Talk:Female genital mutilation

Terminology

RfC: how should we refer to the practice?

While the title of this article is "female genital mutilation", there is a dispute regarding the terminology that should be used within the article. The two main candidates are: "Female genital mutilation" (FGM), the term used by a majority of sources, and "Female genital cutting" (FGC) which is the next most common term. While debate has focused on these two, a hybrid, "Female genital mutilation/cutting" (FGM/C or FGM/FGC), has been proposed as a compromise. Prominent organisations have adopted various terms: eg., the World Health Organisation uses FGM, USAID uses FGC, and UNICEF uses FGM/C. There is controversy in the literature, much of it directed at the term FGM. Some authors have argued, for example, it is judgemental and "tantamount to an accusation of evil intent", non-neutral, and political.

The matter under dispute is how we should apply NPOV policy (WP:NPOV#Naming in particular). Some argue that we should exclusively use the terminology used by the majority of the sources, arguing that it would violate NPOV to use a less common term. Others question whether "FGM" is sufficiently ubiquitous to do that, are uncomfortable with the lack of impartiality in that phrase, and believe that a more neutral (but still common and easily recognised) name is more compliant with NPOV.

Two compromises have been proposed, though neither have achieved consensus to date. These are: 1) adopting the dual term FGM/C, or 2) using a combination of terms, in approximate proportion to the actual usage in sources. Even after lengthy debate, we have still not found language that is satisfactory. I'm therefore hoping that additional input from the community might lead to a consensus.

Jakew (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Outside opinion: This is a very controversial topic, evincing strong feelings, but that's a good reason to be even more careful that our NPOV policy is studiously followed. I understand that "female genital mutilation" is the most common term, and it is the name of the article. I think the lede and "Varying terminology" section show the situation pretty well. I don't think any changes are needed in those two sections. As for the rest, usually I dislike using abbreviations and multiple names for things, but given the detailed descriptions of the nomenclature I doubt readers will get confused by varying terminology, and the NPOV concerns are legitimate. The "Procedures: World Health Organization categorization" section uses "FGM", and that makes sense, since the WHO's analysis is described and the WHO uses this term. But for every subsequent section, the reader will be well aware of what FGM or FGM/C mean, and I think it would better fulfill our NPOV policy to use FGM/C in these sections. I personally find the procedure nauseating, and I wish it would go away, but we can't overuse terminology that is designed to evoke a moral reaction. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to say that the term FGM is "designed to evoke a moral reaction", that implies intent where none exists. The WHO did not designate the term FGM to describe this procedure in order to evoke reactions from people, moral or otherwise. Vietminh (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think Female genital mutilation is an appropriate name for the article, but overuse can be expected to evoke a moral reaction, regardless of intent. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Before I continue I just wanna say I'm not trying to be argumentative on this, I was the one who proposed the FGM/C compromise above, and I am glad that we've got some new input here. FGM does have the potential to offend I agree, but the question is who does it have the potential to offend? The other terms FGC and FGM/C were not proposed to to be more neutral for the general public. They were specifically proposed so as not to demonize the people who practice this, as part of the overall goal of reducing the instances of FGM. The article says "According to a joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement, the use of the word "mutilation" reinforces the idea that this practice is a violation of the human rights of girls and women, and thereby helps promote national and international advocacy towards its abandonment. They state that, at the community level, however, the term can be problematic; and that local languages generally use the less judgmental "cutting" to describe the practice." So the question for me is really, is the potential to offend (i.e. the potential to be non-neutral) really that great so as to require avoiding FGM? If you tell me this I'll shut up, because I don't wanna badger you hahaha. Vietminh (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried about anyone being offended; I'm only concerned about maintaining NPOV. There are certainly some reliable sources that indicate that the term is judgmental and political. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use the term; it only means that we should exercise caution when we use the term. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I and other editors have agreed that we should not use the term "mutilation" by itself, because that would be could construed as outside NPOV. And I also agree, there are reliable sources that raise the concerns you note. But there are also a great number of reliable sources that do not note any problems, and we have to give due weight to both those views to maintain NPOV. Vietminh (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• FGM - For several reasons: (1) FGM is far more commonly used than FGC, based on the information provided above, and my own brief research; (2) consistent with title of the article (see Requested Move above); (3) the POV that the practice is a mutilation is no more or less of a POV that it is a mere cutting: so both are POVs, but FGM is far more commonly used by disinterested academics; (4) the majority of uses within this article are acronyms (abbreviations) so the issues with the term "mutilation" are irrelevant, since the reader sees the letter "M" not the word "mutilation"; (5) adopting FGC would be entirely unacceptable since that usage is very small compared to FGM; (6) Using the hybrid FGM/C is better than FGC, but is very rarely used in the literature, and it is contrary to WP policies to adopt rare terms (among other reasons, because then WP could be seen to promote such a hybrid); and (7) compromise #2 was to use both terms in the article, in proportion to their usage in the soruces: that is like Solomon splitting the baby: although it is an easy route for us editors, it would terribly confuse the readers (they would think that FGM and FGC are two distinct practices, and that the article is referring alternately to one or the other, based on which is used). --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• FGM Both, interchangeably: I was randomly selected to comment by Wikipedia:Feedback request service. "Mutilation" is used in the title, so I don't imagine anyone's arguing it never be used in the text. If you want to argue against ever using "mutilation" you'll need to argue for a page move as well. It is cutting. No doubt about that. I see no harm in using "cutting" in the text, along with mutilation. If you start an RfC on moving to Female genital cutting, I'll support the change because I fear "mutilation" may alienate our most important readers - advocates who may be persuaded to change their view - per several of the sources cited above. But that's a different argument. (Why is this RfC located above three threads started on the 2nd, 6th and 8th of August?) It happens to children incapable of consent, let alone informed consent and has a significant impact on appearance and function, so it is mutilation. I don't buy the cultural relativism argument. Wife-beating and child marriage are acceptable in some cultures but they're still assault and child abuse; this is mutilation. I've been convinced by the arguments in this section and threaded discussion below: Given that the term encompasses stitching and is seemingly by far the most common descriptor for the practice, I've changed my vote; though "cutting" could be used where the source uses the term and it is not referring to the practice involving stitching. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Revised 10:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthony: my concern about using both FGM and FGC within the article is that users may think they are two different practices, or two variants of a practice. Readers may think "Oh, this paragraph concerns FGC, but the next paragraph concerns FGM" when in fact it was just some editor randomizing the two terms. Better is to adopt one term throughout the article, and describe the synonyms (and associated POV issues) at the top of the article. --Noleander (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Anothonycole: I don't think any of the options you have given here are realistic proposals. For one, we already had a request to move prior to this RfC, and the term Female Genital Mutilation was unanimously selected as the title for the article. Also, the one area of agreement between both sides on this issue is that the title and the terminology used in the article are separate issues that are not necessarily tied together (Wikipedia has separate guidelines for text and title, nowhere does it explicitly say they must be the same). Lastly, and most importantly, Wikipedia is not about persuading people to change their view one way or the other, that is in fact the exact opposite of being neutral. Our job as editors is to reflect what sources say within the guidelines and policies Wikipedia gives us. Its not our place to persuade people on an issue one way or another, and in the same sense, it is not our job to ensure that no one is alienated from an issue in one way or another. I will also remind you that because this is an English Wiki our audience is primarily English speaking whereas the practitioners of FGM are primarily not English speaking, so the potential to "alienate" as it were, is minimal (this is secondary, just something to consider). The question presented here is over the neutrality policy and how best to apply its competing demands in this case, if we stray outside of that there's little sense in having a conversation about which of the official terminologies we should use. Vietminh (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for letting my bias against cutting girls' genitals with a razor blade show. You are right, Vietminh, we're not here to persuade. But, nevertheless, language that might alienate readers who have a cultural investment in the practice should not be overdone. If I read you correctly, we're in agreement about using both terms, mutilation and cutting, in the article, where each is appropriate. Which seems to be Johnuniq's position, too. Noleander, the lead sentence makes it clear the terms are used interchangeably, and care in how the terms are used in text should obviate the misunderstanding you're concerned about. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Its perfectly understandable, and I wouldn't even say it is a bias. No one here is disputing that FGM is mutilation, and I don't think any reputable source worth its salt would ever suggest that its not mutilation, even if it might call it something else. It seems to me that we have achieved some modicum of consensus on this, we all seem to agree (either actively or tacitly) that the article should be re-written to reduce how often it uses acronyms. Once that's done we all seem to agree that if we use either FGM or FGC depending on what the source calls it, and we give due weight to the sources, that this problem will be resolved. I think given the layout of the article that confusion between the terms wouldn't be a problem because contrary viewpoints are divided into different sections. If they've read the varying terminology section they'll understand what's going on. That being said, I don't think we should use the terms "interchangeably" in the sense that we shouldn't write one sentence that uses FGM, and then another that has FGC and so on. But that's just part of the whole acronym reduction anyway. Vietminh (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• There is no actionable proposal, and it is not possible or desirable for a discussion to establish rules concerning general use of terminology devoid of context. Of course this article will need to use "mutilation" when that term is appropriate (V, NPOV, DUE), and of course it will not use that term otherwise. Further, not only would it be bad writing to overuse the term regardless of its meaning, but no article should lecture to its readers, and "mutilation" and "FGM" must not be used excessively. There is no need to find a term that satisfies every editor or every reader—in fact that won't be happening because enthusiasts on one side or the other are going to be disappointed whatever the outcome (some would want the article to emphasize the mutilation aspect, and others would want to emphasize the cultural equality aspect with extensive quotes from those who believe it's not mutilation). There is actually no need for the article to follow either of those extremes: just describe the practices and the reactions with moderate language based on the normal policies. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, most of any potential neutrality issues could be solved by following the best practice guidelines for editing articles. The article uses the term FGM too much to begin with and it needs to be reworded to make it more readable and to make the language more natural. We would not have to sit here and have a debate of this scope if the terminology was not as central to the article as it is now. Dragging this debate out as is being done now is actually contrary to the interests of all involved and is putting a stranglehold on improving the article. Vietminh (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Per multiple previous discussions (and ignoring for the way the RfC is framed) FGM is the proper name. We can say "It" or whatever per guidelines on style in the text. If the source used for a comment uses cutting and its contactually correct and complies with eight issues then it can be used --Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• FGC, FGM/C, or a fair combination, in that order of preference. FGM is non-neutral, and the loss in clarity by using alternatives is so minimal that using FGM exclusively seems unjustifiable. I do understand the argument about giving due weight to terms used in sources or potential sources, but I think that neutrality about the subject of the article has to take precedence. While not ideal, the dual term FGM/C seems acceptably neutral to me (I read it as "female genital mutilation or cutting"), and it does include the term "FGM". If that compromise should not succeed, however (as seems likely), I think we need to look at using multiple terms in a fair way; using FGM exclusively would even fail the "due weight according to use in sources" interpretation of NPOV. There seems to be some support for this above, but I think we need to work out the details of such an approach and what constitutes "fair". Several editors have expressed their support for reducing the use of acronyms in this article, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

  (Note: I'm giving my opinion since several other involved editors have already done so.) Jakew (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• FGM. FGM is far more commonly used than FGC by disinterested academics. The reason that this is the case is that mutilation is an accurate term for a procedure which involves the removal of body parts, permanent damage to other body parts, severe pain, and long-term health consequences including acute bleeding, chronic genito-urinary infections, infertility, difficulties in childbirth and dangers to the child. Cutting is therefore an extreme euphemism. The term 'cutting' may also misdescribe the technique since FGM may also be accomplished by scraping or cauterising. Adopting FGC would be entirely unacceptable since (1) it represents a strong POV (2) it may not even describe the technique used and (3) its usage is very small compared to FGM.Rubywine . talk 03:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding your second point, the accuracy of FGM has also been questioned (and by a source: Sexuality Education Resource Centre Manitoba): "Ultimately our decision to use the term “female genital cutting” was in order to acknowledge that not all forms lead to mutilation of the genitals and that mutilation is not the intent of the action." Jakew (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Cutting is a type of mutilation. Cutting also could imply the woman has done it to herself, i.e. someone who practices self injury, or an accidental cut, i.e., when women cut themselves while shaving their genital areas (yes this happens), or it could even be thought of as body art that people choose to do. Women who practice SI sometimes do practice it on their genitals. So if this were named FGC would you suggest we talk about self injury in this article too? I think it would be misplaced, but it's called FGC so.... Also would be put body art in this article since we are talking bout cutting? Some body art involves scarring procedures. And I wouldn't be surprised if people have scarring done on their genitals. I would think that would be better placed in the body modification article, but since you propose this be called FGC.... Again cutting is a type of mutilation, and can imply all kinds of different meanings unless it is clearly discussed in the article of what type of mutilation it is. Let's also consider the fact that when a woman's genitals are mutilated, they are not always cut. They can be sewn shut, which involves no cutting at all. To be frank, the point of view of a man trying to tell me what is "less offensive" here seems a little absurd, when women have a little more experience on what would constitute as mutilation to their very own genitals. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• FGM. Just note the alternate phrase used in the lead. Books google has 34,000 returns on "female genital mutilation" and only 7,000 on the less used phrase. Since there cannot be even the pretense of a medical reason for doing this, it clearly is mutilation and not cutting which is like renaming rape "rejected insertion." Let's not engage in euphemizing it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • FGM is more commonly used, but the gap has narrowed over time. The ratio was 32:1 in 1996, but only 3:1 in 2011 (see here for a graph). At a rough estimate (based on whether the words mutilation or cutting appear in the titles), 50 of the references cited in the article refer to FGM, while 25 refer to FGC — a ratio of 2:1. Jakew (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Statistics you created or from some WP:RS? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

They're derived from Google Scholar results, so the usual caveats apply. Jakew (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

But see that doesn't matter because the fact remains that cutting is a type of mutilation. You can give me a million people who use the term FGC, but it would still be too simplistic and disingenuous. Cutting does not encompass all the stuff that goes on during these procedures, which can include scraping, sewing, cauterization, using any sort of corrosive substances on the genital area, pricking, abrasion, skinning, etc. So cutting cannot fully encompass all of these types of mutilation. Do you wish to mislead someone who does not understand the practice and let think think it is this simplistic? Your sources for people calling it FGC don't mean a lick of difference, because they and you are not realizing all that encompass mutilation, and probably they are only referring to the WHO's recognized types, not other practiced types. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In many ways, it's probably more accurate to say that mutilation is a type of cutting, or more generally, a type of alteration. Mutilation is a very specific type, which describes how the speaker feels about that alteration, whether (s)he believes it disfigures or harms. To use your above example of scarification, one person might describe that as mutilation, while another might not (presumably a person who wants to undergo such a thing doesn't think they're making an appointment to have themselves mutilated). Similarly, many women who've been subjected to these procedures do not consider themselves mutilated. To a large extent, it's an opinion. But there's no argument that it involves cutting; that's a fact. Now technically you're right that not all forms of FGC involve cutting, but they're still called FGC by multiple reliable sources, and (as I understand it) it's exceedingly rare in practice to find forms in which cutting is not involved. Jakew (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are still incorrect, cutting is a type of mutilation. A person can be mutilated in a varity of ways including, but not limited to, burns, tears (caused by blunt trauma), abrasion, puncture wounds, crushing, 2... The sense you are speaking of are incised wounds and what most people colloquially understand to be as "cuts". Trying to heap all these types of mutilation into the incised wounds definition is not only misleading, it's just plain wrong. No one in the body modification community, including myself, would describe scarification as mutilation. No one in the body mod community has every described scarification as mutilation. No one does it to us against our will. We choose to do this. Now if a woman chooses to slice off her clit, sure. But people making her do it? That is mutilating a child. I am not sure where you get the information that it's "exceedingly rare" to find practices where no cutting is involved, or that "many women" would not consider themselves mutilated. These women had no choice in the matter. Of course the women do not consider themselves mutilated if they have never known any other way. The funny thing is you're acting like because women can enjoy sex after being mutilated, because they don't consider themselves mutilated, then they haven't been mutilated. Well, I don't consider myself crazy and I get along fine when I am under supervision, so I must not be mentally ill. I mean seriously here. Your logic is coming from the bias of a man's point of view. And no, I do not hate men, but that is the only way you are seeing it. You are not taking into consideration the woman's thoughts, her ideas, etc. And some people are trying to be purely clincal here, but the fact is you need to understand this shit fully to make a decision on the term. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. If you want to try to emphasize, you need to do more research on it, and in fact really do more research on what it is to be a woman in society overall. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also let me correct myself here. I'm sure there are men in this discussion who get it. I really believe there are. But I can only imagine that a man, of all people, would not get it. So being a man does not mean you won't get it, but if someone is not going to get it, the chance of being a man is high IMO.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• FGM. It is the commonly used. Explain the less commonly used terms in the section on names for the practice. Using more than one name would just be confusing (and lead to more debate about proportions). Zodon (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• FGM. The neutral point of view regarding this practice, throughout the civilized world, is that it is a form of mutilation. People who like the practice are not within the range of accepted opinions. Nor is their opinion represented anywhere in the article. So it is hard to see what is non-neutral about the term. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• FGM Is the commonly used term. Also FGC is a little more disingenuous. The word mutilation actually describes what is happening to a woman. Cutting doesn't always imply mutilation. There are also other terms, like the Ritual Cutting, which is used in other parts of the world, and Ritual nicks, which is an actual accepted practice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, I found this out by reading one of the articles below. To call these anything BUT mutilation is completely deceitful, and I consider it POV playing down the practice. Also, because in some instances the vagina is sewn shut--this is not cutting. This is pure mutilation. Cutting is a type of mutilation. But to call it simply cutting? No.

