Misplaced Pages

Talk:Female genital mutilation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:50, 17 October 2014 editElvey (talk | contribs)9,497 edits →Please include: note← Previous edit Revision as of 07:04, 17 October 2014 edit undoDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,255 edits →Points of potential agreementNext edit →
Line 334: Line 334:


::Can you please acknowledge that FGM rates in Eritrea - unlike in other countries - were remarkably uniform among different populations/ethnicities? They were between 80% and 100% - See . --<span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125;</span> <sup>(]•])</sup> 04:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC) ::Can you please acknowledge that FGM rates in Eritrea - unlike in other countries - were remarkably uniform among different populations/ethnicities? They were between 80% and 100% - See . --<span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125;</span> <sup>(]•])</sup> 04:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
*Have removed the chart until copyright is sorted out. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


==== Points of agreement ==== ==== Points of agreement ====

Revision as of 07:04, 17 October 2014

Female genital mutilation received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Female genital mutilation.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good articleFemale genital mutilation has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 19, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
Current status: Good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnthropology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFeminism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGender studies
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Logs and discussions:

Discussions:

Older discussions:

  • Female genital cutting → Female Genital Mutilation, No move, 12 November 2006
  • Female genital cutting → Female circumcision , no consensus, 31 July 2008
  • Female genital cutting → Female genital mutilation, Moved, 29 July 2011
  • Female genital mutilation → Female genital cutting, No consensus to move, 10 November 2011
  • Female genital mutilation → Female genital modification and mutilation, Not moved, 29 May 2013

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17


This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


Toolbox

Immigrant communities

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the word immigrants arround the world is wrong! How can u be a immigrant within your country! Remove that word! It sounds like a western person wrote this and everyone who is not a western person is a immigrant ?? That's what i understand from reading this.

195.241.241.11 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Immigrant communities can exist with in countries all around the world. If you wish, the source says "immigrant communities in North America and Europe" specifically, so I don't mind changing it to that, but I don't understand your confusion Cannolis (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

immigrant communities is wrong. How can u be a immigrant in your own country? Dahay (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

see above Cannolis (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The phrase "immigrant communities" is commonly used to refer to communities within a country that consist of immigrants. Try putting the phrase into Google. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ref style

Have reverted these edits that change the citation style . Typically one needs consensus for this first from the majority of those who wrote the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, some of the longer the citations were moved to the end of the article, which can make things easier to read, but the actual citation format was not changed. But, I can see how one could interpret this as a change to the citation style. I re-did the fixed to the quote boxes and paragraph tags that were mixed in with rest. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 21:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Frietjes removed the citation bundling, so that we could no longer see which ref referred to which point, added list-refined references, added quote boxes, reduced the font in the block quotes, and added other templates. SlimVirgin 23:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'd reverted these changes, and I'd appreciate it if extensive changes could be discussed first. The article is currently going through peer review and being prepared for FAC. Quite a bit of the formatting will change again (and the new font was too small), and I need the citations to stay as they are, so I can easily find and move them around. I'm also not going to add a template for every paragraph break in the citations. SlimVirgin 21:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: So your issue with the quote boxes is the font size? That can be easily fixed, and last time I checked this was one of only two articles using <p> tags. How did other articles make it through peer review and FAC without them? Plastikspork ―Œ 22:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Plastikspork, the article is being prepared for FAC, and is currently at peer review. The usual practice at peer review is that people suggest changes, rather than forcing them through, and citation styles aren't changed if the main authors object. Could you explain what the issues are, instead of restoring your changes? Also, why is the formatting in this article suddenly of such interest, and what is wrong with <p> tags? SlimVirgin 22:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't change the citation style, and I have/will outline the accessibility and markup issues in the next section. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 22:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility and html markup issues

There are a couple problems

  1. A line starting with semicolon ';' generates a set of <dl>...</dl> and <dt>...</dt> tags which are only appropriate for association lists (e.g., when followed by a line starting with a colon ':'). Not sure why these were changed from the prior bold markup.
  2. The quotations not uniformly using {{quote box}} or an equivalent method for marking them as quotations with CSS classes.

