Talk:Female genital mutilation

Removal of labia vs clitoris

Before viewing the film Moolaadé, I wanted to do some background research, specifically about the difference between removal of the clitoris vs the labia, but the article seems to deal almost exclusively with the former. The latter (which seems more like circumcision) is only mentioned in passing, as type IIa, which I find odd because it is very essentially something different. I thought that this might originally have some medical purpose (like circumcision). Labiaplasty is essentially different again because that's plastic surgery (so for aesthetic reasons). Btw, the article almost consistently calls this mutilation (all types). While I am inclined to agree (despite lack of knowledge and with the possible exception of type IIa) that's POV, so not very encyclopedic. But that's another issue. DirkvdM (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the first part of your post, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research ("essentially different"). That is a decision for the reader to make given the verified material we (and other sources) present. As for "mutilation," it does seem to me that it is a non-neutral POV word (the word is banned from the male circumcision article): the definition of mutilation is to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect. It's the "imperfection" that's demonstrably debated. Unfortunately, the UN/WHO's position ("MUTILATION") is mostly taken as given by most editors editing this page, completely framing the subject according to its definitions. I've attempted to address this, but there is opposition to my attempts. Perhaps you could make/suggest edits? Blackworm (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, I didn't read carefully enough. Type IIa is the removal of the labia minora, and I was thinking of the removal of the labia majora. There is no mention of that, except in combiation with other acts. Is this never done then? I thought there were just two types, the removal of the clitoris and the labia majora. If there are more people like me, who think this, then that should be addressed. As for editing the article concerning the use of the word 'mutilation', I know next to nothing about the subject and just dropped by with a question. But I'll give my POV onthis subject in a separate section. DirkvdM (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mutilation

There appears to be some debate on the use of the word 'mutilation' and whether that is POV. What the article says is basically that that is precisely the point of WHO. They have a political agenda, trying to eradicate the practice(s). This is, however, not a health organisation but an encyclopedia, which should not take a position, but just provide unbiased information so the readers can decide for themselves. Note that this is interpretation of a source, but one can't avoid that. There will always be different sources on any subject, which will often contradict each other, and it is our task to decide which source is the most fit for an encyclopedia. I even once had an edit based on a Nature article removed because those were just some first findings and this is not a news medium. I disagreed because it was about the shutdown of thermohaline circulation and therefore extremely important to keep things up to date, but I had to admit he was right.
Of course it does make sense to address the question whether this is mutilation, giving different views found in different sources. But other than that an encyclopedic article should use as neutral a terminology as possible. So what is a good term? Genital cutting doesn't cover it completely because type III can also invlove stitching, which is something different altogether. If the different practices (removal of clitoris/labia minora/labia majora and stitching) are only done in a limited set of combinations then it makes sense to classify them as such. But it does present a problem with the naming. A messy subject in more than one respect. :) Another problem is that labiaplasty for other purposes (aesthetic) and, more essentially, voluntary, would also fall under this broad term. But 'female genital cutting' is at least neutral, if not entirely correct, so better than 'mutilation'. DirkvdM (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, messy, isn't it? I personally think articles on "female circumcision" and "infibulation" would address the topic best, as their meanings are clearer. I am opposed in this view here, by a consensus who prefer the demonstrably least used term of three considered, "female genital cutting" which they also see as most neutral. I share your view (correct me I'm wrong) that it is misleading or at least an incomplete description. My opponents point to the WHO as an overwhelmingly dominant and prominent source, and thus frame the entire subject in the WHO's terminology, and yet I note that the WHO themselves make clear their definition of female genital mutilation actually intentionally includes things that are "not generally considered female genital mutilation" (!): Some practices, such as genital cosmetic surgery and hymen repair, which are legally accepted in many countries and not generally considered to constitute female genital mutilation, actually fall under the definition used here. It has been considered important, however, to maintain a broad definition of female genital mutilation in order to avoid loopholes that might allow the practice to continue.[1] Blackworm (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is another good reason for using the term ‘female circumcision’ instead of ‘female genital cutting’, beside the fact that such a use would avoid confusion between ritual circumcision and Western genital plastic surgery. That is historical continuity. The use of the term ‘circumcision’ for girls goes back to at least 163 BCE, in a papyrus from Egypt (Kenyon 1893: Greek Papyri in the British Museum). Since then, for almost two thousand years, these practices were called ‘female circumcision’, at least when described by Westerners. The term ‘female genital mutilation’ was introduced by the radical feminist Fran P. Hosken in the 1970s, and ‘female genital cutting’ has worked as a compromise primarily during the last five years. Thus, going back to ‘female circumcision’ would offer historical continuity. On the other hand, one could argue that there is a good point to be made when ‘cutting’ (based on the actual meaning of the word) must include also Western practices. But then we are back in politics again… Hssajo (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article's title is certainly not the most commen denominator and should be changed to "Female Circumcision". There is debate right now at Talk:Circumcision to change the name of that article to "Male Circumcision". Perhaps one may lead to the other. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Female circumcision" is actually a rather controversial and somewhat non-NPOV term, as is explained in the article here. Current usage tends to favour "female genital mutilation" or "female genital cutting"; the latter is more neutral. Jakew (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

By that logic we should rename "Male Circumcision" to "Male genital cutting". Its all absurd to me. Why are we trying to cover up/hide female circumcision? It's no more controversial than male circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, male circumcision is already a redirect to circumcision. Similarly, female circumcision and female genital mutilation both redirect to female genital cutting (here, in other words). There is no attempt to "hide" or "cover up" a concept, or even a name. If there were, we wouldn't discuss the terminology in the article, and we wouldn't have redirects to help readers find the article if they type in, for example, "female circumcision". However, an article can only have one name, and we need to choose the most suitable. In the case of the subject of this article, there are several terms in common use. The term "female circumcision" is controversial (please understand that I'm talking about the term, not the concept), and the term "female genital mutilation" has obvious neutrality problems (as noted in the joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement referenced in the article). The obvious choice, then, is "female genital cutting". Jakew (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I am aware or the redirects Jake. I disagree with the terminology. Female circumcision isn't known as female genital cutting. That is the act or to circumcise. What's obvious is the article title is incorrect per WP:TITLE. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't separate the controversy of the term, "female circumcision" from the general circumcision controversy. The term "female circumcision" is only "controversial" to some male circumcision advocates and female circumcision opponents, who feel that circumcision of males is good and to be promoted, and circumcision of females bad and to be abolished -- thus, they wish to separate all discussion of circumcision with completely varying terminology based on the gender of the person who undergoes circumcision. Hence, they separate the ideas, allowing for two sets of standards, values, and interpretations of human rights. The UN agencies you quote freely admit that that is the reason they oppose "female circumcision" and embrace "female genital mutilation." They are advocates. Wikipedia is not an advocate, in theory, although all circumcision pages such as this one have your flawed assumptions as fundamental principles. Good thing you got in on it early, huh, Jake? Now you can sit back, object, endlessly "discuss," and claim "no consensus" when anyone wants to repair the non-neutral POV in all circumcision articles such as this one. Blackworm (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's be realistic, Blackworm: most people and organisations have a point of view about female genital cutting, whether for or against. As such, if one were to exclude every author who has expressed advocacy or opposition, then few would remain. It doesn't make much sense to do so anyway. Even if true, stating that those who oppose the term "female circumcision" are opponents of FGC does not make the controversy go away. Actually, "controversy" may not be the right word - I have yet to find any sources arguing in favour of the term. Jakew (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over the term is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not censored and plenty of other much more "controversial" terms have entries. Perhaps the word you're looking for is "unhelpful," "dangerous," "not what we want to tell people," "disrespectful of circumcision," "sending the wrong message," "might make people question circumcision in general," etc. The opposition to the term can be noted, but it is clearly more common than "female genital cutting," and clearly not a product of advocacy, unlike "female genital cutting." It's also not bound by confusing, changing, and contradictory UN/WHO advocate definitions that they themselves admit go beyond "what is usually considered female genital mutilation." This entire topic is framed by advocates, for advocates. Congratulations. Blackworm (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More useful information from a strong anti-female circumcision advocate: "The term female circumcision is more helpful at the outset of such discussions because, although it has the shortcoming of conveying a similarity with male circumcision, it is devoid of moral or religious connotations, particularly those associated with purification. The neutrality of the term makes it especially useful when the issue has become such a battlefield for conflicting factions." (Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf, ''Female Circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives [2] ) More neutral. More common. Not allowed here or anywhere in Wikipedia because advocates on one side control all aspects of this topic. Blackworm (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Or there's this opinion piece: Moreover, the term 'circumcision' is gender-neutral and does not qualify the outcome one way or the other (mutilation, deformation etc), it is sensitive to local beliefs. [...] Thus, from the point of view of medical terminology, the term 'Female Genital Mutilation', or "FGM" is clearly a misnomer and otherwise abusive [...]. [...] The term Female Genital Cutting (aka FGC) is equally a misnomer and abusive.[3]

Or this: We decided to use the term 'female circumcision' as we believe 'female genital mutilation' would be a misnomer in the Malaysian context.[4]

Or this: I am speaking here about the circumcision of girls. The term genital mutilation or Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has been the term adopted in the last 10 years by many women's health and humans rights activists. The term clearly indicates that this is a damaging practice. The WHO (World Health Organization) also uses the term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). The abbreviation, FGM, is now understood everywhere and so is used worldwide. On the other hand, it seems that organizations that work with people from groups that practise the circumcision of girls run the risk of insulting their target group or even shocking them by using this term because the people involved do not see these practices as mutilation or as degrading. For this reason I have adopted the term female circumcision. A second reason for using the term female circumcision is the great variation in the types of circumcision that exists.[5]

Or this: Using their research findings these organizations have to ensure that people appreciate why circumcision must be discarded. All three organizations consciously chose to use the term female circumcision, and not female genital mutilation. [6]

This of course ignores the hundreds or thousands of scholarly articles that use "female circumcision" naturally and normally and do not mention any opposition to the use of term (Jakew's "controversy"). Blackworm (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Like this one? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=female+genital+mutilation&as_ylo=2008&as_yhi=2008&btnG=Search

"Female genital cutting (FGC) or as it is sometimes erroneously called, female circumcision, has been performed on over 173 million girls worldwide."