Sources citing FGM as a term

• Health and well-being. (2000). The status of women in Colorado (pp. 57-66). Washington, DC: Institute for Women.
• Document 21: Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Division B-Violence Against Women Act of 2000. PL 106-386. [H.R. 3244]; 28 October 2000. United States Code Congressional and Administrative News. 106th Congress-Second Session 2000. Convened 24 January 2000. Adjourned 15 December 2000. Included in How Have Recent Social Movements Shaped Civil Rights Legislation for Women? The 1994 Violence Against Women Act, by Kathryn Kish Sklar and Suzanne Lustig.
• Bill: Transporting girls outside U.S. for FGM would be illegal. (2010). Contemporary Sexuality, 44(8), 7.
• Ameigh, S. (2010). Mutilation by Any Other Name. Humanist, 70(4), 8-9.
• Ball, T. (2008). Female genital mutilation. Nursing Standard, 23(5), 43-47.
• Zaidi, N., Khalil, A., Roberts, C., & Browne, M. (2007). Knowledge of female genital mutilation among healthcare professionals. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 27(2), 161-164.
• Mortimer, M. (2007). How to Stop Female Genital Mutilation. Herizons, 20(3), 23-26.
• Ogunsiji, O., Wilkes, L., & Jackson, D. (2007). Female genital mutilation: origin, beliefs, prevalence and implications for health care workers caring for immigrant women in Australia. Contemporary Nurse, 25(1/2), 22-30.
• Melhado, L. (2006). Risks of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes increase with severity of female genital mutilation. International Family Planning Perspectives, 32(3), 154-155.
• Raya, P. (2010). Female genital mutilation and the perpetuation of multigenerational trauma. The Journal Of Psychohistory, 37(4), 297-325.
• Utz-Billing, I., & Kentenich, H. (2008). Female genital mutilation: an injury, physical and mental harm. Journal Of Psychosomatic Obstetrics And Gynaecology, 29(4), 225-229.

I can provide more if needed.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• FGM. My initial inclination was FGC, but then I decided to read the article and it's very balanced (and I became convinced that FGM is the term most strongly endorsed by reliable sources). The terms FGC and FGM are both offered in the lead, and later unpacked and examined. The article addresses this controversy in a very balanced way. -- Scray (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. "Neutrality" is not based on a consensus about morality or emotional impact. We should not be setting ourselves up as either moral or PC police. Neutrality is based on whether the article reflects RS in a balanced way. The article title should reflect the weight of usage in the sources used to compile it. See WP:Neutrality#Naming: If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. Arguments for FGM based on personal or political views are irrelevant; equally irrelevant are arguments for FGC on the basis of not offending those who practice it. Most common usage is the primary and perhaps only criterion here. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think policy is rather more nuanced than you're suggesting, Cynwolfe. Firstly, a fuller quotation from policy helps to place it in context. It says: "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." It seems a bit of a stretch to interpret that to mean that we must use the most common term regardless of neutrality: that we "may" do something does not mean that we "must", and policy indicates that we need to weigh losses in neutrality against gains in clarity. Secondly, using the common term exclusively actually fails to reflect the weight in sources; the only way to do that is to use a mixture of names, as available sources do. Finally, neutrality isn't about picking the most common viewpoint and asserting it. Neutrality regarding language is judged just as we'd judge neutrality about any other issue: by carefully assessing whether it asserts opinions, is judgemental, is sufficiently impartial, etc. This isn't the easiest of issues to be neutral about, because we all have strong views about this subject (and all opposed to it), but as Quadell has pointed out it's particularly important to be scrupulous in applying policy in such cases. Jakew (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The policy advises clarity, not the imposition of our political views or emotional responses. I don't see anything here to contradict what I said. My readings on this topic have not been for formal research, and I haven't contributed to the article. I do read about the practice in mainstream media regularly, and my impression is that "mutilation" is more common than "cutting" and would be clearer to the reader. But this is only my impression; the decision should be based on the weight of usage in the sources used for the article. Anything else will be confusing for the reader, and will by definition not be neutral, because it will be based on our trying to dictate what we think is correct. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• FGM As cited above by numerous folks, this is the appropriate term utilized by scholars to discuss this horrific (yeah that was not a neutral comment) activity. From NPR to scholarly journals, documentaries and even Oprah, this is the term. SarahStierch (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Female circumcision What's wrong with using this term? Its' the counterpart to another controversial practice that's not medically necessary Male circumcision. USchick (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Because circumcision, for one, is not the common usage. For another, it is disingenuous and can be misleading to the reader. When a male is circumcised, his whole "pleasure" organ is not cut off. When female is "circumcised," in some cases, her clitoris is removed. This is a case of mutilation. Also, some people would argue that male circumcision is mutilation. So again, female circumsizion is a type of mutilation.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision, male or female, is performed for a variety of cultural and religious reasons. A different culture may consider it mutilation, but the procedure itself is called circumcision. Common usage is not the ultimate deciding factor when naming an article, especially when common usage is judgmental and all other terms can redirect. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-judgmental descriptive titles. Tattoo, Body piercing and Genital piercing is also a form of mutilation, how is this different? USchick (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The procedure is not called circumcision, the WHO classifies 4 different forms of the procedure and refers to them all as Female Genital Mutilation. Additionally no reputable source refers to it as circumcision because that suggests a physical or medical analogy to male circumcision where none exists. Also this RfC isn't about naming the article, its about the terminology used in the article. There was however an RM prior to this RfC which had unanimous support for the name Female genital mutilation as per this article titling guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names. Also the difference between body piercing is that its done with the consent of the individual who seeks it and it does not usually destroy or disrupt normal body or sexual function in the individual. FGM does, so that analogy doesn't really apply in this case. That said, we give due weight to the term in the article by explaining its origin and meaning, and we also give due weight to practitioners by explaining the cultural or religious aspects of why this procedure is performed and by linking to the main article that discuses them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_cutting. Vietminh (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The procedure is not called circumcision? By whom? By the WHO? Male and female circumcision has been around for thousands of years, long before the medical establishment and much longer than the WHO. The WHO is not a good source for English language terms and definitions. A much more obvious choice is a dictionary, which defines both pharaonic circumcision and sunna circumcision, look it up. USchick (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know for a fact that anyone who has undergone body modification would not refer to their piercings or other forms of modification as "mutilation." But a young child who is made to have her clitoris cut off, or labia sewn together without her choice in the matter is undergoing mutilation. I made the analogy of body mods earlier to indicate why cutting is not a good term--because it could indicate consensual body modification. But mutilation is clear when it is not consensual and it is a form of mutilation. Circumcision is a simplistic way of putting it and is a way of making it sound "nicer." I believe back when it became more covered in the US media back in the 90s, it was called female circumcision, and it was very misleading to all of us. We didn't understand that they were actually mutilating young girls. I was a teenager at the time and didn't comprehend the levity of these rituals. Now that I am older, I know that circumcision is not the term to be used. It is plainly mutilation.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The WHO is the foremost authority on international health in this world, and it is far authoritative than a dictionary off of the shelf (especially because a dictionary contains obscure or uncommonly used words, doesn't tell us anything about how often they are used, and doesn't include phrases or acronyms). The WHO classification is also backed up by decades of academic and medical research papers which use the term FGM, or the more recent inventions of FGC or FGM/C. The question is not 'who doesn't call it female circumcision?' it is 'who does call it female circumcision?' and the answer is very few sources, none of which are as authoritative, reputable, or numerous as the WHO or scholarly publications (see the source list provided in the RfC). Lastly, no one is disputing that these procedures have been around for 1000s of years, but saying that such existence is a basis for using the term female circumcision makes no sense. The modern English language has only been around for hundreds of years, so it hasn't been called "female circumcision" for 1000s of years. As for the time that modern English has existed, your assertion about the use of the term "female circumcision" is original research (WP:ORIGINAL) without a source to back it up. Even if it were true; scholarly, published sources from more recent times take precedence as per WP:SOURCES. Without offence to you, I'm not going to reply any further past this because its clear both from this RfC, the recent RM, as well as the entire editing history of this article that calling it female circumcision has no support. Its just not an option that is on the table. Vietminh (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the procedure called in its native language? Do people who practice it call it mutilation? Or is that POV that we assigned to another culture? How is that encyclopedic? USchick (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We are on the English WP. I think it would make sense to use the term that English-speaking countries use. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but its policy to favour English language sources on an English language Wiki, especially when it comes to naming things. All POV concerns are addressed in the article, and the others it links to, see the sections: varying terminology, reasons for female genital mutilation, cultural and religious aspects. Vietminh (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The only way I could find male circumcision comparable to FGM is if it included the partial/total removal of the glans. Fortunately it doesn't so they are not comparable.--Dia^ (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• FGM per sources and arguments above. Seems to be the most common and accurate term. Kaldari (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• FGM is the most commonly used term in the sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• FGM Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles deals with this. Basically, when a clear majority of the best sources use a title that some editors personally believe is biased, then we use it, too. If we were making up a title (e.g., if the sources used a dozen different terms equally), then we would aim for something that was non-judgmental/unbiased in the opinion of editors, but since we aren't inventing a descriptive title in this case, then we stick with the sources, even if some editors believe that the sources are using a "biased" title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This RfC is actually dealing specifically with the terminology in the article, there was already an RM which established consensus for the name of the article to be Female genital mutilation (see above). There is however a similar policy for terminology as the one on titles that you cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming Vietminh (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• FGM We are here to reflect the literature. The WHO uses FGM therefore so should we until such time they use something different.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• FGM because is the most used term and because IS a mutilation. There is difference is I say I cut my finger or I mutilated my finger. And this practice in the overwhelming majority of the cases is a mutilation. (On a personal level: to the ones that find the term "FGM" offensive I can only answer that I find the practice a million times more offensive). --Dia^ (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. This issue should never have been raised as an RfC. Involuntary / forced genital mutilation is a violation of human rights, a fact now increasingly recognised within the countries where it has been traditionally practised, and therefore there is no need to present a 'more neutral' account. We are not social workers who need to deal with clients who might be offended by the use of the accurate term FGM. People are wasting their time discussing this issue; aside from the fact that it is obvious that most editors are opposed there are more important things to do. The article needs substantial work in some areas. I have found sources being misquoted and misrepresented to present a positive bias in favour of the practice. I have deleted one paragraph from psychological effects for this reason. The entire section on sexual effects was extremely misleading. It was, beginning to end, an argument that sexual enjoyment is possible for women with FGM. It even quoted multiple sources about non-mutilated women to support this argument, which was nothing less than OR. That particular material was deleted yeserday by Henrietta, after I pointed it out as being OR. The remainder of the sexual effects section was so misleading of its main source, Lightfoot-Klein 1989, that I have temporarily deleted it - see later talk section for a full explanation. The article in general is out of date. It relies on some very old material. It needs a careful review for bias, and it needs additional sections. There is far more discussion of these issues in several later sections of this page. I would urge people coming here to comment in the RfC to take a closer look. Talk:Female genital mutilation#Sections needing work and missing sections. Rubywine . talk 11:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I have had second thoughts about my earlier comment. Not only do I withdraw the sections I have struck through above, I commend Jakew for taking an action which led to this article receiving attention from a wider audience. Many new editors including myself have had the opportunity to comment and contribute, which is a good thing. Rubywine . talk 16:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Psychological and psychiatric consequences

There are weight issues in this section. One sentence stating that women felt empowered versus a paragraph describing a study. Either clean up and actually describe the anthropologist's work and what her work was, or shorten the previous paragraph. I realize that overwhelmingly people have POV on this issue. However, I think there is unconscious weighting towards saying "This is horrible."

I also added some who and where tags. Being unspecific really doesn't help. And citing a source that's unspecific and using lists really doesn't help either. (Wikipedia is against lists.) I also think there is kind of unfair weight towards the WHO in citation. There is a whole section to them, and then they are referred to, but then there isn't an organization of equal weight on the other side. If there isn't an organization that is defending it, then play down the WHO section more or find another organization to reference on the same side at least.

Also, I spotted that the majority of the sections are talking about how horrible it is and/or weighting that section as the first paragraph... Switch it up.

This causes NPOV issues for me. Please fix. Also makes me question how this got to B class considering other articles are written, cited, and NPOV better that are put in C class... (BTW, I realize how difficult it is... but still... if Abortion can do it, then this article can achieve that too.)

Also consider that the side widget--whichever group put it together is kinda POV..... making this article by consequence POV though I don't know who to go for that. (Rape is only done on women? Really?) --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted most of your "Who" and "where"'s because you even added this to WHO quotes. You wrote "I also think there is kind of unfair weight towards the WHO in citation. There is a whole section to them, and then they are referred to, but then there isn't an organization of equal weight on the other side. If there isn't an organization that is defending it, then play down the WHO section more or find another organization to reference on the same side at least" Could you please write the sentence and the meaning otherwise? I have problems to understand it. I appreciate your intention of improving the article but you also wrote "if Abortion can do it, then this article can achieve that too" I don't take this sentence serious. "(Rape is only done on women? Really?)" Neither this. --Santiago84 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT

Below is a copy of the entire section in the article on psychological and psychiatric consequences of female genital mutilation.

Psychological and psychiatric consequences

In February 2010, a study by Pharos, a Dutch group which gathers information on health care for refugees and migrants, found that many women who have undergone FGM suffer psychiatric problems. This was the first study into the psychiatric and social complaints associated with female genital cutting. In the study 66 questioned Dutch African women, who had been subjected to the practice, were found to be "stressed, anxious and aggressive". It also found that they were more likely to have relational problems or in some cases had fears of establishing a relationship. According to the study, an estimated 50 women or girls are believed to undergo FGM every year in the Netherlands. The report was published to mark the International day against female genital mutilation.

A study by anthropologist Rogaia M. Abusharaf, found that "circumcision is seen as 'the machinery which liberates the female body from its masculine properties' and for the women she interviewed, it is a source of empowerment and strength".

There is one paragraph mentioning that a Netherlands study found 66 Dutch African women to be "stressed, anxious and aggressive". The second paragraph, a single sentence, quotes a study by Sudanese anthropologist Rogaia M. Abusharaf. Abusharaf's study is not online, so it is difficult to assess whether or not it is a balanced account of her conclusions. The actual source for the quote is a 2001 paper by MA Anthropology student Máire Ní Mhórdha for a journal of cultural studies.

• Does everyone here believe that this is adequate, balanced, NPOV coverage of the psychological and psychiatric consequences of genital mutilation?
• Does everyone here believe that a quote sourced from a paper by an anthropology student has been given the correct amount of weight?

Rubywine . talk 11:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, my intuitive feeling is that there is almost certainly more evidence of harm than benefit, and (assuming that's the case) I'd like to see similar weighting in the article. I would think it inappropriate to remove all mention of contrary views, however. I think it would help improve the section considerably if we were to start collecting some references that might be added. Then we'd be in a better position to judge weighting issues. Does that seem reasonable? Jakew (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no shortage of evidence that genital mutilation is harmful, although it is barely touched upon here. Why not start by trying to locate some evidence from medical or psychiatric research to support the view that genital mutilation is sometimes beneficial. Rubywine . talk 12:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rubywine, we're basically in agreement on this. I think it would be good to see some more of the evidence you mention cited in the article. Can you add some or, failing that, cite some sources here? Jakew (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First I'd like to get some views from other editors on the points I raised. I can't see any justifiable basis on which to state that there are psychological or psychiatric benefits to being genitally mutilated. Unless there is a medical or psychiatric source to support that view, in the interests of WP:NPOV and NP:WEIGHT, the mention of benefits should be deleted from this section. If there is a minority view amongst anthropologists that women benefit psychologically from having their genitals mutilated - and you'd certainly need to provide at least one RS, which the article does not, since the student's paper is a tertiary source - then that should be mentioned in a different section of the article. Anthropologists are not medically qualified, so the section title is misleading. Rubywine . talk 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's probably worth having a look at exactly what those sources say. There are clear psychological benefits to feeling accepted, normal, and part of your community. There are clear psychological benefits to rites of passage. If being subjected to FGM is how one acquires status as an accepted and normal adult in your community, then it is not illogical to say that those psychological benefits result from FGM. Additionally, surviving any horrible ordeal typically results in psychological benefits (such as confidence in one's ability to survive) for the majority of survivors (and PTSD for others). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Finding some reliable sources for that would be a start. As yet, I haven't found any in the article. If someone with access to Abusharaf (2001) could report its conclusions it would be helpful.Rubywine . talk 17:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rubywine, you can find the Abusharaf text here or I can send you the study as a pdf file. The author uses the term circumcision throughout the article. The study is ethnographic and qualitative. It consists of long quotes followed by Abusharaf's interpretations of them. The sample size is not entirely clear. The place and time of the field study is Douroshab, Sudan, 1996 and 1998. Much of the text describes "Shortcomings of certain feminist discourses" and feminist overreactions. No mention of WHO et al. Just feminists. The narratives are divided into four parts and introduced by the following titles: 1) "Why circumcision is a virtuous act?"; 2) "The predicament of femininity"; 3) "The virtue of purity"; 4) "Circumcision: A Collegiate Act." In the epilogue, you'll find this:

"Understood as a ritual, the practice is no seen by the people of Douroshab Township as a violation of human rights. Although most of the female interviewees acknowledged the extreme nature of the practice, they made no connection between its "violence" and a human rights violation. For example, women admit that circumcision has caused them a tremendous number of ailments, but because it is a cultural practice, the practitioners are not accused of violating their children's rights. Though painful and drastic, it is by no means seen as contravention or violation. On the contrary, in Douroshab terms, circumcision has many benefits for girls and women."

