Jump to content

Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Link to Wikipedia article on dignity?

I am missing mentioning of the word "dignity" in this article (like "violation of the dignity of the affected women"), including a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article on dignity. It would be worth mentioning at least once, wouldn't it? The word indignity appears once in the article.EvM-Susana (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINK, "everyday words understood by most readers in context" shouldn't be wikilinked, and I think dignity is in that category. Zad68 15:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. For once, the word dignity (violation of dignity) is not even mentioned once in this article (it has a heavy bias on medical issues primarily). I think it's important and it (FGM) also touches on human rights issues. Also, a layperson may think he/she knows what "dignity" is all about but when you go to the article about dignity you realise there is so much more to it (why else would you even have an article on dignity). The article about dignity could have a link back to the FGM article, thereby connecting two related topics. I already added a link to lack of sanitation as an example of loss of dignity on the dignity article. In my opinion it would be helpful to show people this kind of connection. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with this argument. The topic that would be referenced would not be the generic description of the word, but rather "dignity" as the internationally recognized principle of human rights -- which is a much more clearly defined concept in law especially, but also in academia, activism, various schools of philosophy, and sources reflect these rather more refined uses. But perhaps that's the solution: we should not be linking to the article Dignity in general, but rather to Dignity#law, or even to Human rights (but with pipping syntax such that we can still reference "dignity"). Actually, our (Wikipedia's) coverage of these topics should probably ultimately necessitate a Dignity (legal concept) or Dignity (human rights) article (perhaps that's something I should look into), but for the present time I think a little creative linking should be able to point our readers to useful information about the particular legal/ideological concept we are referencing here without running afoul of OVERLINK. We would certainly have no shortage of sources connecting the two subjects, as FGM has been broadly and explicitly defined as an affront to human dignity. Snow let's rap 22:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Dignity is the kind of ordinary word we don't normally link to. It isn't something the sources stress (that I recall), except in terms of discussing FGM as a human-rights violation. The human-rights perspective was the focus of anti-FGM campaigns for decades, in order to move FGM from being viewed by the international community as a medical problem. So long as it was seen that way, medical solutions were offered (use an anaesthetic, use sterile equipment, do it in hospitals, perform the lesser kinds instead). Once accepted as a human-rights violation, the UN threw its weight behind getting rid of it entirely. It's not clear that adding something about dignity would usefully further that point, but if you can find a source discussing FGM and dignity that adds to the debate we can certainly take a look. Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think to the extent dignity is referenced in the context of a human rights violation, it's more than sufficient to support mention here. I'll see what more I can't come up with, as regards sources that lean in this direction explicitly, rather than mentioning the issue in passing. Technically we are not beholden to providing such verification for the purposes of an internal link (we only need editorial agreement that the topics are connected), but I understand the desire to make the connection explicitly supported by reference all the same, and any sources drummed up could potentially be used to flesh out our prose coverage of the human rights aspects anyway. As soon as I find anything, I'll post it here. Snow let's rap 00:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
These are just some of the sources I was able to come up with in a matter of minutes. As alluded to previously, there is a mountain of sourcing (hundreds of quality reliable sources at the least, probably thousands) which support the notion that "dignity" (as both a general term and in it's more rarefied meaning in legal and scholarly contexts) is of central importance to the discussion of FGM. Snow let's rap 01:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Snow Rise!! That's really great! Now I think it can justifiably be included in the article... Can it be made clear how dignity and human rights are related, but not identical for FGM, hence both concepts need to be considered (and linked to). This is something I am not totally clear on - I look forward to learning more about it when I read the proposed new sentences in the FMG article... EvM-Susana (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