Atom (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Based on Atom's analysis in the Article Title section below, it appears that "female circumcision" is the most common term in scholarly reports. Barbs directed at Jakew notwithstanding, Blackworm's argument is quite compelling. Some have expressed concern that changing the title of this article to "female circumcision" will imply that it is equivalent with male circumcision (I withhold my opinion on this matter). However, these concerns are premature and should not dictate the outcome of this debate. AlphaEta 01:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my analysis suggested that "Female Genital Cutting" is the most common term. This argument is one that has happened with a different audience several times before. In the last one I recall that I was convinced that my preferred term, "Female Genital Mutilation" was not as common, or as neutral as the term "Female Genital Cutting" -- the most commonly used term.

I reiterate:

Female Genital Mutilation - 536,000 hits. Female Genital Cutting - 1,600,000 hits. Female Circumcision - 668,000 hits.

It is my position in a nutshell that the term that most people use should be the article title, and other terms redirect to that term.

Also, based on past arguments, I suggest that the title "Female Circumcision" will raise a firestorm of protest, suggesting that the mutilation that this article describes is just some type of circumcision. Atom (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify that when I said "it appears that "female circumcision" is the most common term in scholarly reports," I was referring to the Google Scholar and Google Book hits. Sorry for the confusion. AlphaEta 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were to sum up the three areas, then the term "Female Genital Cutting" would predominate. As I said in the other section, my personal opinion is that the scholars area the journal articles rely on getting funding from a conservative government and other sources and so use as politically correct term as necessary in order to not alienate their audience. Atom (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are other ways to look at the data. I analyzed only the Google Scholar references of a period of time.

For the time range 1970-1979 I found the distribution of the three terms to be: FC 50%; FGC 40% and FGM 10% with a total of 2,860 references.

For the time range 1980-1989 I found the distribution of the three terms to be: FC 48%; FGC 38% and FGM 14% with a total of 4,871 references.

For the time range 1990-1999 I found the distribution of the three terms to be: FC 41%; FGC 38% and FGM 22% with a total of 18,010 references.

For the time range 2000-2008 I found the distribution of the three terms to be: FC 38%; FGC 40% and FGM 21% with a total of 36,120 references.

This seems to indicate that the trend amongst academics has been:

• That the term FC, although once the most common term, is increasingly declining in usage.
• That the term FGC has remained abut the same.
• That the term FGM had steadily increased over time.

With FGC currently the term with the higher percentage of usage by scholars in the 2000-2008 timeframe with 14,500 of 36,120 references.

The raw numbers of course, doesn't tell the whole story. Looking through the 2008 references (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=female+genital+mutilation&as_ylo=2008&as_yhi=2008&btnG=Search) on Google Scholar I see that many articles often use more than one term, and sometimes all three. The usage of the term FGC/FGM is very common. Also, it appears that articles that focus on africa (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/repro/rebi/2008/00000016/A00103s1/art00004 March 2008) seem to avoid the term FGM more, and the articles that focus on the West (http://www.internurse.com/cgi-bin/go.pl/library/article.cgi?uid=28025;article=BJSN_3_1_25_29 Jan 2008) Tend to use the FGM term more. This probably due to very strong cultural reactions to the FGM term in Africa. So, I am saying take the raw numbers with a large grain of salt. Atom (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sense of balance I feel "Female circumcision" is the gender opposite of "Male circumcision". I also believe these are the most common neutral terms. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think that? First, if "Male Circumcision" is a term no one used (calling it Circumcision) and in all literature regarding the female act it is primarily called FGC or FGM then you must be basing it on some personal esthetic rational, not based on what most people call it. And af I have said before, "Female Circumcision" is not considered to be "neutral". One end of the spectrum does not want it called "Female Genital Mutilation" because is accuses them of "Mutilating" their child when they have her clitoris cut off, and the other end of the spectrum Doesn't like "Female Circumcision" because it makes what for them is a human rights atrocity that should be punished by death into a classification of a medical procedure. Neither of those terms is perceived as neutral, regardless of the grammatical or programatic "Balance" that may appeal to word oriented people. I mean, if you take a look at Google Scholar yourself, and list all of the articles with the three primary terms and start reading the research, it is easy to see. Atom (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the above numbers from User:Atomaton are incorrect. I invite the reader to perform their own searches, using Google Scholar, the phrases "female circumcision" "female genital mutilation" and "female genital cutting" WITH QUOTES to indicate that you wish to match the exact phrase. For example, for the period up to the year 1979, the results are:

• "female circumcision" 353 hits
• "female genital mutilation" 30 hits
• "female genital cutting" 19 hits

I was alive in 1979. People who were educated about the world, and not just their little town and friendly medical clinic where boys were (and are) circumcised without anaesthetic, referred to the topic of this article as 'female circumcision.' All the other terms are more recent, and are born of 1970's advocacy against female circumcision and advocacy in support of male circumcision which organizations like the WHO now embrace to the point where they now want all female circumcision stopped by force if necessary, and all adult men as well as all infant boys, and all boys in between, to be circumcised on a "nominally voluntary" basis, as is happening in Africa.[7] Blackworm (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we change "Male circumcision" to "Male genital cutting"? Garycompugeek (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag was placed in response to the on going discussion going on now. It does not matter that it has been discussed in the archives many times. We should be questioning why the matter is continually brought up? Please do not remove the tag while there is on-going discussion. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

Rather than get into an editor war, a discussion of the title would be better.

I would prefer that the article title be "Female Genital Mutilation", and not "Female Genital Cutting" or "Female Circumcision". However, several years ago we had a long discussion about this and I was convinced that the most common terminology used worldwide is "Female Genital Cutting", hence the current article name.

In any event, marking the whole article as being POV just because one editor disagrees with the title just doesn't work. Especially if that editor hasn't even made an effort to look into the history of the articles development and determine what the previous concensus has been, and why. In fact the article explains the different terminologies in detail as well as some of the politics involved and references. The different perspectives are given which clearly indicates the article is NOT POV, but fairly well balanced (even if there are things that I don't agree with). SO the problem here is that another editor does not like the article title, and not that the article is POV. Atom (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire purpose of the tags is to bring attention on-going discussions on the talk page. The tag is to be removed when we are through.

I agree discussion is preferable (no reason to edit war a tag pointing to this discussion when that is the tags function)

While I agree that circumcision is genital mutilation (my POV) the common term is circumcision, be it male or female, and the article should reflect that like many dictionaries and medical journals. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag states "The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed." and I repeat it is the title we were debating in the previous section "Mutilation" and by we I mean multiple editors ergo not just me. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, part of the reason we have different perspectives is that we have the same logic but different interpretations of the facts. I would prefer that it be called Female Genital Mutiliation, but that isn't the most common term used. After a similar discussion several years ago on this topic (in this very place) I spent quite a bit of time researching and found that the term 'female circumcision', although used, seemed to be largely a form of political speech to make what is a terrible thing sound more like male circumcision, which in western society has historically been very accepted. "Female Genital Cutting" is a term that is accurate, but does not try to make this terrible act sound softer and acceptable.

Just a quick google check:

• Female Genital Mutilation - 536,000 hits.
• Female Genital Cutting - 1,600,000 hits.
• Female Circumcision - 668,000 hits.

Now that is only good as a rough indicator, not for anything else.

Looking at google Scholar:

• Female Genital Mutilation - 17,600 hits.
• Female Genital Cutting - 21,000 hits.
• Female Circumcision - 30,500 hits.

Looking at Google Books:

• Female Genital Mutilation - 1229 hits.
• Female Genital Cutting - 1810 hits.
• Female Circumcision - 1950 hits.

Now, interpret that how you will. My interpretation is that a majority of the average people likely know the topic as "Female Genital Cutting". Scientists and Scholars would more frequently use the term "Female Circumcision", as is reflected by people who write popular books on the topic.

Clearly all three terms are very commonly used. As a Wikipedia editor, I feel that the term most used by the average person should be the article title, and redirects on other common terms should go to that title. If I sided with my political views, I would prefer calling the article what it is, Female Genital Mutilation, rather than trying to be politically correct.

I feel that Scientist and Scholars use the term "Female Circumcision" more often because they have to survive by getting funding from others. Using a politically hot term like "Female Genital Mutilation" -- or even "Female Genital Cutting" risk alienating part of their audience. Using "politically correct" terminolgy is in their self interest. So, although I respect their intent and research, I don't respect their terminology as the guiding or determining factor in common word usage. Their terminology, language and slang would best be used when discussing the subject with a group of scientists or politicians. Atom (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your searches seem to reflect "Female Circumcision" is the most common denominator. Would it not logically follow that this be the articles title? Garycompugeek (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, with Female Genital Cutting getting 1.6 million hits, and Female Circumcision getting 668,000 hits, that wasn;t the conclusion that occured to me. Atom (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, regarding your use of the POV tag. The POV tag is NOT mean't to be used as a tag to attract attention to the article, as you have asserted "The entire purpose of the tags is to bring attention on-going discussions on the talk page." The POV tage (see NPOV) is really intended to indicate that the article contents (not the title) are not Neutral Point of View. In this article, in my opinion, many people have gone to great lengths to express the spectrum of viewpoints very well. This article is pretty good example of where POV is used correctly. I understand that the article title may not be considered by some to be "neutral" and that some of the perspectives given in the article may not be considered by some to be "neutral". But, that is not what NPOV is about. NPOV is about allowing the article to have the range of viewpoints on the topic freely expressed (although none of them are individually neutral in tone) as long as those viewpoints are citable, and not merely opinion. So the POV tag regards the article as a whole, and not one specific element of the article (such as the title). Atom (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are easily shown completely wrong. See WP:NPOV, which states that the POV tag is a "message used to warn of problems" and that POV-title is used "when the article's title is questionable." Warning of the problems and engaging other interested parties is how a better consesnsus is formed. Blackworm (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you refer to in the NPOV section. I stand corrected. I would say that "completely wrong" might be an overstatement, but I admit that addressing the article title is fair game for a POV tag. I'm not sure how the title "Female Genital Cutting" which is between the two strong biased titles on either side "Female Genital Mutiliation" (-- which I prefer) and "Female Circumcision" which makes the act sound almost medically advisable could not be the best and most neutral choice. But I guess that is what the debate is about. Atom (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It only sounds anything akin to "advisable" if you believe "circumcision" (e.g., as defined in the "circumcision" article -- male circumcision) is advisable. Many people do believe this, but I'm sure anyone can decide for themselves which, if any forms of circumcision are advisable. This article serves to inform, not advise. Clearly "mutilation" has a strong normative bent, and is used precisely to assert the gravity of the act.[8] (See note #15.) It takes a moral position on the act, by definition, and thus is clearly normative. Cutting is notably more neutral, but less common a term, despite the power and scope of the organizations spending money to publicize it. The title of this article is an interesting problem. I prefer "female circumcision," but I'm not quick to oppose the more neutral of the two alternatives (FGC), especially in light of the high prevalence of the POV [late edit: among editors, not necessarily sources] that that term "female circumcision" should not be used. Blackworm (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2008