It's a ethnographic source and as such its main goal is contextualization. There are also many contextualizations of Nazism, for instance, which say that within the specific context of Nazi Germany wearing the yellow badge was beneficial to Jews. But I've never seen any of these studies used on Wikipedia to justify Nazism. I don't see why they are used in this article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SonicYouth, that's immensely helpful, and I'll reply to your points in a bit. I'm just posting a 2008 paper by Abusharaf. I have read it quickly. It is a study of the work of Ina Beasley who worked against the practice of female 'circumcision' whilst in British Sudan from 1939 to 1949. Abusharaf praises Beasley for her painstaking and culturally sensitive approach, and her engagement with Sudanese women activists. Abusharaf's central concerns are around respect for and empowerment of Sudanese women. She believes most modern Western feminists have fallen far short of Beasley's achievements in their failure to recognise that Sudanese women are not merely passive victims but are also agents for social change. If Abusharaf ever was an advocate of the practice of female 'circumcision', on the strength of this paper, she has changed her views. Ina Beasley: Her Perspectives on Women’s Prospects in British Sudan Rubywine . talk 21:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Rubywine has twice deleted Abusharaf's study, stating "It is sourced but it misquotes and misrepresents the study. Utterly misleading. Needs to be rewritten". Please explain. What, specifically, is misquoted? In what way is it misrepresented? Jakew (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I obviously can't speak for Rubywine but I have my own objections to the Abusharaf text. First of all, the source uses an ethnographic approach, i.e., its goal is conceptualization. The author points out several times that the results only apply to Douroshab Township, 1996/1998. Let me re-post the quote from the epilogue:

"Understood as a ritual, the practice is no seen by the people of Douroshab Township as a violation of human rights. Although most of the female interviewees acknowledged the extreme nature of the practice, they made no connection between its "violence" and a human rights violation. For example, women admit that circumcision has caused them a tremendous number of ailments, but because it is a cultural practice, the practitioners are not accused of violating their children's rights. Though painful and drastic, it is by no means seen as contravention or violation. On the contrary, in Douroshab terms [emphasis not in the text], circumcision has many benefits for girls and women."

The interviewees admit that FGM caused them "a tremendous number of ailments" but in the specific context of Douroshab Township 1996/1998 FGM was associated with positive things such as virtue, femininity, purity, and collegiate acts. The results cannot be generalized to another time, place, situation, interviewer, or interviewee.

Another problem is the qualitative methodology which is a fine research approach when generating hypotheses but very problematic when testing hypothesis as in this case (the hypothesis being that FGM has benefits). The author used free narratives instead of structured interviews. The author didn't use any coding to ensure the validity, reliability, and objectivity of her analysis. This means that another interviewer could have derived very difference results from the interviews (lacking objectivity).

The most important methodological drawback is the unclear sample size. Abusharaf quotes six women and she never indicates if her sample was more extensive than 6.

In addition to all these objections, I think the Abusharaf text should be removed per WP:UNDUE. If, however, editors insist that the source remain in the article, then the paragraph needs to be rewritten. It's important to clarify that while the interviewees indicated that FGM had very negative physical consequences, FGM was associated with positive things such as purity and femininity in the Douroshab Township in 1996/1998 and therefore FGM was not seen as a rights violation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that we need to be very careful with this cultural relativism thing. Yes, some societies see female infanticide, forced marriage, FGM etc. as valuable or beneficial but killing your child, for instance, is still violence. The fact that in Douroshab 1996/1998 female genitals were considered deformed and revolting and FGM seen as an esthetically and morally enhancing virtuous act, well, that's interesting. But to include this information in the section "Psychological consequences" and say that FGM has benefits is very problematic.

Moreover, I would also like to point out that some of the quotes have indeed been taken out of context, see Rubywine's comment. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sonicyouth86. Firstly, I agree that the results are not necessarily generalisable in other contexts, but then the Pharos study cited in the same section is not necessarily representative of women outside of Holland. There's a strong argument for explaining the context, but a weak argument for removal of the information altogether (especially as there seems to be very little research in the field). I also agree with the weaknesses, but we need to be very cautious about removing information because of WP editors' personal critique of sources. We must be very careful not to allow our own biases to influence the article, even unintentionally, and when we allow ourselves to criticise sources and use those criticisms as the basis for selection, that's a very real danger. Also, I think we need to stay on topic. The section is about psychological effects, not whether FGC is or isn't a rights violation. I can see an argument for pointing out that these effects were observed in spite of the adverse physical effects, but let's not stray too far off-topic.

In any case, having read Rubywine's comments below, all this is a bit of a moot point, as I'm inclined to agree that the study was poorly represented, and I don't object to its removal given that detailed explanation. Jakew (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate terminology

The debate over what terminology this article should use will never be fully resolved as proponents for each side will continue to make their case. Per WP:CONSENSUS, unanimity is not required, but it is important to properly review available information. This comment is my response to the sources presented by Jakew in reply to my question above: is there a reliable source saying FGM is not mutilation? The sources merely confirm what we already know: some forms of FGM are not mutilation, and the practitioners do not regard it as mutilation, and using the term "mutilation" may cause concern to practitioners and a possible backlash against the eradication of the practice. In addition (as applies to every topic from global climate change to 9/11), there are proponents on both sides who earnestly argue their case. In the sources presented, I see no authoritative claim that most forms of FGM are not mutilation—the closest relevant arguments are that cultures are equivalent and each group finds something "yucky" about other groups, and that there is no evidence that FGM has any significant negative health outcomes (although that is not relevant to whether the practice is "FGM").

• "Health effect of female genital cutting/female genital mutilation" SERC(pdf) (Sexuality Education Resource Centre)

  This source explains that they use "female genital cutting" to acknowledge that not all forms of FGC lead to mutilation, and that mutilation is not intended. Further, FGC is a more respectful way to describe the procedure, and health care practitioners should use the language that is most acceptable to the woman they are working with. The source then lists the WHO FGM classifications, and the medical complications that may arise. The source does not suggest that the term "mutilation" is inaccurate, merely that it sometimes does not apply, and that it may not be acceptable to women being treated.

• "'What about female genital mutilation?' and why understanding culture matters in the first place" Engaging Cultural Differences: The multicultural challenge in liberal democracies

  This source promotes the idea that cultural differences need to be engaged, and that each culture regards some practices in other groups as "yuck", and that there is good reason to be skeptical of much anti-FGM advocacy. There are suggestions that male and female circumcision are equivalent. It states there is very little evidence to support the assertion that FGM increases mortality or mobidity, and there is no evidence to support claims that genital alteration makes it impossible to enjoy sex (as most of the clitoris is internal it mostly remains intact, and several circumcised women have said they enjoy sex). This source rejects use of "mutilation" to describe a coming-of-age and gender identity practice embraced by millions of women. However, the source provides no opinion on whether clitoridectomy and excision is actually "mutilation", only that those involved, including women, do not regard it as mutilation.

• "Frequently Asked Questions on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting" UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund)

  This source makes it clear that avoiding the term "FGM" is a tactic in order to avoid a backlash from those who practice FGM—a backlash that may cause "an actual increase in the number of girls being subjected to FGM/FGC". The source uses other methods to make it clear that FGM often involves mutilation (quoting from a woman subjected to FGM, replying "yes" to "can it [FGM/FGC] still be condemned?", and more).

• "Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice (review)" Human Rights Quarterly

  Article not publicly available, but the title and extract suggest that the source would not be suitable for anything other than a view on the legal situation (any comment on whether FGM was mutilation would be an opinion from a source with not relevant expertise).

• "Culture clashes: balancing local and international interests in ending femal genital cutting practices" LBJ Journal of Public Affairs

  Good summary of interactions between international and local groups relating to FGC. Written from a public affairs perspective, and provides some recommendations for how anti-FGC programs would be most effective, including a need to use appropriate language for intended audience: at the international level, the value-laden term FGM is helpful to emphasize negative aspects, while locally "FGM" is counter productive as it offends local groups who engage in the practice. This source makes no comment on whether or not FGM is actually "mutilation", and does not attempt to justify "value-laden".

I have previously indicated my position: most forms of FGM involve what is accurately described as "mutilation", and that term is widely used by highly reliable sources (example), and it would violate WP:NPOV to fail to use that term when appropriate. Nevertheless, the article must describe its subject neutrally, and avoid commentary—while it is accurate and sourced to say "FGM", that term should not be overdone. There can be no overriding agreement here about what term should be used throughout the article: each paragraph needs to be considered individually. I think that inventing a term like "FGM/C" as a compromise between those currently discussing the issue would not be effective in the long term, and that all we can do is to keep the article neutral by not advocating the "mutilation" aspect, but likewise, not being shy to duly represent the reliable sources who regard the practice as mutilation. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that I've already provided quotes from these sources that do provide evidence that FGC is considered mutilation by a significant number of people, there seems very little point in having a lengthy discussion about other parts of the same documents that do not mention the issue. It's getting rather exasperating to have to keep reminding you of this. I've also pointed out previously that we're not "inventing" the term FGM/C; that term has already been invented by sources such as various United Nations bodies. Once more, it is not our place to judge whether the people who believe that FGC is mutilation are right, or whether the people who believe it isn't mutilation are right; our role is to report on these viewpoints while remaining impartial. Jakew (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to say where it should end up (because I don't know), but IMHO the standard for using a heavily POV noun in the term is that it is the overwhelmingly common term for it, not just the standards described above. Another complexity is that the places it is most prevalent are mostly non-English speaking, which means that English sources will tend to be opinions from outside of the places that it is mainly practiced. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source saying FGM is not mutilation?

I want to revisit this very important question asked by Johnuniq.

• It is not judgmental to use the word "mutilation" to describe what actually is mutilation (is there a reliable source saying FGM is not mutilation?). If the article avoids concerning readers who think FGM is merely cutting, then the article will concern readers who think that many forms of FGM are much more than "cutting", and ignoring the practice of the extremely reliable sources which use "FGM" would itself be the opposite of NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've already cited sources in my earlier response to you noting that not all forms of FGC are mutilation,[1] and documenting that many people do not regard it as mutilation.[2][3][4][5] So clearly there is some dispute over that issue. As for cutting, there's no argument over that issue: FGC is cutting. Some sources prefer to use stronger language to express their horror at the procedures, but that's not an argument for us to do the same. Jakew (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of Jakew's sources. I'm just posting them all here for the moment, for convenience. I want to come back and examine each of them in turn. Please also refer to Johnuniq's own comments above.

• Sexuality Education Resource Centre (SERC) : Health Effects of Female Genital Cutting / Female Genital Mutilation (2000)

This PDF document is often cited but not always accessible so I've made a temporary full-text copy.

SERC is a non-profit organisation in Manitoba. Their misson is to provide intercultural training to health and social service professionals. This document contains a brief section on their terminology for FGM. It says

Throughout SERC documents we use the terms Female Genital Cutting/Female Genital Mutilation (FGC/FGM) interchangeably. A need for respectful terminology that is also responsible from a medical and legal perspective led our agency to a thorough examination of the current terminology. Ultimately our decision to use the term "female genital cutting" was in order to acknowledge that not all forms lead to mutilation of the genitals and that mutilation is not the intent of the action. FGC is intended to be a more respectful way to describe the procedure. Ideally, health care practitioners would use the language most acceptable to the woman they are working with.

It's perfectly clear why they choose to use FGC; it is "a respectful terminology". But there is nothing in the document to explain or support their comment that "not all forms lead to mutilation". The remainder of the document itemises the four types of FGM and then classifies dozens of horrific medical complications. The least severe type of FGM involves the removal of the prepuce and/or clitoris, which has numerous complications. Do they believe that removing these is not mutilation? They simply don't say. Since they give no evidence in support of the contention that "not all forms of FGM are mutilation", or even the briefest of explanations, but they provide powerful evidence to the contrary, I don't agree that this document meets the requirements to be a reliable source for that contention. Rubywine . talk 07:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether contrary opinions exist, not whether we think those opinions are correct. Regardless of whether you personally find it convincing, the fact remains that this opinion exists. Jakew (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes the opinion exists, but Wikipedia demands a reliable source. This source doesn't meet the requirements stated in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

In relation to the specific contention that FGM is not always mutilation, this document indisputably fails the requirements for a reliable source. Rubywine . talk 07:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Since "mutilation" is inherently subjective, this is a source of opinion, not fact, and must be judged accordingly. Jakew (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mutilation is inherently subjective? According to whom? The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives it a plain and simple definition:

"Mutilate. 1. Deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or bodily organ; cut off, severely wound (a limb or organ); maim, mangle. 2. Make … imperfect by removing or severely damaging a part."

You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer: "You may not like the dictionary definition, but if it is a reputable dictionary, it generally carries more weight than your personal opinion." Rubywine . talk 08:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about whether I like or dislike dictionary definitions. As it happens, I have no disagreement with it, and I think it supports what I'm saying. Jakew (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you really offended that she said you're propbably not a lexicologist? You've made it clear that you don't like the word "mutilation" and she has made no assumption. Since it says "cut off" in the definition, it actually disproves what you have said to me--which was mutilation is a form of cutting, not the other way around. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't comment on the lexicologist part of the comment. I also have no strong views either way regarding the word "mutilation"; I certainly don't dislike the word. I do, however, have grave concerns about its use in this article. The sense in the definition is not merely "cut off"; the sense is "cut off, severely wound (a limb or organ)". Thus, cutting one's hair or fingernails is not generally regarded as mutilation, even though something is cut off. Some women choose to undergo clitoridotomy — that is, removal or splitting of the clitoral hood, sometimes known as "hoodectomy" (try Googling for that or "designer vagina" if you want details). They generally wouldn't describe themselves as "mutilated", even though it meets the definition of type I FGM as classified by the WHO. Similarly, as noted above, voluntary scarring isn't seen by those who elect it as a mutilation, but others may well disagree. Are any of these things a mutilation? Some people say it's a mutilation if there's no consent, but the dictionary definition doesn't mention consent. It mentions the severity of the wound, which can be debated, and whether an organ is removed, which is sometimes debatable, depending on the context. There's rarely a single right or wrong answer; it all depends on one's perspective. Jakew (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Again as someone who has identified herself as part of the body mod community it's clear I know about "designer vaginas" as you put it. I put it as body modding, as most people would. The thing is when it is consenual, it is not mutilation. That may only be my opininion, but that is what I have been saying through this whole conversation. It looks to me that you are the only person advocating that we don't offend the people who practice this on children through the fallacy that it's a cultural difference we don't understand. It's not a cultural difference we don't get, we do get it. It's mutilating female children to make sure they remain chaste, to retain their feminity, etc. etc. There are practices in Western culture that we do to make sure that girls remain chaste, too. Some of these are wrong to do. One of them is not informing them about sex at all until they are adults. For instance, a child must know about sex all their life to understand how to be safe about it. I learned about it when I was three and that's how I didn't end up barefoot and pregnant. This is just a more primitive way of making sure girls remain chaste. They probably aren't told about sex at all. But I've digressed here. There are different types of mutilation. You have confused yourself with culture and meaningless practices that torture human beings. Holding down a person who doesn't want to undergo scarification is mutilation. But consenting to it is not. Frankly, you are just wrong here. And there are many people who have said it in passive ways. I will say it straight out. You are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong. Also if you wish, you can go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Body Modification and ask them about mutilation and see what they have to say about it. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A moment ago you were relying on the dictionary to support your argument, but now you argue that "when it is consenual, it is not mutilation". Can you please quote the dictionary definition that specifies this criteria? Because I don't see it above, and haven't seen it in any of the other dictionaries that I've consulted. If we're going to throw away the dictionary when it suits us, then we haven't got a valid basis for relying upon it in other cases.

It's strange that we find ourselves debating the issue, because we're essentially in agreement that body mods generally aren't mutilation. I also think that most forms of FGC are mutilation. The difference seems to be that I'm happy to accept that this is just my opinion. And my opinion is no better than yours, or that of a person who thinks that consensual body mods are mutilation, or for that matter of a woman from a community that practices FGC who thinks it isn't mutilation.