So far the article has managed to stick to a matter-of-fact encyclopedic approach and I'm not sure that adding text explaining the infringement of dignity would be useful—readers should easily see for themselves that a loss of dignity is involved. The more fundamental issue, and the one more often referred to in sources that I have seen, concerns human rights, and the article has three mentions of FGM as a human-rights violation, including one in the lead. For example, the text includes "The conference listed FGM as a form of violence against women, marking it as a human-rights violation, rather than a medical issue." (referring to the 1993 UN World Conference on Human Rights). Explaining that FGM also violates the dignity of women seems unnecessary, and "dignity" is harder to precisely define, particularly in a manner that applies universally. By contrast, the concepts of human rights are well established with formal definitions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I am finding it odd that there should be so much resistance to inserting one sentence that contains the word "dignity" into this article. Human rights violation and dignity are not the same, just see all the references that were listed above by Snow Rise. What are you afraid of? That the article is no longer "matter-of-fact" if it mentions loss of dignity? I am finding this very odd. I am neither an expert on FGM nor on dignity but your assertion that "readers should easily see for themselves that a loss of dignity is involved" is not justified to me, as the average reader will have little prior knowledge about these things and therefore needs to be pointed into that direction. It's the same as the discussion we had above where it was said "the reader should logically deduce themselves that urination will be slower etc." (but in the end it was changed). You are expecting too much from the average reader. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
EvM, no one said the reader should deduce that urination would be slower. Everything on WP is source-based. For medical claims, we follow WP:MEDRS, and for featured articles the source should ideally be authoritative for its use (the kind of sources the sources use).
If you'd like to add a sentence about dignity, the best approach is to suggest one, along with where to place it, and a source that explains its role within the FGM debate. This source suggested by Snow (Kalev, Sex Roles, September 2004, p. 346) discusses it in passing, but the argument is complex. Snow also suggested Anker 2012, p. 139, but again the argument would need to be unpacked. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I would add such a sentence if I felt sufficiently knowledgeable about the two subjects (FGM and dignity). By me raising it I was hoping that someone who knows more about these topics would pick up my suggestion. I also wrote on the talk page of dignity about it. So far no takers. I will keep my eyes open for relevant publications or simple sentences that would explain the connection well. EvM-Susana (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, EvM. It's a question of knowing when the dignity point was first made. Someone will have to devote time to going through the history of UN action to find out when that vocabulary emerged. There was a workshop in Africa in 1984 that included dignity in a resolution opposing FGM, so that could be added, but I'd like to read more about it first. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, dignity has finally arrived! Pinging EvM-Susana. It's in a quote and I've linked it, which we're not supposed to do, so someone may removed it in future, but it's here for now:

In 1979 the WHO held a seminar, "Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children," in Khartoum, Sudan, and in 1981, also in Khartoum, the Babiker Badri Scientific Association for Women's Studies (BBSAWS) held a three-day workshop, "Female Circumcision Mutilates and Endangers Women – Combat it!" At the end of it 150 academics and activists signed a pledge to fight FGM. Another BBSAWS workshop in 1984 invited the international community to write a joint statement for the United Nations. Participants agreed that "female circumcision is a violation of human rights, an encroachment on the dignity of women, a debasement of women's sexuality, and an unwarranted affront on the health of women."[1]

References

  1. ^ Shahira Ahmed, "Babiker Badri Scientific Association for Women's Studies," in Abusharaf 2007, pp. 176–180.

Sarah (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Great!! I do think that connecting these topics (and Wikipedia articles is important; by the way, please check that FGM is mentioned in the right way on the dignity article, too (I had added it in). Now I am just wondering, did you purposefully go back to quite old references or was it hard to find more recent ones which make that connection between FGM and dignity? Just wondering. EvM-Susana (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I looked for an early notable mention of it. The vocabulary that we now take for granted had to be fought for, because FGM was viewed as a medical issue with medical solutions (do it in hospital with sterile equipment and anaesthesia). There was a long battle to have it viewed instead as a human-rights violation that should not happen at all. The 1984 workshop crafted a proposal for the UN, and getting the UN fully committed to opposing FGM was crucial. That dignity was mentioned during that workshop seemed like an appropriate way to introduce it. Sarah (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Circumcision in reference to type Ia

I think a comment should be put that circumcision refers to UN type Ia. I know that historically "female circumcision" has been used for all FGM, but the reason is that circumcision in Latin means "to cut around", while applying the term to all forms of FGM seems more in line local customs seeing the practice as similar to the Hebrew word that gets translated to circumcision, which literally means covenant (see Abraham). Using it for type Ia would be using the Latin correctly, rather than taking the biblical translation out of context.Scientus (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Those sorts of details can go in the body. They do not belong in the lead. Many people still use female circumcision to mean all types. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The edit in question changed the first of the following (first sentence in article) to the second:
  • Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia.
  • Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision (for type Ia), is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia.
I think the information is totally WP:UNDUE anywhere in the article. The text appears to assert that the term "female circumcision" is only used for type 1a, and the explanation above is that "circumcision" has a proper meaning that only applies to 1a. However, that misses the point that people can and do use words to mean what they want—a highly reliable source would be needed to assert that "female circumcision" has been used to only refer to type 1a. It's very unlikely that such a source would exist since, as Doc James notes, the term is used more widely. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You think it is Undue specificity to discuss etymology of the main topic of the article? I think mentioning what the Latin word means, and that in the male circumcision instance the Hebrew word that it is translated from is relevant due to that being the origin or the practice (although that doesn't currently appear in the male circumcision article...).
There is no such things as type Ib or III circumcision, even if the term was used this way, because there is no circumferance being cut around in those cases. What is being cut around could be construed as the vagina or clitoris (type Ia or type II) but the others are clearly not circumcision, even if the practitioners of this surgery consider it a form of covenant or bris.Scientus (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about FGM, not the word "circumcision" so details of whether the term is used incorrectly are not due here. Moreover, any assertion concerning circumcision and FGM would need to be accompanied by a very good source. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
We need to keep the first sentence reasonably simple (ie. what is it and what are some names used for it)
We must not try to pack everything we possibly can into a single sentence. Controversy over exactly which names are used for which specific practices can go in the body.
Most English speakers do not consider the etymology of a word and its Greek and Latin roots when they use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term circumcision in the very first sentence of the article

