Talk:Campaign against female genital mutilation in colonial Kenya

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

Hi PolenCelestial, just noting here that I'd like to move this back. The period is known as the "female circumcision controversy," so that would seem to be the best title for the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. FGM is not circumcision. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we ought to have a requested-move discussion. The first step is usually to move the article back to the previous title. Also, I've copy-edited the article to remove some misleading material, so please don't restore it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority to revert my changes. I will bring this to the admin noticeboard if you continue to edit war. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've restored the misleading material again. For example: "... FGM is a central part of an initiation ceremony intended as a rite of passage for girls. It usually involves removal of the clitoris, and may also involve removal of the inner and outer labia, and the suturing of the entire vulva, leaving only a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood."

It usually isn't a rite of passage, and in Kenya during that period it usually didn't involve suturing the vulva, so I would like to remove material like that, which is what my copy edit did. This article was written years ago very quickly to remove material from the main article. Now that I know more about the subject I would like to copy-edit it so that it's more accurate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're just rewriting the article from a pro-FGM perspective. WP:NPOV. If you revert again I'm reporting your edit war. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polen, I'd appreciate if if this exchange could be less confrontational. I don't have a pro-FGM perspective. I would like to improve the article a little, make the writing less awkward and the material less misleading. As for the title, historians call this period in Kenya the "female circumcision controversy"; the practice was known as female circumcision at that time. See here, for example. I would like to use the title that historians use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The internationally recognized term is female genital mutilation. Supporters of FGM refer to it as female circumcision in order to deceive people into thinking that it is a form of circumcision. The definition of circumcision does not include FGM. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we get it. However, this article concerns historical incidents in 1929–32 and has to use terminology from that period—we don't decide what people should have called it. Also, articles do not use every opportunity to bang the drum—it's much better to neutrally describe incidents and let readers work out how outraged they should be. The core information on FGM is at Female genital mutilation which is linked from the article, and this page need only describe the historical issue. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin's admin status doesn't constitute consensus (WP:TINC). PolenCelestial (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Campaign_against_female_genital_mutilation_in_Kenya.2C_1929-32.23Title PolenCelestial (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the dispute resolution board didn't deal with it, is there another way to request a consensus before moving this to the edit war board? PolenCelestial (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the year may need to be tweaked too. Some sources end it in 1931 and some 1932, but I don't recall what the difference is. Our main source, Lynn Thomas, ends it in 1931, so we should probably change that in the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to add that type 3 (infibulation) isn't practiced in Kenya. Both the Kikuyu and the Meru (which Lynn Thomas writes about in the article that cited) practice type 1 and type 2. The reference you have cited saying that type 3 is practiced in Kenya is actually a book about Sudan. The practices that take place in Sudan are quite different from those that take place in Kenya: infibulation is practiced in Sudan at a young age as part of a moral order where sexuality is strictly controlled whereas in Kenya excision or clitoridectomy takes place during puberty as part of initiation into adulthood. The situations are very different and shouldn't be amalgamated or homogenised into one pan-African practice. If you want to read further, I would suggest looking at articles written by a wonderful Kenyan academic named Wairimu Njambi, who has herself undergone clitoridectomy.