Incidentally, I haven't made any arguments about cultural differences we don't understand, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth (or keyboard, perhaps). I'm just trying to adhere to NPOV. That's all. So far it appears that consensus favours "FGM" anyway, and if that's still the case when the RfC closes then that's what we'll do. I don't agree, but I've done my best to speak up for NPOV; that's all I can do. Jakew (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• UNFPA: Frequently Asked Questions on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting
• "What about Female Genital Mutilation?" And Why Understanding Culture Matters in the First Place
• Reyes (2006) Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice
• Culture Clash: Balancing Local and International Interests In Ending Female Genital Cutting Practices

Rubywine . talk 21:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Medical terminology

Why is POV is getting ahead of medical terminology? Medical terms like sunna circumcision and pharaonic circumcision redirect to this article on mutilation? That's interesting. USchick (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if there were reliable sources verifying that it is common for medical services to use terms like "pharaonic circumcision", that would not be a reason to avoid more accurate and widely sourced terms like "mutilation" being appropriately used in the article. The "circumcision" terms have been used, and that's why they redirect to this article which deals with the whole topic. There are many highly reliable sources describing the practice as "mutilation" (WHO example), and "pharaonic circumcision" is now only a "by the way this description has been used" comment in reliable sources—if unsure about whether the practice satisfies the dictionary definition of "mutilation", review the image in the article with caption "Type IV, performed during childhood, on a 21-year-old Sudanese Woman". Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A) This is not medical terminology. Medical terminology is "mutilation." I have given several examples of articles in medical journals that refer to it as mutilation. B) I find it highly offensive as a woman that you would advocate for a term such as circumcision, which is a misnomer. While men do receive some discrimination due to non-circumcision, it is nowhere near the level of FGM. Unlike men FGM impedes women's ability to have sex or sometimes even receive pleasure from sex. For women FGM is about taking something from her against her rights--oppression by society and ideas that have essentially been set forth by men. It's about something that women have no choice in deciding. From the moment a woman is born in so many cultures, we are second class citizens, then to have their genitals sliced up as someone sees fit? Even if her clitoris is not removed, even if her labia is not sewn together. What the fucking hell? No. And what if her parents decide not to do this because they consider this practice vile, but she lives in a community where this practice is common place. She is relegated to some lower position by other women, her femininity is called into question--even her purity--which is a common thing that is called into question of every Western women every single day. God knows people call me slut if I wear a short skirt out dancing or choose to wear a black bra with a see through shirt. So she will feel shame because her parents chose not to slice, skin, cauterize, or sew up her genitals. Some women will actually do this as adults due to their shame. Alice Walker wrote a book about it. Look it up. (And she only calls it "circumcision" because that was the terminology at the time, thus showing how dated this is.) Women experience psychological damage due to these rituals, and to put it so simply as "circumcision" is downplaying the whole practice and giving it a "nice" word so people don't have to think about what is really going on. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree FGM is the preferred term (as I have said in the discussion currently above on this page). That said, most of what you wrote violates WP:Talk as it has little to do with the article; your above rant is out of place here - WP is WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -- Scray (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to USchick, not you. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There are other articles about all kinds of procedures that don't have "mutilation" in the title and I'm not sure this article should be treated any different simply because people are emotional about it. See Castration, Penis removal, Penectomy, Infibulation, Vaginoplasty. I'm sure lots of people are vehemently opposed to Sex reassignment surgery, and yet we somehow manage to be neutral about all other subject matters except this one. There are lots of practices that involve the removal of sex organs for all kinds of reasons including singing, see Castrato. USchick (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the difference here is conscent. Some of those listed above can be mutilation in certain cases. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

While intellectually your statement is correct, it is not useful here because no knock-out argument will convince everyone—therefore we have to rely on Wikipedia's policies. In this case, the term "mutilation" is appropriate because that is the term used by gold-plated reliable sources. This is not the place for a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In above discussions I have given logical, non-emotional reasons. I was just very offended by this user's insistence on downplaying the idea that is anything but mutilation. Even the word cutting at least implies a sort of mutilation. But you will see in the "Threaded Discussion," I have given reasons ie, common use, that cutting is a type of mutilation, and that the term cutting is misleading, due to the fact that cutting can happen due to self harm, body modification, or accidental cutting. Mutilation is not a term that people who perform surgery or consensual acts would use.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think contributors are confusing value laden with POV. The term mutilation reflects the fact of the harm done by this act. Perpetrators of atrocities and their apologists will establish strongly argued positions (such as holocaust denial) which fly in the face of verifiable facts and use this to trick reasonable people into thinking that the truth must lie between the two "extremes". Another trick is to use a "neutral" euphemism to disguise a real evil eg. police action to describe war. A compromise with a lie is not NPOV and the correct term is female genital mutilation. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You have really great points. I want to say something here: in Alice Walker's book, which I linked up there, she is quoted as saying "torture is not culture." I think that sums it up perfectly. Are we to find a "NPOV" way to refer to what is commonly known as honor killing too? Let's try honor expiring. It will be less biased and offensive to the people who practice it. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest USChick be ignored on this, it is clear from the RfC that the consensus is to use the term FGM. USChick is intent on making an emotional argument about this topic so it is pointless to try and remonstrate with her using policy. I say this because I had the exact same conversation with her in the threaded discussion above, and I made her aware of all the relevant policies. She has twice chosen to ignore those policies and continue to argue from a view which is outside of policy and which has been rejected by all of us. If she starts anymore sections debating this topic I would submit that that qualifies as tendentious editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing.Vietminh (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's rather uncivil to propose that someone should be ignored. Please don't do it. If USChick's arguments have no merit then people won't respond. Jakew (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't suggest she be ignored, I suggest she be ignored on this. If she wants to make constructive edits or contribute to the discussion on this article that is fine. If she wishes to continually seek to re-open discussion on a topic that has been decided whilst using a point of view that has been rejected by everyone here than that is tendentious editing and I am perfectly within my bounds to suggest what I did. It may sound harsh, but it is no more harsh than when Johuniq made the same suggestion before the RfC, I only wish it had been followed...

Also you know full well that people will respond to arguments that are without merit because they are locked into an emotional debate, Wikipedia is not a forum and I also within my bounds to remind people to stick to the sources and policy and not engage in emotive responses with other editors. Vietminh (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq's uncivil comments do not justify further rudeness; if this continues I will take it to the appropriate place. If you think that someone's behaviour is inappropriate, then I suggest you do the same. In the meantime, there's no excuse for not being polite. Reminding people to stick to the sources is fine; suggesting that other editors should be ignored is not. Jakew (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I have probably never been uncivil at Wikipedia, and certainly have not been uncivil on this page. I won't say any more on that here, as it is not the place. Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks civil to me given the tendentious editing. I'd be careful Jakew, your own persistence on this after a clear consensus has been reached hardly looks good --Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

USChick has made two of the seventeen comments in this section, while a request for comment on the subject is active. That's hardly tendentious editing, by any stretch of the imagination. And even if it were, it wouldn't warrant uncivil behaviour. As for your attack against myself, I remind you of my own words from two days ago: 'So far it appears that consensus favours "FGM" anyway, and if that's still the case when the RfC closes then that's what we'll do. I don't agree, but I've done my best to speak up for NPOV; that's all I can do.'[6] Jakew (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusing someone who is clearly not an uncivil editor (Johuninq) of being uncivil, is itself uncivil Jakew so I'd watch that. Secondly, its not 'just' two edits. It began in the RfC which is fine, but while the RfC was still ongoing she started another section designed to initiate discussion on a POV rejected in the RfC, and then following that commented on another section in the same manner. That is tendentious because she is continually trying to sidestep the RfC because she disagrees with where it is going, and I don't need an outside opinion on that when editors here are agreeing with me and my assessment. Also please do not threaten to take something to WQA when the position is yours and yours alone, I thought from the RfC that you would have learned the impropriety of seeking outside opinion as a last resort/outlet for your opinion. Vietminh (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If an editor makes an uncivil edit, it is reasonable to point that out. Now, you're essentially arguing that minority opinions should be steamrolled, and that's fundamentally incompatible with the way consensus works. If USChick wishes to create a section and comment in another to try to persuade people of her case, it does no harm whatsoever, and it helps the consensus process. People can read what she says if they choose, or not if they prefer. There is no evidence of any sort of tendentious behaviour, and, I repeat, no excuse for being impolite towards her. Jakew (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, tendentious editing is uncivil so I pointed it out. There is a difference between merely offering an opinion and engaging in tendentious editing. The difference occurs when an editor tries to break off and start a new discussion when a consensus is clearly established, she twice tried to advance a rejected point of view outside of the RfC as a goal to extracting changes out of other editors, that is tendentious and improper and does not help the consensus process and I am completely within my bounds to suggest her tendentious editing be ignored. People can read what I say and ignore that if they want to, but that doesn`t change that I am within my bounds of suggesting it. I say again that I was not impolite, I said her line of tendentious editing should be ignored, not that she should be. Snowded agrees that there was tendentious editing on her part and multiple editors disagree with her point of view in the RfC as well as outside of it. I apologize that I do not accept your assessment of whether tendentious editing occurred, but I am not alone in saying this and additionally I don`t think someone who is himself under investigation for tendentious editing (and apparently has been before) should be trying to tell others what is and what is not. Vietminh (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WOW, I missed a lot in two days!. What's the title of this article? What USchick thinks? Awwwwww, I didn't think anyone cared! Thanks Jakew for your undying support and for being a lone voice of reason.  :-) USchick (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Effects - WP:NPOV and WP:OR

This is a copy of the Sexual Effects section of the article.

Sexual effects

The effect of FGM on a woman's sexual experience varies depending on many factors. FGM does not eliminate all sexual pleasure for all women who undergo the procedure, but it does reduce the likelihood of orgasm. Stimulation of the clitoris is not solely responsible for the sexual excitement and arousal of a woman during intercourse; this involves a complex series of nerve endings being activated and stimulated in and around her vagina, vulva (labia minora and majora), cervix, uterus and clitoris, with psychological response and mindset also playing a role.

Lightfoot-Klein (1989) studied genitally-cut and infibulated females in Sudan, stating, "Contrary to expectations, nearly 90% of all women interviewed said that they experienced orgasm (climax) or had at various periods of their marriage experienced it. Frequency ranged from always to rarely." Lightfoot-Klein stated that the quality of orgasm varied from intense and prolonged, to weak or difficult to achieve.

A study in 2006 found that in some infibulated women, some erectile tissue fundamental to producing pleasure had not been completely excised. Defibulation of subjects revealed that a part of or the whole of the clitoris was underneath the scar of infibulation. The study found that sexual pleasure and orgasm are still possible after infibulation, and that they rely heavily on cultural influences — when mutilation is lived as a positive experience, orgasm is more likely. When FGM is experienced as traumatic, its frequency drops. The study suggested that FGM women who did not suffer from long-term health consequences and are in a good and fulfilling relationship may enjoy sex, and women who suffered from sexual dysfunction as a result of FGM have a right to sex therapy.

From beginning to end, this section is an argument that FGM does not eliminate sexual pleasure. There is nothing whatsoever in this section to inform the reader that many women who have been genitally mutilated have a total lack of sexual feeling. This section is in obvious breach of WP:NPOV.

Even worse, The Science of Orgasm (Komisaruk et al, 2006) has been cited in the first paragraph (bolded) to assert that stimulation of the clitoris is not solely responsible for orgasm, although there is no suggestion that The Science of Orgasm itself mentions FGM. None of the online discussion of the book suggests that it does. There is also a link to an interview with its authors at wired.com. There is nothing in that interview which is relevant to female genital mutilation. Presumably it was included in the interests of "neutrality". If so that was a misjudgement, because including this material is a clear violation of WP:OR. Rubywine . talk 17:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's a little questionable why we need to even discuss in the article that women can still get sexual pleasure even after FGM. It's widely known, at least by women, that there are vaginal orgasms, and there are clitoral orgasms. Each woman is different in the way they experience pleasure from sex. So... Why is this even a discussion in an FGM article? It's sort of curious here. To me that is a POV that someone thinks women can only get orgasm from their clitoris. And any person who knows about female sexuality knows that women can enjoy sex without any clitoral stimulation. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but it's important to take on board that the sexual capabilities of women who are not genitally mutilated aren't at all relevant to this article. That's the key point I'm trying to make. Referring to arousal and orgasm in non-mutilated women is OR. Rubywine . talk 18:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I agree--Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the article and removing the irrelevant material about non-mutilated women. This section shamefully misrepresents the situation for women living with FGM. It is grossly misleading and misrepresentative of the 1989 study and its author. I have decided to delete it for the moment. I have no time to start rewriting it this week. Perhaps some others will. Rubywine . talk 09:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is best to leave something intact and edit it to improve it rather than deleting it wholesale, especially if you admittedly plan on re-adding it once it meets your approval. Not having time to do this is not a reason for deleting it because you are not the only person who edits the article. Also it is disrespectful to the other editors who have worked on this article to make such statements as "shamefully misrepresents" and "grossly misleading", these statements are making a rather obvious accusation of intent where none exists (I have never edited the section in question, I am just pointing this out to you). Lastly, in a general sense it is more constructive for you to make edits you think need to be made then leaving a long "to-do" for other editors on the talk page. Vietminh (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

FGM vs. FGC has clearly been settled.

It looks to me that there is only one person who is still arguing that FGC should be used. As FGM is the common phrase, cutting is a form of mutilation, and cutting can imply self injury, body modification (which are both consensual), and accidental cutting. I don't see the need to continue these discussions given the bounty of evidence toward the term FGM that people have given. Also let's point out what Rubywine has said: that the sexual capabilities of a woman who has not gone through FGM does not need to be addressed in this article. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A settled issue does not require a new discussion thread. If only one person is still arguing, it probably means that you drove everyone else away, because people get tired of arguing. Under your definition, any Elective surgery scheduled for minor children is mutilation, including ear piercing. You may be interested in reading about Rites of passage in other cultures like Menarche#Rites of passage where girls have their abdomens scarred. And don't forget the practice of Etoro people and Baruya people in Papua New Guinea where young boys ingest semen from their elders through repeated oral sex before they can be considered men. They also get their noses pierced at this time. Does the WHO say anything about that? USchick (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think this has to be me? Several other people are consistently arguing up there and I thought it would be best to put this to an end because only one user seemed to be arguing for FGC. I have read through much of the page and have seen only one user consistently argue for this phrase, while other users have given many sources and evidence contrary to his. I felt that it would be easier to say, "Hey let's end this here, this is the consensus." Several threads have been made just to continue the debate. Why not make one to sum up the ending of it?

Also, as I said to this same user, you are confusing culture with a meaningless act that tortures young girls. Swallowing during oral sex is not the same as genital mutilation, it is a sex act, and if young children are performing this on older men that is child molestation, not culture. I've swallowed too during oral sex, I don't consider myself mutilated. Body modification, such as nose piercing, is not the same as having your clit sliced off. Have you ever had your nose pierced vs. your genitals (which is a practice in the body mod community)? There is a hugeass difference in the pain. And I also do not believe in piercing the ears of a child until they are of an age where they can choose to do it. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your personal beliefs are irrelevant in an encyclopedia article about a Rites of passage procedure performed with full parental consent. USchick (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Guess what? People put their kids into child sex slavery with full parental consent too! Some women who are being abused will let their abusers sleep with them and their daughters--it's full parental consent there! You know who just got put in jail for life in the United States? Warren Jeffs? He was fucking girls as young as 12 years old and he had full parental consent. Parental consent doesn't mean anything, it still causes irreparable psychological damage. I have no idea what this even has to do with the term FGM.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the latest links provided by Rubywine. USchick (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

She has been advocating for the term FGM I'm sure you know.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have to question how much you know about child sex abuse and sex abuse in general. Is this a career you work in? Have you worked in it in the past? Have you studied it in school or something? Do you understand what actually constitutes as child abuse? --Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is just as irrelevant as yours. How much experience do you have in international cultural relations, specifically Colonialism of Indigenous peoples? The latest links from Rubywine urge for restraint before Western society determines that African women are bad mothers who don't know what they're doing, and that somehow they are lesser human beings who need coaching about how to live their life "properly" by more knowledgeable white people. USchick (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that the links were not provided by me but by Jakew. I reposted them with visible titles to assist discussion of the cited articles. Rubywine . talk 09:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rubywine, that was very helpful and adds a lot to the discussion! USchick (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying these people are bad mothers. But what they are doing is practicing meaningless ritual that some of them don't even understand the reason they practice it anymore. They are just going through the movement. And I can ask you your knowledge on child sex abuse because you have brought up several subjects pertaining to it. You said that as long as there is parental consent is involved, it's not child sex abuse and (implied) there is no mutilation involved. That is just plain factually wrong. I've actually worked in this field, and I understand the difference based on the real time knowledge I actually have. It's not a Western difference either, because for years people tried to say that the cult (basically) that Warren Jeffs belonged to practiced child sex abuse and tried to say, "well it's part of their religion and we don't get it, so it's okay." These girls were not taking part in mainstream society. These girls were being raised in a seperate group from everyone and only knew the FLDS. So, when they were married to Warren Jeffs, at 12 years old, and then he had sex with them, there is actual recording that they have played to us on television of these girls crying. They underwent psychological damage even though it was part of their "culture." It doesn't matter what is deemed a person's "culture." They are still damaged. And to pretend anything else, to trick ourselves into thinking it's something we don't get, to say, "Oh let's not offend the offenders." Is ridiculous. You are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong. And your argument is null and void. It's a great thing that you live in a country where you even have the privilege to know anything other than not getting your clit chopped off, your labia sew up, and your breasts ironed. You have the privilege to say, "Well it's just their culture and we don't get it." These girls don't know any other culture. They only know theirs, and they don't get the choices you do--they are second class citizens who are only ranked down to their vaginas which must be mutilated and sewn up to make sure they don't shame the family. Then if they don't do that, they feel like outcasts by their whole community. And you call that culture. Seriously, get off it. I'm not even going there anymore.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think you know what country I live in? I'm sure you practice "meaningless rituals" that contribute to the destruction of the planet and offend other people. USchick (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough. Please stick to arguing the topic, not each others' merits. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough of the emotional arguments, this issue is over. The RfC was clear and there is absolutely no need to argue this point any longer. Consensus is clearly for FGM. I suggest that if anyone comes here disputing this you simply ignore them, its not worth your effort to try and argue when a consensus has been clearly established. For any editors wishing to continue the debate over terminology I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. Vietminh (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sections needing work and missing sections