I think the person (Scientus) who made the change regarding the "circumcision part" has a point though. I think it is misleading to say "Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision is...", without adding a qualifier that the term "female circumcision" is no longer a term being recommended and used by experts. Why not? Because it makes people think that it is basically the same as the "male circumcision" which it is not. Why not? Because male circumcision is basically pretty much harmless, removing some "superfluous" piece of skin and pretty much non controversial. But FGM is something totally different, it has much more to do with power relationships, violating the dignity of the women etc. I don't have a reference at hand but it would probably be quite easy to dig up documents which have said "do not call it female circumcision, call it female genital mutilation (or cutting)!". Therefore, the first sentence could be modified to say: "Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and formerly known as female circumcision (no longer recommended), is ...". Or split it into two sentences: "Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting, is....". Then as a second sentence: "The word "female circumcision" has also been used in the literature and media but is not recommended by experts because... "EvM-Susana (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to be dragged into your polemic, however I agree with using an adjective for female circumcision such as historically or misnomer (as described above it is a misnomer).Scientus (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Scientus, female circumcision is and always was used by the sources in English to refer to all the common forms of FGM, not only Type I (note that Type Ia is rare, according to the WHO). Sarah (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This sort of fine detail, if you can find a reference for it, belongs in the body of the text not the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I know it was used for all types, but it is still a misnomer.Scientus (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised you would call it a "fine detail", Doc_James. I think it is a very important detail and one of the first things that I was told when I learned about FGM from experts (perhaps development cooperation experts find this aspect on terminology more important than medical experts, I am not sure). We actually have the relevant information already in the first paragraph on terminoloy (with references), i.e.: "The Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children and the World Health Organization (WHO) began referring to it as female genital mutilation in 1990 and 1991 respectively,[21] and in April 1997 the WHO, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) issued a joint statement using that term.". Therefore, it would be justified to add the word "historically" into the lead where circumcision first appears. Wouldn't it? I also saw that "cirumcision" appears 58 times in the article. I think we should check one by one if in each case "circumcision" is the right term. It's only the right term when it refers to "historical" aspects or perhaps "local" use of the word, but not for the general text where we should stick to FGM, mutilation, cutting and alike. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's easy to check the article, which I have just done again, and each instance of "circumcision" is used correctly and appropriately. It's a bit soon to change the lead to say that FGM was also "historically female circumcision" because an encyclopedic article has to report what is done rather than what ought to be done. The 2004 image in the lead saying "Stop female circumcision" is one example, and there are lots of more recent examples of the term being used in reliable sources. The article covers the matter in a due manner; in a few years, it will probably be time to put it more forcefully, but not now. Johnuniq (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The led is to be written for a general audience. A general audience uses female circumcision interchangeably with FGM. Yes that some people only technically use the term for certain types now can be discussed in the body. This is not the most important thing about the topic such that it must occur in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not totally convinced (why do it in "some years from now but not yet?") but anyhow, can we at least make the point clearer in the terminology section then which follows the lead? It should be easy to bring up some high quality references to support the statement that the term "female circumcision" is actually like a euphemism which many experts and campaigners reject nowadays, at least at the international policy level. It reminds me of the term "disabled people" which we should replace with "people with disabilities". EvM-Susana (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes some people use the term female circumcision in an attempt to down play the severity of the procedure in question. It is a common term used by anthropologists such as in this article [1]
Yes the medical and humanitarian organizations do not use the term as they do not want to downplay the seriousness of what is taking place. There is controversy over the usage of the term and likely will be for some time to come. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Gender inequality, etc