(UTC)

I used the term "medically advisable" and was not discussing religious or moral aspects of it. At this time the prevailing medical opinion in Western coutries is that neither male or female circumcision is necessary or medically advisable except in extremely rare situations. (to solve disease problems only) As I illustrated here, and in the Circumcision article, "Female Genital Cutting" is the most commonly used term (not less common as you assert.) From the perspective of a Wikipedia Editor, our decision should be based on common usage, not on arguments about whether the commonly used terms carry emotional, political, religious or any other kind of baggage. The reason this article is called "Female Genital Cutting" is because this argument has happened before and the most commonly used term was chosen. I don't believe that it is our job to decline to use the most commonly used term, in favor of one that we judge to be more "neutral". I suppose there is a reason that the formally predominate term of "Female Circumsion" is no longer the preferred term, and FGC/FGM is dominant in most recent journal articles. Whatever the reasonsing, I am for following that trend, rather than using my preferred term {FGM). I respect your opinion, and don't mean to create conflict. Thanks. Atom (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't illustrated anything about the frequency of terms, because your Google searches are BADLY CONSTRUCTED. You didn't use quotes around "female genital cutting" in your search, thus Google responded with pages containing each of the three words "female," "genital," and "cutting," rather than the complete phrase "female genital cutting." Use the advanced search if you don't understand the difference ("all these words" vs. "exact phrase"). If you do so, and do so for the corresponding phrases "female circumcision" and "female genital mutilation," you would obtain the following results:

• "female genital mutilation" 490,000 hits
• "female circumcision" 469,000 hits
• "female genital cutting" 105,000 hits

You've done nothing but spread misinformation here and on Talk:Circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Blackworm. It appears I should have checked Atom's facts. Do you feel we should push for a name change to "Female circumcision" through Request? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some people will do anything to win your view, I swear. Talk about misinformation, Here are the links to the search using YOUR preferred methid. People can click on the link to check for themselves, they have no need to believe anyone:

Here is filtered for Years 1998-2008 (Last Ten years of papers):

• "female genital mutilation" 5,840
• "female circumcision" - 4,660
• "female genital cutting" - 1,510

This is doing it with exact search, that you specify which is a different search than the more general one I did. Neither way is more accurate, this only find where the exact term is used. There are a number of articles that use the term "genital cutting" or "genital mutilation" alone in the content of the article after establishing the context earlier in the article, or "Female genital cutting (mutilation/circumcision)", "Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting" or "Female Genital Cutting/Mutilation", or FGM/C or FGM and other possibilities.

Parenthetically -- BTW, does the above analysis using YOUR preferred method, suggesting that Female Genital Mutilation is the most common term mean we should user that term as the article title?

I will be the first to say that a quick google analysis of any type has faults, and that only by a thorough analysis can an individual tell what is there for sure. In the Circumcision talk page I suggested:

Here is a list including all three terms, look at how researchers refer to it yourself.

Google Scholar Search "Female Genital Cutting Circumcision Mutilation" 2008-2008

Clicking link my link an individual can form their own opinion, instead of trusting others analysis.

Another thing that any interested person could do is actually read the content of the [[Female Genital Cutting" article, and the various points that are made there regarding the things we are talking about here.

Atom (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so FC and FGM have about the same number of hits when we narrow the search to articles 1998-2008, after I corrected the misinformation you still haven't admitted. That's interesting. So what? There is no reason to consider only the last ten years, and furthermore the numbers you present still precisely make my point that "female genital cutting" is the least common term of the three under consideration. Remember, you said: "As I illustrated here, and in the Circumcision article, "Female Genital Cutting" is the most commonly used term (not less common as you assert.)" This is wrong, and you've half-admitted it, if not to yourself, apparently. I now reiterate my request for you to have some intellectual honesty and remove the the first long set of misleading statistics you present. Thank you in advance.

To answer your question, no, I don't argue that the most common term is necessarily the correct title for this article. That depends on the article contents, and the neutrality of the title. Since this article is about "Female Genital Cutting" as defined by the United Nations' WHO, then that seems like an appropriate title for the moment. Then again, perhaps this article should not be all about that organization's definition. I argue that "female circumcision" is demonstrably more common than the current title, which is "female genital cutting," and that "female genital mutilation" is less neutral than "female genital cutting." Thus the latter seems a reasonable choice, especially given the current article contents, if not my personal preference on a title and topic ("female circumcision," which is a subset of "female genital cutting"). Blackworm (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what I said is that your method only finds the precise terms, and not a great many others, leaving out alot of detail. My method gives different information, not better (or less better) information. As I stated, both are skewed to some degree, a wise person would investigate a great many recent articles directly to form an opinion. Your opinion is that there is no reason to explore only the last ten years -- and that may be true for you. Many others (such as myself) feel that this gives a good indication of what recent trends for word usage are. (That is, if researchers have begun to start calling it something different than they have in the past -- what are they calling it now? And this does seem to be the case. There seems to be a trend AWAY from the term "Female Circumcision" -- though still commonly used.) I am not suggesting that you need to look at it that way. Now, I haven't mislead anyone, and the searchs I gave are completely accurate -- they just don't represent the same things that your search method does. Your method does not give any clarity (by omitting a great many articles that do address the topic -- but don't use the exact or complete term) although it seems to represent your preference of term better. Atom (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. I understand your logic, and it makes some sense. I am of the opinion that as long as a search redirects to the main article, the article title is not so important. I lean in the direction of having the article title be what most people might call it, although if there is a redirect, that is not essential, only useful. My preferred term, of course, is FGM. From my rationale, because that sides closely with my views as a feminist, and that the act is most often (not always) a human rights violation, or in the best of cases, well meaning (but misguided) parents influenced by their religious or cultural leaders. In my view, the current title "Female genital cutting" is a) The most common term used by average people (although all three are used). b) The most neutral of the three terms used. (That is I view it as more neutral that FGM or FC). c) The term used primarily by WHO and Human Rights Organizations (The organizations, outside of M.D.'s that talk about it the most frequently). These are just my opinions. Atom (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Atom, please do not insert your posts in the middle of mine, it makes it impossible to tell who said what. I have no problem with your opinions on female genital cutting, I have a problem with your demonstrably false statements and misleading statistics, both here and on Talk:Circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shia View

Is an article that mentions a rumor of FGC occurring in Lebanon a basis for inclusion in the article? I don't know if wikipedia articles are supposed to reference all rumors on the topic they cover, but I am putting the text here instead of in the article. I am fairly certain that this practice does not take place, so it would be nice if someone found an article that at least says it does take place before writing about it here. If I am wrong to request this, restore the text. Here it is:

"====Shia View==== Foster states that female circumcision is rumoured to be common amongst Shi'ite communities ruled by Hezbollah in Lebanon." 71.118.219.240 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The claim is cited, and properly attributed to its author in prose. There is little doubt that Foster stated this, and we should Let the reader decide of the validity of the author's claim, and on the accuracy of the claimed rumour. If you have reliable sources supporting your apparent view that female circumcision doesn't happen amongst Shi'ite communities ruled by Hezbollah in Lebanon, or otherwise countering or providing a counterpoint to this author's claims, then bring them and we'll cite and attribute them too. But we seem to have no reason to remove this attributed, cited view simply because you claim that the author whose claims are attributed is mistaken. Blackworm (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag

I removed the POV tag because there currently is no active discussion regarding the article being POV. Editor Blackworm reverted this change. (putting the POV tag back) His explanation is that we had not reached consensus on anything, and therefore the article should be tagged POV. This is innacurate usage of the tag.

There was a discussion about the article title, and whether we should change it or not as it inherently expressed an implied POV. All of the titles discussed inherently expressed some POV. A change in the title was suggested, discusion ensued, but there was no consensus for a change and the discussion ended. In any other article, since the article was NPOV (expressing multiple POV's as per the WIki policy -- with due weight given) and since there are no current objections to the POV, the POV tag should no longer be applied.

Now, if an editor wants to reinstate the tag (as Blackworm has) and begun discussing what they perceive as changes that are needed to being the article to become NPOV, I'm fine with that. But if the objection is that one editor does not agree with something (including the title) in the article, but can't find a consensus for changing it, then that is not appropriate for maintaining a POV tag. Should every article in Wikipedia maintain a POV tag because one editor or another disagrees with other editors in the article? I don't believe that is the purpose of the tag. Thanks, Atom (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss the title. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has completed regarding renaming the article. There was no consensus for changing the title, leaving the consensus as it was before, with the existing name of "Female Genital Cutting" previously established.

As the insertion of the POV tag on the article was because of the article title, there is no longer any valid reason for the POV tag on the article.

An editor not agreeing with the article title, or not agreeing with some of the content is not sufficient to sustain the NPOV tag.

Now, if an editor wants to reinstate the tag (as GaryCompuGeek has) and begin discussing what they perceive as changes that are needed to follow NPOV, I'm fine with that. But if the objection is that one editor does not agree with something (including the title) in the article, but can't find a consensus for changing it, then that is not appropriate for maintaining a POV tag. Should every article in Wikipedia maintain a POV tag because one editor or another disagrees with other editors in the article? I don't believe that is the purpose of the tag.

So, if one of the editors who has recently put the POV tag back on the article could explain what their current issue is, now that the article title is solved, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, if there is no on going dispute or discussion regarding NPOV, then I will remove it again. I solicit and would appreciate support from other editors on assisting with keeping the POV tag off the article, unless there is an active dispute.

I am beginning to view the attempt to keep putting the POV tag on the article as a form of incivility and also a form of attempting to disrupt the article. Again unless there is some active discussion or complaint about the POV of the article, the NPOV tag should not be there. Atom (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that GaryComputer Geek has reverted my removal of the POV tag, even though there is no active discussion. The explanation in the edit line was "no active discussion on Circumcision either yet the tag remains because no consensus".

It is true that there is not a NEW consensus. The survey seeking to rename the article to Female Circumcision FAILED consensus, leaving it with the previous consensus. You cannot LOSE your attempt to change the article name, and then say that the POV tag should remain because you object to the article name. SHould we have yet another survey on rnaming the article "Male Genital Mutilation"? And when that fails, will people still say, we should have the POV tag because there was no consensus to change the name to either of the other terms?