This is just the beginning. A few notes on what needs to be done. Rubywine . talk 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

History of terminology

Needs careful review for accuracy and bias. Rubywine . talk 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected all these areas. There was a lot of plagiarism in there. Sources were also incorrectly cited.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately sources are incorrectly cited now. I'm just looking at the FGC section, which begins 'In local languages the term female genital cutting (FGC) tends to be used as opposed to "mutilation,"'. Unfortunately that's not what the cited source says, which doesn't refer to "female genital cutting" but instead says that 'Local languages generally use the less judgmental “cutting” to describe the practice [...]'. In fact, this is rather misleading as the phrase "female genital cutting" is generally used in English-language documents. I'm just looking for a good source on the origins of the phrase, then I'll try to correct it. Jakew (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what the source says. In research you do not go around looking for something to prove your bias. You look for something to prove your bias wrong. On WP you state neutral research. Of course WP is written by people like you, who obviously do not know how to do formal research, therefore we get this biased crap and people looking for any old thing that will support their bias. But in real scientific research that is published in journals and books, it doesn't work that way.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the source doesn't refer to "female genital cutting" in this context but, rather, "cutting". Jakew (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not misreprensation, or whatever you wish to call it. "Cutting" is meant to imply FGC in the context, and you would know if you read the source. I don't even understand what you are upset about here when I used the term you were in favor for in the first place. Do not tell me how to do research, I have been writing real research (AKA not Wikipedia) for eight years. And I believe you are trying to provoke me given I have said several times here and on my page my anger triggers easily. I am done with this conversation--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read the source; that is how I was able to quote the relevant sentence. There is no indication that it means "FGC", and the claim that it does is unverifiable and hence, per WP:V, this cannot be included. The solution is perfectly simple, as I've already shown: we correct the sentence to reflect what the source actually says, and introduce a separate sentence introducing the term FGC, citing a source that actually refers to it. Jakew (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Henriettapussycat is correct. There's no doubt about it. 'Cutting' can only mean female genital cutting since the recurring phrase "the practice" is a clear anaphoric reference to "Female genital mutilation/cutting" in the first sentence of that section in the source. Rubywine . talk 22:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS in support of that assertion? Jakew (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't need an RS to support my reading of an RS. For the benefit of third parties, we are discussing the following text by UNICEF. The source in question is entitled "Changing a Harmful Social Convention: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting". The section is entitled "What is FGM/C?".

The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act. 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 (IAC) in Addis Ababa. In 1991, WHO recommended that the United Nations adopt this terminology and subsequently, it has been widely used in UN documents.

The use of the word “mutilation” reinforces the idea that this practice is a violation of girls’ and women’s human rights, and thereby helps promote national and international advocacy towards its abandonment. At the community level, however, the term can be problematic. Local languages generally use the less judgmental “cutting” to describe the practice; parents understandably resent the suggestion that they are “mutilating” their daughters. In this spirit, in 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices called for tact and patience regarding activities in this area and drew attention to the risk of “demonizing” certain cultures, religions and communities. As a result, the term “cutting” has increasingly come to be used to avoid alienating communities. (p2)

Jake is insisting that there is no indication that 'cutting' in this context means FGC. I leave this to the judgement of disinterested third parties. Rubywine . talk 12:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Vietminh has now removed my changes and he also insists I have done this wrong. The term "cutting" is a reference to FGC, and both of you are misunderstanding the text here. Saying this is not being neutral is just ridiculous, because I'm not sure how I haven't been neutral, considering I am for the term FGM. I presented the term as it was. Jakew doesn't even know how to present quotes correctly! This annoys the hell out of me and I apologize to Ruby but I may just throw my hands up and abandon this whole article because I am dealing with a few people who obviously don't know how to properly present research, excepting Ruby. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification: I am quite sure that "cutting" refers to the practice known as FGC (that is, the subject of this article). The question is whether the sentence means that local languages use the word "cutting" to refer to the practice, or whether they use the phrase "female genital cutting" (as Vietminh points out, probably neither, since those are both English). It is possible that they meant the latter; however we have no way of knowing, and what they said is the former. Per WP:NOR we cannot impose our own interpretation, and should not make a different claim from that made by the cited source; we must simply report what the source says. Alternatively, we can cite a different source entirely. Jakew (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes but I don't believe that citing "a different source entirely" would be proper, because this would mean that you search for something that says FGC that supports your views, which is not what you do in proper research because that would make it biased. At least one other person here knows this. You have to use this source and this source only, unless you happen to find another source that uses that term during your original research. I could look for other sources that use the term FGC, but they may not support your view, and you would then get upset at me. Please understand that.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

To the limited extent that it's an argument at all, and to heavily paraphrase, "an editor might be biased" isn't an argument against anyone finding an alternative source. It's pretty trivial to find sources introducing the term, explaining its background and history; there are some in the current version, and others that I added can be found in the history. Jakew (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits have improved matters considerably, but the organisation of the material needs some attention.

First, "FGM/C" is discussed in the FGC section, which could be argued either way, but as a minimum we need to explain what it means and why it exists as a separate term. The reader will probably guess, but shouldn't have to. We should also have separate paragraphs (if not sections) for the terms "FGC" and "FGM/C".

Second, the sentence "The UN uses "FGM" in official documents, while some of its agencies, such as the UN Population Fund, use the term "FGM/C"" appears as the last sentence of the first paragraph of the FGC section. This doesn't make sense, because the paragraph isn't about either term. I suggest that we move material about who uses what term to the top-level "Terminology" section.

Third, the sentence "The term "female genital mutilation," however, has proved to be controversial." appears in the "female circumcision" section, after discussion of the alternative term "FGC". This is just confusing.

Finally, discussion of the term "FGM" should be confined to that section, so that the reader can easily find it, but it isn't. Criticism appears in the FGC section ("because they considered FGM to be judgmental, pejorative, and not conducive to discussion and collaboration on abandonment" and "suggests that the word "mutilation" "stigmatizes the practice to the detriment of the programs trying to change it," and expresses concern that calling "a woman 'mutilated' insults her and may lead to psychological trauma, particularly for young girls and women living in non-practicing societies."), and in the FC section ("Though Gruenbaum describes the word "mutilation" as an accurate description due to the removal of tissues from the genitals, she says the term implies "intentional harm and is tantamount to an accusation of evil intent," and therefore suggests the use of "female circumcision.""). I suggest that we move all of this material to the "FGM" section.

Nope. 'Criticism' appears in the FGC section because the UNICEF source explains that the adoption of 'cutting' was a response to the stigma attached to 'mutilation', which was to the detriment of their anti-FGM programs. Rubywine . talk 22:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out, this is criticism of the term "FGM", and hence logically belongs with it. Jakew (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out, that is not so. FGC has been adopted by agencies due to perceived problems with FGM. Our obligation as editors is to go to reliable sources which explain the origins of the terminology and use clear concise wording to convey what they say. Anything else is WP:OR. Rubywine . talk 14:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if a source makes a comment about the term "FGM", it is original research to present that comment in the section of the article that is about the term "FGM". Is that what you're saying? Jakew (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Rubywine . talk 15:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, good.

So you've no OR-based objection to including this material in that section, then? Jakew (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. My comments address your objection to including any criticism of 'FGM' in the FGC section. I object to you stripping out material that is needed in the FGC section and moving it, to suit your own perspective. Discussion should be centred on whether or not sources are being represented accurately, and whether or not sufficient sources are being represented. What you want to do will result in sources not being represented accurately. And that's my last comment - I've explained myself sufficiently. Rubywine . talk 06:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we can all agree that the material should be included, and therefore needs to be included somewhere. I'm guessing that we'd also probably agree that it's best not to duplicate material — that is, it should be included once, but not more than once. So the question is whether we should "strip out" the material from the FGM section, scattering it elsewhere in the article, as happened previously, or whether we should return it to the FGM section. You haven't made a compelling case — or actually any case — for your position that presenting this material in the FGM section would "result in sources not being represented accurately", and there is a real question of balance. Suppose a person wanted to learn about the term "FGM", and therefore read that section, skipping the other sections because (s)he was uninterested in other terms. Would (s)he get a balanced picture? I think the answer is fairly obvious: no, (s)he'd be entirely unaware of the existence of criticism. And that's why it's beneficial to present criticism of the term in the appropriate section. Jakew (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There was one more thing I should have said. There is no need for separate subheadings under History of terminology. The origins and use of all the terms would be better unified into one discussion. Sources that address the issue of terminology do not belabour the issue, so nor should we. Rubywine . talk 08:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bravo! That's a really good example of lateral thinking. If we remove the subheadings it will effectively eliminate the dilemma about which section this material belongs in. As a minor point, though, we should call it "terminology" as "history of terminology" is misleading since it discusses current usage as well. Jakew (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and per WP:LQ, can we remember that added punctuation belongs outside of the quote marks? Jakew (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me address each of your concerns individually, since I have made the corrections:

First, "FGM/C" is discussed in the FGC section, which could be argued either way, but as a minimum we need to explain what it means and why it exists as a separate term. The reader will probably guess, but shouldn't have to. We should also have separate paragraphs (if not sections) for the terms "FGC" and "FGM/C".

I have found, through all the links you have provided as evidence, that the term FGM/C is what is used. No one seems to use solely FGC. I also think that adding another section is simply unneeded and just a procedural thing you're requesting here. There would be no reason and no way to explain why people use a slash in there through research. We can make assumptions, but that is considered original research on Wikipedia. FGM/C is what many sources who may advocate for the use of FGC use in context, at least in the sources you provide, and I have read each of them.

Third, the sentence "The term "female genital mutilation," however, has proved to be controversial." appears in the "female circumcision" section, after discussion of the alternative term "FGC". This is just confusing.

I only kept this sentence out of courtesy, because you wrote it. But I will delete it.

Finally, discussion of the term "FGM" should be confined to that section, so that the reader can easily find it, but it isn't. Criticism appears in the FGC section ("because they considered FGM to be judgmental, pejorative, and not conducive to discussion and collaboration on abandonment" and "suggests that the word "mutilation" "stigmatizes the practice to the detriment of the programs trying to change it," and expresses concern that calling "a woman 'mutilated' insults her and may lead to psychological trauma, particularly for young girls and women living in non-practicing societies."), and in the FC section ("Though Gruenbaum describes the word "mutilation" as an accurate description due to the removal of tissues from the genitals, she says the term implies "intentional harm and is tantamount to an accusation of evil intent," and therefore suggests the use of "female circumcision.""). I suggest that we move all of this material to the "FGM" section.

These terms are all intertwined. You tend to use quotes in a way that serves your own purpose and twists the nature of the author's intended meaning. That is not proper rapport for a research at all, and it would get you black listed if you belonged to any sort of scientific research community.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To address these points in order:

First, both terms "FGM/C" and "FGC" are used, the latter much more frequently. (Indeed, according to Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, "The term “female genital cutting” is now used in the literature rather than “female genital mutilation”.")

Second, there is nothing wrong with the sentence where I originally put it. It is only as a result of the organisational problems caused by scattering information about "FGM" through sections about different terms that problems have arisen.

Finally, I've put up with a number of personal attacks from you, but that's enough. Comment on content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to learn what a personal attack is. I have not made any personal attacks against you. Just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean I'm making personal attacks. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the terminology section to the version which existed before the RfC began, if you're going to make changes to you need to do two things first. 1) You need to look at the Wikipedia manual of style, because the edits that were made to the section made it less readable than it was before. 2) You need to change the wording in a way that matches the sources, or you need to change the sources (with a justification why). For instance, the term FGC is not 'used in local languages' it is used by international organizations, the communities in question aren't even english speaking so they wouldn't be using an english word to describe their practice. Also be aware that this section is designed to give proper weight to alternative points of view on the subject, specifically when it comes to what to call the practice. So this section isn't liable to the same kinds of edits that might need to be done to the rest of the article, in short: think about the due weight which needs to be given to the people who call it FGC or female circumcision, and realize the wording is designed to reflect those points of view. Vietminh (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what about it was unreadable. My wording did match the sources, I corrected all the plagiarism, and I considered putting a plagiarism notice on the whole page--but did not because I felt that would cause more drama. I did not change the author's intent in the least. And I included the words "in local language" so that people would understand that they do not call it mutilation. No one calls it circumcision anymore. I would never write up a research summary in such a way to present the original scientist's views incorrectly and prove my bias. That is a practice that is universally frowned upon.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say unreadable I said less readable, and by less readable I meant that the sentences were fragmented and the meaning of the paragraph became less clear. I agree that no one calls it circumcision anymore, I think you could actually quote me on saying those exact words to USChick, but that doesn't change that it was historically referred to as that, and that 'some' people still do call it that, and also that most people tend to think it as that in a colloquial sense (i.e. they may not know the exact terminology that is used). I don't think the current wording on the circumcision paragraph is really making any positive statement saying that that term should be used, it indicates clearly why its not used as well as why it shouldn't be. Again you have to remember that the purpose of this paragraph is to give due weight to all points of view, it is the hinge upon which the article's neutrality is placed.

Also wikipedia isn't the same as an academic paper, nothing here is plagiarized (that also implies intent where none exists). Thank you for not putting a tag either, I don't think we need anymore tags on the article, Rubywine's approach is not one I would suggest you model yourself after. Throwing up tags, making edits without consulting people, and throwing around accusations on the talk page isn't liable to improve this article. I've reverted your edits again, the previous wording has a well established consensus on this talk page and it is not for you or Rubywine to make blanket changes to the article without consulting other editors and explaining your reasoning here. Please don't start an edit war on this, I am open to making changes and am not entirely against the edits you made. But doing this in the manner you have is improper and against guidelines. Vietminh (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sexual effects

The single study mentioned in the article was conducted in 1989 by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, a former English teacher with an MA in social psychology. Her extraordinary study has been grossly misrepresented in this article to paint a rosy picture of life with FGM. There is no mention of what women with solid impenetrable scar tissue instead of genitals have to undergo to enable intercourse - or the effects of FGM on the sexual practices of men in the same culture.

Every negative aspect in Lightfoot-Klein's careful and balanced study is omitted. There was a brief mention of pain and inability to feel sexual sensation in the article in 2007 when the article was last assessed by WIkiProject:Medicine, but it was deleted at some point.

This is what needs to be conveyed in our account of Lightfoot-Klein 1989:

Her withdrawn, unresponsive expression is far closer to the truth and hides an abject terror of what is in store for her. The penetration of the bride's infibulation takes anywhere from 3 or 4 days to several months. Some men are unable to penetrate their wives at all (in my study over 15%), and the task is often accomplished by a midwife under conditions of great secrecy, since this reflects negatively on the man's potency. Some who are unable to penetrate their wives manage to get them pregnant in spite of the infibulation, and the woman's vaginal passage is then cut open to allow birth to take place. A great deal of marital anal intercourse takes place in cases where the wife can not be penetrated-- quite logically in a culture where homosexual anal intercourse is a commonly accepted premarital recourse among men-but this is not readily discussed. Those men who do manage to penetrate their wives do so often, or perhaps always, with the help of the "little knife." This creates a tear which they gradually rip more and more until the opening is sufficient to admit the penis. In some women, the scar tissue is so hardened and overgrown with keloidal formations that it can only be cut with very strong surgical scissors, as is reported by doctors who relate cases where they broke scalpels in the attempt.

Clearly, the Sudanese bride undergoes conditions of tremendous pain, as well as physical and psychic trauma. These were always readily spoken of by women, generally with a great deal of easily expressed affect, when they were speaking to a female interviewer. Paradoxically, most women related that their husbands were considerate and loving throughout the ordeal, and that they are sensitive and tender lovers. A far smaller number of women said that their husbands had been brutal.

...There are a number of factors that make it possible for them to experience orgasm in spite of these seemingly overwhelming handicaps. Perhaps primary among these is the fact that nearly all of them are unaware that other options exist for women in the world. They are, with only a handful of exceptions, unaware that the hardships inflicted on them (which they perceive as “normal’) need not be a part of a woman's experience. Perhaps, women in Sudan, where pain is endemic develop a level of adaptability, which enables them to persist despite physical pain and psychic trauma. Presumably, Pharaonic circumcision also facilitates the enhancement of remaining erogenous zones, and possibly the development of others.