Are there any objections to fixing this by (1) changing the lines starting with semicolons with bold markup, and (2) replacing the <div>...</div> markup with {{quote box}}? An example can be seen here. Thank you! Plastikspork ―Œ 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is being prepared for FAC, and quite a bit of this will change over the next few days/weeks (e.g. block quotes and images will be moved/removed). So trying to format the current version perfectly is pointless.
These style issues are optional. I'd appreciate advice about which formatting works better is which circumstances, but not being forced to work with certain styles by editors who aren't otherwise involved in the article.
If you could explain what is wrong with semi-colons (I didn't understand your point 1, though it's a minor issue, so I don't mind), and why you prefer quote boxes, that would be helpful. Also, what is wrong with <p> tags? SlimVirgin 22:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You have to view the HTML source to see differences. For the dl/dt tags, there should be an obvious difference. For the quote boxes search for 'class="quotebox"'. The quotations using quote boxes have additional CSS classes. The outward appearance to the sighted should be nearly identical, but the difference for screen readers (which parse the HTML) is greater. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I don't see what the issues are, Plastikspork. Can you say what the problem is with <p> tags? SlimVirgin 22:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't change any paragraph tags in my last edit. However, as far as paragraph tags go, you have an open tag, <p> and a close tag, </p>. These are used to mark the start and end of a paragraph (see HTML elements). The problem is that frequently they are used instead to mark a wide line break, which is the role of a <br> tag. The backend MediaWiki software adds these paragraph tags to paragraphs for you (view the HTML source for the page). Most screen readers are able to jump from paragraph to paragraph with a keyboard shortcut. The problem with adding them in places that aren't actually paragraphs is that it disrupts the natural ability for the screen reader to jump between paragraphs. There is a similar problem when you add extra newlines between list items (i.e., lines that start with an asterisk or a colon). I can dig up more stuff, or we can get more people from WT:ACCESSIBILITY to comment. Thanks! 22:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I had always understand that <p> didn't have to be closed. I'll check with a couple of editors that use screenreaders and if it makes a difference to them, I'll start using the template instead. Otherwise I'd prefer to leave them because it's easier to add <p> than a template.
<p> does not require an end tag under the right circumstances. --  Gadget850 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
True, but as far as I can tell none of those exceptions apply here :) Plastikspork ―Œ 23:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure we can make a short redirect for this one. Plastikspork ―Œ 23:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Gadget. I had seen an explanation of this somewhere, but couldn't find it. SlimVirgin 23:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
But looking at this, it looks like <p> is at the end of statements, where it should be at the beginning. I would have to look at the CSS styling, but I expect this would cause screen reader issues. I think it creates a block element and it is going to be in the wrong place. --  Gadget850 23:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
As for quote boxes, sorry if this is a stupid question, but why do we need additional CSS classes here? I searched for class="quotebox", but I'm none the wiser (again, sorry). SlimVirgin 23:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Having the css class in the quote boxes allows editors to customise the appearance of the quotations using his/her own class file (i.e., your common.css). It also can enable quickly navigating between quotes, if the screen reader or browser is configured to do so. And, it allows for a more uniform presentation of quotations between articles. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 23:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't see a need to change the appearance, but I'll ask a couple of editors who use screen readers whether it makes a difference to them. SlimVirgin 23:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I frequently use a screen reader and it makes a difference to me. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition markup

Do not use ; to simply bold a line without defining a value using :. The semicolon and colon are wikimarkup used to create a definition list; these render as <dl><dt>...</dt></dl> and <dd>...</dd> respectively. Per the HTML5 specification if you have the definition list <dl>...</dl> markup you must have the <dd> markup. Thus the semicolon markup should never be used to simply bold a line. This is in common use due to copying, but it is still incorrect. The issue is exacerbated when a editor includes a colon on the line but does not want a definition and ends up wrapping it in <nowiki>. --  Gadget850 23:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

agreed, but good luck stopping editors from doing so. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Prevalence section: stats paint a misleading picture

I changed the title (to the above) as the old title (left below) was being misinterpreted.

Prevalence stats way off

Dubious

I just added the following regarding the prevalence stats :

The above statistics are only for women aged 15–49, so they reflect only a fraction of practice changes in recent years, because most FGM is of infants <1 year old; it'll be >15 years 'till they reach 15, and would be included in the table above. Where practices are changing dramatically, these statistics can paint a very incomplete picture. For example, FGM in Eritrea is reported above at 89%. By dramatic contrast, it was 4% in 2013 among girls <5 in Eritrea and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. All of these statistics are from UNICEF. In other words, the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about 4%, not 89%.