There WAS a consenssu on the article being named "Female Genital Cutting" (in the past) That consensus STILL has not been overcome. A claim of POV based on the article name not being what you want it to be, after you lost your effort to change the article name is specious. Continually putting the tag back, even though there is no active dispute, is disruptive -- please stop. Atom (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus simply means no agreement has been reached... The debate is active until consensus is reached hence the tag. Notice Circumcision has a tag with no current debate at the moment. The tag allows others to see there is a debate with no current consensus on going and if they want to check talk and archive they can learn more. Stop taking this personally Atom it has nothing to do with you per se. Tags do not deface anything but are used to bring attention to whatever. Maybe we disagree on how tags are used but there is nothing incivil about that. As things stand two editors believe the tag should stay and one disagrees. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you think of this in terms of "losing" and "winning." Regardless, the title and article content is disputed, and the tag reflects that. If and when a consensus is arrived at regarding the title, the tag will be removed.

"In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

— Wikipedia NPOV dispute

Blackworm (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article currently has consensus. What it doesn't have is every editor agreeing. If you can't point at something that you object to in the article, then it doesn't seem that there is a dispute, does there? So you are saying that even though you asked for a change in the article name, and you could not find neither a consensus nor a majority of people whjo agreed with you, that because you still don't like the article name, you are still going to try and force an NPOV until you get your way? I claim that your attempt to force an NPOV tag on the article when, in fact there is no disagreement that the article is not neutral is disruptive. The title is *not* being disputed, we just got closure on that. The standing consensus for the article title stands because your failure to change that previous consensus did not succeed. Atom (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the NPOV tag is to indicate that their is a dispute about the neutrality of the article. Not to indicate that there is one or more editors who disagree about the content or title of the article. Their currently is no dispute about the title, as that was just resolved. There currently is no dispute about the content either. There is no valid reason for a POV tag. Atom (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree with your conclusions. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you pregnant? congratulations! Atom (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, this is a matter of policy. Redefining the WP:NPOV policy to mean (at least one editor disagrees with the consensus of the article) will not get wide support. I was not asking for you to agree with me, I was explaining that the purpose of NPOV is to find balance between conflicting views, not the strange concept you have. I have a suspicion that there are many other editors who would agree with the policy, rather than your view. Atom (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately no one is redefining the policy to mean that (i.e., you are attacking a straw man). Blackworm (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that you don't mean what I thik you mean. Let's ask other people what they think -- maybe we will both learn something? Atom (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You say: "The article currently has consensus" -- but no, it doesn't, that's what "no consensus" means. The previous consensus remains because there is currently no consensus to change it, but that doesn't mean the dispute is resolved. Had a consensus emerged, the closing admin would have closed the Requested Move as "no move" or "move," and the dispute would be considered resolved. As it is, the dispute is awaiting a fresh round of discussion or some alternate suggestions, with the goal of reaching a consensus.

Also please note that I made no statement of support or opposition to the Requested Move, which makes your statements regarding my suppsed "failure to change the previous consensus" quite ludicrous, indeed. I do insist on following Wikipedia policy and acknowledging that a dispute exists, however. Blackworm (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to tell you that you don't have a dispute with the title. Clearly you do. We tried to resolve that dispute -- and your view to change the existing consensus did not prevail. I am sure that did not change your mind about your dispute. But the purpose of the tag is not to indicate that someone in the article disagrees.

The dispute (regading the name change) is resolved, you just are not happy with the outcome. We don't need another move change to rename the article to "Female Genital Cutting". Because that is already the article name, and already the standing consensus. Of course, any number of future discussions about changing the standing consensus could occur in the future, based on any number of factors. We don't need to wait for one of those to succeed and the article name is change before we gain closure. The possibility of the existing consensus changing in the future always exists. You can't put up a POV tag and claim non-neutral POV based on a disagreement with the consensus. You have to name something specific that can be discussed and fixed. And going through cycle after cycle of putting the tag on, trying to change the standing consensus and renaming the article name to "Female Circumcision", failing to get consensus, putting the tag on, trying to change the standing consensus and renaming the article name to "Female Circumcision", failing to get consensus, putting the tag on, trying to change the standing consensus and renaming the article name to "Female Circumcision", failing to get consensus, doesn't work either.

If you drop your disagreement with the title being named FC and want to rename it FU, then we can discuss that, and put up the POV tag in the interim. But claiming POV based on the article being named what the consensus wants, but you don't isn't fair play. Atom (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying "what the consensus wants," while I keep pointing to a Requested Move result of "no consensus." Clearly these positions are contradictory, and mine is based in verifiable information, and yours is based on -- I really have no clue what yours is based on. You write, But the purpose of the tag is not to indicate that someone in the article disagrees. It is precisely the purpose of the tag to indicate that there is no consensus on that issue. That is part of WP:NPOV -- when editors are involved in a significant dispute over something in an article, fairness and disclosure dictate that the reader is to be made aware of the dispute. Note under the tag section of that policy "NPOV" is "used to warn of problems." These problems have not been resolved, despite your inappropriate battlefield analogies (a "no consensus" interpreted with terms like "LOSE" and "prevail"). Blackworm (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2008 (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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Female genital cutting → Female circumcision — most commen neutral term — Garycompugeek (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions. Comment period to end September 1 2008.

• Oppose - Atom (talk)

1. FGC is the most common term now used. I realize that some people dispute that, or want to intrepret the data in different ways. It seems clear that in recent research papers (Google Scholar is one place to get an indication of that -- one should come to their own conclusion, and not make assumptions on aggregated data) There clearly has been a change in the terminology used over the last two years, versus, say, the last 20 years.
2. The three terms that seem to be most frequently used are Female Genital Mutiliation (FGM) (my preferred term), Female Genital Cutting(FGC), and Female Circumcision(FC). All of them have some inherent bias. All three terms currently point to this article, and the article covers all three terms in a balanced NPOV manner (in my opinion).
3. FGC is the most neutral of the three terms used, as the other are objected to strenously by one end of the spectum(FC), or the other(FGM). And therefore, it is the best of three alternatives.
4. When one of the three terms is not used, the most frequent abbreviation found in current research is "FGC/M", and FC much more rarely than in the past.

Summary: As the FC term has nearly fallen into disuse, and the FGM is very emotionally loaded, as well as less favored than a few years ago, the most prominently used term currently, Female Genital Cutting, is our best alternative for the Wikipedia article. Atom (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Circumcision has been around for thousands of years and known as "Circumcision". This page is about female circumcision and should therefore be called "Female circumcision". "Female genital cutting" and "Female genital mutilation" are recent terms coined to kowtow to political correctness of various institutions. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In rebuttal of the comments you have made -- I quote this very article:

• "Different terms are used to describe female genital surgery and other such procedures. The procedures were once commonly referred to as female circumcision (FC), but the terms female genital mutilation (FGM) and female genital cutting (FGC) are now dominant throughout the international community. Opponents of the practice often use the term female genital mutilation, whereas groups that oppose the stigma of the word "mutilation" prefer to use the term female genital cutting. A few organizations have started using the combined term female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). All three terms are currently still actively used." Female_genital_cutting#History_of_terminology
• And "In this context, the term female circumcision was thus predominantly replaced by the term female genital mutilation:"Female_genital_cutting#Female_genital_mutilation
• And this "The terminology used to refer to these surgeries has changed, and the clearly disapproving and powerfully evocative expression of "female genital mutilation" has now all but replaced the possibly inaccurate, but relatively less value laden-term of 'female circumcision'.Female_genital_cutting#Female_genital_mutilation
• As for the recent nature of the terms. Here is a reference to Female Genital Cutting from 1964. And Female Genital Mutilation from 1968. Perhaps you are more recent than they are?

If the article title were changed, would we then edit out all of these opinions so that the article was more in aligment with the new title? Atom (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The argument of historical continuity is crucial (therefore ’circumcision’). Further, in most settings where these practices take place, the local words are more associated with concepts of circumcision (a ritual and symbolically loaded event) than plain ’cutting’ – let alone ’mutilation’. Wikipedia ought to always strive for objectivity and leave advocacy aside. Hssajo (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support the move. I am not sure about the dynamics for the future, but the evidence is pretty clear that at the moment the use of the term "female circumcision" is considerably more widespread that the use of the term "female genital cutting". I did a few google searches to test this. Here are the results. Plain google search: 711,000 hits[9] for FC and 107,000 hits[10] for FGC. GoogleBooks: 1369 hits[11] for FC and 560 hits [12] for FGC. GoogleNews (recent news): 66 hits[13] for FC and 12 hits[14] for FGC. GoogleNews (2007-2008): 573 hits[15] for FC and 106 hits[16] for FGC. GoogleScholar: 8910 hits[17] for FC and 3040 hits[18] for FGC. A GoogleScholar search for female-circumcision 2008 gives 542 hits[19] while the same search for female-genital-cutting 2008 gives 233 hits[20]. I must say that I don't see that much of a movement in this data towards FGC becoming the prevailing term. However, I think that, in any event, while FC remains a much more widespread term than FGC, we should go with FC for the name of the article. If and when the situation in terms of the prevailing usage changes, the name of the article could be changed to FGC then. Nsk92 (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebut, see my other comments above, and read the article itself. Consider, using your technique Google Scholar 2007-2008 FGM 691 hits; FC 603 hits.

Broadening to include the past five years, 2003-2008 FGM 3,310 hits, and FC 2,420 hits. We should, therefore, change the title to "Female Genital Mutiliation", perhaps. That does cooincide with this years (2008) report Eliminating Female Mutilation Published by the OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO, that says "to use less judgemental terminology for practising communities, the expression "female genital mutilation/cutting" is used by UNICEF and UNFPA. For the purpose of this Interagency Statement and in view of its significance as an advocacy tool, all United Nations agencies have agreed to use the single term "female genital mutilation".

Atom (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, you are correct that the term "female genital mutilation" has more widespread usage than "female circumcision" although the numbers also show that the difference is much less dramatic than the difference between how widely "female circumcision" and "female genital cutting" are used. It is is pretty clear, by the way, that of the three terms "female genital cutting" is the least used by far. I am not particularly opposed to actually naming the article "female genital mutilation". However, the latter term is very POV loaded, much more so than the other two. WP:NAME tells us that "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications." In view of this "female circumcision" seems a better choice. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I respect that perspective. I could see renaming the article FGM as well, as it is my preferred term. For the same reasons you indicate I feel that compromising for the more neutral FGC term is most beneficial for the article, hence my opposition to the name change. Surely you recognize that the FC term is not neutral, that large numbers of people find it emotionally loaded and dislike the term? In my eyes, FGC is more neutral and less offensive to many people. As for the lower incidence of the FGC term. Of course I started with Google Search, and then Google Scholar as well. When I did a global search for all three terms on papers and journal articles in the past year, and then proceeded to read about a hundred of the articles and abstracts I found FGC heavily used, and often in articles with FC in it.

