Talk:Female genital mutilation

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

Language

I think this article should be called “female circumcision” rather than “female genital mutilation”?

“Female circumcision" is the more neutral, more widely used, and longer established terminology.

"FGM" is a loaded term clearly designed to show disapproval, there is clearly political pressure to use this term but wikipedia should not seek to be part of a drive to alter language in such an unencyclopedic fashion. It is better to use a terminology which is well established because otherwise language becomes a shifting sand and arguments which should be about principle decend into a sort of linguistic war where the parties battle mainly to define the terms rather than talking about the underlying issue. With long established terms whether they are “nice sounding” or “nasty sounding” is a less powerful driver of people because the term becomes mainly associated with the thing and less associated with the words that make up the terminology. Eventually, with a long established terms, a person can simply respond that he is against [nice sounding terminology] or in favour of a [bad sounding terminology] and he can “get away” with it because the terminology is now primarily associated with the more morally ambiguous thing under discussion. As three separate words “female genital mutilation” is not too objectionable (although "partial amputation of the female genitalia” would be better). But the article heading should probably be "female circumcision”.

I may be shutting the door after the horse has bolted here, there are, for example, about twice as many webpage hits on google for “female genital mutilation” as “female circumcision” however it is interesting that, when the person has not searched for either term before the “suggestions” box on google suggests “female circumcision” over “female genital mutilation”. Perhaps suggesting that "female circumcision” is the term used by most searchers. So there is perhaps some hope for the preservation of language in this regard.

It is also noticeable that if, in the definition, "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” the word “female” was replaced by the word “male” then this would cover both the practice commonly known as male “circumcision” or, at the other extreme, complete bobbitisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.5.199 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a movement who would like to oppose male circumcision by equating that procedure with FGM (or possibly want to promote FGM by equating it with male circumcision?). However, such viewpoints are not relevant at Wikipedia. Instead, please present some reasons for any proposed change based on reliable sources. A good place to start would be by studying the current article and the references that it cites—is any information incorrect, undue, or improperly sourced? Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq - What? The "moral equivalence" of mutilating either male or female genitalia against the will of the victim? How absurd! Unless of course you could ask the opinion of the victim at the time of the assault / trauma. But I forget, that is only "anecdotal" :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.208.101 (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq is quite right that there has been a recent “terminology war” over this issue, coinciding with recent attempts to outlaw various or all forms of Clitorodectomy. One characteristic of Wikipedia is that it has much lower inertia than many other Encyclopaedias. Often this is a strength (for example in the coverage of new developments in rapidly evolving fields) but when an issue becomes very politically charged (as the issue of female circumcision has recently become) it can be a weakness. I have taken Johnuniq’s advise and sought reliable sources from before the recent attempts to outlaw female circumcision (I would encourage others to do the same). They bear out my point that this is a relatively recent linguistic change (which may indeed be driven, in part, by Wikipedia) undoubtedly motivated by a desire to delegitimise or ban all forms of female circumcision.

I am sure that Johnuniq would agree that in the case of matters such as this (articles about ancient matters which have recently become politically charged) “properly sourced” information is information which is sourced from before any recent controversy.

I have added a note about the recent terminological history but the title of the article should also be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.186.14 (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As a side point: Doubtless some do wish to “promote” female circumcision, others simply wish to see the end of the ban leaving the decision up to parents, still others wish to see a relaxation of the ban to allow part1a female circumcision (while not wishing to promote it or carry it out on their own children), others wish to see a more mild relaxation allowing only the ritualistic drawing or blood and others are perfectly happy with the law but simply wish to see an honest use of language so that its meaning is not obscured by political developments. I am certainly not in the fist of those five groups. I am, and would like to think we would all be, in the last of them. Whether I am in any/all of the other three groups would require a little more thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.186.14 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Western pediatric FGM practices

There is no section about this practice in the Western world. It is not unusual for doctors to perform clitoropexies on female infants for "purely medical" reasons. Rationales include the idea that it would prevent masturbation and that removing the clitoral hood would cure recurring UTI/bladder infections. "Clitoral reduction" is also done if the clitoris seems "too large" either to the parents or the doctor. This is said to prevent masturbation and keep the girl from becoming a transgendered male or a Lesbian.

