Talk:Female genital mutilation

message: There seems to be a slow edit war here. See the recent page history. This is a Wikipedia:Featured article and this Wikipedia:FAOWN applies. The top editor who took it through reviews died; nevertheless FAOWN still applies, which states:  These are significant changes and need significant discussion. At this point I'm tempted to roll back to entire article to the version that went through review. In the least I'm rolling back the many changes and suggest strongly that we not deviate the original version's section Comparison with other procedures. Victoria (tk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is definitely WP:UNDUE now. The only comparison between FGM and circumcision in the article, is a pro-FGM one: “Carla Obermeyer maintains that FGM may be conducive to women's well-being within their communities in the same way that rhinoplasty and male circumcision may help people elsewhere”. The anti-circumcision/anti-FGM viewpoint is a significantly more prominent viewpoint than the pro-FGM/pro-circumcision one. The article used to give due weight to these viewpoints, but now it does not. Unless the article changes, I think we should add an UNDUE template, since the section is problematic. I also think it is problematic that MrOllie was pinged to this discussion, even though he was not involved in the mini edit war, but an involved editor () was not pinged. Prcc27 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

text: (The above comment was made before I saw that you self-reverted yourself.) Prcc27 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, didn't look closely enough at the history before reverting you and had to self-revert.So the article went through review with a section called Comparison with other procedures. At some point that section acquired additional subheadings as seen in this last version by the primary author. That's the version we should be working from and gaining consensus. At this point I support reverting to 18 April 2021 version per WP:FAOWN. My suspicion is that the additional headers/subsections are an invitation to add more text. Given the way the TOC is formatted in V22 (those sections aren't visible) it's best to flatten the TOC as much as possible. That, at least would be a starting place. Victoria (tk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your concerns about adding too much text, this article is supposed to be about female genital cutting, not other types of genital cutting. Reverting to the original version would be UNDUE though per the reasons I gave above. However, the current version may also be UNDUE because it deviates too far from the main topic of the article. I would propose condensing the section, and we could agree to not add content that veers away from FGM. Would this address your concerns about too much text being added? Prcc27 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way of doing this is to start with the reviewed version/s. There's Wikipedia:Peer review/Female genital mutilation/archive2 that closed with this version. Then there was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Female genital mutilation/archive2 that passed with this version. SlimVirgin added the headers and rearranged the text, without substantial changes to it other than repositioning, here on 1 November 2018. I think that's our starting point, because it's an FA. I'd argue the headers aren't helpful, so if we can gain consensus to remove them, that's a first step. The next would be to look at the text itself, sentence by sentence (and, obviously the sourcing). Let's wait for others to chime in. There's no rush.  Victoria (tk) 00:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are supposed to be changed, updated, and improved upon. I don’t agree with reverting to an old version, based on a review from several years ago. The important thing for us to do, is to find a consensus. But yes, I do hope other users will share their thoughts. Prcc27 (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Slow edit war

message: Somalia is seeing a rise in female genital mutilation due to the lack of awareness of the consequences. The majority of the procedures are performed on preteen girls. There was an uptake in these fatal procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, shown with a direct correlation to the rise of girls dropping out of school.
“Female Genital Mutilation: A Daily Grim Reality for Girls in Somalia - Somalia.” ReliefWeb, 6 Feb. 2023, reliefweb.int/report/somalia/female-genital-mutilation-daily-grim-reality-girls-somalia. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023. Polka365 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FGM in Somalia 

message: Under the Terminology section, the below quote disengenuously represents the severity of multiple forms of what the WHO defines as female genital mutilation when compared to male genital mutilation (presented within the quotation using the euphimism of "circumcision").
"Until the 1980s, FGM was widely known in English as "female circumcision", implying an equivalence in severity with male circumcision."
Type IA of female genital mutilation is directly analgous to male genital mutilation. Multiple other forms of female genital mutilation as defined by the WHO are far less severe than male genital mutilation including all defined acts under Type IV. Hypocriticalreason (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 05:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024 

message: Under “types” it is stated that type Ia FGM is rarely performed alone, that is to say, it is typically performed congruently with type Ib. However, neither of the supposed sources provided corroborate this claim. Eliek1996 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note [f] includes, "in very rare cases, only the prepuce" (prepuce = clitoral hood) and "this form appears to be relatively rare" and "Almost all known forms of female genital mutilation that remove tissue from the clitoris also cut all or part of the clitoral glans itself". That supports the claim. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No valid source for “this is rarely performed alone”