Also, one last thing. Consider that when a Doctor (M.D.) talks about FC, they often are referring to a procedure that fits into Type 1a, not a clitoridectomy, nor type II, Type III or Type IV, which they might often call "mutilation". As in Western countries most of those types are illegal, they are usually referring to the legal procedures when they use the FC term. This article is intended to be comprehensive, not to only talk about the procedures that an M.D. in the U.S. or U.K or Australia might be comfortable with legally preforming. Hence the FC article title is limited in effectiveness since it does not really describe the full scope of the topic.

Atom (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not completely get the distinction between Types I-IV, but my understanding is that, at least in terms of colloquial usage, "female circumcision" and "female genital cutting" are essentially synonymous. If there is a small technical difference, it can be discussed withing the article itself. I think that, as far as neutrality is concerned, of the three terms, FGM is the most POV loaded, FC is somewhere in the middle (but much less loaded than FGM) and FGC is the most neutral (although the difference in the level of neutrality between the last two is not that dramatic). As far as the frequency of usage is concerned, FGM is up in front, FC is somewhat behind but not by that much, and FC is the least widely used by far. This tells me that FC is the best choice for the name of the article. It is possible, as you say, that the usage of the term FGC is gaining steam in scholarly articles (although GoogleScholar still shows FC considerably up in front), but one should also look at the colloquial usage, particularly in the news-sources, where FC is far in front for the time being. I am also somewhat sympathetic to the historical continuity argument raised by others. All in all, I think that of the three terms, FC is the most appropriate one for the name of the article, at least for the time being. Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - it's by far the more recognisable term. --IdiotSavant (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - not only is it not the more recognizable term, it is used two times less often than female genital mutilation, which is by far the more recognized term. I propose that the article be moved instead to Female genital mutilation, which gets 955,000 google hits vs. 525,000 for Female circumcision, and 106,000 for Female genital cutting. Plus genital mutilation is the standard term used by the United Nations. RasterB (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. Again, I invite the reader to look at Google search hit counts themselves rather than rely on false statements from advocates of the new UN activist terminology. "female genital mutilation" (485,000); "female circumcision" (526,000). Blackworm (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  I just clicked on your two links and got "Results 1 - 10 of about 955,000 for "female genital mutilation" [definition]. (0.13 seconds)" and "Results 1 - 10 of about 524,000 for "female circumcision" [definition]. (0.08 seconds)". Yahoo has an even wider ratio - female genital mutilation 3,740,000 and female circumcision 1,720,000 RasterB (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Again, I invite the reader to click the links themselves. I don't dispute your Yahoo figures, though. Indeed it does seem that activist terminology is slowly prevailing, which isn't surprising given how much money the UN is spending to promote the circumcision of males and oppose the circumcision of females. That doesn't mean we need to be activists too, though. Blackworm (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: The past five years, 2003-2008 FGM 3,310 hits, and FC 2,420 hits. Your search includes archaic usage. Why count and consider terminology that has changed? Yes, 20 years ago no one had begun using the FGM or FGC terms. Now, they prevail. Your logic "FC is the term people used to use most frequently before people began to be interested/activist on the topic" (my paraphrase/reading of your viewpoint) seems a bit silly. Consider that this discussion has preceded us to conclusion outside of Wikipedia. The U.N./ten NGOs including the World Health Organization have argued it all out and come to agreement. We should use that as a precedent, rather than trying to suggest that those organizations are "activists". (as though that were somehow a bad thing). Besides, on Wikipedia we should be following the lead of others, not trying to make our own agendum. Atom (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because WHO considers it FGM means nothing. I consider all genital cutting mutilation regardless of sex. I have no agendum (do you?). The most common, recognizable, NPOV term is circumcision be it male or female. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not just the WHO, but a wide variety of NGOs and human rights organizations. Also, the WHO does not oppose circumcision, they oppose mutilation. And, as I have expressed before, with cites, is that the term female circumcision being incorrectly used to describe Types 1b, II, III and IV is considered to be POV, not neutral. All three terms seem to be considered to be somewhat POV specific. We are not searching for a term to use that is free from any point of view, nor do we want the article to be free from any point of view. We want an article that has balance and expresses the cited POVs accurately. We want a title that is either descriptive of the most commonly used term (Worldview, not Wikiview) OR is considered to be the most neutral. Atom (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Female genital cutting" is a compromise, a relatively neutral term. "Female circumcision" makes it sound as if it's OK because it's just like male circumcision. "Female genital mutilation" is a term chosen for the purpose of opposing the practice, (even by the UN agencies), and is therefore not NPOV; I also oppose moving to this term. I did Google Scholar searches for 2005-2005 and for 2008-2009 and find that "female genital cutting" has, according to these searches, proportionally increased in frequency to nearly half as common as "female genital mutilation": 2005-2005: "female genital cutting" 187; "female genital mutilation" 705; "female circumcision" 396. 2008-2009: "female genital cutting" 80; "female genital mutilation" 168; "female circumcision" 148. Also, this article covers a variety of practices, which vary in how likely they are to be referred to as "circumcision". For male genital cutting, there are also the pages subincision, genital bisection and meatotomy. For female genital cutting as far as I know there's just this one page to cover a variety of modifications, so "female circumcision" would not be a very apt title. Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. "Female genital cutting" is also a term chosen for the purpose of opposing the practice. Your searches for 2008-2009 are particularly interesting, are you hoping that Google will predict usage trends for next year? Why cherry-pick a time frame that corresponds to the result you wish to obtain? Yes, advocacy in this area is growing; that doesn't change that the terms FGC and FGM are advocacy/activist terms. Blackworm (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you find a cite to support your opinion that the term (FGC) was chosen to oppose the practice? (The U.N. chose the term FGM for that reason) It sounds merely descriptive to me. Since the history of the term includes that it was coined to be able to describe the practice but not use the FGM term in places where that was/is considered to be offensive, I would think that it might have been chosen to be descriptive of what actually happens (female - genital - cutting; all neutral descriptors). Why didn't they choose to use the term FC? Well, because that term is for describing type Ia, not Type I (includes Ib) generally, nor type II, III or IV practices. If they could not use the FC term because it was confusing, and they could not use the term mutilation because it was not accepted as a constructive way to approach parents of the girls affected, what term would you have chosen if you had been them. Female Genital, ummm, afflicting, removal, cleansing, curing, surgery, adapting, rerouting, smoothing, protection, purifying... None of those work. Well, all procedures do involve cutting, why not female genital cutting? It sounds like your decision to disregard the neutral term is based on a misunderstanding of that terms origins and purpose.

Regarding Cherry picking, what is your preference in order to limit the search to current usage? The last year? The last three years? The last five years? The last ten years? The last fifteen years? Shouldn't our search be limited in some way if we want to explore possibly renaming the article to indicate current usage? Atom (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FGC was chosen as a term by those actively opposed to female circumcision specifically because these groups seek "to avoid fuelling unnecessary sensitivity about the issue."[21]. Again, all of your other claims are false, and I see you as nothing but a provider of misinformation in regard to this issue. But then advocacy and misinformation often go hand in hand.

I think fifty years is a good indicator of current usage. Advocates like the UN use FGM or FGC, neutral scientists tend to use the word circumcision. If "female circumcision" really is something different, as you state, then the article should reflect that instead of equating the terms as it does currently. Will you work to find sources that break this equivalency? Blackworm (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your cited quote(above) says " Local authorities and media attribute the breakthrough to REACH, the UNFPA-sponsored Reproductive, Educative, And Community Health programme, which provides a forum for information and discussion among local community and political leaders, health professionals, parents, and adolescents themselves. REACH seeks to avoid fuelling unnecessary sensitivity about the issue. Thus, for example, participants coined a new phrase for FGM: "female genital cutting." The term "female circumcision" was rejected as a misleading euphemism, but "female genital mutilation" was thought to imply excessive judgement by outsiders as well as insensitivity toward individuals who have undergone excision."

REACH is dedicated to community health, and is not opposed to Female Circumcision, they are opposed to Female Genital Mutilation. Based on their quote, they clearly view the term female circumcision as misleading, as do many (most?) other people when used in the context of FGM.

Again, I ask for a citation to support your claim that the term FGC was chosen to oppose the practice when the source/cite you provide says otherwise. "to avoid fuelling unnecessary sensitivity about the issue."[22].Atom (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose with the following explanation. Female circumcision is the least acceptable of the three terms, since it is archaic, inaccurate (as mentioned above, the term is often used to describe type I operations and not type II-IV; since this article covers types II-IV, titing it FC would be wrong). There is more justification for calling it FGM, since a large number of reliable sources use that term. FGC seems fine to me as a compromise term - it is in widespread use, and this is an area where examining the terminology in use in the past few years is absolutely appropriate, contrary to Blackworm's strange "cherry-picking" argument (in fact, I'd argue that ntentionally using outdated terminology when it supports one's point of view is even more egregious "cherry-picking"). Nandesuka (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The use of the term FGC has grown recently, while FC and FGM are less popular now than before. While it's true that, historically, the latter two win out, Wikipedia must account for the current terminology and viewpoints, and give due weight based on the contemporary situation. What's more, the problem with using either FC or FGM is that there is way too much POV attached to each, and there's strong opposition to these terms. FGC, on the other hand, is recognized to be the most neutral term available, which also accounts for the perspectives of those who do indeed practice or support this procedure. This also brings up the point that Western or "modernized" countries cannot speak for everyone, and thus cannot call "mutilation" something that many people in the world still consider a legitimate cultural, social, or religious practice. Thus, the title should account for the term that is now widely recognized as the most neutral and has the support from the broadest spectrum of people (not just the West), and that term is FGC. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  Comment The Encyclopaedia Brittanica correctly discussed circumcision as a mutilation in its entry for "mutilation" 100 years ago[23], and yet made no comment on its legitimacy. One can believe both that circumcision is mutilation and that it is acceptable, without logical contradiction. You have no evidence that FGC is "recognized to be the most neutral term available," indeed it is a term born out of advocacy, just like FGM. Also if FGC had "the support from the broadest spectrum of people" then one would think it would be the most prevalent term -- but it isn't. Blackworm (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The term was coined to avoid the advocacy implied by FGM, and "to avoid fuelling unnecessary sensitivity about the issue."[24]. Atom (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose FC is not simply a word used by one end of the spectrum But its scientificly wrong!--Taranet (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Prove it with a reliable source. This is nothing but advocacy, otherwise. Blackworm (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm says "This is nothing but advocacy,..." Prove it with a reliable source. Atom (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Here are some references that influenced my opinion recently. All of them are from 2007-2008 timeframe, and so use current technical language, rather than out of date references. One of the references states "all United Nations agencies have agreed to use the single term "female genital mutilation". However, as you can see, the FGC term is used more frequently in these references, and FC occasionally, but rarely.

