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)

Result

Per the consensus achieved in this RfC, all instances of the acronym "FGC" have been changed to "FGM" (not including use to outline the differing terminology). All instances of the phrase "female genital cutting" have been changed to "female genital mutilation", and all use of the word "cutting" (when used as a short-form for the phrase "female genital cutting") has been re-worded. Vietminh (talk) 02:58, 5 September 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)

I saw your comment about "a couple of major editors" misunderstanding copyvio issues (I assume that was in reference to Santiago84 and me). I can confirm that I have not made anything beyond minor edits to the content of the article (never got the chance to do that because of the title/terminology debate). So in this regard we are dealing only with edits by santiago84 that could possibly be copyvio (unless there are one's pre-dating him). I've checked Santiago's contribs page and most of his edits seem to be in the section "laws and prevalence" and the various subsections on the geography of where FGM occurs. The geography subsections probably aren't an issue because they don't cite the WHO, but Laws and Prevalence does. If the basis for continuing concern of copyio is Santiago's misunderstanding then I suggest further efforts be focused on the Laws and Prevalence section. Vietminh (talk) 20:26, 3 September 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)

I ment with "article blocked" that the article is replaced with a copyright template.--Santiago84 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't sure that you understood the YOU can fix the copyvio and then get the template removed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 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. [1][2][3]. 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 [4], patronising new editors [5][6] [7], and intense personal hostility towards new editors [8].

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. [9] Frankly Jake, if that is 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)
  • Oh wow am I sick of you using that "comment on the content" crap. I mean really. When you edit to an extent that your views are very clear, then we comment on your behavior and will voice our concerns with it. That is what ANI is about, in fact, and actually nothing in there Ruby said was insulting you, so get off it and move on.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not "crap", it's policy. Editors can and do get blocked for inappropriately discussing editors rather than edits. Jakew (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but you pull this out any time someone holds you accountable for your bad behavior, which makes it crap in the way you use it.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my behaviour, User talk:Jakew is an appropriate place to raise it. Article talk pages are for discussing articles. Jakew (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jakew, if we followed your lead on this then every comment about your edits would be considered a personal attack. What Rubywine said does not even qualify as a personal attack (its an assessment specifically in reference to your contributions to this article), and Henrietta is right to point out that you do use that line too often as a buffer against valid criticism. If they wish to point out a non-constructive trend of edits on this article then this is the place to do it and not your talk page. I suggest that you simply accept their assessment (whether you agree or not) and move on, because given that the entire article has nominated to be checked for neutrality there's no sense debating whether they are justified in pointing out neutrality problems. Vietminh (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Vietminh, comments about edits are not personal attacks by definition, since they are about content rather than about contributors. The neutrality of the article is a separate issue, and it can certainly do no harm to have more eyes looking at that issue. Jakew (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you are aware of that, now if you could extend that knowledge to see that their comments are on your edits there wouldn't be an issue here. Also the neutrality is not a separate issue given that they are both commenting directly on the neutrality of edits which you have made. Anyways, Ironholds has asked us to stop arguing over irrelevancies here and to clarify whether the copyvio has been addressed so that the article does not get deleted. Vietminh (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's fairly easy to tell the difference between a comment about an edit and a comment about an editor. A comment about an edit typically reads, "this edit [link to diff] is problematic because [reason]"; what's important is that it is framed in terms of an edit, identifies that edit, and specifies what is wrong with it. All this can, and often is, done without referring to an editor at all. Consequently, discussion, if any is needed, can focus on the article and how it needs to be changed.

When making a comment about an editor, it's important to make every effort to avoid it being taken as a personal attack. There are some important questions to ask oneself. 1) Is it necessary; can discussion proceed without making it? If it's possible to avoid commenting about an editor, it's almost always preferable, as it avoids the risk of creating a poor environment. 2) Is it an appropriate place? Is there a more suitable place for the comment? If a comment isn't directly about an article, it's rarely necessary to make it on an article talk page. Finally, 3) is it likely to offend (this includes whether the editor is likely to agree with the statement about them)? If so, take extra care. Treat the statement as you would a WP:BLP issue: cite sources (diffs), stick to the sources, and don't extrapolate beyond them.