So progress has been huge!?--{{U|Elvey}} 08:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. http://www.unicef.org/about/annualreport/files/Eritrea_COAR_2013.pdf
The proposal is interesting, but I will revert it for the moment because there are some problems. Currently the article is of a high quality and new material would need better integration, and would need to address the points below.
From the source (UNICEF Annual Report 2013 – Eritrea):
  • p. 3: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) is still relatively high (83 per cent) among women 15-to-59 years old. There is evidence, though, that the Government proclamation against its practice is working, given that the prevalence of FGM/C is lower (68.8 per cent) among the 15–19 age group (see EPHS2010, p.347).
  • p. 22: In Anseba Zoba, a clinical assessment study for under-5 girls was undertaken. The research findings revealed a reduction in the practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) from 25 per cent in 2009 to 4 per cent. In addition, clinical assessment commenced in 12 Health Facility among 6,043 under-five children revealed a 0.7 per cent FGM/C prevalence.
The text proposed for the article makes a valid point, but it would need considerable reworking because it contains too much WP:SYNTH (the general conclusions are fairly obvious, but a secondary source would still be needed), and it would need to be written in a more encyclopedic fashion. Also, the article cannot cover everything, and the core facts are presented correctly in the existing text which clearly shows that the table is from a 2013 UNICEF report and applies to women aged 15–49. Also, the final paragraph in the Prevalence section starts "In 2013 UNICEF reported a downward trend in some countries." Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive feedback, Johnuniq. Are you (or anyone else reading this) willing to give a shot at writing a better version? Please do. I guess I'm too close to see the SYNTH. My (OR) observation is that the dropping stats are buried, which makes the problem seem more intractable than it is, but I made no mention of that. (E.g. the 4% and 0.7% are on p.22, and only the 89% (in RED, no less) is in this infographic. Also, there's UNICEF text to that makes the point that the impact on the main FGM stats will only be seen 14 years later, in case you're thinking that's OR or SYNTH: , "The retrospective periods involved (that is, time lags). For instance, in the case of a country where girls are cut before 1 year of age, most girls in the youngest cohort (15 to 19 years of age) are generally reporting on an event that took place 14 to 18 years previously. Any change that occurred after this period will therefore not be reflected in the data.- , which should be taken into account too. --{{U|Elvey}} 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Elvey, there's a separate article for detailed country reports at Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Anything about prevalence needs a strong secondary source, because there can be many reasons for apparent dips and rises within particular age groups in certain regions. For example, in some studies women have said their daughters had not been cut when they had been; and sometimes women answer no when Type I is involved because they don't view it as an example of FGM. SlimVirgin 02:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think SlimVirgin has identified the key point, namely that details should be in the separate article. Apart from issues regarding the length of any additional text here, there is the potential for confusion as the edit calls into question the table of prevalence figures by pointing out that in at least one country it is possible that current rates of FGM are significantly lower than those shown in the article, and it is likely that they will be much lower in the near future. The source is very interesting as it shows that a dramatic decline in rates of FGM in Eritrea is likely in the next few years. However, we are not really in a position to contradict the UNICEF 2013 report on world-wide FGM issues. I think it's one of those cases where we'll have to privately note that the figures are (or soon will be) significantly different from those in the article, but at least the article is accurate and consistent in that it shows what the most recent world-wide report stated at a particular date. When the next such report is published, the article can be updated. It looks very much as if Elvey is correct about the trend in Eritrea—I'm not doubting that—I just think that the UNICEF 2013 figures were accurate at a time in recent years, and if we are going to add text suggesting a dramatic decline we would need a source which specifically makes that point. Also, the source would need to consider more than Eritrea (population 6.5 million). Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, note the term, "clinical assessment". Doesn't that mean this is NOT based on a questionnaire? If it is, you're right. Also apropos "Anything about prevalence needs a strong secondary source," are you saying that the source we're using for reporting the UNICEF stats in the first place is better? It seems that a UNICEF annual report is a strong source when it comes to what other UNICEF reports say. We mustn't appear to be cherry picking from a source. Again, I ask that someone give a shot at incorporating this information we're discussing. I concur with "details should be in the separate article", but then the compacted table should be there too, no?. Alternately, we could put some of this info within the collapses section so theta they appear iff the table is uncompacted. A key facet of this is what 'rates of FGM" means - If there have been no new foobaritis disease cases for 2 years, the rate of foobar has dropped to zero, even though people who had foobar are still alive, no? Just to drive the point home: Consider the linguistics. Female Genital Mutilation is an action. If an action stops, the rate of action drops to zero. --{{U|Elvey}} 20:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
We don't know (based on the source you posted) what kind of information was collected during the clinical assessment or what kinds of questions were asked; I assume "clinical assessment" means the children were examined, but the source doesn't make that explicit. It seems to have covered just one area of the country. We don't know whether the children not cut now will be cut in future, or whether the form of cutting will change. The 2013 UNICEF report on FGM (which we use as a key source) mentions that the age at which cutting takes place can change. It also says (p. 98) that prevalence levels for 0–14 were available at the time of publication only for Egypt and Sudan. See pp. 98–112 for a discussion of how recent changes are not reflected in their data. SlimVirgin 00:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I will try, but please be patient because an enormous amount of work is going on at the moment (SlimVirgin is doing all the work—I'm goading her). See the peer review (it says "closed" at the top, but that's just because it's taking a long time—in fact, it's ongoing). Your source reveals that the prevalence figures in the article are probably outdated, and something needs to be done about that. However, I don't see it as an urgent issue for a couple of reasons. First, it is ok for an encyclopedic article to report the situation as it was in the most recent (2013) world-wide report—the article does not claim that the numbers apply now, and there are no claims that the high prevalence is causing anything, so there is no error that needs to be corrected. Second, I quoted the two relevant extracts from the source on Eritrea above, and the first of those shows there is only a minor discrepancy from the article (article: 89% for women aged 15–49; source: 83% for women aged 15–59). The real issue presented by your source is that a dramatic decline in FGM prevalence may be occurring, and that information would be important for inclusion in the article. That's where the need for a secondary source comes in—I quoted all the parts of the source relating to FGM above, and it merely says there is a decline in Anseba Zoba and 12 health facilities, and that a report will be produced on other regions in 2014. As our article mentions, measuring prevalence depends greatly on which ethnicities are investigated, and we have to wait until a source announces results collated for a large area. Also, while I agree with your analysis, it's not really up to us to write that there is evidence of a dramatic decline because rates for young girls is very low, and if those trends continue the overall numbers will be much smaller in a couple of decades. Finally, this article is reporting the global situation, and we can't assemble numbers from different reports to paint that picture because there is a large variability in methods used, and for consistency a single source is needed—that source affirms the figures are comparable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Johh, you will try what? I think it's OR to claim that some UNICEF stats are more reliable than others. Let me redirect to you the question I posted to SV, above: "are you saying that the source we're using for reporting the UNICEF stats in the first place is better?" You are putting one set of stats on a pedestal and dismissing another - they're all from UNICEF - it's not like one set is primary and the other is secondary, or one is not an RS. If it's clear the stats are no longer even close to correct, no it's not OK to to report them as correct and not even allow a tag that indicates the picture is changing. But to anyone aware of the facts I've uncovered, the current article has quite the appearance of a cover-up. I'm not saying there is one; I'm saying we shouldn't be deleting tags that keep the article from having that appearance.--{{U|Elvey}} 00:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is some information in this 2012 UNICEF-UNFPA report about Eritrea:

