File talk:Fgm map.gif

Pure BS

This map is not only pure BS. It's also based on shoddy statistics work. --Yellowfiver (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove this image. I strongly recommend that this image is removed. The date indicated in the chart cannot be verified or confirmed. The information is inaccurate and biased and completely lacks any scientific method in preparation or analysis. The data shown on the image lacks both scientific clarity and precision. At best, the statements indicated in the chart are guesses but the authors of the chart "afrol" cannot show any information indicating that the data is either accurate, neutral or collected with any form of scientific basis.... or even that any form of research was undertaken at all to confirm their conclusions. As an example: Nigeria is claimed to have a prevalence of 60-90% (!!!!), Benin 5-50% (that's a wide range...). I wonder if they even visited the countries before concluding on their "bold research". These types of images are better suited for sci-fi books and it shames the Wikipedia community to include unsubstantiated and poorly sourced research material as "fact material". The allegations made by chart are lies and borderline libel (if a country could sue). It does nothing but spread misunderstanding, rumours and lies about Africa. Just because someone publishes a report or chart doesn't make the conclusions facts. Science is based on method and facts - this is not an argument that FGM takes place (it does), it's an argument against dangerous practices of levering myths and speculations as facts. This is just to state that afrol's statistics have no underlying data, only fragments from stories and articles. The map is their own fabrication and at their own admission, without scientific method. Another consideration is the fact that the chart only shows a limited and partial view of africa where afrol on the website makes it clear that they have "no data". Not that prevalence is zero but they have no data. As such the chart incorrect. This is an extract from the afrol website: "There are no exact data on the prevalence of FGM in Africa. The map is based on data selected from various sources, destined not to have used the same methology collecting them. Most available data were on a country basis, though often named peoples were singled out as practising FGM. These data were thus projected on the approximate areas these people inhabit. Note that the map's scale is very coarse, the presentation not giving room for the very many local variations in prevalence." Please - ensure that material is appropriately referenced AND confirmed to ensure that wikipedia does not become the forum for statistical nonsense. (Cragrat (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

So why isn't this image being reconsidered? --72.241.86.106 (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone tell me ( and put it on the page ) what 'local' means on this chart?, is it: 'only practiced in isolated local communities and isn't widespread.' or something else? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:36, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

Overlap?

Why are there overlapping ranges? -- Mikeblas 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)