REFERENCES THAT HAVE INFLUENCED MY OPINION

It would be hard to say, after reading these references, that the term FC predominated. If anything, a case could be made that this article should be renamed "Female Genital Mutilation". Atom (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Atom's references seem to prove the point that "Female Genital Mutilation" and its derivative "Female Genital Cutting" are rooted in advocacy, while "Female Circumcision" is rooted in anthropological study. I'm mostly neutral on "Female Genital Cutting" vs. "Female Circumcision," prefering the latter, but I of course vigorously note that the article for the male equivalent should have the same form, as the isolation and complete separation of terms we currently have (circumcision applying only to male circumcision, and female genital cutting as an apparently unrelated subject) is part of the same, recent advocacy. If there's a female genital cutting article, logic and a disregard for sexist double-standards demand that there be a male genital cutting article, as indeed the practices have parallels in scope, tradition, pain, consent issues, human rights, and meaning, and indeed the word "circumcision" itself may be viewed as a euphemism (Latin: "round cutting" instead of "cutting the foreskin off the penis"). Blackworm (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference where the origins of the terminology are, or are not. If a term is rooted in "advocacy" so be it. As long as we as editors work to present the topic fairly in the manner that it is presented by citations, and not introduce our own personal advocacy, that is fine. Naming the article "Female Circumcision" because it will help some editors to have leverage to rename the "circumcision" article to "Male circumcision" seems falacious logic indeed. Of course, the reason scholars commonly use the term "Female Genital Cutting", but do not call "Circumcision" -- "Male Genital Cutting" may be sexist, and may be a double standard, and may be because the sexist, double standards of many cultures mutilate women, but do not mutilate men. Regardless, it is not our place within Wikipedia to try to take the facts of the world and sanitize and attempt to make them non-sexist, and non double-standard. It is our job to present it as the world sees it, as backed up by citations and references. Clearly regardless of any personal viewpoint by us as editors, the way that women are treated in the world in regards to having their genitals mutilated is clearly different than the way men are treated. The reason that the conventional trimming of the foreskin of men should be treated differently than the way that the mutilation of women's genitals is treated in Wikipedia is not because any editor prefers, or does not prefer it, but because we in Wikipedia should reflect the reality of the world rather than our own opinions. Atom (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You say, may be because the sexist, double standards of many cultures mutilate women, but do not mutilate men. Can you please name a culture, with a reliable source, where female genital cutting is performed, and male genital cutting is not performed? I don't believe it to exist.

You say, the way that women are treated in the world in regards to having their genitals mutilated is clearly different than the way men are treated. No, it's not clear at all. That is the essence of the debate.

I have no idea what you mean by "facts of the world." No one ever describes the cutting of any other skin off the body as "trimming," and your diatribe above is otherwise bursting with non-neutral POV. Blackworm (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have a POV, no one has doubted that or said otherwise. We aren't attempting in this article, or any other article to create a neutral article, or articles lacking POVs. The point of NPOV is to allow and welcome multiple POVs, not to avoid POVs. I sit here, amazed at your comments. I hesitate to try and consider how anyone aware of the details of the topic could express it the way that you do. In countries all over the world, with one excuse or another (religion, cultural heritage, etc) women are taken at a young age and their labia and clitoris are removed and they are infibulated with nothing but a small hole left. I know of no place in the world where it is common, or even of one case where in the name of religion or culture that a boy's penis is removed and he is sewn up with nothing but a hole for his urethra to drain from. The difference in treatment of women versus men is well known. The reason that there are so many people from a range of religions, cultures and backgrounds outraged about FGM (the people you call activists) including all of the previously mentioned multi-nation UN organizations and NGOs, as well as human rights groups, scientists and scholars and politicians is because it IS different than how men are treated.

And anyway, the essence of this debate is not, nor should it be, whether men or women are treated differently or not. As editors it is our job to build good articles based on the reality of the world. The fact that many, many people throughout the world are outraged and angry about the topic of this article (those activists' you mention) and the people angry about the topic of circumcision in males are considered to be a small fringe group should be reflected in those respective articles. I reiterate: The reason that the conventional trimming of the foreskin of men should be treated differently than the way that the mutilation of women's genitals is treated in Wikipedia is not because any editor prefers, or does not prefer it, but because we in Wikipedia should reflect the reality of the world rather than our own opinions. Atom (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, we have pretty much all agreed, and shown through numerous iterations of Google and Google scholar, and Google books, and reading those references that the term most frequently used is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). After much argument and debate throughout the world on the topic, all of the United Nations agencies, a variety of NGOs and human rights groups, they decided to standardize on the term FGM over Female Genital Cutting (FGC) or Female Circumcision (FC). It is true that in the past, before the FGC and FGM started to be used (20 years or so ago) that in scholarly literature the term Female Circumcision (FC) prevailed in describing this. It is clear that the FC term is no longer favored, and although still in use along with the other terms on occasion, is becoming less and less used. When it is used, it is used often in a medical term to describe a medical procedure different from the topic of this article. It is used intentionally to describe similar procedures that fall within the laws of most western countries. These same doctors, when describing procedures beyond the current law would call that mutilation, or female genital mutilation, rather than female circumcision. That is to say, when the FC term is still used occasionally, it is used to contrast something different than what this article primarily talks about.

As the FGM term is the preferred and predominant term used now, if we are going to change the article name, it should be to that term (Female Genital Mutilation). I had proposed (although I have always been an advocate of the FGM term) leaving the article with its current title of Female Genital Cutting (FGC) because it is more diplomatic, and less confrontational. I had thought that using the less neutral term of FGC would be favorable over the two terms (FC and FGM) used by the two ends of the spectrum. Both ends strongly protest the use of the others term as being biased.

It is clear to me, after previous discussion and reflection, that our job as an editors is not make the article "neutral", but to reflect the reality of the situation. Of course NPOV requires us to let cited perspectives from all of the view be fairly represented in the article. That is the purpose of the NPOV policy. It is not our job to cleanse the article, or to try and use a "neutral" article title. Rather than maintaining the FGC title in order to express the neutral position, and avoid either end of the spectrum (FC -- FGC -- FGM) we should use the term that is the current favorite amongst people debating this hot topic, Female Genital Mutilation. Trying to change the title from the neutral term of FGC, to Female Circumcision (FC) and favoring one side of the political debate is entirely out of line for us as editors. We should reflect reality, and not try to keep the title as neutral as possible.

Look if many more people than us, and many smarter people than us, and people better informed than us in science and medicine have argued and agreed that Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is their choice, then why should we even argue about it? [Eliminating Female genital mutilation: An interagency statement OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO] This was decided after much debate, in 2008. Here is what they have to say about the terminology

"The terminology used for this procedure has undergone various changes. During the first years in which the practice was discussed outside practising groups, it was generally referred to as "female circumcision". This term, however, draws a parallel with male circumcision and, as a result, creates confusion between these two distinct practices. The expression "female genital mutilation" gained growing support from the late 1970s. The word mutilation establishes a clear linguistic distinction from male circumcision, and emphasizes the gravity and harm of the act. Use of the word "mutilation" reinforces the fact that the practice is a violation of girls’ and women’s rights, and thereby helps to promote national and international advocacy for its abandonment. In 1990, this term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. In 1991, WHO recommended that the United Nations adopt this term. It has subsequently been widely used in United Nations documents and elsewhere and is the term employed by WHO. From the late 1990s the terms "female genital cutting" and "female genital mutilation/cutting" were increasingly used, both in research and by some agencies. The preference for this term was partly due to dissatisfaction with the negative association attached to the term "mutilation", and some evidence that the use of that word was estranging practising communities and perhaps hindering the process of social change for the elimination of female genital mutilation. To capture the significance of the term "mutilation" at the policy level and, at the same time, to use less judgemental terminology for practising communities, the expression "female genital mutilation/cutting" is used by UNICEF and UNFPA. For the purpose of this Interagency Statement and in view of its significance as an advocacy tool, all United Nations agencies have agreed to use the single term "female genital mutilation". Atom (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Atom you say "Look, we have pretty much all agreed, and shown through numerous iterations of google and google scholar, and google books, and reading those references that the term most frequently used is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)." umm.. no we haven't. As a matter of fact (something you have been playing very loosely with) only one other editor has agreed with you. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and all the original research and non-neutral point of view in the world doesn't change that. Blackworm (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to twist reality any way you choose to. Have you forgotten that a user can merely click on the links I've provided and decide for themselves whether the numbers are what I said they were? I provided references that they can choose to read for themselves, and form their own opinions on the matter.

Next you'll try to suggest that the UN and all of those NGOs haven't agreed on the term Female Genital Mutilation. When you fail at that, you'll try to suggest that that is just a small number of people and they have no relevance, influence or impact and their negotiation and agreement on the term is not significant.

