlund & Shell-Duncan: Female Genital Cutting in Global Context 

message: In the "Attempts to end the practice of FGC" section there is this paragraph: 
"On June 28, 2007 Egypt banned female genital cutting after the death of 12-year old Badour Shaker during a genital circumcision. The Guardian of Britain reported that her death "sparked widespread condemnation" of the practice. Egyptian newspapers reported that earlier in the day of her surgery, the girl had given out sweets, in celebration of her excellent grades in school. [41] (See earlier in this article for details of the death, and see the details in the next section regarding the ban on female genital cutting.)"
Why include the sentence about the girl handing out sweets?  What relevance does it have to FGC?  If it is to show that she was healthy earlier in the same day I feel that needs to be clarified.
Mnoram 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why reference girl handing out sweets? 

message: In the article, type I FGC is defined as clitoridectomy.  This is incorrect.  Clitoridectomy is defined as the removal (excision) of part or all of the clitoris[]
[].  Type I FGC is defined by WHO as: "Type I (FGM 1) - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris."[]  How should we fix this?  Also, the sentence under Type I which begins, "This term was devised in The Sudan by...." is not supported by the source.  It isn't even clear what term this is referring to, but there is nothing in the source suggesting that any term was "devised in the Sudan." Blackworm 10:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Type I FGC factually incorrect. 

message: All empasis mine.  Can we do better than this?  Can someone suggest a rewrite?  Blackworm 10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infibulation description contradicted by its "source" 

message: This needs to be archived badly.
:I agree, this section does need to be archived, perhaps someone not involved in the current dispute could archive up to "Removal" (which is the beginning of the current dispute)? Any other thoughts from editors? Phyesalis (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive old discussions