  • "By far the most aggressive application of the law was seen in Eritrea, where 155 cutters and parents were convicted and fined" (p. 11).
  • "In Eritrea, where leaders from all four major faiths have made a commitment to FGM/C abandonment, 170 religious leaders and 20 elders (traditional leaders) are now community advocates on FGM/C abandonment, de-linking FGM/C from religion. Furthermore, during Zero Tolerance Day, six Muslim and six Christian religious leaders publicly addressed their communities, stating that FGM/C is not recommended in their respective holy scriptures" (p. 29).
  • "Eritrea’s evaluation of the UNICEF-UNFPA 2007-2011 Joint Programme was concluded in March, 2012. The results of this evaluation matched those of EPHS 2010, which found a decrease in FGM/C prevalence among girls under 5 and under 15, estimated at rates of 12.9 per cent and 33 per cent respectively. Unfortunately, as noted in the EPHS, an increase in prevalence was documented in the Southern Red Sea Regions. To respond to this alarming trend, the country programme plans to scale up mobilization activities in remote and hard-to-reach communities in these sub regions. However, this process may be hampered by a lack of resources" (p. 43).

SlimVirgin 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, I've removed this, because it would be engaging in OR. If you see above, there was a drop in prevalence in some parts of the country and a rise in others. We would need high-quality secondary sources to evaluate any primary material and place it in context. SlimVirgin 01:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added to the prevalence section: "UNICEF notes that the women who respond to these surveys are reporting events that occurred years ago, so the data may not reflect current trends."
SlimVirgin 03:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. UNICEF 2013, p. 85.
SlimVirgin, I appreciate the effort at a compromise, but I'm sorry, that addition won't do. The stats are misleading and what you've added in no way changes that fact; no reader is going to figure out "The retrospective periods involved (that is, time lags). For instance, in the case of a country where girls are cut before 1 year of age, most girls in the youngest cohort (15 to 19 years of age) are generally reporting on an event that took place 14 to 18 years previously. Any change that occurred after this period will therefore not be reflected in the data.- , which should be taken into account too. You wrote, "It also says (p. 98) that prevalence levels for 0–14 were available at the time of publication only for Egypt and Sudan. " but this is at best, irrelevant- I already cited a source that provides a graphic that gives a detailed per-country breakdown regarding the ages at which girls undergo FGM. I already wrote, "90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age" - the age of 1 - using that citation. I'm angered by what seems to be a dismissive attitude. Please don't edit war over the tags I added until yo8u've actually addressed my legitimate concerns. If the wording of the tags needs improvement, feel free to try improving them. I strongly urge you not to remove them. Your claim that " {{update|section|inaccurate=y|date=October 2014}} " is OR is quite a stretch. The best data available indicates that the historical data does not come close to representing the current situation. --{{U|Elvey}} 00:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
My concerns are valid, and if you're working to improve the article, great. Leave the tags in until you've done so. As John and I both noted:
  • The Government proclamation against its practice is working, given that the prevalence of FGM/C is lower (68.8 per cent) among the 15–19 age group (see EPHS2010, p.347).
  • p. 22: In Anseba Zoba, a clinical assessment study for under-5 girls was undertaken. The research findings revealed a reduction in the practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) from 25 per cent in 2009 to 4 per cent. In addition, clinical assessment commenced in 12 Health Facility among 6,043 under-five children revealed a 0.7 per cent FGM/C prevalence.
AFAICT, your edits to the article have not addressed those facts at all. --{{U|Elvey}} 00:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It should be obvious that no one wants to have misleading statistics in the article. Issues that need to be addressed include:
    1. It is ok for an encyclopedic article to report the situation as it was in the most recent (2013) world-wide report.
    2. The article does not claim that the numbers apply now, and there are no claims that the high prevalence is causing anything, so there is no error that needs to be corrected.
    3. If there is a problem in the article, what is it?
    4. The first point from the source (at "From the source" above) shows there is only a minor discrepancy from the article (article: 89% for women aged 15–49; source: 83% for women aged 15–59).
    5. The second point from the source suggests that a dramatic decline in FGM prevalence may be occurring (if a trend continues). The source says there is a decline in one region and 12 health facilities (probably less than a fifth of the country).
    6. Measuring FGM prevalence depends greatly on which ethnicities are investigated, and we have to wait until a source announces results collated for a large area.
    7. It is not satisfactory for editors to take prevalence reports for parts of a single and small country, and combine that with information from another source to write the conclusion, "...these statistics can paint a very incomplete picture ... By dramatic contrast ... the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about 4%, not 89%."
    8. The article does not mention the odds that a girl born today will be subjected to FGM because no source reaches a conclusion on that point.
It may well be that the next world-wide report concludes that the rate of FGM is dramatically declining. This article will have to wait for that report. Further details belong at Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with John and SV here that we cannot do our in in-depth interpretation and project of the statistics and trends we're supplied with the sources we got. The "for example, in Eritrea..." math is entirely unacceptable SYNTH and other OR. We summarize the sources accurately, we should not undermine them. I disagree with the tag and do not see support for it, and unless solid arguments for it are supplied I plan to remove it. Zad68 04:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Zad68, what you say about what I wrote is blatantly untrue, not to mention insulting. There is no math. Re: "it was 4% in 2013 among girls <5 in Eritrea and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. All of these statistics are from UNICEF." - this is not based on math I did. Those are facts in the source. The source is provided. Likewise, "By dramatic contrast" is paraphrasing, not SYNTH or OR. I can't force you to read it, but I will say that you appear to be unwilling or unable to read the source, and unwilling to suggest verbiage that is inline with the sourced facts I've given. --{{U|Elvey}} 19:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