Supersize Moi, I've left a note on your talk page about your changes. [2][3][4] Please discuss here rather than continuing to remove or change those points, per Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. The sources strongly support that material, so it would help if you would explain which parts you disagree with and why. For example, you keep removing that women initiate it, though I'm not sure whether you intend to do that. Many thanks, Sarah (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to ping: Supersize Moi. Sarah (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've restored the material again and was going to restore the footnote that used to be there, but I'd prefer not to clutter the lead regarding issues that have such widespread consensus (per WP:LEADCITE), so instead the old footnote can be seen here. Sarah (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The clutter is unfortunate, but it might be unavoidable in this case because the "gender inequality" text might look like editorial comment to someone who is not familiar with the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The sources in that footnote cover a few issues, so perhaps Supersize Moi could say exactly what the problem is, and we could add sources that cover it. He has changed a few issues, most recently:
(a) removed that women usually initiate it as well as carry it out;
(b) removed that is rooted in ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics, and instead wrote that it is seen as a "sign" of those things, and honor, but aesthetics has been removed; and
(c) now only opponents argue that "it is rooted in gender inequality and constitutes an attempt to control women's sexuality." But supporters of FGM often argue that too, especially the latter.
Sarah (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

The introductory paragraph contains language with an inappropriate tone for a wikipedia article. "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics." 74.116.173.23 (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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. Can you be more specific about what you find wrong with the current sentence and what wording you would suggest in its place? Deli nk (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Gambia ban

Gambia's president Yahya Jammeh bans FGM: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:505F:FFFF:0:0:567F:9B3F (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

This article could use some before and after pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.132.214 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 1 December 2015

That's difficult to arrange. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Improvement: Prevalence section contain common misconception about FGM as mainly Africa problem

Female_genital_mutilation#Prevalence FGM is mostly found in what political scientist Gerry Mackie describes as an "intriguingly contiguous" zone in Africa – east to west from Somalia to Senegal, and north to south from Egypt to Tanzania.[84] As of 2014, 133 million women and girls were thought to be living with FGM in the 29 countries in which it is concentrated. If the rate of decline (as of 2014) continues, this figure will increase to 196 million by 2050 because of population growth.

As you can see in your other article: Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country - Indonesia, Female genital mutilation Type I and IV is prevalent in Indonesia; 97.5% of females from Muslim families ... are mutilated by age 18. ... Across the sites, among all the children aged 15–18, 86-100% of the girls were reported already circumcised. So do the math. Indonesia has the biggest Muslim population in the word, 204,847,000 according to 2010 PEW report. It means about 100 million females and most of them mutilated. It should be at least mentioned there is the same prevalence of FGM in South, Southeast and Central Asia.

In next paragraph: Egypt, Ethiopia and Nigeria had the highest number of women and girls living with FGM as of 2013: 27.2 million, 23.8 million and 19.9 million respectively. It is clearly wrong, Indonesia has, at least, two times higher number of women and girls living with FGM.

The same problem can be seen in side panel which all cites only one study (UNICEF, November 2014) which is only about Afrika. I think this is the source of the misinformation that study exclusively only from Afrika is used as the source of FGM worldwide. I think it should be corrected so those articles would not, at least, contradict each other.