If one applies these tests, it's clear that the statement wasn't necessary (Ruby's point would be made adequately if that entire sentence were removed), didn't advance the article (it wasn't necessary to revisit an old discussion), and was phrased in a way most likely to offend (nobody's trying to downplay or exaggerate the issue, and such accusations aren't constructive; we just have different views about appropriate language in WP. Even if the statement were necessary, it could have been phrased as "efforts to use the term 'FGC'" instead).

It's difficult to make sense of your claim that neutrality of the article is not a separate issue. Perhaps you have the mistaken impression that I wrote a substantial part of the article? That might partially explain it, although even then, commenting on article content is not the same as commenting on editors. Jakew (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I applaud you for going as in depth as you did to essentially prove one thing, that my assessment is my own and that you disagree with it. If someone is commenting on edits you've made or have argued for then that's fair game and not at all a personal attack, and those comments can be made here because they are discussing past edits and comments as well as ongoing and potential issues within the article. I am personally tired (as it seems others are) of you repeatedly warning other editors about personal attacks when it is not warranted. If you think these occurrences are serious enough then as Rubywine suggested, please follow up on them at the appropriate venue. Otherwise please stop making these accusations, because as other editors have pointed out to you, they are a distraction from discussion about improving the article. Whatever you decide to do, there's little point in debating this with me any further, because that too would be a distraction from discussion about improving the article. Vietminh (talk) 04:52, 5 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" 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)

• Santiago84, I had a question for you in the previous section but it is kind of hidden. Could you answer it?.....It might be helpful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Santiago, you are clearly deeply confused about virtually everything, but one important point of information for you to try to grasp is this: I did not place the copyvio tag. Henrietta is a free agent, and she did so without my participation or encouragement (although of course she should be thanked, since her concerns were well founded). You seem to be under the strange illusion that I have something to gain by the article's lengthy downtime. You're absolutely wrong. If you want to keep complaining about the copyvio tag, do so elsewhere, because it is totally irrelevant to this topic. Rubywine . talk 22:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• You know, all of your conversations with other editors, as well as their conversations, are public. Someone, I don't remember and don't have the time to look through all these pages to quote who, said they were bothered by "all these new editors" coming in and changing everything. Um. Wikipedia will always have "all these new editors" coming in and editing, changing things, etc. And actually, to edit an article we do not need permission from you or anyone else. That is the point of Wikipedia. To hope that each person will refine an article so it become less biased, or more factual, or whathaveyou.