The purpose of the survey is to gain consensus. At this writing, it is true that there is no consensus on changing the name. There seem to be four in favor of changing the name, and three people opposed to changing the name to something else. We have more than a month remaining (at this point). Regardless of the outcome, I will support the consensus. The concept of consensus is that some people change their views until most people can agree on a course of action. So far, my efforts have been on helping people to see the merits of my position (even though you clearly disagree) and your efforts, as well as Blackworm's, have been to attack me or my position. Would not trying to convince editors of the benefits of your positions be more positive and beneficial?? Well, perhaps attacking an opposing view is less strenuous than trying to convince others that your view has merit? Atom (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And lastly, would you actually go and read the article onNeutral Point of View? You clearly have no understanding of what the policy says. It does not say that an article must be free from any Point of View. It says exactly the opposite. All citable Points of View should be expressed in the article. (Emphasis that viewpoints should be citable). You seem to be trying to make the case that I am wrong when I suggest that FGM exists. You have actually read the article, haven't you? Blackworm seems to try and make a case that most FGC/FGM/FC is minor and no more significant than male circumcision. If you read the article, see (Female_genital_cutting#Prevalence | Prevalence) it says that 2 million girls or more a year go through a procedure, and that most of them are type I (partial or total clitoridectomy) and type II (partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision) -- (roughly equivalent to cutting the end of a boys penis off). You may have your own opinion on the matter, but I am of the opinion that 130 million women worldwide and 2 million girls a year having their clitoris and/or labia minora removed is different, and more significant that the most common male circumcision procedure of removing foreskin. You may choose to call that female circumcision -- I choose to call it Female Genital Mutilation. Atom (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, re: The difference in treatment of women versus men is well known. You describe the most invasive forms of female circumcision as if they are the most common, but that simply isn't true. Many instances of procedures called FGC or circumcision remove tiny amounts of flesh, or none at all,[25] and are less invasive than male circumcision, and yet they are advocated against as strongly as any form of FGC, on the basis of a supposed human right of bodily integrity, or other human rights such as the right to be free from cruelty or the unnecessary infliction of pain. On the other hand, some forms of male genital cutting (e.g., subincision) are even more invasive than male circumcision (which itself varies in severity), and correspond more closely to the more extreme forms of female circumcision. I suggest you educate yourself further on the subject of non-medical human genital cutting. Blackworm (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I describe the most invasive form, because it occurs frequently (even if not the most common). Does the fact that other, less invasive forms, such as clitordectomy happen more frequently suggest that the premise of my point was wrong? Are you suggesting that the majority of FGC that occurs are essentially no different than circumcision of a male? That would be an incredible claim. I won't argue the points with you (read the article). Your reputation on the Circumcision article and discussion pages precedes you. If you want to champion reform for male circumcision, be my guest. That has nothing to do with this article. Your argumentative and unfriendly tone doesn't benefit the discussion. You only distract from the main point that most people call the act Female Genital Mutilation. They do that for a reason. Your view differs from that. I have no problem with that, but that doesn't make your position right. It is only one position on a spectrum. Please feel free to support the article by using citations that support your views. Regardless, clearly the article should be called either the most commonly used term (FGM) or the most neutral term (Female Genital Cutting) not the oldest known term (Female Circumcision). Atom (talk)13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I’m new to this, and am therefore not completely familiar with wikipedia guidelines regarding the talk page so please excuse me if I do something wrong, and please excuse my referencing. I’m not wishing to start a debate over the ethics of any neonatal surgical procedure preformed on either male or female genitals. Through research I have found that the term ‘female circumcision’ or ‘clitoral circumcision’ commonly refers to the procedure where the clitoral hood is removed. (www.circlist.com/femalecirc/anatfemale.html, also in ‘Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol 63 no 3 pg 323). The term ‘clitoridectomy’ or ‘excision’ refers to the removal of the of the entire clitoris. This procedure sometimes includes the removal of the labia minor. There are also other terms for slightly different procedures such as ‘sunna circumcision’ and ‘pharaonic circumcision’.

All three terms - ‘female circumcision’, ‘female genital mutilation’, and ‘female genital cutting’ - have been used in popular press and in scholarly journals (Perspectives in Biology and Medicine,vol 51,no 1 winter 2008 pg85).

In regards to the naming of this article, I don’t think the article should be renamed ‘female circumcision’ on the grounds that this term refers to only one kind of procedure and the article is about several kinds of procedures. For those of you who argue that ‘female circumcision’ is a neutral term, you are correct, but only when this term is used to describe the removal of the clitoral hood. This article covers several types of procedure, so the article name ‘female genital cutting’ appears to be the most neutral in this instance. Fionaalison (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to see this debate and reasoning'ss unfold. You can also see the bias between male and female circumcision clearly. We call this article 'Female genital cutting' and some would like to call it 'Female genital mutilation'. This screams it is bad to circumcise females. Then we come to the other gender.... the male. Notice this article is called simply 'Circumcision' with a redirect from 'Male circumcision'. Why the discrepancy? Is it ok to cut off male genitals but not female? Perhaps we should change that title to 'Male genital cutting' or 'Male genital mutilation'? There's a disconnect here I have been trying to remedy. I understand the operation is different because the parts are different but the same term has been used for both genders for thousands of years. Therefore we should not be segregating the article name based on gender. I posit if we call this FGC then its other half is MGC, or FGM - MGM... you get idea. I blame WHO for the majority of this mess. On one hand they condemn female circumcision and have been the drive force behind renaming to FGC and FGM. On the other they promote mass male circumcision because a penis without foreskin is less susceptible to VD transmission (tougher skin). I'm sure its even harder to catch VD if you cut the penis off completely but no ones been advocating castration. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (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.

Jews

Re this edit by Blackworm, which adds "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that Jews are among the religious groups practicing female genital cutting." and gives a ref with quote "Some argue that FGC has religious significance, but the custom cuts across religions and is practiced by Muslims, Christians, Jews and followers of indigenous religions." I would word the statement differently if it's based on the quote given. I find it a little misleading as it is. (Note: I don't mean to imply any intentional misleading by the editor.) I wouldn't say that they make that statement. I would find it more accurate if it said they "list" Jews among the religious groups, rather than that they "state ...". Somehow I find the words in the article make it sound as if all Jews practice it, or most Jews, or something like that, whereas the quote it's based on doesn't give me that impression. Different words need to be found that give an impression more similar to that of the quote from the source. It might be an improvement if it said "among the religious groups whose members practice ..." rather than "among the religious groups who practice...". Maybe it's not possible to take the word "Jews" out of the context of the list of religions given without creating a misleading impression. How about "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lists Jews, along with Muslims, Christians and followers of indigenous religions, as a religious group whose members practice female genital cutting." (I had this article on my watchlist.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Better: "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lists Jews, along with Muslims, Christians and followers of indigenous religions, as people who practice female genital cutting." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I liked that better, but still found that it implied that those groups practiced FGC as a rule. I changed it to he U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lists Jews along with Muslims, Christians, and followers of indigenous religions as being among people who practice female genital cutting. What do you think? Blackworm (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done. You've somehow managed to imply the right idea. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but wait: I think this is even better: "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, however, states that the practice of FGC cuts across religions, and lists Jews along with Muslims, Christians, and followers of indigenous religions as being among people who practice it." In any case, I think a word such as "however" is needed to join it logically to the preceding sentences. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that's better. I was bold and put it in. Blackworm (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC on rename of article

I am submitting this RFC. In an earlier section a debate is ongoing about a requested move.

Three terms are currently actively in use within scholarly literature regarding the topic. Redirects exist from ther other two terms to the article to allow any of the three to be operative. There has previously been a debate (in 2006) about the article title, and the current title (Female Genital Cutting) was then chosen. Most people seem to agree that within the bounds of NPOV, discussion of the usage of all three terms is reasonable.

The three terms range a spectrum of political and scholarly use. Earlier than twenty or thirty years ago, The term Female Circumcision was the only term used. For various reasons, the terms Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Female Genital Cutting(FGC) entered the literature and common usage within the last thirty years.

There is active debate (within this article) about which term predominates at this time (in 2008). Some of that debate focuses on what term has been used the longest, or most frequently over the history of the topic. Other debate on which term is most commonly used by scholars recently, say the last 5 or 10 years. Both perspectives have advocates.

There is active debate as to whether the term most perceived as neutral, or the term that predominates within culture is most appropriate to be used as the article title.

The current Female Genital Cutting name for the article was chosen in 2006 because it was (at that time), and is considered to be the more neutral of the three terms(by many). All three terms are considered to carry some POV. The Female Circumcision term is considered to be unacceptable by one end of the spectrum, as it seems to equate the genital mutilation (such as infibulation) with male circumcision (such as removal of foreskin), according to some people advocating that end of the spectrum.

The "Female Genital Mutilation" term is considered to be unnaceptable by the other end of the spectrum, as it equates an act chosen by a parent in order to conform with thir religious and cultural views with an act of violence against their daughters according to people who advocate that end of the spectrum.

The term "Female Genital Cutting" was chosen by several U.N agenices originally to avoid both ends of the spectrum, in order to be able to work with the people and agencies in african countries where one or more forms of the topic occur without alienating them by using the then preferred FGM term. It is now considered to be the most neutral, or diplomatic term, but is less frequently used than the other two terms as a result of that.

One person has suggested a change in the article name, as he has the view that the current Female Genital Cutting" term holds a POV, and his understanding of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia is that an article title should be neutral. He and a variety of people have expressed their views on this in the requested move section. We welcome your perpective and opinions on this as well, regardless of which term you may prefer.

Atom (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If possible, could you comment in the survey section above so that we don't have two independent threads. Atom (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Weak Support moving the title to "Female circumcision" and oppose weak oppose moving the title to "Female Genital mutilation". Aplologies to those who have already read the discussion above, but I'll have to repeat here much of my arguments from the poll thread. Atom is correct that the two main things to consider here is how whidespread the usage of a particular term is and how neutral a particular term is, per WP:NAME guidance. My position, briefly, is that, currently, of the three terms, "female genital mutialtion" (FGM) is the most widespread, then comes "female circumcision" (FC) and then, dead last and far behind the first two, "female genital cutting" (FGC). In terms of neutrality and POV implications, FGM is by far the most POV loaded term (anything with the word "mutilation" in the title would be), then comes FC (where POV implications are indirect) and then comes FGC (the most neutral sounding term in my opinion). In this situation, the middle choice, FC, is the best one. POV implications there are not that great, and in terms of frequency of usage the term is somewhere in the middle as well. FGM is really too POV loaded to be an acceptable title and FGC is, as the data below clearly demonstrates, the least frequently used term by far.

  Now, to the empirical data (which I find much more convincing than abstract arguments). I have restricted google searches to the recent period, namely the last couple of years.

  GoogleNews (recent news): 103 hits[26] for FGM, 40 hits[27] for FC and 9 hits[28] for FGC. GoogleNews (2007-2008): 1130 hits[29] for FGM, 573 hits[30] for FC and 106 hits[31] for FGC.

  A GoogleScholar search for "female-genital-mutilation 2008" gives 756 hits[32]. A GoogleScholar search for female-circumcision 2008 gives 552 hits[33] while the same search for female-genital-cutting 2008 gives 250 hits[34].

  A GoogleBooks search for "female-genital-mutilation 2008" gives 79 hits[35]. A GoogleBooks search for female-circumcision 2008 gives 63 hits[36] and a GoogleBooks search for female-genital-cutting 2008 gives 21 hits[37].