Since her initial study Lightfoot-Klein has spent her lifetime working against FGM, has published dozens of articles and several books against FGM and currently lectures on the issue. This needs to be mentioned. [7][8][9]

To summarise: this section misrepresents the situation for women living with FGM. It cites a 1989 study and is grossly misleading and misrepresentative of that study, and its author, who has spent a lifetime educating people about FGM and promoting its abolition. For these reasons I have decided to delete this section for the moment. I have no time to start rewriting it this week. Perhaps some others will. Rubywine . talk 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Henrietta has now replaced the deleted section with a new one that accurately represents Lightfoot-Klein 1989. It's a brilliant start. Rubywine . talk 14:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Psychological consequences

Totally inadequate. Needs to be developed. I have deleted a strongly biassed one-sentence paragraph which misquoted and misrepresented the study and the author.

Jakew has restored it. I have deleted it again. How are we going to avoid an edit war? Assistance and intervention from others is needed here.Rubywine . talk 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Restore it to what it was before the RfC and open a discussion and allow other editors to weigh in. Also for a constructive atmosphere please speak in a neutral and disinterested fashion, this is especially important when dealing with controversial subjects. Saying that a section is "totally inadequate" or "challenging" other editors to disprove your assertions does not add anything of substance to a debate. Vietminh (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone new to this page, I have opened numerous discussion topics on this page over the past week allowing (and in fact encouraging) other editors to contribute. The work done on the section since the RfC is correctly sourced and representative of reliable sources.

• I am not taking orders from Vietminh to revert my work and Henrietta's.
• I am not responding to further discussion unless it addresses the content of the article. Rubywine . talk 05:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The deleted section:

A study by anthropologist Rogaia M. Abusharaf, found that "circumcision is seen as 'the machinery which liberates the female body from its masculine properties' and for the women she interviewed, it is a source of empowerment and strength".

This ethnographic study by a Sudanese anthropologist is essentially a work of contextualisation. It is an attempt to understand how female 'circumcision' is regarded within the communities in which it is practised - i.e. the perceptions and justifications held by the women who practice it on their daughters and advocate its practice for others. As the final sentence of the article makes clear, the goal was to better inform a successful campaign for its abolition. The first quote is taken out of context, from a section on prevalent cultural justifications for circumcision. The discussion actually focusses on the prevalent belief in the culture that women's natural bodies are 'revolting' and that uncircumcised female genitalia will grow to enormous proportions and resemble a penis. Without this context, the quoted phrase is completely misleading:

"One of the most prevalent cultural justifications for circumcision is the belief that female genitalia are ugly and misbegotten, and the clitoris “revolting.” If left unexcised, these women say, it can continue to grow and will ultimately “dangle” between a woman’s legs. Here the ritual enters the realm of the cosmetic: it is a repudiation of the otherwise loathsome appearance of female genitalia. (...) It could be argued that the ritual is not only a fastidious tactic in pursuit of an aesthetic, but also that it is related to the very process of the cultural construction of the body. From this point of view, circumcision is the machinery that liberates the female body from its masculine properties. This idea is related to the belief found in ancient Egyptian mythology that stresses the bisexuality of the gods. Abusharaf 2001, pp122-123

The second quote is again taken out of context and therefore misrepresented. The discussion here is about one woman interviewed who is an advocate of FGM:

The fact that circumcision reduces desire is not reflected in Suaad’s story. A similar observation was reported by Heidi Skramstad’s research among Gambian women who believed that genital cutting did not reduce their enjoyment of sexual intercourse. To Najat, “circumcision is a source of empowerment and strength.” (...) Circumcision is believed to endow women with a remarkable ability to exert self-control and power, to take charge of their “natural” desires and to display restraint over their sexuality. Self-mastery, a disposition seen as a virtue and as one promoted through genital surgery, is Najat’s reason for her undeviating support of pharaonic circumcision. Infibulated women, she maintains, are able to drive hard bargains and have a say in household politics and decision-making processes. Their controlled sexuality allows them to achieve these goals in the face of scarce resources, hardship, and constrained socioeconomic circumstances. This is how women exercise power not only over their sexuality, but also over their spouses. Abusharaf 2001, pp128-129

Alternative views about 'circumcision' are held by Sudanese women interviewed, and acknowledged by them to exist in their culture. One of the women interviewed says that the practice is considered painful and violent although she advocates it because a narrow vagina prolongs intercourse. Here is another woman's view:

My family and my in-laws are in favor of pharaonic circumcision because it is considered a beautiful circumcision. I am not going to have pharaonic done to my daughters, so I will just lie to them and say that I did. I think pharaonic is very cruel. I don’t say that to the people in the family because they could circumcise my daughters without my knowledge, or they might insist on it. Right now, I say yes pharaonic is good, so that I can prevent it from happening to my daughters. If I do sunna , I think that will be enough for the girls. The most important reason for me to circumcise my daughters is to keep them clean. p126

There is no conclusion to the study, half of which is devoted to a historical review and half of which is devoted to fieldwork. This is the end of the article:

Understood as a ritual, the practice is not seen by the people in Douroshab Township as a violation of human rights. Although most of the female interviewees acknowledged the extreme nature of the practice, they made no connection between its “violence” and a human rights violation. For example, women admit that circumcision has caused them a tremendous number of ailments, but because it is a cultural practice, the practitioners are not accused of violating their children’s rights. Though painful and drastic, it is by no means seen as contravention or violation. On the contrary, in Douroshab terms, circumcision has many benefits for girls and women. Abdulahi An-Na’im argues persuasively that “unless international human rights have sufficient legitimacy within particular cultures and traditions, their implementation will be thwarted, particularly at the domestic level, but also at the regional and international levels” (172–73). Without such legitimacy, it is almost impossible to improve the status of women through the law or any other agent of social change. Indeed, the very use of law in many African societies requires a prior conviction that the right to be protected is inalienable. The question then becomes how human rights can be legitimized in contexts within which violations take place. If such legitimacy does not already exist, and the whole community believes in the virtue of a practice like female circumcision, who is left to implement the law? Within communities that adhere to circumcision, this tradition is perceived as a cultural right and not as a breach of rights.The narratives of Douroshab women not only convey the meanings of circumcision but are couched in powerful terms that reveal how women construct multiple identities in an ever-changing social world. Genital modification is not only important in producing “socially informed bodies,” but as a vehicle for creating meanings “that bound and represent the socialized self by mediating its relations to the ambient social world” differences (Terrence Turner 149). Attention to social reproduction is essential for understanding the politics and aesthetics embodied in the modification of women’s bodies. Further, as I have argued elsewhere (Abusharaf “Revis-iting”), elucidating women’s perspectives within societies rather than criminalizing them is not only a pressing political issue, but also the only strategy for the formulation of a sound anti-circumcision policy in the new millennium. pp135-137

I challenge anybody to tell me that the author's views and findings were not misrepresented in the sentence I deleted from the article. Rubywine . talk 12:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out that in the article the author write:

"The increasingly informed efforts of African women and men to extirpate circumcision, which testify to new forms of internal cultural critique, are also rendered trivial and inconsequential. [4]"

From the sentences that were quoted in the article seemed that Abusharaf had an almost proactive attitude towards FGM, that seems to me not the case.

In case someone wants to read it, here is a longer abstract and here I guess the whole article, that I haven't read jet. --Dia^ (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dia^! Abusharaf is definitely not an advocate of FGM and her later work shows a similar focus to the one you've pointed out. This is a 2008 paper by her. Ina Beasley: Her Perspectives on Women’s Prospects in British Sudan It is a study of the work of Ina Beasley who worked against the practice of female 'circumcision' whilst in British Sudan from 1939 to 1949. Abusharaf praises Beasley for her painstaking and culturally sensitive approach, and her engagement with Sudanese women activists. Abusharaf's central concerns are around respect for and empowerment of Sudanese women. She believes most modern Western feminists have fallen far short of Beasley's achievements in their failure to recognise that Sudanese women are not merely passive victims but are also agents for social change. Rubywine . talk 13:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm working on some other projects, I will try to do some rewrites here. But I'll probably be pretty busy once the week starts because I'm taking two classes that require a lot of outside work and will be working. So I wouldn't be bothered by anyone helping with rewrites during the process.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I also note since I am attending courses at a university I might have access to the original articles if the original journals are in the databases. I will search for them.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have access to the original Abusharaf article in PDF through my school. I'll read through it and do a proper write up.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Although the article does not seem like it fits in the Psychological Consequences section at all. It's about what women think about it and their ideas of the practice.... Not the consequences of the practice. Anyone have something to suggest?--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean. It is about social pychology in a sense, but it certainly has a different methodology. Firstly can I just point out that Sonicyouth86 wrote an excellent summary and overview of this paper, somewhere further up the page. We should use some of that. So about where to put this: I think that those section(s) might still be yet to come. One might be "Women's attitude to FGM" as a subheading of "Attempts to end the practice". One thing I've learned over the last few days from reading around this area is that many African women are deeply attached to FGM because it's their sole source of social status, despite all the horrors of its effects upon them. Without FGM they have no entry to adult life, marriage, social standing, etc. So a study like this one that tries to understand those feelings and attitudes and where they come from would be relevant. Another possibility would be"Feminist responses to FGM" as a subheading of "Controversy". Another thing that's very clear is that Africans, including activists like Nahid Toubia, were offended by the way that feminists initially approached the issue. There's a section in this paper entitled Female Circumcision and the Controversy It Has Engendered which looks at that. I put a quote from this paper under Controversy below. Rubywine . talk 03:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That is what I've been trying to say all along.... That we can not look at this at a purely clinical view. But I agree with you, perhaps it needs a section of its own.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've cut the quotes down as far as possible. I used them because I was told by Johnuniq that I had to fully explain my actions in removing the sentence about this source, and this source is very difficult to summarise. Since every attempt to balance this article and use sources correctly has been subject to intense contention and scrutiny, at the time, I saw no alternative to providing this material for clarification. Rubywine . talk 04:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to end the practice

This section is well written but there are gaps in the content and it needs update. There is a growing African-led movement, both inside and outside Africa, against FGM. It is a global human rights issue with Amnesty International involvement. There is an enormous amount of relevant material that needs review.

[10] [11] Rubywine . talk 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Forced FGM, Asylum

The article needs coverage of forced FGM and asylum claims by women fleeing FGM.

• Women have fled their home countries in Africa and lodged appeals for asylum to avoid forcible FGM
• Girls are taken from their home countries to Africa and forcibly mutilated.
• FGM is practiced illegally in the west.

These are just a few sources that could be investigated for material.

[12] [13] [14]

Rubywine . talk 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

The article needs a section on controversy. Amongst others:

• There is a notable divide between anthropologists, widely considered soft on FGM, due to their closeness to the cultures that practice it, and other professions which condemn the practice for its medical consequences. I am not certain if this divide can be included. We need secondary sources to avoid OR.
• Criticisms of western feminism's approach to the issue need to be presented.
• Controversy around FGM within Africa
• Individual women living with FGM have written and campaigned on the subject, not always with social approval.

Abusharaf (2001) quotes the Sudanese surgeon and women's health activist Nahid Toubia as saying "[These feminists] have acted as though they have suddenly discovered a dangerous epidemic, which they then sensationalized in international women’s forums creating a backlash of over-sensitivity in the concerned communities. They have portrayed it as irrefutable evidence of the barbarism and vulgarity of underdeveloped countries. It became a conclusive validation of the view of the primitiveness of Arabs, Muslims and Africans, all in one blow.

Rubywine . talk 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

.

Copyright Violations

• I have decided to no longer work on this project because I forsee the possiblity of an edit war, and it has been triggering my anger in a way that I cannot even describe. But I would like to explain my reasons for calling this up for copyright violations.

There is a lot of plagiarism in this article, which I made a point to correct. I noted this in the comments when I corrected this. When I came back this morning, all my edits, including the plagiarism corrections, were reverted. I had initially planned to recorrect these, but decided the best thing to do was get a third party involved so as not to create an edit war.

Two, I noticed on Jakew's page he was actually saying some of my writing might be copyright violations. This is incorrect. For one, quoting when you attribute it to the right source is not plagiarism. For two, when you quote a large section, you put it in a block text and do not put it between quotes. That is the proper way to quote large sections of text. Again, that is not plagiarism as long as the source is attributed. This page might help you.

I apologize that anyone feels that my writing was biased and did not write it the way the author intended, but this is something I find incredibly offensive to be accused of (in roundabout ways), because that practice is universally frowned upon and to do so would ruin my name in the research community.