I also feel, honestly, that part of your misunderstanding much of this may have to do with some things lost in translation. If not, please stop these accusations against me. I am pretty lax about a lot of stuff here on WP but you have continually said things about me, and have already been banned once for insulting me, which I didn't even bring up to ANI. Just drop it.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I will also say that this topic is important to me just it as Ruby, and I feel it should be presented in a realistic, non-biased view. And the amount of male privilege going on is striking. I have found on WP that it's better to keep calm and carry on, and not call out people in their problematic behavior if they at least follow community rules, as I got in disputes early before and have preferred to lay low as a consequence. But when I came to edit this article many of the editors, who identified as men, were intervening in a way to prevent women from speaking on a topic that personally affects them. And while we may lived in more developed nations, these topics do affect us personally. We were told in a variety of ways that our opinions were wrong, and how we were editing the article was wrong, even though Wikipedia allows anyone to edit as they wish as long as it is within the confines of their policies, which are actually very easy to follow. We do not have to get permission from the men to edit an article on FMG. I would think, of all things, this would be an article with an editorship of a female majority. If you didn't notice the undercurrents of sexism going on within the talk page, you were probably not a female. And no one owns this article or tells me what to do.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. The blatant sexism going on here has been strikingly obvious to me too, from the first moment that I saw this page. I've refrained from commenting upon it, for a number of reasons, but I just want to make it clear that I totally agree with you. Rubywine . talk 00:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments about sexism, without reference to specific content, are unhelpful because they are unverifiable and provide no remedy. To your other point, it would be completely inappropriate to give greater weight to the opinions of editors of one gender over the other, because editor gender is irrelevant - the paramount issues are verifiability, reliable sources, etc as has been pointed out so many times in this recent context. Please stick to content. If you want to discuss editors, do that elsewhere. -- Scray (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Behaviors are quite different than the psychology of a person, and it doesn't always indicate the entire belief system of a person. That doesn't mean they can't be held accountable for those behaviors. These behaviors are 100% verifiable because it's all over this page, on their talk pages, and in the ANI report. It's their behavior we're talking about, not their belief systems. It's called Behaviorism. Look it up. I don't care what these guys spend their time thinking about and I'm not going to attempt to figure it out, but their behaviors have shown clear sexism. No one is calling anyone names here. We are telling them to knock off the sexist behavior. I also find it interesting/disappointing that Santiago84 has been talking about me on several pages over the course of a month and you have only now popped up to tell the two women on the page to pipe down about any possible prejudice going on, which is essentially invalidating our concerns.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, the only sexism I've seen here is this comment implying that men lack a valid point of view on the subject. Jakew (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that was not what I was implying. The sentence in question is, "To be frank, the point of view of a man here seems very biased, when women have a little more experience on what would constitute as mutilation to their very own genitals." Here, on this board, the points of view have been quite biased. That doesn't mean I believe a man cannot write on the subject with a neutral point of view, or a sympathetic POV. I also said in another quote, before you try to imply what my thoughts were there, that if there were someone to not get it, it would more likely be a man. Women are much more likely to identify with this issue than men. IT doesn't mean men can't understand this issue. Unfortunately, I felt invalidated by the behaviors of many of the men here. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• A few things that need to be said: First of all I just want to say I don't think I own this article at all, the extent to which I have been involved in the article is as follows: I nominated to move the article from Female genital cutting to Female genital mutilation, and I was greatly involved in the borderline psychotic debate over terminology. Because of how much time those two things took I never had a chance to evaluate the content of the article to a sufficient depth. Secondly, I would like to apologize to both Henrietta and Rubywine, I do think this article has serious, serious issues with neutrality and I am extremely thankful for the attention which both of you have drawn to it. Before the two of you arrived this article was in a complete stranglehold by Jakew and given his tendentious tendencies I and the other users were unable to effectively ensure that these problems were addressed. Specifically, Rubywine you are right to call him out on his BS, more people need to look at this article because I believe that Jakew has spent a lot of time editing it to his personal beliefs without anyone checking up on him. Jakew is an avowed anti-intactivist and it is my opinion that he bas been using Wikipedia as an outlet for his personal beliefs and goals and I think it is important that more attention be drawn to this. Most importantly, when the two of you showed up I was already at my wits end with this article and my reaction was largely because of that and not because of anything you two specifically did. Having taken a nice healthy wikibreak I am thinking a lot clearer now, so I apologize again.Vietminh (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I'm over this whole ordeal, but Santiago keeps insulting me and such. I have focused my efforts otherwise and happened upon this just today. It's like, dude it's over. Whatever, I've got no problem with you. No worries.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, its kind of confounding that he continued to the length he did. Vietminh (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Vietminh, thank you for your graceful apology. I played my own part in the breakdown of communications, unintentionally, for which I am sorry too. I did not intend to tread on anyone's toes. My single-minded focus on deleting a small amount of specific content very quickly, and throwing up a list of items needing discussion and attention, was due to the subject matter. FGM. It's gruelling to read and think about, it is distressing and angering. And that's before even beginning to factor in all the tensions arising from the longstanding filibuster situation on this talk page. Thank you for explaining so clearly how that made you feel, because it has helped me understand a bit better what's happened here. Let's all pause for a minute, and forgive ourselves and each other, and recognise that this is an important moment! You've really moved us forward now. We can all start to work together and focus on what really matters, which is developing the article into a high quality resource. There are challenges and problems yet to solve, but this is an excellent start. So Vietminh, thanks very much. Sincerely. Rubywine . talk 15:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You have our full attention : what should we do?