  I think this evidence is pretty conclusive that at the moment FGC is by far the least widespread term of the three, with FC in the middle and FGM the most widespread term. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Upon reflection, I have modified my position to weak support/opposes for the two possible moves. The term "female circumcision" is probably more POV loaded than I originally thought (although still less POV loaded than "female genital mutilation"). It is indeed the case that in the public, political and cultural debate surrounding the practice the term "female circumcision" does carry the (indirect)connotation and the implication of the practice being socially acceptable, by using the term parallel to "male circumcision", a practice that is still widely viewed as socially acceptable. I still think that FC is somewhat more preferable than FGC and is somewhat less preferable than FGM as the main title of the article, provided all three terms redirect to this article and provided all three terms are mentioned as possible alternatives in the opening sentence. Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• FC is not simply a word used by one end of the spectrum But its scientificly wrong!--Taranet (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am too late to vote in the last voting, but i want to say my opinion. I support the title "Female genital mutilation" as clearly the most accurate, useful and popular term, while two other options are misleading and have a strong POV in favor of this practice. Also in the Western world FC and FGC are almost unacceptable, because FGM is considered as a horrific crime against helpless children, with a scale of millions of victims - a kind of a "crime against humanity". In Finnish language and culture if you call this practice anything else than mutilation most people become insulted and angry, especially women. Its different case with English, of course, but not that much I think, at least when spoken in Western culture and/or Western people. Tuohirulla puhu 22:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are simply not supported by the evidence. Blackworm (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but we asked him his opinion, and that's what he gave us. As he said, he is too late to affect the survey which was ended by an admin it seems. I thought we were going to 1 SEP. Anyway, the result of the survey was that there is not a consensus for changing the article title at this time. I would have liked to change it to FGM too. Atom (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, what was given was a bunch of original research and extraordinary claims, especially suggesting that the terms "female genital cutting" and "female circumcision" "have a strong POV in favor of this practice." Simple nonsense, especially as the former was coined precisely to be used for opposition to the practices, and the latter is used in hundreds of sources criticizing the practices. Blackworm (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support to title Female genital mutilation. In Finnish Wikipedia there is no question about the name, and it is Female genital mutilation. That's what it is, really. --Ufinne (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in Finland there are practically no researchers while they do have activism against female circumcision (The KokoNainen Project). So that is not unexpected. Hssajo (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

The article has been protected to prevent further warring. Work things out without playing around with maintenance tags.

Unless clear consensus can be reached to change the article name (including what name to change the article to), then the current name is the de facto consensus and need to stick. Work it out through dispute resolution without further disruption. — Coren ^(talk) 12:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is playing with the tags. At issue is really what is the purpose of the tag? Is it not to bring attention? Just because the Request for name change has been closed does not mean the issue was resolved. It ended in "No consensus" meaning there was sufficient debate on both sides of the issue. The tag does nothing but help improve the article by drawing attention to that unresolved debate. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to draw attention to such debates. — Coren ^(talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. You feel that using a tag to draw attenting to a debate is soapboxing. Let's see what the community has to say shall we? Garycompugeek (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Coren is confounding a consensus to change the article title with a consensus that the dispute over the article title is resolved. It is shameful that an administrator would make such an error. Blackworm whose user name really is Blackworm (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that untill there is an expressed consensus (here at this talk page) for removal of the POV tag from the article, the POV tag should remain. Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The question then becomes, what if a consensus is never reached? Should the tag remain ad infinitum? A suitable name for this practice simply hasn't been invented yet. Female circumcision and female genital cutting are technically both misnomers, while female genital mutilation is the result of an activist campaign to note the "gravity" of the act, and is likely to be seen as misguided and POV by some editors. Thanks, AlphaEta 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that any concerned editor may place a tag. Tags should remain until the concern is remedied or there is consensus to remove tag. I do not believe there are any time limits in this process. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So wait a minute. Do we first need to reach a consensus that we lack a consensus for the title? I'm confused. AlphaEta 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the present case, it seems to me that the POV tag is simply being used querulously. I support its removal unless and until some more specific problem is identified, and until there is a consensus that such a problem actually exists. Nandesuka (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy disagrees with you. No consensus that "such a problem actually exists" is needed to support a tag -- obviously if that were policy there would never be any need for tags, as the article content would simply be changed to reflect the consensus. Blackworm (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Presumably there is already a consensus that we lack a consensus for the title, since no one has objected to the admin's closure of the Requested Move as "no consensus." Thus, in turn, there should be consensus for the POV-title flag, if everyone were being honest. Fortunately, the beauty of Wikipedia policy is that it it is clear that in cases where the existence of a dispute itself is disputed, common sense indicates that a dispute in fact exists. Please see WP:NPOV dispute and the essay WP:TAGGING, the latter stating: "Tags such as {{npov}} often merely indicate the existence of a dispute without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Blackworm (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Request ended in "No consensus" which means the debate has not been resolved. Why are we removing the tag? Garycompugeek (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The request and debate was on whether the title "Female Circumcision" had consensus. It didn't. The debate ended without a change in existing consensus. There is now no dispute over the article title. Since the POV tag was placed based on a dispute over the article title, the POV tag should be removed. If you want to recommend a change in the title to Female Genital Mutilation based on the current title being only one POV, that might be fair game, as the last discussio on that was two years ago. They we could put the POV tag back until that discussion is over. Atom (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We aren't. Those who want the dispute to go away without doing any work to resolve it are trying to make that happen. Blackworm (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no active dispute on the article title. Your dispute that it should be renamed to FC had closure, even if you did not get the outcome you desired. Having a policy of placing the POV tag whenever any editor disagrees with the consensus title or content is not in alignment with the policy. Atom (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• chuckles* (to AlphaEta)

The standing consensus, implicit, de facto, and explicit from the 2006 discussions is that the article title is "Female Genital Cutting". In 2006 a change to "Female Genital Cutting" was proposed. This month, a change to "Female Circumcision was proposed". The result of that title change was that no consensus was found for changing that title. That means there was no consensus change, and the standing title is still the consensus.

We may have people who still disagree with that title. (I for one prefer FGM) and we may have people who are disgruntled that other people would not agree to change the title to FC, but that does not mean that the POV is disputed. Otherwise, the condition would be that in every article on wikipedia, if one editor challenged the POV on the basis that the title did not show all perspectives, or that the consensus agreed on the content were different from their own view, then every article would had a POV tag.

The POV tag is for an active discussion of the article on how to resolve perceptions that the article is not neutral. In this article, although there are editors who do not believe that the title is neutral, the policy requires that the title has the highest degree of neutrality available. We can only have one title. (unless someene wants to change the title to "Female circumcision/cutting/mutilation" (The editors would argue endlessly about the order of the three.) All three terms redirect to the same article.

At one point the current title was chosen because it was perceived as being the most neutral title available of the three. That was the consensus. Some people asked for it to be renamed to "Female Genital Mutilation" on the basis that it is the most frequently used term. There was no consensus for changing the title to that. This past change attempt was for "Female Circumcision" and there was no consensus for that either. If we limit ourselves to those three titles, then regardless of who is dissatisfied with the name, the last and existing consensus was that the title is as neutral as is possible. And so the article title is, by consensus, neutral. Atom (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense, in light of the fact that the result of the recent Requested Move was "no consensus," and not "no move" (like the 2006 Requested Move). Blackworm (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so if there was no consensus to move the title to FC, then what consensus then exists now that the move debate to FC is over?Atom (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus for the move, the title has not been changed. Since there is no consensus for the removal of the POV-title tag, then the POV-title tag is not to be removed. It's really quite simple. Blackworm (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I love simplicity. The POV tag is placed when there is a dispute on the neutrality of the article. That was based on the article title. We discussed the article title and there was no consensus for the position that the title should be changed. End of dispute. Remove tag. No consensus was needed to add the tag, no consensus needed to remove the tag with no active dispute. Atom (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You made sense until you said "End of dispute." A finding of "no consensus" does not indicate that the issue is resolved, only that there is no consensus for the change in question. Blackworm (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, Nandesuka wrote, "Yes, I believe a consensus exists for the removal of the POV-title tag from that article: that seems perfectly obvious to me, and I don't see how one can contest it. I contest it, based on an examination of comments above, from myself, Garycompugeek, and Nsk92, who state that the tag should remain, in opposition to Nandesuka, Atomaton, and Coren, who state that it should be removed. My comments are based on the observation that the dispute was not resolved ("no consensus"). Comments by my opponents seem based on an opinion that a finding of "no consensus" indicates that a consensus has been reached on the issue (i.e., that the dispute is over), which I view as inherently contradictory. Blackworm (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to repeat your quote from policy that is seemingly ignored ""Tags such as {{npov}} often merely indicate the existence of a dispute without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Garycompugeek (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be aware that quote is not policy, but from an essay. NPOV dispute seems to have more support from editors and makes essentially the same point. Ultimately, WP:CONSENSUS policy demands that barring a consensus for the removal of the tag, the tag should remain. Blackworm (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A hypothetical:

• I view the circumcision article and see that it contains: "There is scientific evidence for both risks and benefits of circumcision. Most doctors do not recommend neonatal circumcision."
• I feel that this is one sided, not neutral, and place a POV tag on the article.
• I put in a new section and discuss the issue with other editors. I recommend changing the text to say "There is scientific evidence for both risks and benefits of circumcision. Most Doctors give parents the most recent available information on neonatal circumcision, and let the parents decide."
• After much debate, and ten editors chiming in, some agreeing and some disagreeing, the result is that there is not a consensus for changing the text to what I have recommended.
• I express that I have not changed my opinion, and still feel that the article is not neutral as written.
• I then remove the POV tag because the issue has been addressed, even though there was no consensus change."

Neither I, nor anyone else needs consensus on the topic, or generally to remove the tag.

Alternate ending:

• I get a buddy to help me, and we try to enforce keeping the POV tag on, because we don't agree with the text as it is written. The discussion did not form a new consensus, so the text is still disputed. We revert one editor two different times, and then revert two different admins who take the tag off to keep the POV tag on to make the point that we don't agree, and that we still have a dispute about the content. I argue with one of the admins, expressing that I don't give a mouses tail how he feels about it, and that he does not understand the wp:NPOV policy. The admin reverts me again to remove the tag and write protects the article. Atom (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what point you are trying to make here. Can you clarify please? (hint:just say what you mean) Garycompugeek (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems Atomaton is attempting to state that he does not need consensus to remove the tag, in order to remove the tag. I believe that flies in the face of policy, and indicates a desire to skip discussion and consensus and proceed immediately his desired article state. That is contrary to my understanding of how Wikipedia works. Blackworm (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)