--HynekVychodil (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi HynekVychodil, the sources for Indonesia in that other article are not good. This article relies on global figures from UNICEF, which is a trusted authority on FGM. They have concluded that FGM is most prevalent in 27 countries in Africa, as well as in Iraqi Kurdistan and Yemen. That doesn't mean it isn't more prevalent elsewhere. It means that it is most prevalent in those 29 countries according to surveys and statistics UNICEF regards as reliable. SarahSV (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, none of UNICEF studies [3], [5], [7], [84], [85 via n 13], [86], [87], [90], [91], [92], [93], [95 via n 14], [96] used for backing Female_genital_mutilation#Prevalence cantain data from Indonesia. WHO study [94]: In some other countries, studies have documented female genital mutilation, but no national estimates have been made. These countries include: Indonesia. Even UNICEF The State of the World's Children 2015: Executive Summary[5] should contain worldwide data but do not. See Table 9 page 86 first row. [88] UNIFPA Egypt. [89] This study provides estimates of the total number of women aged 15 years and older who have undergone FGM/C in 27 African countries and Yemen. You simply can't back up your worldwide prevalence chapter by studies which doesn't contain worldwide data. None of sources you are using contain any data from Indonesia at all. I found it crazy. You are ignoring bigest muslim female population in the world counting 100 million women. Only aviable studies are telling there is 97.5% of them mutilated by age 18 and 86-100% in age 15-18 and 80% of them are mutilated before age 9 in mass female circumcision (khitanan massal) ceremony. It would be 50 million mutilated women even it would be only 50% which is not! It dwarves numbers from Egypt, Ethiopia and Nigeria. It doesn't make any sense to ignore it just because of lack of quality and absence of exact numbers. Even estimates is simply telling you it dwarves numbers from Africa. Shame on UNICEF, UNIFPA, WHO who doesn't provide studies and exact data from largest FGM infested female population in the World but you don't have to. --HynekVychodil (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@HynekVychodil: UNICEF and the WHO do not have reliable, nationally representative data from Indonesia. We know that it happens there. Our article includes images of it happening there. But we don't know the extent of it. According to UNICEF: "The practice is also found in countries including Colombia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, parts of Indonesia and Malaysia and pockets of Europe and North America, but reliable data on the magnitude of the phenomenon in these other contexts are largely unavailable." SarahSV (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: UNICEF and WHO is not only possible source of data. There are 12 citations in the Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country - Indonesia. At least [209] conducted by the Population Council Jakarta with support from the Ministry for Women’s Empowerment under USAID funding has a considerable good methodology and provides exact numbers. It is not reason when UNICEF does not have data to ignore the country with biggest FGM prevalence in the world. Wikipedia is not UNICEF's press office. If UNICEF doesn't have data it does not excuse to ignore FGM in Indonesia which at least doubles the number of FGM in Egypt. It is nonsense. Wikipedia is often used as a source of information about of topic and now it provides wrong information. There is not FGM mostly in those countries in Africa. Only like eight of them has percentage comparable to Indonesia. Egypt, Ethiopia and Nigeria did not have the highest number of women and girls living with FGM simply because in Indonesia there are more than two times more. All of this is backed by studies. It is not excuse that UNICEF and WHO don't have data. They do not have data which would contradict it either because they do not have any data from Indonesia, but there are other sources. There is not just missing information in this section. There is information which is a lie! Neither UNICEF or WHO is providing the misinformation which is in this article. They are honest they do not have data. They do not tell FGM is mostly in Africa from whole World. It is Wikipedia article which is not mentioning that provided information is only from a very selective source which does not include the country with the biggest Muslim population in the World. It is Wikipedia article which is claiming Egypt, Ethiopia and Nigeria had the highest numbers of women and girls living with FGM. It is Wikipedia ignoring one country which would have double of their numbers even if there would be 50% prevalence when there are studies which found more than 80%. I have encountered many times someone is using this misconception from Wikipedia because it is Wikipedia who is not honest about using incomplete sources of data. --HynekVychodil (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Another point is that there is no reasonable way to be sure of the FGM prevalence in a population so comparing numbers obtained from two different sources is dubious. The UNICEF results are the best available, and they attempt to account for different techniques used to collect information. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not a reason to ignore them all. UNICEF is concentrating on Africa and some selected countries outside Africa in regards of FGM, but Wikipedia is not UNICEF, is it? Wikipedia should contain data from different sources and ignoring largest FGM suffering population in the World seems not right and even estimates and bad studies are backing it pretty well. --HynekVychodil (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
UNICEF focuses on the countries for which there are reliable figures from Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. They use these to produce national estimates. Those national figures don't exist for Indonesia. For Wikipedia to introduce less reliable sourcing about some areas of certain countries, and to compare these to national figures audited by UNICEF, would be to mix and match source types in a way that would risk producing original research. It's arguably acceptable to go into more detail about areas of certain countries in the other article (if the sources are good), but we can't do it here. And when I last checked, the quality of the sources for prevalence in parts of Indonesia was very poor. SarahSV (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It would not be original research to at least mention that sources which are used ignore biggest Muslim country in the World with reportedly big prevalence of FGM which dwarves figures from Africa. --HynekVychodil (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be OR to compare apples and oranges, i.e. for Wikipedia to decide that it knows how to compare poor sources that focus on parts of one country, with national figures audited and often collected by UN bodies.
Can you post here what you consider to be your best source on prevalence in Indonesia? SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As you posted the report conducted by the Jakarta Population Council and the Ministry for Women’s Empowerment, I assume that's your best source. This is a report from 2003. It is a primary source. The Council's studies were funded by USAID, but I haven't seen USAID rely on the figures.

The survey focused on 1,694 households in several parts of the country, and involved emails, phone calls and interviews. If you read the report, you'll see how problematic it is. One study was based on 115 people, including male religous leaders. If UNICEF or another UN body is able to extract good figures from this data, we can use them, but we can't audit them ourselves. SarahSV (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I've added a footnote to the lead, after we mention the 29 countries, explaining where the prevalence figures come from. This is already in the article, but repeating it in this way may be helpful. It also makes clear that FGM takes place outside these countries, but that the data is lacking. SarahSV (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/Archive_14&oldid=1136341264"