I will no longer be working on this project, due to the issues above. I don't feel that the research is being presented correctly, and when I correct it my edits are reverted. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I see now Santiago84 has taken this off despite the issue at hand, so I have reverted to fix the issue of plagiarism. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, before you want to resign your work. Major changes that are made in the FGM article should be first introduced over the discussion page. Before we started doing this there has a been a lot of chaos here. As you can see we started to discuss editing issues first, before we edit, sure there are still some exceptions, but it is still an improvement then the time before. I believe when you are convinced that there is plagiatism in existence you will find persons who agree with you. Then the logic will do the rest to solve such a matter. That you felt very provoced is normal, but it shouldnt be normal. I first also felt provoced when i saw that the work of a lot of editors was blanked due to copyright issue. Iam sorry that i wrote "This seems very unserious" (i also used the wrong word, i ment "dubious", not "serious") but before you opened this discussion section i was provoced myself, my appologies for this. I hope you will reconsider and continue your work on this article and the discussion section.--Santiago84 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was checking the original research on this and it was written word for word. I also noted this in comments during revisions. I was afraid of getting in an edit war, so this was why I placed the notice. I also noticed that some editors were talking on a user's page about me possibly plagiarizing, and I wanted to explain how large amounts of text is quoted, and give a link to a site that shows proper quoting procedures in APA style. I was just trying to get a neutral party involved, but I reverted now because this plagiarism issue bothers me a lot.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as i know, to copy informations word for word isnt forbidden in Wikipedia. We also use original pictures from official sites. Also some sections should be copied in my opinion due to the reliability of the source and content, for example the reason section of FGM is a copied official text done by the WHO. I think we would do a mistake if we would use our own words to describe the official text. On the other hand i also know what you mean when enitre texts are copied, first due to a common disagreement with the release of documents of official organisations (i disagree with a lot of the work, in my view its often very incomplete) and especially logical matters, some of the documents are often contradicting themself. There i agree that we shouldnt copy everything but use the informations we have corectly. Maybe it would be best if we analyse every case you think that would fall under plagiarism--Santiago84 (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Copying information word for word is directly forbidden, and depending on the source can constitute a violation of the law. Henrietta, if you're willing to provide concrete examples, I'll step in as an uninvolved administrator and see what can be done. These are serious allegations with real-life consequences on a high-profile article; the concerns should not just be thrown out as "not specific enough", although allegations should also not be raised lightly. Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Note that copyvio concerns do exclude quotes, in a lot of cases - but this still needs to be addressed. Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Having now seen the section below, let me be clear; copying word-for-word without attribution, or with attribution but not in a quoting context, is directly forbidden. Any material which falls into these categories needs to be excised from the article text. If anyone removes the copyright tag again without having fixed the problem, which Henrietta has apparently specified, I will block them. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if someone could give examples of the alleged plagiarism. There is no need for quotation marks, only for in-text attribution. Whether to add quotation marks in addition to attribution boils down to editorial judgment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Iam sorry but i dont think iam the right person now who will be part of solving this copyright issue. In my point of view to completely blank the page because of some direct quotes of official organisations, which are treated as a copyright violation, is unnecessary. It simply falls under quoting a source, why i oppose this step at the strongest. Wikipedia policy forbidds original research [WP:NOR], therefor to quote WHO sources is the best way to avoid any own opinion taking place. Especially as you can see in the discussions before, there is more than one opinion just about the name of the article. To argue, that quoting an official website, to avoid [WP:NOR], falls under a copyright violation would contradict itself. I only want this problem solved as soon as possible. So for any analysis, opinions or data i will be of assistance, otherwise i can not be a great help due to my attitude toward this.--Santiago84 (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The tag isn't warranted. She didn't provide concrete examples as even you had to request them Ironholds and she also didn't give us a chance to even address the issue. Even if it turns out to be a copyvio, it is a fraction of the page that has the issue, and she merely postulates that its the entire page and hasn't actually done any investigation to prove or disprove that statement. The issue is complicated further because in trying to address the copyvio issue she actually re-worded sentences in a way that did not reflect what was said in the source material (which is why I reverted her changes to the previous version). In sum, too much too fast, and also there is no need to overstate the legal implications here. This is most definitely not a case of wholesale copyright violation, if quotes were missing or sources weren't attributed properly that is a very minor issue and certainly not worth a copyvio tag. Henrietta should have given other editors time to investigate her claims and provided evidence for them, she also should have started by informing us of potential issues and giving us time to respond. Instead she became frustrated and threw up a tag because no one agreed with her. Vietminh (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• This attempt to isolate Henrietta is totally unjustified. She has at least as much support as you do. She certainly has mine. Rubywine . talk 04:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Vietminh, if you are still obsessing over communications problems when she brought the issue up, I obviously need to state the legal issues more. Be a good chap and Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that I have no particular sense of urgency to address hypotheticals that had no evidence to back them up and that I am concerned that proper procedure in addressing this issue wasn't followed. If I went to a random article and threw up a copyvio without any evidence to back it up I am sure I would be getting a warning instead of the pat on the back that Henrietta is getting. I am not beating a dead horse, I am saying that all of the issues going on here should be addressed. That appears to be too much to ask though because so far you've called me an idiot on Henrietta's talk page and threatened to ban me on this talk page and the admin request board before you investigated the breadth of the situation or even formally warned me of a potential ban. I'm all through with this line of discussion though, I want to get on with fixing the copyvio problems. This entire situation underscores why procedures should be followed, because it avoids sidebar disputes like this. Vietminh (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope that i misunderstood the term "be a good chap" related to "be a good *anything* and go away". I agree to state the legal issues "more" but... please apply these rules and policy on an objective and not a subjective level. I will ask for an additional Admin "second opinion" if necessary.--Santiago84 (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You do not understand the issues involved, or the jargon used at Wikipedia. If wanted, please ask at my talk for an explanation, but the path you are following is wrong. Picking out words issued by someone with whom you disagree might be fine in a squabble elsewhere, but it is totally inappropriate in this case, and the only action that a second admin might take would be to block disruptive editors (squabbling about a copyvio investigation is disruptive—just let those with the necessary knowledge work through the issue calmly). Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this - this has really not been very productive, but it seems someone now understands what is being pointed out regarding copyvio. We've had some bickering, and we've had some accusations of bad faith (as best as I can translate it). We all mean well, and we want to make sure that Wikipedia is free of copyright violations. That's all. Let's move on to fixing the problem now. CycloneGU (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Not wishing to get involved but removing the copyvio template is of concerns, as is edit warring to remove it. I've opened a thread at WP:ANI, I do hope cooler heads will prevail. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 20:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have removed it, the person who initiated the notice has not gone through proper channels on this talk page. They have repeatedly made an accusation of copyright violation, but did not provide any evidence to support their claim. They have not followed proper procedures in dealing with this request, discussion is still active, changes are still being made, but the editor who put this notice up did so after indicating that they were walking away from the article. All in all, this is unneeded. Vietminh (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah they have, [15], they identified the source of text in the article that is not free to copy. Thats why I reverted. If there is a copyvio, reverting to restore it is putting the wiki foundation at risk unnecessarily. This is the one template you should never remove and edit warring to remove it could well earn you a block. If there isn't a copyvio it will be removed by the system presently. I would suggest you self-revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, you're the only person who reverted it, she presented her case and we were working on addressing it when she decided to exit the argument and throw up a copyvio tag because we didn't agree with her every demand. Surely consensus on a talk page trumps the concerns of an editor who is alone in their accusation. Vietminh (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Let me be clear; next person to remove that tag, I block. Fix the issues or step back. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We were in the process of reviewing and fixing potential issues, now there is a copyvio tag, so I can't fix anything can I? Vietminh (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is still there, the tag hides it but does not prevent editing it. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is that since the copyvio tag is there I can't really make any edits that resolve the issue, because the whole thing has to be checked anyway. Vietminh (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You can still edit the text. If you want to preview what it looks like in the article, remove the tag and hit PREVIEW, but remember to replace the tag before you save or you'll be seen as removing the copyvio tag - and Ironholds will wield his blockhammer in response. CycloneGU (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You guys don`t seem to get what I mean, I know that I can still edit the article, but now that the accusation that the entire article contains copyright violations has been made there is little point in doing that until its investigated by someone outside the article (even if its completely unfounded). My point is that in doing this Henrietta has sidestepped her fellow editors because they all disagreed with her and she has stopped us from improving it until this erroneous claim is dealt with. Vietminh (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If the claim is indeed erroneous, it will be found out and the user will probably be coached regarding the erroneous report. However, the user has raised concerns that have to be addressed. Even if it's only on one section of the article, the tag hides the entire article as a precaution and the article is thoroughly searched for additional copyvios. When the tag is removed it will be material that can be used here, and you can edit from there. Stand by, and all will be back to normal soon. CycloneGU (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand, I just would have liked if the user in question gave time for other editors to review her claims thoroughly before making changes and putting up tags. Its valid to make a claim, but if you don't give others time to review it then its very frustrating, especially when there doesn't seem to be anything on the level of warranting a copyvio tag. Vietminh (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• For convenience, here is a link to the revision at 09:02, 22 August 2011 (just prior to the copyvio tag), and the copyvio report is here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Vietminh, let me get this straight. This article contains (or apparently contains) content which breaks the law and, if not dealt with, puts people at risk of serious harm. The objection you have to this is...that the person who brought it to our attention didn't dot all the is and cross all the ts while doing so, and now you can't type away at the article. Unbelievable. Copyright violations are legal issues, not just content disputes; they are not resolved with a nice round table in which all participants are given tea and biscuits and asked to please come to a solution. They are resolved through bold and ideally swift action. Ironholds (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Very well put. On that note, more tea? =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not objecting that the issue has to be dealt with - at no point did I do that. I have just simply indicated that procedures weren't followed, I don't see the harm in pointing that out and I don't think I am being disruptive in doing that. I have also simply expressed a preference that Henrietta in the future tell us whats going on before and/or after she acts, I also don't see a problem with that. Can't very well fix the article if the problem is not indicated. My frustration and comments are not directed at the issue of the copyvio itself, only at the fact that it could have been completely avoided if information was communicated. Vietminh (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I absolut agree with Vietminh, and for admin Ironholds the citation "they are not resolved with a nice round table in which all participants are given tea and biscuits and asked to please come to a solution. They are resolved through bold and ideally swift action." shows me that i contest your neutrality, i expect more from an admin than sarkasm to solve this issue.--Santiago84 (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How is that sarcasm? Copyvio situations are EXTREMELY harmful to Wikipedia, and in Wikipedia's best interest the tag should not be removed until it's investigated thoroughly. That doesn't mean just any article can have a copyvio tag placed on it (if so, Barack Obama would probably be a place where spammers could try to add it); you should be able to demonstrate the copyvio. The reporting user has provided reasoning including their own copyvio-removing attempts that were reverted, so the report was made as a result of this.

Further, keep in mind that you could have already been blocked for your own removal of the copyvio tag. I wouldn't try to push for its removal yourself at this point. CycloneGU (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"I wouldn't try to push for its removal yourself at this point" Are you threatening me for explaining the truth why i removed the templates? The claim of a copyright issue never happened before, and this template is in effect even without a discussion? This doesnt sound objective, and with these logic supporting me i have to face "that i could have been blocked"? This tendends more to be a game of power to now, rather than the wealth of the article. Sure the wealth of the article could be in question, what is logical due to the template, but then please look at the background and the reason of the template.--Santiago84 (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Would all the inexperienced editors who want to raise issues about the copyvio tag and the statements by Ironholds please understand that there are matters with which you are not familiar, and a copyvio tag is one of them. There is nothing to do except calmly investigate the copyvio claim, so please do that, or work on another article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Funnily, I'm usually the overly verbose one. This time, let me summarize:

There is no opinion to follow on this matter. Copyright violations are not permitted. Period. If any are found, proper steps (as has happened) need to be followed. Santiago84 and Vietminh, I know you two are new; but copyvio isn't an "open to discussion" or "based on consensus" thing. It's just not permitted - which is why there is nothing to discuss except article repair. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I decided to be less verbose. The bold isn't meant to sound mean. Some things are not open to discussion. One or both of you have already admitted that there is copyvio, but not the whole article. Discussion really ends on the "there is copyvio" part. Some things on Wikipedia are not consensus, guidelines or such. They rules based on law and protecting the Wikimedia Foundation and us. This is one of them, thus requires no discussion before action. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I will never speak for Vietminh, i don't know him, and simply because we initially had the same attitude doesn't mean that we agree with all the other one writes. So much for this. You use the argument of my time i edit on Wikipedia to compromise my logic? Even if iam new, this doens't mean iam distant to logic, truth, law or policy. And i doubt that Wikipedia policy is so much away from logic. You wrote "They rules based on law and protecting the Wikimedia Foundation and us" Sure but please apply rules correctly and not like "it could be treated as".--Santiago84 (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pleaes read carefully:

• Copyvio was found
• Copyvio was acted upon (page tagging) <- this is supposed to be immediate if repairs cannot be completed immediately
• It was agreed upon that copyvio exists
• Since copyvio does exist, there was nothing to discuss. The actions were correct.

If copyvio is found, the steps aren't "discuss first". Ever. So, I am not sure what you are getting at. Also, I dont care how new or old your account is, you simply do not have an understanding of the guidelines, policies and rules that govern wikipedia. That's not something negative against you. There are a lot of them. Simply do what I do... learn as you go along.

That brings us to the real issue - fixing the copyvio. I hope you realize that's where the issue really lies, and that no error in actions (other than removing the copyvio tags) has occurred. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion I would point out there's no point in lumping me and santiago together. I can't speak for him, but I've read the copyvio page and understand the issue we're dealing with as well as how its dealt with. I am simply pointing out that procedures (specifically the process you just listed here) was not followed and that that is improper. If a copyvio exists Henrietta should have brought the evidence forward instead of making it worse by editing the article into a false attribution (which is why i reverted her edits). I also wouldn't have deleted the tag if she made anything about this known before or after she made the edits or put the tag up. Without evidence or even a statement of intent, all I saw was a frustrated editor throwing up a tag because she didn't agree with the content of an article. Vietminh (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoah, excuse me. You have been saying a lot of nasty things about me here and otherwise, and I see you apologized, but I never made any "false attributions." I know specifically how important it is to credit original sources. My discussion was writing in the comments "plagiarism fixed." You not reading those comments is no excuse.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright this is my last response to this because this is a complete waste of time past this point. It is my belief that the wording you changed to avoid the copyvio was a false attribution of the source, or in other words you attributed something to the source that wasn't said. That's no better than a copyvio so I reverted it so we could fix it. I saw your comments on the edit, but you had never actually indicated where, how, or what exactly was being plagiarized until today (on the admin request page). I didn't and don't intend this assessment to be "nasty", I've indicated several times I agreed with your edits, especially now that I've seen the evidence. It just didn't look legitimate at the time because it seemed to be centred around vague notions that the entire article had problems with plagiarism. Anyways, this really is beating a dead horse now, I again apologize about the way this was done, I still maintain though if you had stated the evidence for the plagiarism clearly I wouldn't have dreamed of reverting. Vietminh (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(To Vietminh)No one here is trying to lump you two together as one person (if that actually happened, I apologize for missing it). We are saying that BOTH of you don't have an understanding of the situation at hand. That is all. A year ago, if someone said the word "copyvio" to me, it would fly right over my head. So it's not a bad thing. Learn as you go, read about it, and continue editing where you can. CycloneGU (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(to Vietminh) CycloneGU is correct... I had no such intent, and apologize if you read it that way. While I have a pretty deep understanding of the importance of the copyvio rules and what they are, like Cyclone said, not everyone does - that's nothing against anyone at all. As I was just telling Santiago on his talk page, I've got virtually no understanding of the additional guidelines for comic book related articles - so I tend to avoid working on them (at least till I find the time to figure them all out). That is my area of weakness (and one of probably many). Wikipedia is massive. No one understands all of the policies, guidelines and rules it operates on. Some of us know a few, some know a lot - but none know all. It's always a learning experience. Nothing wrong with that. Hang in there. Oh, and do what I do... ask questions - and don't be afraid to make mistakes... just ask what's right if you do. Heck, I have about 2 dozen editors and admins that I bug all the time when I dont understand something - and my page is always open to others asking me questions. And I sure as heck have made a few mistakes as well. And you will make some more as well - as will I. No biggie. Virtually anything can be fixed around here. So, take this with a grain of salt, and simply do what I've done when I've made mistakes... learn from it and move on to the next mistake. There will always be another. If you read my page to my adoptees, you'll see they are encouraged to be bold, and to make mistakes (or really, to not worry about making them); as long as it's not intentional, or vindictive, "crap" happens. My page is always open if you've got questions, problems or need a hand with something. (and apologies, I think I misspelled your name above in an earlier post) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Rob, I admit I could have taken a better look at the copyvio page before I took the actions I did. I also didn't get a chance to do that because I got caught up in Ironholds calling me an idiot and threatening to ban me for the actions I took. Thank you for the offer and I'll take you up on it if I encounter such situations in the future. Also don't worry about spelling my name wrong, it happens quite often haha :). Vietminh (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to write this respond first: "you simply do not have an understanding of the guidelines, policies and rules that govern wikipedia. That's not something negative against you" this contradicts itself and provoces me again".... it provoced me first because of the way it is written, but i also know how provocating this issue at all is. If then the others opinion is contested it can lead to a question of personal manner, this is not what i want to achieve, my honest appologizes for this. I don't want to keep my personal proud up on the cost of the progress of this dispute. I wrote my respond, opinion and opposes down, i also mentioned that iam not the best person if its about solving a copyright issue. Thats all. --Santiago84 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For us dummies, could somebody say specifically what the posited copyright violation is? That would enable people to specifically discuss or fix it, neither of which I see above. North8000 (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's listed on the copyvio page with links. From the main article, you can find the entry and concerns. And thank you for helping out with it. I'm not the best content creator, otherwise I'd jump in and write new content for it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I've closed the section, feel free to continue this branch of the discussion below. CycloneGU (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CopyVio - Fixing the Problem

OK gang, let's move on... The specific issues are listed here. Specifically, the "Terminology" section, and the two links listed where the content was lifted from. Now, as for the rest of the article, I'd strongly suggest we go through that as well. I've got to leave work, but I'll check back later tonight or tomorrow and see if I can lend a hand pointing out any other copyright issues so someone better at content creation can come up with replacement content. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Richard_Keatinge thinks he's already gotten rid of the copyvio in the Terminology section.
• That just leaves another set of eyes reviewing that section, then a couple of us combing over the rest of the article.Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that he appears to have fixed it, however, the female circumcision paragraph makes duplicate references that the procedure is not analogous to male circumcision. I'll fix this tomorrow if its not fixed before then, I need a wiki break!Vietminh (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being blind and/or stupid, but I can't find his edits anywhere in the page history. Could someone provide a diff or two? Jakew (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh... how about this... forgive me for being the stupid one. Everyone please disregard the comment about Richard's editing, it was related to an entirely different article that's listed in that same section. Sorry for the confusion.

Check the Copyright Problems page for details. It's all spelled out there now. Keep in mind that near verbatim paraphrase is not permitted and should be treated virtually as if it's copyvio (from the COPYVIO page: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure"). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe user Henriettapussycat made the copyright template. I think its in her responsibility now to name the passages or entire texts, so that we can analyse them and then see if a copyright violation is given, for example with "support" or "oppose". If we find something then we can alter the content in the way that no copyright violation is given anymore. This would be my proposal. Again, i would appreciate it if we work this out as soon as possible.--Santiago84 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have named the sections. You can see them in the report, which is linked on the article page. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As i could see, you determinded that inside these sections there is at least one copyright violation.