I understand that some women voluntarily go in for this procedure but a child does not have this option. Reference: Tyranny of the Aesthetic by Martha Coventry. On the Issues summer 1998, page found 2011-10-30. Making the Cut by Martha Coventry. Ms magazine, October 2000, page found 2011-10-30. My real question is whether this belongs in this article or a separate article that could be linked, or is that "forking"? --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that if good references are found, it should be included. A search of Intersex Society of North America:"female genital mutilation" returns a few interesting links [1] Jim1138 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Clitoral reduction" is a much more acceptable term than "clitoral mutilation" especially when the procedure is prescribed by the "establishment" in the Western world. It becomes unacceptable only when performed by "other people" who are much less "civilized." USchick (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation → Female genital cutting – The term "mutilation" is inherently POV. Titling this article "Female Genital Mutilation" is no more NPOV than titling Circumcision "Male Genital Mutilation"89.100.150.198 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. World Health Orgainization uses the phrase Female genital mutilation. The intent of FGM is to prevent functionality. The article was originally termed female genital cutting and since renamed. Jim1138 (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not POV, it's the common name. See the multiple discussions in Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 6 for further detail. Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. FGM is by far the more common phrase, according to this ngram. What next? An RM to move rape to "involuntary sexual service"? Kauffner (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice straw man. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If you add "female circumcision” to this ngram you will find that it is by far the longer established and is still the more common term.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=female+genital+cutting%2Cfemale+genital+mutilation%2C+female+circumcision&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.22.132 (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. FGM is the most commonly used name, and is more descriptive than female circumcision or similar, since the male equivalent of the clitoris (commonly cut in FGM) is the glans (head) of the penis - not the foreskin. Allens (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. FGM is certainly the most common name, but that isn't the only issue to consider. Per WP:POVTITLE, "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include [...] Persuasive names and slogans crafted by partisans on still-active, contentious advocacy issues". This is evidently such a situation, and, to maintain a neutral encyclopaedic stance, Wikipedia should instead adopt a less judgemental name. "Female genital cutting" is the next most common name (and the trend is reportedly shifting to its usage instead of FGM[2][3]), and is neutral. Jakew (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, you're citing a 2004 source above-- this discussion would be more informed if it followed the same guidelines we follow for articles: go to PubMed and other reliable high-quality peer-reviewed sources, find those that are recent, and see what they are calling it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other secondary sources commenting on trends in usage of terminology, I'm afraid, and for comment on trends it seems preferable to rely on a secondary source than OR analysis of search results. Jakew (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources you cite do not offer any evidence for an upward trend in use of the term FGC, The first does not say anything about usage, the second simply states that said shift is occurring. This is extremely problematic because the article in question is also advocating use of the term FGC over FGM and therefore can't be trusted for an independent analysis of usage. Also as was pointed out, the source is 7 years old. Lastly, I remind you about this discussion in which you took part. You will find that the sources you list here and the argument that accompanies them have been already been dispelled. Vietminh (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first source, I'm referring to the sentence that states 'The term “female genital cutting” is now used in the literature rather than “female genital mutilation”.' The second, as you acknowledge, states that a there is a shift in usage. Attempts to dismiss this source are, of course, original research. Jakew (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Attempts to dismiss this source are, of course, original research" I think you're showing your bias here now more than ever Jakew. Analyzing the reliability of a source is integral to verifibility on Wikipedia, otherwise we would have to accept what every source says regardless of how un-authoritative or un-reliable it may be. Also I do not acknowledge the trend you speak of, because there are no other sources to back it up. What you have here, as I have told you, and as others have told you in the past and in the present, is a single, as in the numerical number "1" source from 7 years ago that makes a claim that it provides absolutely no evidence for whatsoever. It does this whilst advocating for the use of the very term that *it* says is replacing the most commonly used term. Put that all together and in my analysis, and in the analysis of multiple other users both in the past and the present, the source is not authoritative. It is not original research to dispute the authority of a source, or to point out that a quick search on pubmed or google scholar draws the claims it makes into question. If you are going to continue to make the claim that academic literature is shifting to the term FGC instead of FGM then the burden is on you to back it up. You have had months to produce more sources that say this shift is taking place, yet all you have done is repeatedly provide the same source and claim over and over without expanding on anything when other users have asked for more evidence, and now you have taken to saying that dismissing your 1 source is original research...enough is enough produce more evidence, such as an independent study on the usage of the terms and trends of use over time, or stop making the claims you are making. Vietminh (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is titled "female genital mutilation" because that is the common name widely used in extremely reliable sources. It is not judgmental to use the name "mutilation" for what actually is mutilation (is there a reliable source saying FGM is not mutilation?). Furthermore, discarding the FGM name used by reliable sources would be a POV judgement by editors. This was discussed at length in July (at the requested move and the rest of that archive page). Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Some primary sources have directly challenged whether it is mutilation, eg., "The problem with the representation of various forms of female circumcision as ‘mutilation’ is that the term, among other things, presupposes some irreversible and serious harm. This is not supported by current medical research on female circumcision."[4] There are also a number of secondary sources (eg., [5]) reporting that those practising communities disagree that it is "mutilation". So yes, it's safe to say that there are multiple viewpoints. Jakew (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral Both male and female circumcision are forms of genital mutilation to one degree or another. Unfortunately there is a sexist hypocrisy that tries to protect and promote male circumcision for many cultural and religious reasons. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ummmm, the discussion above hasn't been guided by the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming conventions, which is clear:

  The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)

  The name used in recent high quality journal or medical sources isn't POV-- it's what it's called in medicine. By our guideline, either Female genital mutilation or Female circumcision might comply, but Female genital cutting most certainly would not. (For examples search PubMed.) If anyone wants to argue for a name change, Female circumcision might comply, but I doubt it, because scholarly searches seem to reveal that the most recent papers do use the term Female genital mutilation-- Female genital cutting does not comply, although it was the term used in some older papers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the reference to "some older papers". Searching PubMed for "female genital cutting" returns four results for 2011 alone[6], which suggests that its usage is current. "Female genital mutilation" is certainly used more frequently (an equivalent search returned 15 results published in 2011[7]), but it seems safe to say that both terms are established usage. Jakew (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctantly oppose. I think it is quite regrettable that the article is under its current title rather than "Female circumcision". Referring to the practice as "mutilation" is in my view a gross over-simplification of the different practices in different parts of the world. This abstract is in my view an excellent summary of the inappropriateness of the label in a Malaysian context, where very limited female circumcision is widely practiced in a highly developed country where (for example) Muslim females are better educated than their male counterparts. But, I guess, the preponderance of sources must prevail. The article should at least explain reliable criticisms of the use of the term in particular contexts. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite interesting. Obviously this article is about something different, perhaps there should be a separate article about the practice in Malaysia. I am sceptical about the value of the cited source, quite possibly it has its own POV and western feminists would supply their own sources seeing it rather differently. Richiez (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is from Reproductive Health Matters, which could hardly be described as an anti-women publication. I'd love to create the separate article, but I think the medical lingo is a bit beyond me! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and previous discussions. Kaldari (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support While the common name usually prevails, this is not always the case when it comes to article names that may not be neutral. Consider also systematic bias: aren't most of the sources which use the term "mutilation" western and thus from a culture in which female genital cutting/mutilation is not considered normal? However, the exactly proposed move violatedsWP:CAPS; it should of course be "Female genital cutting" rather than using title caps. Knight of Truth (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  I have boldly correct the capitalization in the RFC. Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC).
  