This is a great source which supports the map in question. I do not yet see consensus for its removal and think it is useful. Thus restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The statistics’ are misleading since it comes with no explanation on current situation for Eritrea and other countries. Eritrea has banned the practice of FGM since many years and the country has since then seen a dramatic decline. If only UNICEF statistics are used in this article it should be mentioned that this only applies to UNICEF FGM statistics. To write that "The article does not claim that the numbers apply now, and there are no claims that the high prevalence is causing anything, so there is no error that needs to be corrected., is stating that something is wrong but not doing anything about it. If these numbers lack the ability to explain the current situation it should be updated and be explained in the correct context. Every credible source should and can be used on Misplaced Pages. A suggestion is to add a section with map of countries that has banned this practice and where the practice has decreased in recent years. This would broaden the content in the article so the statistics can be presented in contrast to the current situation and the improvements/progress for some of these countries when it comes to FGM. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Vertrisimino0, the article to discuss FGM prevalence in detail, or the rates in particular countries, is Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Or you could create Female genital mutilation in Eritrea if enough sources exist for it. SlimVirgin 17:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Vetrisimino0 is right. This article discusses and presents the etas in detail. It is deceptive. But some here, it seems, are intent on insisting on not getting that point and reverting blindly.--{{U|Elvey}} 19:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand that the Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country is the right place to discuss the details regarding the prevalence. However, this page does link and refers to UNICEF prevalence statistics. This article lacks information on how the presented FGM prevalence statistic should be interpreted. Just by reading the statistics without fully explaining the background gives a wrongly impression that the prevalence is higher than it actually is since the statistic presented does not take in consideration todays situation, and how high the risks are of being exposed of FGM as new born /child today for example. Therefore it is of high importance that the information is presented and explained in correct manner. By leaving out some aspects the data becomes misleading. Especially when it comes to Eritrea where new information has been presented.Vetrisimino0 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi Elvey, I see you've restored the tag. Instead of tagging, please post here the sentence or sentences you'd like to see added to the article, including where you propose that they be placed, along with sources that support the text. Bear in mind that, if the proposal mentions a decline in one part of Eritrea, it will have to include that there was a rise in another part of the same country (see my post above, 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)). That will give us something concrete to discuss. SlimVirgin 16:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed the above, it is from the UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme evaluation:

Eritrea’s evaluation of the UNICEF-UNFPA 2007-2011 Joint Programme was concluded in March, 2012. The results of this evaluation matched those of EPHS 2010, which found a decrease in FGM/C prevalence among girls under 5 and under 15, estimated at rates of 12.9 per cent and 33 per cent respectively. Unfortunately, as noted in the EPHS, an increase in prevalence was documented in the Southern Red Sea Regions. To respond to this alarming trend, the country programme plans to scale up mobilization activities in remote and hard- to-reach communities in these sub regions. However, this process may be hampered by a lack of resources.

SlimVirgin 16:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


SV; Admit or deny that the Prevalence section requires cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. Are you willing to do that? --{{U|Elvey}} 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi SlimVirgin & John, I see you've removed the tag. Instead of untagging, please fix the article. I HAVE added to the article and you've reverted. There is plenty concrete to discuss. --{{U|Elvey}} 19:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Layout of prevalence section

Hi Doc James, re: the layout of the prevalence section, the table has to follow the sentences that introduce it. That is, it should ideally come after:

Information about its prevalence has been collected since 1989 in a series of Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). ... A 2013 UNICEF report based on 70 of these surveys indicated that FGM is concentrated in 27 African countries, as well as Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan. UNICEF estimates that 125 million women and girls in those countries have been affected. The report grouped the countries according to the prevalence among women aged 15–49:

That means the map has to come after the table, because there's no space for it at the top right-hand side. I don't really mind whether it's at top centre (as here, which is how it appears on mobile), or bottom right (as here), though I prefer the former. But placing it top right pushes the table out of the way. SlimVirgin 06:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Just wanted to remove some white space. Feel free to change the position. I am happy with Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jmh649: Okay, thanks, I'll change it to the position you linked to. SlimVirgin 16:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy with putting it back where it was before I touched the article.--{{U|Elvey}} 19:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

FAC and WP:OWN and removing deserved tags in a quest for FAC status. Most FGM in Eritrea IS conducted on infants!