• History of terminology
• Sexual effects
• Psychological consequences
• Attempts to end the practice
• Forced FGM, Asylum
• Controversy

I did not found copyright violations, all in all i can only see that some quotes and passages are used to manipulate the reader which leads to a creation of a wrong picture for whatever reason or are misplaced in the article or try to represent a certain logic how to tread FGM. In my opinion it falls under Wikipedia no original research or neutrality but not under copyright violation. I would offer my help to fix original research and neutrality out, but only after the template of copyright violation is removed. It is not given anywhere.--Santiago84 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As i already wrote on the talk page for copyright violations:

Hello. I overlooked the copyright issue and want to lead the attention to this part:

"However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

The boldfaced part which says "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure" is related in the context of the first sentence "material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder...is likely to be a copyright violation". The real meaning of this text doesnt forbids to use word for word quotes of official documents, it forbidds to quote, copy or includes material from sources that are not public domain etc. It is not forbidden to copy an official WHO text word by word and use it in a wikipedia article. All the sources in FGM article are quotes of official documents or non-restricted websites.--Santiago84 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:PLAGIARISM is still forbidden.
2. Point me towards every public domain/CC notice on these "non-restricted websites". Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you fully grasp US copyright laws. I only know these laws due to my background and in the US, as I'm sure in many countries, we are taught from an early age what plagiarism is. The article is not going to be deleted. I just felt like there was too much work for me to go through myself to check for plagiarism, and reported this. Due to all of it that was going on in the terminology section, I felt like it might be a problem with the rest of the article. So NPOV editors are going to check and fix it. It does not mean the article will be deleted in its entirety, so just wait a bit and don't worry about it. And maybe read some of the copyright laws on WP. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be talking past each other. Would it be too simple for anyone who feels there are violations to say specifically what they feel they are and then /so someone can fix them? North8000 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let us not rely on things we are used to. Let us be simply logical and define Copyright violation. Wikipedia rules stats that

"However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure(this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." (citation)

To copy a document or parts of it and use them for Wikipedia ist not forbidden. One throws the term copyright violation in, this not given, then its called plagiarism... after i read what plagiarism really is i asked myself "are most of you insane?" This is an Encyclopedia, which means that we collect informations and texts and offer them as clearly as possible. Then let us get to Wikipedia: No original research and neutrality. For some persons a logical conclusion, which has not been written down and can't be used as a source yet because the universities arent so fast writing all conclusions down on earth, is transformed into an opinion. Such persons then simply argue that the logical conclusion of an issue is original research. This is so stupid... and brings me to the next point... Neutrality... There FGM is the best example: FGM breaks human rights... but we have to use neutral words because we are forbidden to codemn it!? beneath titles, knowledge, opinions, dissertations etc. there is also pure logic and the difference between a right information (correct) and a wrong information (incorrect). Which brings me to the point>>>

A copyright violation is given when content is used which doesnt belong to a public domain or if it wasnt licensed. The sources for the FGM article are based on official studies, documents or information material of organisations. There is no copyright violation!. Wikipedia: Plagiarism states that

"Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit. While the terms are often confused, plagiarism and copyright infringement are not the same thing. Copyright infringement occurs when copyrighted content is used without permission in a way that violates the copyright holder's exclusive right; adequate credit does not efface infringement. Similarly, public domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source, even though there is no copyright issue. This guideline addresses when copying and close paraphrasing may not be a problem, how to avoid plagiarism when there is a risk, and how to address it when it is encountered." (citation)

In other words "Plagiarism is given when a source is missing or not mentioned" So this article is blanked because someone forgot to mention sources?... Hello? The article improved during the last months even without getting blanked, plagiarized or copyright violated by 2 persons... (sorry for the next sentence, iam a friendly person, but enough is enough)... by 2 persons who come here... act some professionallity, blank the section and then say "yeah but i don't have time this week to support my claim" @ Henriettapussycat and Rubiwine... your are kidding me or? You appear on this article out of nothing, want to tell others what they did wrong and what is ok, even provoke and offend others, got refused the first times, then you place a copyright violation template and then say "Yeah but i don't have time this week to explain it" This is some of the most arrogant moves i have ever seen on wikipedia. After that i get acused of not knowing what plagiarism is and that my education is behind yours? Listen up (this is so neccessary) Henriettapussycat, have you ever wondered why you sometime suffer from agressions when you can't force your point? this happens because you did thinks in your life which your submind can't compensate, thats why you also have a lack of logic and use every method you have on a psychological and sociological level to simulate a feeling of control. Let me throw some stuff in like "copyright violation" and "plagiarism", it's called Narzism, psychosis and neurosis. Iam done now... thank you (before you block me pls reconsider this > 2 persons appear out of nothing, decide what is allowed to stay in article and whats not, use absolut unadequate terms to describe their actions, even blank the page and this the other editors, who worked on the article for years, have to take?).--Santiago84 (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why has no one removed the above incoherent attack? If it were just two editors fighting, I suppose it might be ignored, but it is one editor voicing an opinion that omits to mention that many editors have endorsed the action by Henriettapussycat (or at least, have not commented negatively about it). This has been at ANI so a large audience is known to have reviewed the situation, and it is not acceptable for a misguided rant to be left on this page. I see from User talk:Santiago84#Um that the user has declined Jakew's very sensible suggestion to self-delete, so the community needs to act. Apparently Santiago84 feels that this is a defense against a personal attack—if so, would they please ask an experienced editor for the proper manner in which to proceed, after removing the above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq logic and truth has nothing to do with democratie or how many person say that it is a copyright violation or plagiarism... again. Wikipedia: Plagiarism states that

"Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit. While the terms are often confused, plagiarism and copyright infringement are not the same thing. Copyright infringement occurs when copyrighted content is used without permission in a way that violates the copyright holder's exclusive right; adequate credit does not efface infringement. Similarly, public domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source, even though there is no copyright issue. This guideline addresses when copying and close paraphrasing may not be a problem, how to avoid plagiarism when there is a risk, and how to address it when it is encountered." (citation)

Wikipedia copyright issues stats that

"However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure(this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." (citation)

Both is not given. Just because there are concerning article passage doens't mean that they fall under such a categorie. I heard more times that plagiarism and Copyright violation are very serious issues. If they are so serious then why in years of existence of the article, has been never such an accusation there?--Santiago84 (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What possible benefit to the encyclopedia could result from continuing to post guideline extracts here? We understand that you believe you are correct and everyone else is wrong. However, this entire subsection should be removed, including my responses. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that if more persons agree than disagree with an issue, doesn't automatically give the persons who are more right. "We understand that you believe you are correct and everyone else is wrong" Do you understand the difference between a conclusion based on logic and a claim based on the amount of persons who support the claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs)

Given that the tags need to remain until the issues have been dealt with at the copyright problems noticeboard, is there any point in continuing to debate the issue here? It seems to me that it would make more sense to do so there. Frankly, however, I don't think there's much to debate — it's clear that at least some material has been copied verbatim from a source, without quotation marks. There really isn't much room for argument on this one; it's not like other kinds of content issues where conflicting viewpoints can exist without any being provably wrong. As an interesting aside, it looks as though this material was originally added five years ago, and was then identical to the source. It is interesting to see how Wikipedia's text has diverged from the original in that time (improving on it, in my opinion). Disappointing, though, that nobody noticed until now. Jakew (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That is why I didn't put the copyvio warning on anyone's page. I wasn't sure how long it had been there, and I felt that probably none of you had done that.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The copyright violation was added in September 2006 by Atomaton (talk · contribs) in this edit. He cited the source, which is here, p. 1, last para onwards, but clearly didn't realize he needed to add in-text attribution too; the sourcing policy wasn't as clear then, and in fact still isn't on that point. The easiest thing might be to go through his edits to this article in case there's anything else. He made 36 edits between 7 September 2006 and 12 February 2011, most minor or reverts. Then the copyvio notice can hopefully be removed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Trying again

• There are copyright policy violations in the article (this is NOT a discussion point)
• They are listed here, but there may be more.
• This is NOT a discussion about "I think this is ok". It isn't. It's the policies which rule here.
• Let's fix those issues noted and look for others.

Thank you, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is policy is applied incorrect. There is no copyright violation and/ or plagiarism given. To place a copyright template, because some quotations are missing or some section material is misplaced and out of context, is absolut overreacting. I thought copyright violation is a serious issue? how can it be so easily placed if it is not even given? Again, Wikipedia rules stats that:

"However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure(this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." (citation)

The second sentence is to be seen related to the first one, and not independent. If the material is from public domain it may be copied at a whole (frist sentence) AND even copied with some changes (second sentence).--Santiago84 (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Santiago, the Unicef documents plagiarised from are copyrighted documents. I think it's fairly clear at this point that you either don't understand copyright law or can't read phrases like "copyright Unicef, 2005" or "Copyright © UNICEF - UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages". Whichever is the case, either contribute constructively to this discussion or step back. This is not just plagiarism, these are not public domain materials, and quite frankly I'm getting sick and tired of listening to you debate how many angels can tapdance on a pinhead. Ironholds (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"copyrighted documents" are licensed documents. The WHO for example, as a lot of other serious organisations, allows the material to be copied used etc. Ironholds, you also acuse me of stupidity and other things. I think you are not the right person to be an admin nor "supervising" the progress here. One of your frist sentenced included phrases like "then i get the banhammer, and block the next person who reverses the template". You were more concerned in sustaining a higher voice rather to get the background informations of why the copyright template was reverted twice.--Santiago84 (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can't see where I've accused you of stupidity. Look, the Unicef documents are not under a free license. They are copyrighted and have not been assigned or licensed for public and open use in a format compatible with the Wikimedia foundation's licensing. There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that this is the case. If you have such evidence, present it - if you do not, move out of the way, because these are copyright violations and have to be dealt with. I know why the copyright template was removed twice, and I no longer care about the removal; if you do, you're failing to get the issue. The focus is now on the fact that there are copyright violations in the article text - focus on that. Ironholds (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Santiago84, perhaps it is a language barrier thing. Let me show you, step by step:

• Example Two here[16] is a DIRECT copy/paste with "In this spirit" appended to the beginning. That is not permitted on Wikipedia. There is no discussion on who agrees or not. It is not permitted. End of story. And must be fixed as it's a copyvio.
• Example One is a minimally slight paraphrase of the actual text, which is plagiarism, which also is not permitted here. Additionally, it can indeed be considered a copyright violation. Such lawsuits have happened in the US, and it's been found in various of them that it's so close to the original that it does indeed constitute copyright violation. Either way, it is not permitted and there's nothing to discuss about who thinks it's ok.

• Hope that clarifies things. Let's fix it now. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@ ironholds This is the average copyright text of an organisation which offers informations and statistics, [17] The WHO strictly allows the use of informations if they contain the WHO as a source. You accused me of stupidity here "or can't read phrases like "copyright Unicef, 2005" or "Copyright © UNICEF - UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages" (citation). I was told more than once that i don't understand copyright issues. What makes you say this?--Santiago84 (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your understanding. I hope you read my comment on the copyvio notice page and act accordingly. Your comments are detracting from the ability to discuss resolving the real issue, which is the very real copyvio and plagiarism. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright tag

Is this still being investigated somewhere, or is it all right if I reword the offending paragraph, and remove the tag? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The investigation is at WP:CP#22 August 2011. Progress is slow, as is often the case with copyright issues. If you want to, you can re-draft the disputed material here, and then ask at CP if there are any other problems that need fixing before the tag can come off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just a few words, and all we have to do is add "according to a Unicef report" in front of them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

See here for when it was added. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Those raising the matter at CP seem to think the problem is more extensive than that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's the discussion at WP:CP#22 August 2011, I can't see anything beyond that having been mentioned, and the discussion seems to have ended on August 23, not counting the meta discussion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary is:

• 1. 2: is a direct quote, so the "according to..." and quotation marks (and drop the sentence lead-in) will resolve that if everyone feels the size of the direct quote is not too large.
  2. 1 is a very very close to copy/paste paraphrase, which will require a little more work (IMO). Cant just drop a bunch of quotes around it - and even if we did, then we're getting into a lot of content that's simply quotes. So, I suspect it needs to be reworded or turned into an exact quote.
• Final issue is there are suspicions that there are other such areas in the article that have not been found - especially since a couple of the major contributors have indicated a lack of understanding of copyright issues (hence, direct copy/paste with no attribution and no quotes, etc).

That's what I've found/noted... in summary form. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It just needs a tweak of the writing and some in-text attribution. We're not talking about a lot of words. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• On #2, I suspect it just needs quotes, on #1, sure. On the rest? Have you noticed other sections recently changed or added that are attributed to WHO and others sans quotes (thus, possibly improperly attributed)? I've yet to check if they are paraphrases, direct quotes or different wording. If different wording, fine. If it's the same type of additions as #2 above... then the problem seems to be worsening as we fix one section, and more copyvio is added in others that'd simply require proper attribution... I'm a bit busy right now... hurricane and all heading this way. I suspect someone else will beat me to checking the new additions, but if not, I will try to check them later tonight. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Fixed (21:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)) Fixing #2 now... ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• A hurricane is heading your way? Excuses, excuses. :) Actually I didn't mean you had to rush to do it now (or at all), Robert, but thanks, and I hope all stays well your end. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about making things so hard, but there was just so much plagiarism in the Terminology section, I worried about it in the other sections.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Henriettapussycat, no prob. Still leaves issue #1 and reviewing the rest of the article, including recent changes. And of course, it'd be nice if someone reviews my fix(es). Two or more pairs of eyes are better than one. Off to work... ugh! See you all maybe tomorrow, if not, in a couple days. (and thanks SV!) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of copyright template

Hello, i would like to know when the template will be removed?--Santiago84 (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• When the copyright violation is. Ironholds (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is now blocked for more than a week! No work is shown in the history of the article of the users who propposed the copyright template, this is getting unholdable. I will wait until tomorrow (Saturday), if then nothing happend on this article i will go with this entire problem to the next wikipedia instance and all the involved persons, those who started a claim which lead to a block of an entire article, who did nothing after the copyright template was placed. Admins involved, who did nothing else than unlogical propposal, threatening and holding an "always right" position. You can really damage an article but acting a reason of copyright violation which was not even given, just becaue the initial edits of the claim holder, who did not work on his claim for more then a week? have been reverted?--Santiago84 (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(Added later) What do you mean by "The article is now blocked for more than a week" ? Possibly there is a major misunderstanding fueling this, that you are not being allowed to work on fixing the copvio problems. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The situation is unfortunate, but pursuing the line that I think you are hinting at is guaranteed to make things worse (what is needed is calm consideration of the text and the sources). I have marked articles as copyvios on several occasions and generally left it to others more experienced in the field or the topic to fix. Any suggestion that an editor is under some obligation to fix a problem that they report is totally incorrect, and it would be mistaken, disruptive, and uncivil to push such a line, and I would expect anyone doing that to be blocked for escalating periods. Unfortunately I only have time for routine stuff at the moment, so I won't be able to help for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Santiago, the problems have been clearly identified, and the thread immediately above this shows that users are fixing the issues. Let me be clear; if you remove the template again, you will be blocked. This is not a "you have been rude" block, this is not a "you are edit-warring" block, this is a "this article has issues which could lead to people being sued and you are exacerbating them" block. Time waits for no man, and neither does the law; your constant failure to understand that this is a problem that transcends normal editing conventions or internal policy is both mystifying and something I am quickly losing patience with. Ironholds (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWNERSHIP

Since this article this has been out for copyright checking I have had time to gather my thoughts about the events preceding that point.

Firstly I am perturbed at the strong tendency towards territorialism over this article displayed by Vietminh and Santiago84. [18][19][20]. I appreciate that they are responsible for getting the article moved from FGC to FGM, but that is no excuse for hoarding this article, rejecting contributions from new editors [21], patronising new editors [22][23] [24], and intense personal hostility towards new editors [25].

Contrary to their accusations, I went to great lengths to invite discussion on this talk page. I started several topics, posted material for discussion and engaged in discussion with people who responded, notably Jakew and Henrietta. In fact since starting work on this article I have engaged in far more discussion on this talk page than either of my accusers.

Secondly, I continue to be extremely dismayed at the material which appeared under the sections for sexual and psychological effects throughout the months that preceded this RfC, before Henrietta and I edited those sections. That material severely misrepresented the situation for women living with FGM, and misrepresented the reliable sources which were being used. The fact that Vietminh is far more concerned about the strength of the language which I used in describing that material (i.e. "shameful") rather than at the fact that it was in the article, and that he has demanded the reversion of edits which corrected the situation and use sources correctly, is a very poor reflection on his attitude.

Thirdly, Jake's remark about not wanting to see voluntary clitoridotomy painted as harmful is completely baffling. [26] Frankly Jake, if that is what what motivates your persistent and energetic efforts to downplay the issue of female genital mutilation, then you are shooting yourself in the foot. You should be making every possible effort to distance voluntary procedures from this article, and certainly not trying to blur the boundaries between cosmetic surgery for sexual fetishists and involuntary mutilation of third world children.

Lastly, for anyone who imagines that they WP:OWN this article, or who continues to regard it as a personal hobbyhorse, take note: after it emerges from copyvio scrutiny I will be making every effort to invite contributions from the Association of African Women Scholars, RAINBO and other women's health activists. This article is desperately in need of scholarly attention by people with relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience. Rubywine . talk 17:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I regard your reference to my "persistent and energetic efforts to downplay the issue of female genital mutilation" as extremely uncivil, and a personal attack. I'd remind you to comment on content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Go and lodge a complaint about it. The more people looking at the history of this article and its talk page, the happier I am. Rubywine . talk 17:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Rubywine you are mixing thinks up and do conclusions out of the context. You mention these things:

• "I am perturbed at the strong tendency towards territorialism over this article displayed by Vietminh and Santiago84" We do not want to own or be the "alpha-editing" guys on these article. As i already wrote, a lot of people worked on the article, and it provoced me a lot that the entire work of them was replaced by a copyright template without any serious demands inside the article. I know you say there are serious demands, i oppose it and call them original research and neutral point of view.
• "rejecting contributions from new editors ", "patronising new editors", "and intense personal hostility towards new editors" this is absolut out of the context. First, you made major changes without writting them down on the talk page. Second, after your edits have been reverted you placed a copyright template. At last, i was not the one who started to be offensive! On the contrary, when you or henriettapussycat wanted to leave i asked to continue your work! The answer was, because i did not agree with the claim of a copyright violation, i was called stupid, and that i dont understand copyright violations. After this i got offensive, not before!
• "In fact since starting work on this article I have engaged in far more discussion on this talk page than either of my accusers" Yes but you did not edit the stuff you named as copyright violation for over a week.
• "Secondly, I continue to be extremely dismayed at the material which appeared under the sections for sexual and psychological effects" Could this not be fixed without a copyright template?
• "Lastly, for anyone who imagines that they WP:OWN this article, or who continues to regard it as a personal hobbyhorse, take note: after it emerges from copyvio scrutiny I will be making every effort to invite contributions from the Association of African Women Scholars, RAINBO and other women's health activists. This article is desperately in need of scholarly attention by people with relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience" You blame others that this article maybe their personal hobbyhorse? With your actions you are the last one who should use such a sentence! "This article is desperately in need of scholarly attention by people with relevant qualifications, knowledge and experience" This article is mostly based on conclusions of official health organisations or human right groups like WHO, UNICEF and UNFARP. Do you really think their work is based on persons with lesser qualifications, knowledge and experience?

It seems to me that you and Henriettapussycat project your false and unlogic conclusions on others, add some logical definitions out of the context to act a logical conclusion related to the original issue. Furthermore i get more and more the feeling that you use the argumentation of a possible copyright violation to push your changes of the article.--Santiago84 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)