The systemic bias argument is a moot point. First of all, all of the sources on this subject are Western in origin, so with both FGM and FGC the systemic bias exists. Secondly, the systemic bias doesn't matter either way, because english language Wikipedia is meant to reflect what is said in english language sources (the systemic bias is accepted as inherent in the process). The question is not which name is biased, the question is which name most accurately reflects the source material in reputable, english language sources. Also what is neutrality? Is is picking the most neutral sounding name, or is it picking the name that most sources use? It's not our job to determine what sounds neutral, it's our job to look at the sources and see what is neutral. If we ignore what is used in the sources that is in itself not being neutral because we are injecting our own judgments into the decision (which Wikipedia guidelines specifically say we are not supposed to do) Vietminh (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:NPOV#Naming, which is policy, and says, "while neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." Clearly we need to consider ease of recognizability, and it's best recognized by its current name. List of events named massacres and List of corporate scandals provide several of examples of other articles with charged titles. Possibly some of them should be changed, but surely you can also find some good examples of this policy being applied. --Pnm (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The policy you cite clearly states that clarity and neutrality must be balanced against each other. It further states that a common but non-neutral name "may" be used; not that it must. So the question is this: is the gain in clarity sufficient to justify the substantial loss of neutrality? I would say "no": "female genital cutting" is used by about a third as many recent sources (of the sources cited in the article, roughly twice as many refer to "mutilation" in their titles as refer to "cutting"), so it's still fairly recognisable, and its similarity to "female genital mutilation" should assure readers that they've found the right article. So the loss in clarity is fairly small. The difference in neutrality, on the other hand, is substantial, as the term "FGM" has received significant criticism for its inherently judgmental stance (see, eg., here for a discussion of some of its problems). Jakew (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • There is no title that would satisfy those (outside Wikipedia) who think FGM is mutilation, and also those who think FGC is just another cultural practice. While "FGM" is regarded as POV by the latter group, another factor for consideration in this discussion is that using "FGC" definitely is POV as it labels what is clearly mutilation as "merely" cutting. For a graphic example of type III mutilation, see this archived discussion—describing that as "cutting" would be misleading. Johnuniq (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Could you tell me the origin of the word "merely", please? I can see that describing something as "merely cutting" would be POV; I can't see that describing something as "cutting" would have the same meaning. Hence why I think it is important to look objectively at the situation and consider whether "merely" is inherent in the title or whether it represents indignation at not being permitted to express a strong point of view (a legitimate one, but still a point of view). Jakew (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment this is indeed a difficult question. Doubtless the naming in the literature is driven by ideology - and the opposing tug of ideologies that are normally bedfellows in particular. It is worth considering, for context, that there are elective genital modification procedures undertaken which certainly rival FGM in extent. The major objection to FGM is, I believe, around issues of informed consent, in this context the term does not seem extreme. If the article were wholly about the medical and physiological processes then a better case could, perhaps, be made for a change to FGC. As it is, the question remains vexed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC).
  

The WHO definition of FGM specifically excludes elective procedures such as plastic surgery (vaginoplasty, labiaplasty), so that is a non-issue for consideration of the name. Even if the article were specifically about the issues you list (which it couldn't be, because cultural issues and practices cannot be separated from the topic) the case for FGC still couldn't be made. FGM would still be the most commonly used term in medical sources. This is an inherently normative debate, we can't independently ascertain which term is neutral, FGC was specifically created to advocate against the term FGM, FGM was created to dispel the inaccuracy of the term female circumcision. We can argue neutrality till we're blue in the face (and it literally has gotten to that point in the past), but at the end of the day we've got two non-neutral terms. One that is barely used and was admittedly created to advocate (FGC), and one that is widely used, by reputable sources, and unintentionally advocates (FGM). If the tie breaker can't be neutrality, then it has to be numerical superiority, and thankfully we have a clear answer in that regard which would be FGM. It isn't perfect, but it's the best option between the two. Vietminh (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per COMMONNAME, previous discussions, and Sandy's point. --John (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (this discussion clearly shows that FGM is by far the most commonly used of all possible terms), per WP:POVTITLE (the term FGM has been around for 40 years, it isn't a trendy slogan, its not a colloquialism, and FGC was created in the 1990s specifically by advocates against the term FGM, whereas FGM is used by the WHO, other UN organizations, NGOs, governments, and in legal documents), and most importantly per this Request For Comment which clearly established near unanimous support for using FGM. I suggest to the user who started this RM that as per proper procedure, next time you check recent page archives to see if any discussions have occurred before you start either a new RM or new RfC. If you had, you would have found an RM that resulted in a very large discussion which resulted in a recent RfC which clearly established near unanimous support for FGM. This would have negated the reason to start both a Requested Move and another Request for Comment. Vietminh (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing out that request for comment. I browsed that previous discussion but missed all the outside opinions there. For gosh sake, it's an awful lot of effort we're putting into discussing this so soon after the wider community affirmed the current usage, almost unanimously. Another point I got from that discussion is that most female genital mutilation involves cutting, but it's not all cutting. Type III of course involves a cut wound but its more like ritualized sealing than cutting. Type IV includes several kinds of mutilation which are not cutting. --Pnm (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous discussions, the reference to circumcision by the proposer demonstrates deep ignorance of the issues and its perverse that we are discussing this again so soon after the recent resolution. --Snowded ^TALK 10:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Snowded and his per. And the reference to circumcision is indeed very ignorant and I speak this as a Jew myself. --Nutthida (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing ignorant about it. Being jewish doesn't give your opinion any more weight than mine. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's a weak analogy that tends to irritate people and, consequently, may be counterproductive. It might have been better to stick to the strong argument that the term "mutilation" is inherently POV. Jakew (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME ought to overrule WP:POV, which this title doesn't even appear to be anyways. CityOfSilver 19:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POV. The euphemism "cutting" is a blatant attempt to normalise this procedure, and Wikipedia should not tolerate it.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose:FGM is by far the term most frequently used in reliable sources, as well as by governmental and international health and social organizations, by health care professionals, by anthropologists and sociologists studying the topic, and by journalists reporting on it. The proposed term is a euphemistic neologism which has failed to gain wide acceptance ad is considered to be highly controversial. I'm avidly against non-medical male circumcision, but comparing it with FGM is horribly dishonest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: In view of the fact that in the overwhelming majority of instances of the procedures in question, according to the current version of the article and its sources, something is actually cut off - an action which is not the same as "cutting" - the term mutilation seems more accurate and less POV than the suggested alternative. It's probably impossible to find a short phrase which accurately denotes the complete range of procedures in question, however. Beejaypii (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; the evidence regarding common terminology in the sources is simply overwhelming. siafu (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Richiez (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request from , 24 November 2011