Noting that I posted the following on Elvey's talk page, not here, and I didn't write the heading. SlimVirgin 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, please don't disrupt FGM. It's a carefully written article, which is about to be nominated for FAC (or it was, until you arrived). You've misunderstood the sources, and you mistakenly believe, as you wrote, that most FGM is conducted on infants (it isn't). The article has to be based on MEDRS-compliant sources for claims about prevalence. That means review articles and position statements from international bodies.

You've removed carefully sourced content twice, and tagged the section five times, despite being invited to propose some reliably sourced sentences; but instead you want someone else to do it. That's not how tags are meant to be used.

Please suggest the edit you want to make on talk, along with sources, so that we have something concrete from you to discuss. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (moved by Elvey from a new section on his talk page entitled FGM)

Please don't assume you know better than me, SV. It's you have misunderstood, in my view. You mistakenly believe I think that most FGM is conducted on infants. What I actually believe is that most FGM in Eritrea is conducted on infants, because that's what the UNICEF stats say, which is why I wrote "~90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age", about 5 times. If at one point I said that about FGM in general I misspoke. If you think I'm wrong, prove it.
I don't see why I should care about your quest for FAC status enough to not tag the article with tags that it deserves. I'm not being disruptive, however it seems my tag is a problem for your quest for unwarranted FAC status. I agree - "The article has to be based on MEDRS-compliant sources for claims about prevalence." In fact, I have said as much, in comments you seem to be willfully ignoring.
I'm familiar with this, and most importantly, THIS which is hard to link to in context; it's here, but you must click "READ MORE" to see it. {I guess we can use it in the article since we're using that other graphic in this section; I can confirm and upload it.Struck; I see Johnuniq cloned the copyrighted image; the same is needed for this one.} The underlying source is FGCM_Lo_res.pdf (on the page marked as page 50), which makes the graphic a secondary source, an issue, I remind you, you've been selectively both harping about and ignoring.
I take your accusation of disruptive activity as abuse of your position as an administrator to gain advantage in a content dispute you are involved in. Please chill out and retract the accusation. It's in bad faith. --{{U|Elvey}} 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, SlimVirgin? --{{U|Elvey}} 18:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Cloning may be unneeded; perhaps THIS is PD, as the facts are not copyrightable, and the rest may not meet the Threshold of originality (see here and Feist_v._Rural) --{{U|Elvey}} 17:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Elvey sorry but your comments don't appear connected to what I see actually happening here. There's no evidence at all the SV is engaging in "abuse of position as an administrator" or questionable behavior per WP:INVOLVED. She's acting as a normal editor here like everyone else and has made no statements at all (much less taken any action, the real standard of problematic behavior), either here or on your User Talk, that indicate she's trying to use her admin bit to gain an advantage--none.

Further, what article content changes are you still proposing? I do not see any unaddressed concerns at this point so I don't see what SV has to respond to your "Hello" ping about. Zad68 20:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss the content, instead of any "questionable behavior", OK? I'd like SlimVirgin to respond to the post above the Hello, most importantly to this. As I said "and most importantly, THIS".... FS! Most FGM in Eritrea IS conducted on infants! --{{U|Elvey}} 22:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be delighted if you'd stop bringing behavior topics here on this article Talk page. Regarding the article content, what exactly still might be the issue regarding its coverage of prevalence in Eritrea? Zad68 22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes this is copyrightable. It does not take much. You need to recreate your own graph or ask UNICEF for release. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources

  • (edit conflict) I don't agree with the tagging - it seems to me overly aggressive. I've taken a look at the source mentioned above UNICEF Annual Report 2013 – Eritrea and on page 3 it says according to 2010 data 83% of women 15 to 59 have been cut. This cutting cannot be undone and so I really think we have to stick with the numbers the source provides. Pages 22- 23 suggests a reduction of cutting based on studies from some health centers in two provinces (zoba) - from 18 health centers in Anseba, 12 health centers in Garsh Barka. It goes on the say that among a study of 600 under five-year-old girls in Anseba province the rate = 4.2 percent, down from 25.6% in 2008. This is excellent progress, but to extrapolate from these numbers in WP's voice would be incorrect. The samplings are too small for this overview article. Victoria (tk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You're ignoring the clinical examination of 6,043 girls <=5 that's also mentioned above. Larger, different group and even lower numbers. --{{U|Elvey}} 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You and SV also seem to be unaware that historically, FGM rates in Eritrea - unlike in other countries - have been remarkably uniform among different populations - they are always between 80% and 100% See here. --{{U|Elvey}} 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, I'm not ignoring anything. I mentioned the studies in the Anseba and Garsh Barka provinces at the health centers (12 and 18 health centers). Nonetheless, we don't have a source that takes all those numbers and combines them with the numbers of all the women (ages 15 to 59) who have already been cut - the ones who are still alive and can't be uncut. Until those sources become available how would you suggest crunching these numbers without verging into OR territory? Victoria (tk) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If you say so. Nonetheless, I see you talk about 600 girls, not 6000, and 4.2%, no 0.7%. Why must I suggest "crunching numbers" at all? You seem to be asking me (in bad faith?) to suggest how to do something you believe can't be done. Please stop with the straw man strategy. That is my response to your unreasonable question. --{{U|Elvey}} 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the women and girls who are living with FGM in 2014. It is not about the women and girls who will be living with it in 2030. It is not about Eritrea. And it is not a detailed article about prevalence; we have a separate article for that.