• Can I suggest you all calm down, have a cup of tea and then clarify whether the copyright concern has been addressed? If it hasn't, any admin is now perfectly within their rights to delete the entire article, so you might want to focus on that and leave fighting for later. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hello Ironholds, this is a new topic because we are calm, we're not fighting, and this is extremely important. I'm very surprised and worried by your comment. We'd received the strong impression that we should wait patiently and quietly for admins to work through the copyright issues. Please explain: is there something we could do to help? Please tell us what we should be doing to safeguard the article. Thank you. Rubywine . talk 20:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't rocket science, identify and remove all copyvios. Admins are not going to do this for you. You need to go through the article line by line and get rid of the copyvios. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Admins have been saying on this page they are looking at it. So I assumed this was an issue they would correct. I am okay with moving the ones I know about. Perhaps just a communication error? At least for me anyway. I haven't been watching this article as of late due to another project on Commons I have been working on, and don't know where we are. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've commented in the above section on the copyvio, most of remaining concern seems to be around santiago's misunderstanding of copyvio issues (given that he has edited this page a lot). I've checked his contribs and most of his editing is in the "Laws and Prevalence" section. If we check that section and fix issues we would probably eliminate any remaining copyvio's in the article (unless they predate Santiago of course). Vietminh (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Cool beans; thanks, Vietminh. If someone wants to check the remaining sections we can wrap this up and go home. Ironholds (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly due to the editors' confusion this could have been communicated better by the admin. But I have corrected the Terminology section.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Can I suggest you all ... clarify whether the copyright concern has been addressed? If it hasn't, any admin is now perfectly within their rights to delete the entire article" - where's the lack of clarity? Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It was more of a response to Wee Curry Monster, not you. But the wait that it took was a product of misunderstanding and no one telling us who was to make any actions other than admin previous to your statement. Their being rude about it really didn't help out, and this process could have taken a lot shorter time if anyone had let us know this stuff a while back. That's all.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed with all the rudeness from experienced editors and admins that I've seen on this page, I went to Rubywine's talk page today and discovered that she has quit Wikipedia in part due to her experiences here (from what I can tell of it anyway). I myself almost quit for the same reason. Its very disheartening to see stuff like this coming from the people who are supposed to lead by example so I can understand why she made the decision she did. You ought to re-evaluate your approach so that you don't drive editors away from Wikipedia. Vietminh (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed

I've removed the tag, as the only text known to have been plagiarized (in 2006) was recently fixed by someone else, and nothing else is jumping out as obviously copied. Having said that, the article could use some editing and tightening, as it's a bit list-like in places, with lots of factoids and references but little narrative. But that's a separate issue from copyright violation. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Just a note to ask that people not add references as bare URLs. There's a note here about how to write citations easily. Alternatively people can use one of the dreaded citation templates. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Best to use this. It spits everything out for you. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Classification

There seems to be a contradiction within the literature regarding classification.

• This article says (my bold):

"Based on the amount of tissue removed, Toubia has classified FGM into four main types: Type I, which is known in Sudan as "sunna", represents the excision of a part or the entire clitoris. Type II involves clitoridectomy and excision of parts of the labia minora. Types III and IV are called infibulations. Type III represents clitoridectomy, removal of the labia minora, excision of the labia majora, and stitching of the anterior two thirds of the labia majora leaving a small posterior opening. Type IV, Pharaonic circumcision or total infibulation, refers to the complete removal of the clitoris and labia minora, excision of the labia majora, and stitching of the whole raw area leaving a very small posterior opening for the passage of urine and menstrual blood [2]."

• But the WHO says:

1. "Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).

2. "Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).

3. "Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

4. "Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area."

Differences include that our article calls III "pharaonic circumcision," but the article says this is IV. Does anyone know which definition is authoritative? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that the biomedcentral source cites the WHO definition of FGM (and taking the WHO's stature into consideration of course), I would say that the WHO is the most authoritative between the two. Vietminh (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ellaithi et al cite Toubia's 1994 paper as their source for the classification scheme. Toubia's classification predates the WHO classification (which originates in this 1997 joint statement), and given the similarities I wouldn't be surprised if the WHO's scheme is based on Toubia's. I think it's probably safe to say that the WHO's scheme is more widely used, but we perhaps ought to acknowledge the existence of other schemes. Jakew (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we need to go to the extent to mention other classification schemes. From all of the sources I have encountered the WHO scheme seems to be in near ubiquitous use. Also the differences between the schemes aren't drastic or substantial, it seems to be just a re-arrangement of types. It is not as if one does or does not include something that the other does. Vietminh (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Laws and Prevalence