I am requesting a change to the title of this page as it is offensive and it is not a cultural relative term. Using the term " MUTILATION" is not culturally sensitive and invokes a biased opinion of this cultural act. The more non judgemental term to use to title this page would be FEMALE GENITAL MODIFICATION. This change is a culturally relevant request from an anthropological standpoint, particularily because wikipedia is supposed to be giving information, not choosing sides. I am an Indigenous Studies Student whom is majoring in Anthropology and Minoring in Indigenous Studies, and our class of 32 students, after doing research on this subject had a discussion and we believe that this is something that needs to be changed to a more inclusive terminology on your web site.

Thank you, From the entire Anthropology of Women class at Camosun College, The Ladies of Somalia, And myself, Margeory G

Indigenous Studies Student (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Margeory Graham

Not done: The term female genital mutilation is defined by the WHO, and that definition is backed up by a reliable source. Unless you can demonstrate that another term is in more common usage, the article will not be moved. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that you don't need to make an edit request to move a page. The correct procedure is a requested move. However, I would not advise opening another requested move proposal at this stage, since as you can see in the above section, the previous move only closed about a fortnight ago, regrettably with strong support for the current title. I'd suggest waiting six months or so to see if consensus has changed. Jakew (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The second part of what Jakew has said here is quite misleading, renaming this (or any) article's title is not as simple as waiting six months (or for any period of time) to see if enough people simply agree with the point of view you offer in the future. Wikipedia has specific guidelines and policies which must be followed to choose an article title's name. Female Genital Modification would never be taken under serious consideration because it is not ubiquitous enough in its usage to merit consideration. To address what was said specifically, cultural relativity, sensitivity, relevancy, and inclusiveness are not criteria for choosing content on Wikipedia. This encyclopedia bases its content off of what is available in English language, reliable sources. It is meant to reflect what is offered in those sources and those sources alone. I say this not to attack your perspective, but to outline what at a glance might seem to be an un-realized bias in Wikipedia on our part. The point is that the cultural bias is inherent in the process of including content in the Encylopedia, and the bias is with the sources not with Wikipedia itself. Vietminh (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Political lobbying to change language is still political lobbying even if it is carried out by the world health organisation or an Inter-African Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.22.132 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Female genital cutting would be a good compromise position until consensus can be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.22.132 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)