Prevalence rates have to be based on specialists who provide an overview, and who know which figures to take into account and how to do it.

The prevalence section explains, using UNICEF 2013 as the source, that the 15–49 prevalence may not reflect current trends:

UNICEF notes that women who respond to surveys on FGM are mostly reporting the cutting they or their daughters experienced years ago, so data on prevalence in older groups may not reflect current trends. In 2013 UNFPA and UNICEF reported a downward trend in several countries among younger girls. In Kenya and Tanzania women aged 45–49 years were around three times more likely to have been cut than girls aged 15–19, and the rate among adolescents in Benin, Central African Republic, Iraq, Liberia and Nigeria had dropped by about half. According to the report, no significant change was recorded in Chad, Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan or Yemen. Surveys conducted in 2008–2011, in which women were asked whether their daughters aged 0–14 had been cut, showed a prevalence rate ranging from 0.4 percent in Togo (4 percent in ages 15–49) to 56 percent in Gambia (76 percent in ages 15–49). Whether the figures reflect real decline is unclear: women may choose not to report cutting in countries where there are campaigns against FGM, and girls may be cut at a later date.

We can't go further than this without engaging in OR. SlimVirgin 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The tagging does seem overly aggressive. Why the need to replace repeatedly it without a civil discussion? This is all about FGM in Eritrea? Eritrea country has less than 1% of the population where FGM is prevalent. This seems rather WP:POINTY to me. Jim1138 (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the others here that the sources need to be summarized and that's really all. The age ranges relevant to the table are included. If/when in the future reliable sources report updated prevalence numbers for Eritrea we will reflect them here. We already have an up-to-date reliable source giving an overview of trends (even describing some as "dramatic"); if Eritrea were in that category of notable trends it's reasonable to expect the source would have picked it up. I believe this subject is settled now. Zad68 03:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Edits like this I find concerning since their previous edits have been reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess you don't give a shit that there was additional support from another user for the edit.--{{U|Elvey}} 02:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please include

I've provided the sources. My edits have been reverted.

Given this chart was known, weren't comments like "We don't know whether the children not cut now will be cut in future, or whether the form of cutting will change." rather speculative and a bit uncalled for, and argumentative?

--{{U|Elvey}} 02:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

most FGM in Eritrea is of infants <1 year old;

Per chart above.

Where practices are changing dramatically, these prevalence statistics can paint a very incomplete picture.

For example, clinical examinations found that FGM was <5% in 2013 among girls <5 in Eritrea and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. In other words, the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about <5%, not 89%. While there's been a bunch of editing, it has not addressed the fact that

To provide the prevalence stats uncritically, and to the exclusion of rate information is a violation of UNDUE.

As User:Colin Special:Diff/451230207 has asked, "There's more to the subject than just prevalence. The incidence per year is shocking. The trends over time not covered. Has legislation changed anything?"

The answer is yes. The sources are given and reliable and secondary. But the edits to add that info have been reverted. The edits to flag that it's missing have been reverted ~5 times. Even though they use tags for exactly what they're designed for.

--{{U|Elvey}} 02:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has changed so would you mind outlining your proposed edit as of now? The article says "In half the countries for which there are data, most girls are cut before the age of five, including over 80 percent in Nigeria, Mali, Eritrea, Ghana and Mauritania." Also, I don't see any response to the points I raised in my comment at 01:11, 14 October 2014 above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It hasn't been improved to address my concerns including the ones I just listed. I propose that edits address them and that a tag indicate that they're needed as long as they're not addressed. That's how tags are supposed to work. The article hasn't changed to include any new facts about Eritrea. It should. It should include the chart, rather than cherry-picked stats - e.g. the "including over 80 percent in" bit. I've added the chart. Would you object to removal of the cherry-picked (commentary on the) stats?--{{U|Elvey}} 03:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought that File:Chart - Female Genital Mutilation by country by age range at cutting.png was a copyvio, but others will have to evaluate that. It's quite a complex chart and I don't understand its value in the article as it just shows that some do it early, and some do it late. The table and map showing prevalence rates seem more helpful as they present information that is more directly pertinent. By contrast, the "Percentage distribution of girls who have undergone FGM/C..." calls out for interpretation. The text "over 80 percent in Nigeria, Mali, Eritrea, Ghana and Mauritania" seems reasonable—if that's cherry picking, so is selecting any information from a source. Cherry picking is when text is selected to present a misleading picture—one contradicted or at least not implied by the source taken as a whole. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that chart is better, but I won't fight over it further.--{{U|Elvey}}