This section is disproportionately long, the information about prevalence (esp. Africa) is communicated effectively in the map which is there and could be expanded into a world map. Does anyone have any ideas about better organizing the legal information to avoid a long list? I'm thinking a map could also be used for this. Vietminh (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Would a collapsible table do the trick? Jakew (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it I think we should opt for a paragraph summarizing the overall legal status rather than trying to incorporate every conceivable country into the article. Most of the legal issues are the same across the countries listed (laws exist, they're not followed or they are followed). The paragraph could include any noteworthy examples. As for the prevalence, as I say the map which is there does the job nicely, it would just need to be expanded to include other areas of the world if needed. Vietminh (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We could represent legal status with maps too, using colours to represent the various situations ("no data", "legal", "illegal", and "contested" spring to mind). But I'm a bit reluctant to throw away the detailed information completely, as it might be useful to someone. Tables would be suitable, or we could spin out the information into a sub-article, replacing it with a paragraph or two plus some maps to illustrate. Thoughts? Jakew (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a spin out would be the best option, as you say there is a lot of detailed info about the status in each individual country that shouldn't be just thrown away (but which I believe wouldn't fit well into a table format). Perhaps an article called "Legal status of Female genital mutilation by country"? Then as you say, we could have some maps to illustrate and a couple of paragraphs here. Vietminh (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

The sentence in the introduction, "The term FGM is not applied to medical or elective procedures such as labiaplasty and vaginoplasty, or those used in sex reassignment surgery", cites two sources (in a single footnote), but I am having difficulty finding the relevant passages in these sources. This also appears to contradict the WHO's definition of FGM as "all procedures [...] for non-medical reasons", which would suggest that elective procedures do qualify as FGM, so I'm a little concerned. Would it be possible to add brief quotations in the references? Jakew (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's very POV to say that elective surgeries when people enhance their genitals is mutilation. So I mean, should we include any sort of thing people can do to their genitals to say it could be mutilation such as piercing, tattoos, etc.? I think it's best to stick with the traditional view of FGM. People who were born a different gender and choose to get surgery do not consider themselves mutilated either. But I will also say that the majority of trans* people who are born with vaginas usually do not get surgery, as it is not perfected. So it's almost moot in that area.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a point of view that elective surgeries are mutilation. I completely agree with you there. But I don't think we can just decide that they aren't mutilation and assert it. We need to consider what sources say. The pertinent questions are a) whether the cited sources actually support the statement that elective surgeries are not FGM (otherwise there's a verifiability problem), and b) whether other sources disagree (otherwise there's a neutrality problem). Jakew (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says elective surgeries and body modification is mutilation, then you can say that and source it, otherwise I believe we should stay away from including those in the definition of mutilation.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actually proposing that the article should say that elective surgeries or body modifications are mutilation, Henrietta. What I'm questioning is the assertion that they are not. I've already pointed out the WHO's definition above, and regarding body modification I could point to, for example, "Mainstream journalists, therapists, psychiatrists, and radical feminist critics framed the practices [of body modification] as an emerging social problem, calling them instances of self-mutilation" (Pitts and Pitts-Taylor, "In the flesh: the cultural politics of body modification", p11). So I think that viewpoint is well-documented. But, again, I'm not saying that we should assert it. Jakew (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Again if you find a source that says they aren't then fine put it in. These are the opinions of people, so I would note that if I were you. IE, some people argue that or these people, etc.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not proposing that the article should include such a statement. What's troubling me is the statement that's currently in the article, particularly as the sources cited in support of it don't appear to support it. I'm leaning towards rephrasing the sentence as "The term FGM is not applied to medical procedures", citing the WHO as a source. Jakew (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some other sources:

• "The practice of female genital mutilation is on the increase nowhere in the world except in our so called developed societies. “Designer laser vaginoplasty” and “laser vaginal rejuvenation” are growth areas in plastic surgery, representing the latest chapter in the surgical victimisation of women in our culture. [...]"[10]
• "Finally type IV [FGM] is all other procedures as it is unclassified, but includes cosmetic genital surgery (designer vaginas), such as labioplasty, vaginoplasty, piercing[...]"[11] Jakew (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The term in medical nomenclature tends not to include elective surgeries or body modification to enhance the appearance by women. Both sources you've quoted are an opinion and positing if this is mutilation that has become acceptable by society. You're starting to beat a dead horse on this when I've mentioned several times this is opinion. The first article is not even a journal article, it's an op-ed written by a researcher.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence to avoid making such a statement. If you have any sources saying that the terms excludes elective surgeries or body modifications, we might look at adding a sentence noting that there's controversy over whether these qualify. Jakew (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence works.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what was wrong with the sentence as it stood. Is it not important to point out that the term isn't applied to elective procedures? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the sentence, which I would like to restore:

The term FGM is not applied to medical or elective procedures such as labiaplasty and vaginoplasty, or those used in sex reassignment surgery.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

TBH I prefer to say what you are saying, but I was just compromising. I would prefer not to mention these procedures at all if someone were to try to bias it to say these are FGM. I thought it was implicit to people what FGM is, and that it is only applied as a term to certain specified procedures, but JakeW has a problem with even mentioning that elective procedures done to enhance the area are not considered FGM by the large population in the West. So... yeah. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I support restoration of this information, I think its important to distinguish FGM from vaginoplasty, labiaplasty, and sex re-assignment surgery. Support for such a move also comes from the WHO "key facts" and info on FGM: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/. These key facts and the criteria make it clear to me that the WHO does not include the aforementioned procedures in the definition of FGM. I also draw into question the authority of this source that Jakew cites: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1502236/. The byline on the title reads "Tackle “cosmetic” genital surgery in rich countries before criticizing traditional practices elsewhere", and this excerpt from the opening paragraph reads "The literature on female genital mutilation is long on polemic and short on data. Some writers make unsupported claims of physical and psychological adverse effects". This statement is in direct contradiction to the WHO and other reputable sources which clearly state the physical and psychological consequences of FGM, and the byline is advancing a cultural relativity sort of argument that the WHO and other NGOs have rejected by asserting that FGM is a human rights violation. I don't think we should be using a source of information that rejects conclusions and statements from our most reputable sources. Vietminh (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think the key facts document supports that position, Vietminh? The very first key fact contradicts it: "Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons." Elective surgeries performed for non-medical reasons qualify, don't they? Also, stating that some writers make unsupported claims of X is not the same as stating that that X is untrue. Finally, per WP:NPOV, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It doesn't mean that exclude sources expressing a view that we judge to be inconsistent with the WHO. Jakew (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above, I couldn't find clear support for the sentence in the two sources that were cited. If they do directly support the claim, could someone quote the relevant passages? If they don't, could we find some alternative sources?

Additionally, I cited three sources that explicitly (or implicitly, in the case of the WHO's definition) regard elective female genital surgery as FGM. There are other such sources, too, such as "some contributors to the BMJ discussion insist that the designer vagina should be regarded as a form of female genital mutilation."[12] and "Some authors view FGCS [female genital cosmetic surgeries] as female genital mutilation (FGM)"[13] Or "Cosmetic Genitoplasty: It's female genital mutilation and should be prosecuted"[14] Or "Some respondents considered cosmetic vaginal surgery as a form of FGM[...]"[15] The existence of these sources suggests that it is misleading to state that "The term FGM is not applied to [...] elective procedures". That statement isn't true: some authors evidently do apply the term to elective procedures. However, I was able to find a source asserting that cosmetic surgeries aren't FGM: "My classification of genital surgery as FGCS does not include surgery for trans- sexual or intersex people,3 nor is it 'female genital mutilation' (FGM)."[16] We could say something like "there are mixed opinions as to whether elective surgeries constitute FGM". Jakew (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fix all plagiarism

Let's try to check all sources when editing to make sure nothing is plagiarized. It's a legal issue to WP, but also for me it's a moral issue, as I feel all writers and researchers deserve to get noticed for what they write out of respect. Dunno if anyone feels that way, but I certainly do, so I check sources when editing.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed some yesterday. I'm not going to re-check the entire laws and prevalence section because I'm currently lobbying that it should be heavily modified anyway. So if that goes ahead I'll double check the sources at that time. Vietminh (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

recent work

I have some complaints about the history and reason section. In my view it should be two different sections, the content is very vague and is more based on short term assumptions rather than logical conclusions. The next point is that i fear when the article is more based on long texts the reader doesn't want to read it, it should contain more passages and listings. Furthermor, i don't like the new picture at the start of the article. When a reader gets to the site he doesn't expect a painting or comic style picture. Even if it has an artistic background, i don't like it, it belittles in my view the entire issue. I believe that most of the readers would get provoked when they see that such an horrible act is described over a painted picture. These are just my thoughts when i see the recent edits on the article.--Santiago84 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the picture because the artist, as I can read so far, did not create it as a visual representation of FMG, but the history section is quite detailed and informational without bias. People can only create hypothesis when given only physical evidence about things occurred thousands of years ago, and to not keep those sections, which are posited by respected researchers, would be a disservice to anyone interested in the history of the practice. These are not opinions but hypotheses by researches. There is a difference.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The artist did create it as a representation of chronic pain after FMG. This is why the girl is sitting with her legs closed; see his site and the image page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry when I read it I thought it just said chronic pain, but I admit I only skimmed the page and that was a few days ago, so, no biggie to me.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The only problem I see with the picture is that it isn't readily recognizable as associated with FGM, but there's a lot of pages on WP that have similar pictures (that a person who is unfamiliar with the topic may readily recognize). So I say leave it, the more I look at it the more symbolism I see in it. Vietminh (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the image's page on the Commons, I posted a link to the rest of the artist's images on FGM, which are very good though more explicit (and not released). I kind of like that this one is so understated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Santiago, this material you added last year (removed yesterday) is an example of plagiarism/copyright violation. Is there anything else in the article like that, that you're aware of, so we can remove or rewrite it? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I believe there is a bit lost in translation here, so to Santiago, maybe you can read this, which explains copyright laws in the US in plain english? I hope you don't take that as an insult. I just think you're misunderstanding something, and this website could help.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The plagiarism aspect is more pressing from my perspective. The article has to be written in our own words, apart from judicious quoting or close paraphrasing, which requires in-text attribution, not just a ref in a footnote. So we need an assurance that it won't happen again, and it would be helpful if other examples could be pointed out so we can fix them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This website explains what plagiarism is in the US in plain english too, so Santiago, you might want to take a look at that to understand it better.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying now. I have only included them as refs because of how I've read it in journal articles and what I understand from research, but I also understand on this page to be particularly careful since we've had these issues. So I'll do in-text from now on. Son of Citation is really helpful for all this citation stuff too. I use it a lot on WP and in school.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a little mantra to the plagiarism guideline, which might be helpful:

• INCITE: Cite your sources in the form of an inline citation after the phrase, sentence, or paragraph in question.
• INTEXT: Add in-text attribution when you copy or closely paraphrase a source's words.
• INTEGRITY: Maintain text-source integrity by placing your inline citations in a way that makes clear which source supports which part of the text.

Though really common sense is the main thing. If we find ourselves copying and pasting from websites, that's obviously not a good way to edit. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

On WP somewhere it says to avoid plagiarism also by not copying and rewriting the copy. I found that extremely helpful, because you then have to say it in your own words in the first place. I know you're talking about ideas here, but I've copied then re-wrote again on WP to find it sounding too similar, and that not copying even to rewrite thing helped me immensely. I see so few people taking these issues seriously on here and I'm glad you do.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's sometimes hard to rewrite without it sounding very similar. Best thing in those cases it just to add some in-text attribution. If we say "Smith writes that ...", then we're covered, so long as there's not too much of it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

Emerged in the late 1970s

I removed this as unsourced, but it's back: "The term "female genital mutilation" emerged in the late 1970s ..."

Is that in the source, or does anyone have another one? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The term was coined in 1979, according to [17]: "Decrying the oppression of women by men, American Fran Hosken in 1979 advocated for the use of the term “female genital mutilation” (FGM). Although “mutilation” had previously been used to describe the act, it was Hosken who constructed the phrase “FGM”[...]" That's supported by other sources as well, eg., Elizabeth Heger Boyle's "Female Genital Cutting: Cultural Conflict in the Global Community", JHU Press 2005, p109.

On a related note, can we restore the fact that many organisations began to switch to the term "FGC" in the mid-1990s, as discussed in this edit? Including these timeframes helps readers to understand how terminology has developed. Jakew (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing names of sources

Someone keeps removing the names of the sources from the article on first reference. I added Ellen to Gruenbaum, and someone removed it. I added "Comfort Momoh, an FGM specialist in England," and someone removed both the first name and description, and reduced it to Momoh. Is there a reason for this? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Main image

How is the main image of chronic pain relevant to this article? USchick (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's about chronic pain caused by FGM; see image page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW

None of you discuss changes on the talk page before you edit... OK no problem with that!

First of all read [WP:CV] and [WP:PD] correctly!. We are allowed to copy word for word as long as we have the permission and name the source from where we quote it. Unicef, UNFARP or the WHO strictly allows that their material may be used, we have permission to copy the content!. There is NO copyright violation at all, and don't argue that because of my grammar weakness i have problems with logic and understanding too. @ Henriettapussycat Your little text about sexism and that this article is controlled by men shows me your mental condition. It's up to you, stop provoking me and i will stop respond to yours.--Santiago84 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)