Selective reporting

SV quoted from https://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2013/UNICEF-UNFPA%20Joint%20Programme%20AR_final_v14.pdf but what she has said is contradicted what I find in her source; it says, for example, "In one example, the Eritrean Ministry of Health exercised great leadership in integrating FGM/C prevention messages into pre- and post-natal and immunization services at all health facilities – a crucial step in any country where FGM/C is commonly performed at infancy." (page ix) SV notes that it reports rates of 12.9 per cent as of the EPHS of 2010 but folks stonewall my every attempt to address the exclusion of these facts. Why? That number includes the apparent increase in Southern Red Sea Regions that SV did note here on the talk page. --{{U|Elvey}} 03:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the current proposal is, but this talk page lists several reasons for not including text like "The above statistics are only for women aged 15–49, so they reflect only a fraction of practice changes in recent years". In brief, the source used for that concerns one fifth of Eritrea, total population 6.5 million, whereas the article shows that 125 million women have experienced FGM. As mentioned above, it is likely that future world-wide reports will agree with your conclusion that prevalence rates will soon dramatically decline—nevertheless, we have to wait until those reports arrive. Meanwhile, nothing in the article is wrong—there are still 125 million women affected. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you? "your conclusion that prevalence rates will soon dramatically decline"?? Please don't fabricate. I said something quite different. I said that rates of FGM plummeted (I used the past tense, for fuck sake!) in Eritrea. "prevalence rates" is a lousy term. You seem intent on continuing to muddle the distinction I have drawn between prevalence of FGM and rates of FGM. STOP. Do you not understand the distinction between current rates of cutting and prevalence that I have drawn?
Here's in bold is part of what you said that I don't see any factual basis for: "the source used for that concerns one fifth of Eritrea. As mentioned above, it is likely that future world-wide reports will agree with your conclusion that prevalence rates will soon dramatically decline—nevertheless, we have to wait until those reports arrive. Meanwhile, nothing in the article is wrong "
--{{U|Elvey}} 04:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Re "one fifth": my comment at 00:39, 10 October 2014 mentions what the source says and has a link where it can be seen that roughly a fifth of Eritrea is involved. Re "until those reports arrive": stating that FGM prevalence has plummeted is clearly wrong given that prevalence relates to all affected women, so you must be saying that the FGM rate for females born today has plummeted. Perhaps that's so (and it certainly is correct in many areas), but I only see a source that talks about a part of Eritrea. What is the fundamental problem with the article that has led to all this? Is the concern that important information is omitted by failing to mention that world-wide FGM rates for females born today has plummeted? Is there anything wrong in the article apart from that omission?
By the way, SlimVirgin added "(also see table)" (the chart Elvey added to the article) to the ref supporting "most girls were cut before the age of five". Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The FGM rates for females <1 and < 5 in Eritrea have plummeted, and the article in no way mentions either, despite the abundance of RS. That's the crux of the issue. Which isn't quite what you said, which is why I didn't just say yes. (I'm not saying it's plummeted in all countries, or that the rate for females "born today" has plummeted; since FGM isn't performed the day of birth, your use of the term just serves to muddle the distinction further. The crux of the issue is that you and other flks are blocking every effort to have the article indicate in any way that the FGM rates for females <1 or <5 in Eritrea have plummeted, despite the abundance of presented RSes. --{{U|Elvey}} 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


I am saying it's weird to report most prominently stats that exclude all <15 year-olds. Yes, that seems to be what UNICEF does. But to report prevalence rather than rates at which the procedure is performed per year is weird - we don't report car accident rates cumulatively, or much of anything cumulatively; this choice to report prevalence is odd. --{{U|Elvey}} 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Revise

Original: The above statistics are only for women aged 15–49, so they reflect only a fraction of practice changes in recent years, because most FGM is of infants <1 year old; it'll be >15 years 'till they reach 15, and would be included in the table above. Where practices are changing dramatically, these statistics can paint a very incomplete picture. For example, FGM in Eritrea is reported above at 89%. By dramatic contrast, it was 4% in 2013 among girls <5 in Eritrea and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. All of these statistics are from UNICEF. In other words, the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about 4%, not 89%.

Improved: The above statistics are only for women aged 15–49, so they reflect only a fraction of practice changes in recent years, because in some countries most FGM is of infants <1 year old; it'll be 14-18 years 'till they would be included in the table above.

Re "one fifth": You say this is about a fraction of Eritrea. It's not. In fact the source states that this is a problem in the "case of country where girls are cut before 1 year of age". You found a source that says it about a fraction of Eritrea; so what; that doesn't matter because it's true in the "case of country where girls are cut before 1 year of age" and that's what we're talking about.

Where practices are changing dramatically, these statistics can paint a very incomplete picture. For example, FGM in Eritrea is reported above at 89%. By dramatic contrast, it was dramatically lower among girls <5 in Eritrea (12.9 % in a larger 2010 study and 1 to 4% in small clinical exam-based studies in 2013 and 25% in 2009), and, 90% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age. All of these statistics are from UNICEF. In other words, the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about 4%, not 89%.--{{U|Elvey}} 04:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Points of potential agreement

Can you please acknowledge that FGM rates in Eritrea - unlike in other countries - were remarkably uniform among different populations/ethnicities? They were between 80% and 100% - See here. --{{U|Elvey}} 04:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Points of agreement

<TBD>

Categories: