Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Removal of labia vs clitoris

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

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

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

Mutilation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reiterate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a quick google check:

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

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

Looking at google Scholar:

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

Looking at Google Books:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I realize this discussion has ended some time ago, but it seems as though nothing changed, although some strong points were made to change the title to "female circumcision". Google results for "female circumcision" are about twice those of "female genital mutilation". This goes, of course, without mentioning the inherent bias using the word "mutilation". Female genital cutting, while of more neutral language, is also less popular. The fact that it is used by the WHO should not necessarily be of consequence in a neutral article, as the WHO has adopted very strong (and not necessarily correct) stances against this subject, as discussed in the article. Talk:Circumcision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.187.139 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Shia View

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

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

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

Goodness, Wikipedia seems to be very WASP oriented on this subject. @We must remain impartial' and 'we must let the reader dcide'. You make the whole project look silly. What can be not mutilation, and what you deny, Blackworm, is truth. I do not know yet how to agrue properly, but all you people seem to do is argue procedures, and ignore the truth or otherwise of what is written. I start to regret making a userpage --Juliet (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Wikipedia NPOV dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

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

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

Survey

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

• Oppose - Atom (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. Statistics are statistics. (referring to the Google Trends and whatnot) - 98.217.61.141 (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

REFERENCES THAT HAVE INFLUENCED MY OPINION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC on rename of article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coren is perfectly clear and correct about policy. Redact (strike out) that personal attack, or I'll bring it to his attention and the attention of AN/I if needed. ThuranX (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If the policy is that an article title Requested Move, resulting in "no consensus," requires that we indicate that a consensus on the current article title exists (by removing the POV-title tag), I'd like to see that policy, with a quote. Right now, I'm citing WP:CONSENSUS as a basis to revert this removal of the tag, a removal that clearly does not have consensus. No one has contested this. WP:NPOV dispute clearly states that the time to remove the tag is when the issue is resolved. No one has contested this. An official, uncontested finding of "no consensus" is clearly not a resolution to the issue by any reasonable interpretation. It remains disputed, and the tag should and must remain as a means for us to reach a consensus and resolution. Pointing out Coren's misunderstanding and its reflection on Wikipedia is not a personal attack, and certainly no worse than the incivil accusations of POV pushing which all three editors in the opposing camp in this debate have stooped to recently: Coren[38], Nandesuka [39], and Atomaton [40]. If you feel the need to escalate this matter, please do so; I would be happy to see some neutral admins weigh in on the conduct of everyone involved. Blackworm (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• chuckles* (to AlphaEta)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, we disagree. In the specific context, since the move and survey did not gain concensus, the dispute over the article name being changed ended. End of dispute does not mean all parties agree, or that consensus has been reached. It means they no longer dispute the issue. In this case we are no longer disputing whether we should or change the article name to Female Circumcision. There was no consensus to change it to that. The issue is de facto resolved as the standing consensus remains. If three fellows in the alley are having a dispute which one will take her home, and a policemen breaks them up, and they see that the woman has left, they are no longer in a dispute, even though they did not reach an "agreement" or a consensus on who would take her home. The previous consensus prior to the dispute and lack of consensus remains (the woman, alone). They do not agree, and yet they no longer strive to win the prize. Atom (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we disagree. WP:DR policy states, at the top, All Wikipedia editors are expected to resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. That's how disputes are resolved. Unresolved disputes are ongoing disputes. My position is backed by policy. Your position is not. Blackworm (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

A hypothetical:

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

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

Alternate ending:

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

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

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

The example is simply, that a user places a POV tag on the article because he feels that it is not neutral. He discusses it with others and the consensus is not with him, and so he has the integrity to remove the POV tag he placed on the article as a result of not gaining consensus for his position, even though his position/opinion has not changed. Shall I write it haiku, or koan form next time? Atom (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Any editor may remove a POV tag if there is not an active dispute about the neutrality of the article. An editor certainly may remove the tag if they placed it there. Atom (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the consensus is not against him either -- which it would have to be for the "integrity" of the act of removing the tag to have any basis. Where are you getting these supposed policies? Please link to them. And why would the last point be relevant, given that the people removing the tag are not those who placed it there? Blackworm (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Atom failing to assume good faith and insulting my integrity is not civil. I suggest you take a break and cool off. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no place where I criticized you, or used your name in the same context as integrity. My apologies to you if you thought that was the case. Note what I said: "a user places a POV tag on the article because he feels that it is not neutral. He discusses it with others and the consensus is not with him, and so he has the integrity to remove the POV tag he placed on the article" That was a neutral context, a general discussion of the topic of the POV tag, and has nothing to do with you at all. Looking back, I don't even see where I have used your name in this entire section. If I have a disagreement, it seems to be with Blackworm, and not you. If anyone were to be offended (which was not my intention) it should be him. With you, I have always assumed good faith, even though we disagree. Atom (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute."POV Template AND "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."POV Template
• "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral."[41]

Atom (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems I've misunderstood your comment and I apologize for that Atom. Thank you for your explanation. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Atomaton, for apparently confirming that you fail to assume good faith in my case. That would indeed explain your inappropriate behaviour and lack of civility. It is clear that one group of editors here is asserting that the dispute over the article title is resolved ("no consensus" = "no dispute"), while the other is asserting that it is not resolved ("no consensus" = "dispute"). I don't see any merit to the first group's claim, and further find it to be extremely insulting and incivil for editors who happen to favour the status quo to deny the existence of a dispute altogether in these circumstances. Blackworm (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to be unfriendly. At no time did I say that I no longer AGF with you, you must have determined that in some other fashion. As far as I can tell, I have always been patient, civil and matter of fact with you. If you have a dispute with the content, or the title of the article, could you just say so? I just looked, and I don't see any recent discussion from you regarding text that you felt was not neutral. As we have determined that the title being changed to "Female Circumcision" is no longer being disputed, then it would not be that, perhaps you want to bring back up the dispute on changing the article title to "Female Genital Multilation" ? Although that discussion is two years old, it is possible, based on the recent survey, that it might fly. Fly or not, it owuld be a valid dispute. Or, is there another article name, besides the three continuously discussed, that you'd like to suggest moving the title too? If this is still the old, "I want the title to be FC" discussion, then dispute would not be the correct word. Personally disagreeing with existing consensus might apply. Your first group/second group thing holds no water. Several administrators and a number of editors have clearly spoken on that issue, it is closed, as far as I am concerned. We should move on and stop wasting one anothers time. Atom (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Before we get to questions of whether I personally debate the article title, we must address the issue of whether Garycompugeek's suggestion to move to change the article title is significantly disputed If we find that it is disputed (and attempts to cast this as one-editor-against-all are contradicted by evidence), the POV-title tag should remain on the article as a note to the reader that it is disputed, and as an invitation for new ideas to be voiced that could help a more meaningful consensus on that issue to be reached. Your, and others' casting this in terms of my position on this issue is laughable given that I didn't even feel strongly enough to vote in express significant support for [-BW] it; however I won't sit by and watch you attempt to claim to these new, apparently timid editors that their claims regarding the appropriateness of the article title and content are not even worthy of a note indicating a dispute, especially since the Requested Move indicates that a controversy actually exists (it wasn't dismissed with "no move," as the 2006 Requested Move from FGC -> FGM was). (And btw, yes, I feel that two years is plenty long for you or anyone to attempt to reopen that issue, if you desire. The point is that this is a different dispute with a different outcome.) Blackworm (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I will desist from this action however I strongly disagree with its outcome. It is unfortunate that some see tags as a bad thing. Their purpose is to draw attention and nothing more. There is obvious disagreement over this article's title that was apparent by the division and resulting "No consensus" verdict by the closing admin. Now new editors coming to the page will be unaware of this unless they come across it digging through talk. Perhaps they could've help shed new light on the debate so that we could have consensus. My thoughts are that those opposing the tag fear because they do not want the name to change however seeing one side of the coin. These new editors may help use reach consensus to keep the name as it is also. Any kind of consensus of this matter would only make the article stronger regardless of the direction it takes. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to differ again. The way I see it is that it is not appropriate to draw peoples attention to solving a NPOV dispute, if there is no dispute. An editor coming to the article on the basis of wanting to help resolve the NPOV issue has no constructive path to assist, and nothing they can help do. The article currently has consensus that the title should be what it is. If there need be no argument to keep it as it is, and no argument to change it to FC (as that did not gain consensus) and no one who desires to change the article to FGM, and no one who desires to change the name to something else, then I don't see how someone responding to a POV tag can help do anything. I poorly communicated above that if there were an active dispute, that the POV tag would be okay. If someone does want to change the name to FGM, or wants to change it something else other than those three terms on the basis that the existing article title is not the most neutral available, that, IMO, would be a fair reason for placing the POV tag again. If someone wanted to change the name for a reason other than that they felt the title was not neutral, that would not indicate a reason for the POV tag. At this point, raising the POV flag on the basis of wanting to change the name to FC because it is viewed as more neutral, would not, IMO, be appropriate at this point in time. Maybe in a year it could be raised again. (there is no set time period). Atom (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But there is a dispute. That's the whole point. Your assertion that there isn't a dispute, in the face of editors telling you there is (and [[evidence of a balance of support for both sides of the dispute), is simply not tenable. Blackworm (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Atomaton's "hypothetical"

Atomaton wrote, describing a "hypothetical" circumstance:

• I view the circumcision article and see that it contains: "There is scientific evidence for both risks and benefits of circumcision. Most doctors do not recommend neonatal circumcision."
• I feel that this is one sided, not neutral, and place a POV tag on the article.

Aha. At this point, you would first assure yourself that the statement as written is verifiable via the provided cite. If it is, but you are worried about neutrality (this opinion being unique, or an exception, for example, or even notably contested), you would then bring sources reinforcing your position; for example if you had a reliable source that claims that most doctors do recommend neonatal circumcision, that would likely be a perfect contrasting position. Until then, however, the rest of your "hypothetical" can't happen. Blackworm (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some process would take place. The process you describe seems similar to what I would do. The point is, that after pursuing that process, if I failed to gain consensus for my position, despite taking steps as you indicate, it would be appropriate for me to withdraw the POV flag I placed. (even if I did provide notable, verifiable and reliable supporting citations, and still felt that I was right.) Insisting that the flag stayed on the article until people agreed with me -- or indefinetely -- would not be appropriate or ethical for me. More importantly, it would not be consistent with the WP:NPOV policy. Atom (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you did provide those sources, and several editors agreed with you, there would likely be no consensus to withdrawing the POV flag, despite the lack of consensus to make the edit you and others support. It would be against consensus policy for you to remove the flag when there is significant opposition to your doing so. Sorry. Blackworm (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also please quote what part of WP:NPOV policy you believe is inconsistent with the flag staying on the article in that circumstance. I don't see any. Blackworm (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to follow you. If I put the flag on the article, I don't need permission, or consensus to take it off on my own claim of non-neutral POV. Why would someone oppose me withdrawing my own POV claim? Especially if after a discussion of the merits of the claim, I gained no consensus for it. What you are saying does not make sense to me. The policy is clear that the flag should be there if there is a dispute. If I bring the POV claim, and it is pursued, and "I lose", then there is no dispute. I agree that if I brought the claim, and others saw the merits of my position, and there was no consensus, that other editors might feel otherwise. If there was clearly closure on the issue (for instance, a survey that ran for two weeks, and in the end no consensus for my view) then neither I, nor editors who I had won over in the failure to gain consensus could claim an open dispute. With no open dispute, the flag should not be on the article. People responding to the POV flag would need the capability to do someting constructive. Arguing on the article for a position that had just failed to gain consensus after a survey would not be constructive. Atom (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way you could reasonably be seen as "losing" your claim is if a consensus is found opposing your claim, or your desired edit. That isn't the case here. Yes, you and your supporters could indeed claim an open dispute on the issue in that case. Why wouldn't you? There is no "closure" when there is no consensus on the state of an article. The constructive thing for everyone involved to do is first, to acknowledge the fact that a dispute exists (which one would think is a matter of basic respect toward you and your change supporters), then try to find solutions, a compromise, or other means of consensus-building. That doesn't mean there has to be continuous debate on the page. In theory, if someone feels the debate has gone stale, they can remove the tag; but then if someone immediately restores it, it should be clear that the matter is still disputed, and that editor should not then insist on its removal. The tag helps resolve disputes. Removing the tag is a means to hide away disputes. It's unacceptable. You can assert over and over about there being no dispute at all, in situations where roughly half the editors argued one side and half the other, but that simply is nonsensical. Blackworm (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point, and how that could apply in some situations. The basic difference here is that regarding the article name change, it was not just a bunch of editors discussing it, but a formal move request with associated survey. In my view, since the attempt to change the name did not suceeed, it failed. Since the arugment proposed did not win a new consensus, the previous consensus remained.

I respect that you disagree on my assessment, and feel that a result of no consensus on the survey and move gave no closure, and was, from your perspective, No consensus to change the article name, and no consensus to not change the article name, as no consensus was the result. In some circumstances I would agree with you. (where there was only discussion, and no manner of gaining closure, such as a survey.) In this case, there was a survey and the particular way that it was layed out was "Female genital cutting → Female circumcision — most commen neutral term". The options given were "support" and "oppose". All people participating chose to use one of those two terms. The end result was six people opposed the proposal, and four people supported the proposal. The moderator judged that to be "no consensus". I agree that there was no consensus to move the article. It is not a matter of majority rule, and there being more opposed votes. That is not the case, a point you have made. But the wording was unilateral, not bilateral, and the two result options from this survey could only have been that "There was consensus to move the article from FGC to FC" and that "There was no consensus to move the article from FGC to FC". If every person had voted in opposition, the result would have been the latter. The way it was phrased, and the fact that the survey allowed closure, rather than open ended discussion until people agreed that there was consensus on something, made the difference in this case. Atom (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A "survey" such as the move request discussion only results in any meaningful "closure" if a consensus is found. You are clearly wrong about the number of possible outcomes of the survey, since they are clearly "move," "no move," and "no consensus." If, as you say, everyone had voted in opposition, the result would clearly have been "no move" and you would indeed have a valid point about "closure." I view your resistance to "open ended discussion" as a means for finding a consensus on that issue to be antithetical to Wikipedia's established policies. Blackworm (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We disagree then. I'll let you have the last word, I don't want to take more of your time on this issue. Atom (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is ironic that you have put so much energy into this considering you believe the title of the article should be "Female genital mutilation". Garycompugeek (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I advocated for FGM as the title of the article in 2006. That title was not chosen. Although I think it is the best title, I agree with many people who have said that despite its common usage, it would not be the most neutral title for the topic within Wikipedia. I appreciate your interest, but I am not sure why discussing the proper usage of the POV tag would strike one as ironic, under the circumstances. Atom (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Can Blackworm please explain, briefly, why he thinks the POV tag is warranted? What issue remains to be addressed that has not been addressed (in detail!) on this talk page? Nandesuka (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag is warranted because there is no consensus that the dispute over the title name has reached consensus. A recent move request on POV grounds, during which the tag was on the article, was closed as "no consensus," thus we must find an alternate solution to that dispute before removing the tag, since that would indicate that a consensus on the title exists. Blackworm (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is unclear why Nandesuka did not participate in the above discussion over this tag, by responding to comments directed at Nandesuka. In any case, since the tag seemed to have consensus during earlier discussion, and Nandesuka is primarily removing the tag, the onus seems to be on Nandesuka to explain why they believe the POV tag is to be removed. The explanation so far has no merit, as I explain above to Nandesuka,[42] with no response. Presumably one would remove the flag because the dispute was resolved, not because they are on one side of the dispute and wish to minimize the dispute. Blackworm (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep saying "I didn't participate in the above discussion", when I clearly did. Is this some definition of "participate" that means "Everyone who has an opinion is obligated to respond to every single novella you write?" I mean, look at the amount of text here that you've generated in just a single day, in response to my request for a brief summary. It's ridiculous. Perhaps you didn't notice my participation above because it was obscured by the flood of your writing. Nandesuka (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're joining this late, note these events:

1. The Requested Move to change the article title was closed with a result of "no consensus."(view move request)
2. Coren removed the tag stating in the edit summary, "The consensus is that the title is appropriate."[[43]] Clearly contradicting (1). The tag was replaced.
3. Nandesuka again removed the tag, stating in the edit summary, "This issue has been resolved on the talk page to the satisfaction of most editors."[44] Again, contradicting (1).
4. Ten minutes later, Coren fully protected the article.[45]. Note that official policy states, "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute."

Furthermore, accusations of POV pushing were made by both Coren[46] and Nandesuka [47], as well as the third editor involved in removing the tag without consensus, Atomaton [48] (though the last involved a different dispute).Blackworm (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through the whole thing ten more time, I have described it enough. The POV tag should serve a purpose. The consensus for the article is currently, and has for some time beein the current title. A survey, move requent and POV tag were placed by Garycomputer geek. After a long discussion, there was no consens to change the article to anything else. I am a firm believer that the POV tag sohould indicate a dispute, someting that people seeing the tag can respond to. In this case, if they should come based on a pov tag, there is nothing that they can do. The title is no longer disputed at this time. That does not mean that there are not people who disagree with the title, but we can't change it to what it already is, no one has asked to change it to FGM, which failed a move request two years ago, and the move request to FC just failed. No one has asked to change the article to anything else. If they do, that would be fair reason for placeing a POV tag, if they do, in fact feel that the title is not the most neutral title available. It makes no sense for anyone to claim the title is not th most neutral POV based on the endless discussions about it. On need no agree with the consensus, and disagreement with the consensus (which currently is female genital cutting) is not valid reason to place a POV tag based on the title.

Many people spoke up, including Nandesuka, Coren, EdJohnston, HandThatFeeds, myself, and others who disagreed with Blackworm and felt that their was no active dispute. Atom (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that addition and removal of tags is not exempted from the WP:3RR rules. See this link. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, EdJohnston and HandThatFeeds? Can you please point to where these people disagreed with me in this dispute? This is the first I hear of it. I don't even remember encountering HandThatFeeds before at all. And EdJohnston, instead of pointing out the obvious, why not state whether you believe there is a consensus to remove the POV-title flag, or otherwise help resolve this dispute (i.e., the one over the tag removal, that lacks consensus to remove the tag)? Blackworm (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Atomaton, you and your allies' continued argument that "It makes no sense for anyone to claim the title is not th most neutral POV" became incivil long ago. That is NOT what is being disputed here. Editors did claim this, and there is NO CONSENSUS against these editors' claims, as the Requested Move and strong resistance from multiple editors opposing the removal of the "this title is disputed" tag proves. STOP asserting that there is a consensus to remove the tag. THERE ISN'T, THUS IT MUST REMAIN. Simple. Blackworm (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I respect your view. As far as I know I have no allies, just people who agreed with a perspective I made. I don't know any of these people, with the exception of Nandesuka (who I am barely acquaintained as he always seems to make sensible edits to many articles on my watchlist.) The word is "uncivil", which I have never been with you to my knowledge. I don't believe after endless discussion on the three potential article titles, and the current consensus standing with the article title of "Female Genital Cutting" since August of 2005 (three years) that mentioning that the consensus that the current title is considered to be the most neutral (I did not call the term neutral) of the three is fair, and not the least uncivil. The article title originally was FGM (2001), and then changed to FC, and then changed to FGC, each time over discussions of the neutrality of the title. We had a discussion in 2006 (when I advocated FGM again as the title, and the consensus was for remaining at FGC) I still feel that of the three FGC is clearly the most neutral of the three, as FGM is to one end of the spectrum, and FC at the other end with a multitude of people at each end upset about the use of the term at the other end. There is considerably and subsantially less controversy about using the term Female Genital Cutting. Those that work to force their view that the term FC is acceptable are no better than those that try to force the view that all procedures should be called Female Genital Mutilation. Atom (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not asserted that there is consensus to remove the tag. I have asserted that the Tag requires a resolvable dispute that the title is POV tag to be placed. "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute Atom (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel fairly strongly that Blackworm is correct and that NPOV tag should be restored until there is actual explicit consensus to remove it. That is precisely what WP:NPOVD recommends in such situations:"In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." This describes the current situation rather well. As I understand it, the discussion regarding the article title concluded with the "no consensus for a change" finding. That is not the same as to say that there is actual consensus for keeping the current title. in any event, the key requirement of WP:NPOVD is that the NPOV should only be removed if there is actual consensus to do so. That requirement has not been met so far. Nsk92 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If there were a consensus that the current title is *wrong*, that would justify restoring {{NPOV-title}}. Such a consensus would probably be enough to justify moving the article. Since the article was not moved, I don't think we should have the NPOV-title tag. A debate can be concluded even if not everyone is happy with the result. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NSK92, I respect that you and Blackworm read the NPOV policy as suggesting that a consensus is needed to remove an NPOV tag. Many times a POV discussion cannot have closure, and so the only way to resolve it would be a consensus to remove the tag. That is workable. There are a few cases where the discussion can gain closure without a consensus to remove the tag though, this was one of those special cases. We had a survey, and clearly, with no doubt, we were able to determine that renaming the article back to Female Circumcision was not desired, and the attempt to do that was not able to gain consensus. The POV-title claim was based precisely on that, in this case. The WP:NPOV policy does not' require a consensus to remove the tag. That is not part of the policy. It is good sense, and in most cases does apply. That statement is found in the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute guideline. And is a good guideline, but not the policy. The guideline does not apply in this specific case. Atom (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. If there was consensus that the title was wrong, the title would have been changed already and there would be no need for tags. Once again, the key requirement of WP:NPOVD is that there should be expressed consensus specifically for removing the tag before such removal can occur. I should make it clear that my objections to the removal of the tag are strong but procedural. If there is a poll or an RFC regarding removing the tag, I will vote for removal. But until there is clear expressed consensus for such removal, the tag should stay, per WP:NPOVD requirements. To do otherwise smacks of strong-arming the opposition and I really don't like it. Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If there were a consensus that the current title is *wrong*, that would justify restoring {{NPOV-title}}. True, but irrelevant. If you are implying that the POV-title tag is ONLY when there is a consensus regarding the "rightness" and "wrongness" of the article title, that is in my opinion complete nonsense. If I am wrong, point to policy. Otherwise, acknowledge that those on THIS side of the debate over the tag HAVE pointed to the official NPOV dispute page, as well as official WP:CONSENSUS policy.

And I'm still waiting for a diff link from Atomaton where he informs me where EdJohnston first disagreed with me on this issue, since that statement of Atomaton was posted before EdJohnston made any comment here, which seems incredibly curious now that EdJohnston is doing precisely that. Blackworm (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing as I don't know EdJohnston, and have never spoken with him. But, my guess is that he flagged to watch the article after he participated in the discussion at [| Diff]. From the context of your previous messages, I believe that you were unawar of that. I'm surprised, since Garycomputergeek participated in that discussion. Atom (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We are in fact separate individuals. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Poll on removing the POV tag

Let's do this by the book and see if there is actual consensus for removing the POV tag from the article. As I understand it, the reason for placing the POV tag was that the current title is not neutral. Please express your opinions on removing or keeping the POV tag below.

Statements

Note: Threaded discussion placed in this section will be removed to the 'discussion' section, below.

• Support removing the POV tag. I personally feel that of the three possible titles ("female genital mutilation", "female circumcision" and "female genital cutting") the current title is the most neutral. (In the RFC/polls above I voted for changing the title to "female circumcision" but my reasons were based on how widespread the usage of these terms was.) The term "female genital mutilation" is the most POV-loaded of the three because of the explicit usage of the word "mutilation". The term "female circumcision" is in the middle in terms of POV implications. It does have POV implications but not direct ones: using the same word "curcumcision" as the word used to describe conventional and fairly widely accepted procedure of male circumcision, the term has an indirect implication of acceptability of the practice of "female circumcision" as well. The current title of the article, "female genital cutting", is the most neutral of the three. Arguably, it has some tertiary POV implications as the term propagated by opponents of using the term "female circumcision", but such implications are rather indirect and will not be apparent to most people. Only those who are really well familiar with the particulars of the political battles surrounding the usage of the three terms will recognize the possible POV implications of the term "female genital cutting". Since the current title is the most neutral of the three possible alternatives, I think that the POV tag should be removed. Nsk92 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To expand my comment a bit: after looking through the long discussion threads above, I also feel that the neutrality of the title debate has run its course and there is not much else to be gained by continuing it. Nsk92 (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support the removal of the POV tag. Whether the tag belongs is not dependent on whether the title is 'right' or 'wrong', and so I'm not going to speak directly to the issues of the title here. What is important is that we had a thorough round of discussion which failed to decide that the title should be changed. This doesn't foreclose the possibility of change in the future. In the present case, however, since there is no serious ongoing debate of the underlying issue continuing, it seems as though the tag is being placed as "retribution" for the issue being decided in the "wrong" fashion. Such uses of tags are inappropriate, and should be vigorously contested wherever they appear. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we should not encourage people to use "tags" to try to discredit articles (or titles) when they failed to enact change via discussion on the talk page. We should in fact actively discourage such things. Nandesuka (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support The policy does not require consensus to remove the POV tag. Please see policy page, not associated guidelines. Guidelines make sense, but not part of the policy. All three working titles have some bias. The article was named Female Genital Mutilation in 2001. It changed to Female Circumsision later. Disputed over neutraility caused it to be renamed to Female Genitcal Cutting in 2005. An attempt to rename back to Female Genital Mutilation failed in 2006. An attempt to rename the article back to FC failed in July of 2008. Since the article was renamed FGC in 2005 in order to strike a balance between the two ends of the FC--FGC--FGM spectrum, a consensus has stood, which still exists. Clearly the current title, Female Genital Cutting represents the most neutral term of the three. Atom (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support; an NPOV tag should only be placed if there is a significant dispute as to the neutrality (of the title, in this particular case) and not simply because a few users disagree. This article's title has already been discussed into the ground and the current title is a compromise. The fact that no consensus can be reached to change the title because every other suggestion has been shot down as less neutral is the best proof of this. Allowing NPOV tags to be placed every time someone disagrees with an article would require every single article to be so tagged— it's the placing of the tag that requires consensus. Putting an NPOV repeatedly on an article when it is not visibly warranted is grandstanding, and simply a thinly veiled attempt at bringing the issue over and over until the "desired" outcome happens. — Coren ^(talk) 16:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree see my comments below. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not taking part in this "poll," as I believe it inappropriate. You misunderstand the reason for placing the POV tag. The reason for placing the POV tag is not that the current title is not neutral. The reason for placing the POV is that a dispute exists as to the neutrality of the article title. Further, in your argument to retain the current title, an argument which is one step removed from this dispute, you're discounting the possibility of alternate solutions to the lack of neutrality editors have perceived and for which no consensus solution was found. For example, there are not only three possible titles merely because no others have been suggested, nor is it clear that some other title under consideration should not have a separate article; if I remember well, Atomaton argued that female circumcision isn't the same thing as female genital cutting. I agree with him there, despite his being on the opposite side of the dispute over the title (which the mere fact we are disputing indicates that the POV-title tag must remain). Blackworm (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I must confess that I don't quite understand the distinction between "the current title is not neutral" and "a dispute exists as to the neutrality of the article title". You can modify the header of the poll if you think that my explanation of the reason for POV tag is incorrect. I think the poll can simultaneously be used for resolving the dispute about the neutrality of the article title. In fact, I am fine with renaming the poll as a poll about neutrality of the title or something along those lines. Nsk92 (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A poll about the neutrality of the title. We just had such a poll. The result was "no consensus." What you are effectively attempting to do, as your own words prove, is open another Requested Move poll, ten days after the last one resulted in "no consensus." Do you really think that is appropriate? Also, your position in this is extremely odd considering that you effectively argued for the POV-title tag in the clearest way possible: you just added it to the article[49] Now it appears you are attempting to argue against your own standing edit; that in fact the tag should be removed. Do you agree that this situation seems quite peculiar?

The distinction between the two phrases you quote is obvious: one is a demand to change the article title on NPOV grounds, the other is a recognition that a dispute exists surrounding the neutrality of the article title. I do not believe it appropriate that we have another poll, as you suggest, "about the neutrality of the title" in order to decide the outcome of whether a POV-title should be on the article, especially as there has been very little discussion on the title itself after the Requested Move, and certainly no new breakthroughs. When those actions, which I consider incivil in themselves, are combined with explicit incivility in the form of accusations of POV pushing, and that incivility is not condemned by any of the editors on one side of the tag dispute, one must wonder where the neutral editors are. Blackworm (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored the tag because I think that removing it requires explicit consensus to do so, not because I myself think that the title is not neutral. I started the poll to see if such consensus exists. Nsk92 (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on which dispute, whether the tag should remain, or whether the title is neutral? If the latter, we just had such a poll. Why would we reopen it ten days later? If we open that poll, then clearly we must have a tag anyway. Blackworm (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant consensus to remove the tag (at least that is what I meant when I started the poll). As I said[50], my objection to removing the tag was procedural and based on the need to explicitly follow WP:NPOVD in obtaining expressed consensus for removing the tag before it is removed. Nsk92 (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the reasoning that you give for the tag's removal, i.e., that you believe the article title to be neutral, that is incongruent. If your argument was along the lines of, "most editors agree the article title is neutral," then you would have a point. Blackworm (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is somewhat hard to understand from reading the several long and complicated threads above on this talk page what most editors think on the specific issue of removing the POV tag and whether or not most editors agree that the current title is neutral. I started the poll to get some explicit data. I suppose you can consider it simultaneously a poll on the motion to close the discussion regarding the neutrality of the title. Nsk92 (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Per your first sentence above, the tag should remain, as it had consensus before and during the Requested Move, and you acknowledge no consensus to remove it. Disputes, e.g., the title POV dispute, are resolved through consensus, not closing the discussions after "no consensus" is found. That is explicitly stated in WP:NPOV dispute. The "explicit data" you seek is linked right here. There is no need for another "poll" when the issue hasn't been discussed significantly since (except incidentally, and inappropriately, in arguments for the tag's removal). Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I should also point to the fact that a similar Requested Move for circumcision was closed (by none other than EdJohnston) as no consensus to move, over a month ago, and since then the POV-title flag has appropriately remained on the article. As that article almost certainly has a higher number of editors watching it, and as discussion there is usually doubly as heated as discussion here, don't you find it odd that no one, no one at all, is arguing there that no consensus to move means "we must remove the tag?" Blackworm (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate that to place a POV tag "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". The tag was placed on this article because Garycomputergeek said that the neutrality of the title was in dispute, and he opened a request to move the title name to FC, and a survey. The consensus of the article title being the most neutral available of the three choices has existed since August of 2005. A discussion to change the article title to FGM did not get consensus in 2006. The article was originally named FGM in 2001, changed to FC sometime later, and then to FGC in 2005. The policy does not require "consensus" to remove a POV tag, only that no resolvable dispute exists. The status of the "circumcision" article, possibly the most volatile article on Wikipedia (at least on the top ten) has no bearing on this article. Apparently the person who placed the POV tag on the Circumcision article did not remove it after it was apparent that no resolvable dispute existed -- or they felt that other resolvable POV disputes existed. Atom (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true that WP:NPOVD is a guideline and not a policy but I feel that insisting on the difference here is a mistake. Guidelines represent substantial consensus and are to be generally followed but for exceptional cases. In this case there is an editor, Blackworm, who actively contests the removal of the tag, and in a situation like that there is no reason to make an exception to the guideline's requirement and every reason to follow this requirement. If there is demonstrable consensus at the talk page for removing the tag, the matter can be closed and we can move on. Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I respect your view on that, and I think you are right, that it makes good sense in most cases. As I said before, often a POV dispute can't find a way to really have closure (dispute over text in an article). In this case, closure was possible because of the survey, an exception. Probably the reason that it is in the guideline, and not in the policy is because it has been discussed before in this or similar context. I think it is important that we respect Blackworm's dispute over the tag. I asked for conflict resolution once before, because I wanted an objective view regarding his objection. I've just asked for it a second time because he did not agree with the first resolution. That's fine. The POV-title tag requires that there be a resolvable dispute. In this case, it does not appear that renaming the article as he would have liked is going to happen soon. Should we keep the POV title on, even though consensus is for the existing title, merely because one editor disagrees with consensus? That is debatable, as is obviously the case. In the end, if we can't work that out ourselves, it makes sense to ask for dispute resolution. I'm committed to following the results of that, even if it differs with the first result. Atom (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved comments

Threaded reply to Coren's statement

• Comment That is precisely what the editors removing the tag are doing -- except instead of doing it properly, by finding a consensus to the title dispute, they are doing it improperly, by polling on the tag issue, which allows them to avoid any discussion of the title with the editors wanting to change the title, and avoid any public notice of the dispute, all the while making false accusations of "one-editor-against-all," avoiding discussion on the issue (neither Coren nor Nandesuka substantially discussed the issue during the full protection), and making incivil accusations of POV pushing[51][52][53]. It's incivil, against policy, and unacceptable. That most editors on the other side of the title dispute aren't wasting their time on this farcical display of violation of Wikipedia policy is a credit to them. The placing of the tag had consensus; there was clearly a dispute. There was no consensus when that dispute was brought to a poll. There is no consensus to remove the tag. Blackworm (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, enough already with the cries of abuse. You obviously have an axe to grind with the current article name. This chip on your shoulder is marginal, and in the minority. Crying and yelling and pointing at every bit of policy or guideline you can think of in a display of faux indignation does nothing but weaken your own position, and the only thing that is farcical here is your willingness to attack anyone who dares point out that you are not the consensus all by yourself. If you feel you have been wronged by my evil administrative abuse, complain formally. Otherwise, stop trying to tell everyone how everyone is wrong and is acting in bad faith and start arguing cogently for your position— and that includes accepting that you may not be right and that the consensus goes against you. — Coren ^(talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I use the word "abuse" above? My indignation is quite real, believe me. I have been arguing cogently for my position, as evidenced by the fact that neither you nor Nandesuka see fit to engage me in that discussion, preferring to comment on me personally. On the contrary, the only people pointing to policy to support their arguments are on my side of this dispute. Enough already, indeed. Blackworm (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page is already at ( Requested Move) The admins and editors who are supporting the position that the survey results act as consensus for removal of the POV tag. It is fair that you disagree, as you have expressed. But, you seem to have the minority position in this case. Since you don't accept that the survey failing consensus implicitily closes the POV, another editor is placing a poll on consensus to indicate whether it is there explicitly. That is an effort not required by policy. I fear that after those results are posted that you may not accept that either.Atom (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop all silly arguing and scoring of 'procedure' points from each other. besides making you seem stupid to newbies such as me, it does not address the topic, which is the POV. This tag should remain, even though I agree, in General, with the article. This is just my opinion. But you make Wikipedia look silly and self-obsessed with these fights about a very important subject. --Juliet (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of NPOV/POV tag on Female Genital Cutting 2

I have placed a request for administrative intervention and opinion in this matter (again). I don't want anyone to be surprised, or miss any portions of the conversation. (Please see Improper use of NPOV/POV tag on Female Genital Cutting 2)

It is obvious that there is dispute, and a lack of closure from the previous request for administrative intervention. For my part, I don't intent to edit the article to add or remove the POV tag from this point forward, until there is closure on the issue. As a result of the frustration of competing views I see an escalation of poor behavior bordering on violating wp:civ and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I don't see how edit warring over the POV tag, especially after involvement by several admins to clarify the matter is civil. I won't participate in that, which is why I have asked for dispute resolution for the second time. Atom (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's the second time you've placed a request for "administrative intervention" in this matter, then you erred by not notifying all the parties involved the first time. In THAT first AN/I request, in which a grave violation of policy occured in that Atomaton did not notify me of the AN/I request, HandThatFeeds said: "The tags aren't meant to stay in place once the debate is resolved, and "no consensus" is considered a resolution." This is the first time I ever hear that a lack of consensus is a resolution to a dispute. This contradicts WP:NPOV dispute, which states,

Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.

— WP:NPOV dispute

The last sentence perfectly describes the actions of Coren and Nandesuka, who, after both editwarred the tag, one protected the article while in their desired state, and neither contributed significantly to the discussion here. Blackworm (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notification of the ANI was an oversight. You and Garycomputergeek are cohorts and so I am surprised, given his comments on ANI that you were unaware. But, notification of ANI is a courtesy, not a requirement. Although I failed to be courtesous to you in that regard, I violated no policy. My apologies to you, and to remedy that I made sure that you were aware of the second attempt. I hope that you will notice that in that attempt I asked anyone responding to please work to be objective and disregard my words and try to understand your perspective. "I would like an objective look so that hopefully involved parties will abide by some administrators ruling, and not claim that my words have biased anyone. Please focus on trying to understand editor Blackworm's objection, and not just what I have said."

The wonderful quote that you have provided is not policy. The NPOV policy is in a different section. I regard the words you quoted as wise, and a guideline. The reason these wise words do not apply in this case is that it is a special case. It is not a general NPOV discussion on the article, rather it is a very narrow and specific case of disagreement of POV on the article title. In many POV cases the above words apply. In this specific case we had in depth discussion on the survey and move request. To place an POV tag, one must have a resolvable dispute (this is from the same section you quoted, earlier). I removed the POV tag after the resolvable dispute regarding changing the article title to FC failed to gain consensus. Four or five people (including several admins) have opined that the result of that survey/move concluded the dispute/gave closure, was consensus to close, or similar words. Since that time, there has been no resolvable dispute brought up on the talk page, just you reverting various people and replacing the tag without specifying any new or valid dispute.

I don't wish to have controversy with you -- I see no benefit and no win for anyone involved. I am eager for you to have closure on the matter. I don't think that closure can be found by renaming the article, or be continuing the debate on renaming the article to FC though. I have explained my perspective. I have worked to understand your perspective as best as I can. I see your points in most cases, I think, but I just don't agree. Are you saying that even though the FC name is resolved for the moment, that you want the POV tag anyway? If so, under what conditions would the POV tag be removed? (this specific case, not generally) Do we have to complete NSK92's survey this time, and every time someone wants to take a POV tag off -- and prove consensus to remove (even though that is not policy)? When we have a survey, or an article move poll should we assume afterwards that in regards to the POV tag, the results are meaningless? Atom (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to specify any "new dispute" as the old one is not resolved. Garycompugeek and I are not "cohorts." Everything else you say has been addressed in previous discussion. Blackworm (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because one agrees with another editor does not make him/her your "cohort".

Back to topic - The real issue is proper use of a POV tag. The Request for change is sort of a red herring. Why? Anyone can debate article name change without the Request template being used. In fact if you check the talk history you will see that was taking place. I was trying to get more editors to weigh in on the matter so I used Request template to take a poll. The poll was split and to divisive so the admin accuratly closed as "No consensus". This means the name change failed but does not mean brush the debate under the carpet. If the majority had voted with good logic in either direction the admin would have closed with "Move" or "No Move". As you can see this was not the case. "No consensus" means unresolved debate therefore why remove the tag that's purpose is to point to that unresolved debate. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthur I have requested comment on the Request talk page and received this response. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed image

Someone put this image on the article: File:Female circumcision.jpg with the caption 'a "procejure" for a Female genital cutting'

It seems to me to be an emotionally charged photo, and as such may violate WP:NPOV to use. I'm bringing the issue here for discussion just in case I'm being oversensitive. Thoughts? Nandesuka (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, the photo that u have deleted is a real photo and could be placed in the article and it dosenot violate WP:NPOV. so i hope that u will understand my point and keep the photo .--Elmondo21st (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you happen to know who originally took the photo in question? The copyright claim on commons is a bit vague. Nandesuka (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I abhor circumcision but support Nandeska's removal based violation of netral point of view. I agree the photo is too emotionally charged to be neutral. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think this photo is illustrative of anything other than the girl's great distress, and thus the value to the article seems limited to advocacy. It also seems to be non-representative of the general case of non-sterile FGC -- to my understanding in those environments it is almost exclusively performed by women. In fact, how do we even know the girl in the photo is undergoing FGC? I would like to know the source of the photo. If there is good evidence that this photo actually shows an instance of FGC, and we decide to keep it, we should probably also try to find a photo representing medicalized, sterile, anaesthesized FGC in clinics (as is common in Indonesia). I'd also suggest using the photo in the labiaplasty article since the latter is explicitly part of the definition of female genital cutting used by the WHO and others (and us), and it illustrates the aesthetic result of FGC. Blackworm (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For various reasons I don't feel that this image is appropriate for this article, at this time. The photo need not be neutral, as that is not the purpose of NPOV. However, I wonder how a photo from the opposing view could balance it appropriately. It would be nice to know the origins of the photo, although it seems to be properly licensed if the data about its background are accurate. Because we don't know the background of the photo, it is even hard to caption it, or attempt to balance the article with text. We don't know how old she is, we don't know if the person doing the procedure is a relative, a clan/community elder, or a physician. We don't know what type of procedure is being performed. (Type I,I,II or IV.) Or, she could be birthing, or some other medical procedure. We have to take on faith that the picture depicts FC/FGC/FGM of some type. Is she crying and emotional because she gave consent, but is just afraid? Or, is it because she is being forced/against her consent? Or maybe she is in pain? With knowing so little about the circumstances, I think it is impossible to represent the image fairly and accurately, leaving too much to guesswork. Atom (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FC/FGC/FGM has been illegal in Egypt since 1997. I was in Egypt around the time this photo is described to have been taken. At that time FC/FGC/FGM was often most frequently done in a clinic in large cities -- however being done by a barber or clan elder in rural areas was extremely common. Atom (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point Atom. Pictures themselves do not have to be neutral however this images only purpose is shock value. It illustrates nothing but the girls distress... We do not know what is going on for fact. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that says it best. Atom (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok ..do what ever you think is right !--Elmondo21st (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • People in the field say that this picture was taken in 1994 in Egypt and if that is correct it was shot during dubious circumstances:

”Egyptian authorities are questioning the Cairo crew of the American CNN television network about a film showing the circumcision of a 10-year-old Egyptian girl beamed worldwide a few days ago. Cairo press reports said that three men, including the girl's father, have been arrested for allegedly taking money from CNN to allow them to film the procedure.” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur on September 12,1994; cited in Boyle & Hoeschen (2001), “Theorizing the form of media coverage over time”, Sociological Quarterly 42(4):511-527.)

Anyway it is a picture meant to shock and not to inform, and similar pictures can be found showing small boys screaming during circumcision. Removing it was a good decision. Hssajo (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Balance in "Female circumcision" section

The following sentence was added to the "Female circumcsion" section on August 22, 2008 in an effort to provide balance:

Conversely, Bond, when arguing that the US should offer equal legal protection from circumcision to both girls and boys, states that both male and female circumcision are medically unnecessary, injurious procedures which can cause physical and psychological harm to children.[Bond, S.L. 1999. "Female Circumcision Laws and the Equal Protection Clause. Marshall Law Review. 32:353-380]

I don't disagree with the content of this addition, but felt it was out of place since it addresses the gravity of each act, not terminology, which is the specific focus of this section. A sentence and citation indicating that "Female circumcision" is a proper term (comparing it to male circumcision, or not) would be more appropriate for this section. Thanks, AlphaEta 03:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if my addition is inappropriate because "terminology is the specific focus of the section" then perhaps we should avoid quoting the phrase "non-mutilating male circumcision" too (could it be oxymoronic?). I've performed a simple edit to this effect and shortened the Toubia quote to exclude the phrase in question. The gist of Toubia's argument is retained (the "fallacious analogy").

By the way, you do realise that the sub-section Female circumcision only includes arguments opposing the use of this term. Is that balanced, or is this issue non-controversial? Beejaypii (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with quoting Toubia -- it is for the reader to decide whether the phrase is oxymoronic (let them look up Mutilation in the 1911 Brittanica, and read about circumcision in that article, for example). The quote is the reason why Toubia feels "female circumcision" is inappropriate, so it seems relevant.

I agree with AlphaEta that the Bond addition is out of place in the terminology section. Blackworm (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but do either of you agree with the principle behind what I'm trying to achieve, even if I've not, thus far, chosen an appropriate way to achieve it? Beejaypii (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem appropriate to turn the female circumcision article into a soapbox on which to decry the evils of male circumcision. Nandesuka (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that what you feel is happening here Nandesuka? Beejaypii (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I said it. Nandesuka (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree entirely:it wouldn't be appropriate to turn this article into a "soapbox on which to decry the evils of male circumcision." I don't quite understand why you feel that needed to be said and what its relevance to the current discussion is though. Beejaypii (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said Beejaypii. There's no use losing your civil manner because of an editor's vague, incivil, unproductive attack.

[Deleted comments in which I confused this with another discussion. -BW]Blackworm (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Toubia quote in the article is from 1995. Here's an interview with her from December 1996 - Female Genital Mutilation:A Radio Interview with Dr. Nahid Toubia. This exchange from the interview is interesting (the interviewer is called Maureen Primerano):

(MP): I understand that in the communities where female genital mutilation occurs, it is often referred to as female circumcision, however, this term implies an analogy with male circumcision, which is not the case. Could you explain the difference?

Nahid Toubia (NH): Well, I disagree with you that it’s not the case. I think there are similarities and then there are differences. I think the people who say that there are no similarities are people who don’t want to address male circumcision basically.

She also goes on to say, "Yes, in the male type it’s just removal of the skin around the prepuce but some people maintain that still is not very healthy, and science today tells us more and more that it’s not." What are we to make of that? Beejaypii (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? I've found the "fallacious analogy" quote from Toubia in its entirety. This is how it goes:

In the communities where FGM takes place, it is referred to as "female circumcision." This term, however, implies a fallacious analogy to nonmutilating male circumcision, in which the foreskin is cut off from the tip of the penis without damaging the organ itself.

You can read it for yourselves here [54].

So the source actually contains a qualification for the phrase "nonmutilating male circumcision", and a somewhat perplexing one at that (Toubia seems to think that the foreskin isn't part of the penis). I wonder how that didn't make it into this article along with the part of the passage which did. Any thoughts? Beejaypii (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No idea, I wasn't around when the material was added. Hopefully someone else can provide more insight. AlphaEta 02:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly, Toubia also writes (with a co-author): the act of cutting itself – the cutting of healthy genital organs for non-medical reasons – is at its essence a basic violation of girls' and women's right to physical integrity. This is true regardless of the degree of cutting or of the extent of the complications that may or may not ensue. It is quite unclear whether Toubia believes males and men also have these "rights to physical integrity," given his statement about male circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Toubia's views are unclear (not to mention self-contradicting and simply illogical in some respects), and not just on the "rights to physical integrity" issue but with respect to the analogy between various aspects of male and female circumcision and related issues. I've tried to reflect some of this in my latest edit to the article (here) whilst attempting to stay on-topic within the relevant article subsection. Beejaypii (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely understand the principle, and I agree that the section lacks material supporting the term "female circumcision". Any balance regarding terminology would be a welcome addition. AlphaEta 02:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited the article and tried to represent Toubia's position(s) in a more balanced way. I've re-introduced the quoted phrase "nonmutilating male circumcision", but with additional context. I've also added a quote from the radio interview in which she seems to contradict the first quote to some extent. Beejaypii (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

...Toubia disagreed about the lack of analogy and stated.... In this instance, the case is being made that the commenter feels an analogy does exist between the two procedures, but not closely enough that they should share the same terminology. Did I read this correctly, or was this latter statement meant to indicate that [s]he now feels circumcision is an appropriate term for both procedures? Thanks, AlphaEta 19:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being fussy, but Nahid Toubia is a woman. 89.253.77.58 (talk)

Thanks for the clarification. AlphaEta 23:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've edited it again Alpha. Hopefully, it's clearer now. However, Toubia doesn't seem to comment directly on the suitability, or not, of the term female circumcision, but she does appear to contradict her 1995 statement about the "fallacious analogy" (a statement which I suspect inspired the interviewer's question in the first place), and she makes a comment about the motivation of those who claim male and female circumcision are not analogous, which I think is relevant to the subsection topic, but I could be wrong. Beejaypii (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The state department is not a source for the world. It's good sometimes, but mainly when the issue involves the usa. Otherwise look at the us list of human rights, and look at other causes to vilify other states. What is the state department's reputation as a qualified source on the matter. Surely an african (or un) source is better suited to this regard. Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Typically governments track these things, however if you have a better source please bring it. We cannot remove the source without removing the data below that corroborates it. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why there is a tag for the sources.

The us government's idea of what goes on in the world is a POV source, especially when outside the usa. [The preceding unsigned comment was made by Lihaas. -BW]

Same goes for any source. No source is "a source for the world," including the UN. Your argument is not a valid reason to remove this attributed material. Your edit does not have consensus. I am reverting it. Blackworm (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no, the UN is a more global body with the same agendas. the un (and they have made comments on this issue) or an african source is better. using your logic the us or prez bush is a terrorist and sponsor of so b/c another foreign govt has made such claims. (Iran Air 655

No, by my logic, if you bring a reliable source stating that the US or Bush is a terrorist, we can then write "Source X states that Bush is a terrorist." That way, no one can argue with that fact. Blackworm (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And there's no consensus here either on your edit. it's split. Lihaas (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you have a better source bring it. This source is valid. If you have a source discredting this direct source please share it. The onus is on you to gain consensus for your change. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Blackworm (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, not really. the source was added before i questioned, so it has to be without a doubt reliable. and the us has not always done so when it comes to other countries.

But a citation tag for awhile, someone can get to it, if not then the source can suffice till someone comes up. Lihaas (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem familiar with policy. This is a reliable source for the statement made, which is that the US State Dept. has stated these things. Please see WP:V. Your objection seems more like one of undue weight given this source, in which case your next move is to bring other reliable sources taking a contrasting view. Blackworm (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexual/gender consistancy in articles

Currently 'male genital cutting' does not have its own article and redirects to Genital modification and mutilation. Also, 'female circumcision' redirects here while 'male circumcision' redirects to 'circumcision'. Shouldn't there be consistancy here? Circumcision describing both, moving 'circumcusion' to 'male circumcision' and giving female circumcision its own article? Right now female genital cutting is in Category:Crimes because it often involves a criminal form of genital mutilation, however genital cutting itself is not inherantly criminal. I think it would be valuable to have more specific topics so they can have more directly-addressing categories. As it is, female circumcision itself (which is specifically, removing the flap of skin covering the clitoris) is no worse than male circumcision, but this lesser form of FGM is being lumped in with the other more extreme forms which are of course worse than male circumcision since it can involve far more thorough atrocities such a the removal of labia or clitoris. Since not all genital cutting would be classed as circumcision, I am wondering if this article might be more appropriately placed under the Category:Genital modification to more broadly describe it. Tyciol (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You have hit on name debates concerning this article and circumcision. Name change polling has been split preventing us from gaining consensus one way or the other. I happen to agree with your logic and think things are mighty queer at the moment. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, the proposal is that two articles should be created? One, called "female circumcision", will deal only with removal of the clitoral hood, and the other, called "female genital cutting", will describe all other forms of cutting, stretching, tearing, etc... of other parts of the female genitalia? Thanks, AlphaEta 20:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not my understanding... He appears to be saying there should be a male circumcision article and female circumcision article for consistency... this would also clear up any gender ambiguity. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See the above discussion Talk:Female genital cutting#Requested move. We need to consider what's done in the reliable sources. The term "female circumcision" is used inconsistently in the sources and covers a variety of practices. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tis true, however female genital cutting is also very inconsistently used in the sources and very recently coined. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it amazing that Coppertwig asserts the "female circumcision" is used inconsistently in the sources, when "Female Genital Cutting(tm)" is an term apparently owned by the United Nations' World Health Organization -- and they see fit to change the definition of the term by decree, their latest iteration (2008) varying from the previous one. When they change their definition, we change our definition. Very un-WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Normal" anatomy

This edit and its explanatory logic is contradictory to an argument put forth in this discussion. In the article describing male genital cutting, "normal" used exactly in the way it is used here is labelled "non-NPOV" and forbidden from use in the article, with the support of at least one administrator. If "normal" can be applied to unmodified female genitals, it can be applied to unmodified male genitals. If "normal" is non-neutral POV in the case of unmodified male genitals, then it is non-neutral POV in the case of unmodified female genitals. While my preference would be to use "normal" to describe the natural form of the genitals with no parts excised (especially since "uncircumcised" has pejorative meanings[55]), I demand consistency and a consistent standard for male and female anatomy. Blackworm (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Do you like the word "natural" more? I had the feeling if the natural vulva is described as uncircumcised the cut vulva would be the "normal". --pistazienfresser (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. That's interesting; I too have the feeling that to describe someone or something as "uncircumcised" carries an implication that the circumcised someone or something is the preferred norm ("normal") -- but unfortunately we do that everywhere else in Wikipedia and so I was attempting to conform to that. I do like "natural" more, but that again is opposed in Wikipedia in the context of the circumcision of males, on the claimed basis that it is redundant (i.e., all human genitals are natural), even if "natural" has meanings such as occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature, living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society, and closely resembling an original : true to nature,[56] which I believe all apply to genitals before circumcision (and not afterwards). The argument (which I oppose, but is the consensus elsewhere) holds that "uncircumcised" is neutral, non-pejorative, and best describes the non-circumcised form.

Ultimately, I think "unmodified," "intact," "uncut," or "non-circumcised" are better terms. Do you like any of those? Blackworm (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't heard much on this, so put back "uncircumcised" for now. Maybe the debate needs to be brought up again in circumcision-related articles like this one. Blackworm (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Normal" is a reasonable word to use here. It has nothing to do with neutrality. The words "uncircumcised" and "circumcised" should also not be used in this context for reasons explained in several sources cited under the section "Circumcision" in the article. Not (as Toubia explains) because there are no analogies, because there are, but because it is a distinct operation and the words "cut/uncut" or "mutilated/unmutilated" should be used in preference. "Normal" is also acceptable. "Intact" I really like but it can be confused with virgo intacta. --TS 12:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The reasons you cite are views of some sources, and they are in opposition to other sources, who use the words "circumcision" and "circumcise"[57]. Toubia herself uses the word,[58] undermining your argument against the word. "Cut/uncut" doesn't seem acceptable in circumcision either, and "mutilated/unmutilated" imposes a value judgment I've come to believe Wikipedia shouldn't be making. Blackworm (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume that our current section is already balanced (a google search is not), and so "circumcised" should be deprecated. I take your point about "mutilated". "Cut" is better because it is increasingly in use. Comparisons with the circumcision article are best avoided because, despite similarities, they are distinct practices. --TS 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic on how "circumcised" should be deprecated. Some activists who advocate a ban on the circumcision of females call it "female genital mutilation" or "female genital cutting," but that does not necessarily make it incorrect nor biased to call it circumcision, as my dictionary link above shows. A Google Scholar search indicates the use of "circumcised" and "uncircumcised" on this topic in scholarly sources, which seems evidence enough that it isn't universally viewed as incorrect. I also do not agree at all on your claims of "distinct" practices -- circumcision of males and females is the cutting and removal of parts of genitals, just like the dictionary says. Any elements of it being "distinct" or somehow fundamentally different for males and females seem a cultural bias -- to be avoided here. Indeed comparisons abound in the literature. In any case, it seems quite evidently ethnocentric, sexist, and non-neutral to insist on calling an unmodified vulva, as distinguished from one that has had parts cut and removed, "normal," while insisting that an unmodified penis, as distinguished from one that has had parts cut and removed, cannot be called "normal" (as the argument goes in male circumcision). In a nutshell, Wikipedia shouldn't be telling us in a prescribing, normative way that cutting off parts of a male's genitals is normal, while cutting off parts of a female's genitals is not normal. We are not a vehicle for such advocacy -- we report on the advocacy. Blackworm (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative POV

Not trying to assert any viewpoint here, but I came to read this article to find out precisely why it is so bad (and male circumcision isn't), and came away more or less empty-handed. the tone of the article from the very onset seems to take this fact for granted. especially since the first section is on the history of the term, which is overwhelmingly burdened with information on why we have constantly revised the term because of how horrible this practice is.

Why is it so loathesome? 98.229.34.4 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you came here with an opinion and failed to find a presentation of facts you need to support your opinion, perhaps it is the opinion that needs changing, not the presentation of facts. In any case, you seem to be wanting to be discussing the topic, rather than our presentation of the topic. See WP:TALK; this isn't what article Talk pages are for. Blackworm (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are indeed frequently used for irrelevant and, in many cases, violent discussions on the nature of article content and NOT, as you say, wiki-semantics. However, in this particular case we have to do with a badly-written piece on an obvious violation of human rights which is accessible by 99% of web users. You must realise that some of these users - having read the article - will feel the need to express how abhorred they are. As a matter of fact, I am sure you will agree with me when I say that most of the people directly affected by FG Mutilation have little or no chance to join the discussion. Since however, in the name of 'politically correct' webtalk, there is no means of ensuring that things are said as they are, semantics has become a way of digressing, I regret that no one has even been nominated as a spokesman of women suffering from this practice and taken up their cause on Wiki and other fora.

As an afterthought, I might add that scientific encyclopaedias (cf. the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia) distinguish between what is scientifically correct and the morality of its usage. This article is written by Westerners for a Western-minded audience and discusses a terrible practice condemned by the highest international authorities. It has very little or nothing to do with male circumcision and should not be discussed in the same context, nor even linked to that topic. No matter what the propagators of this so-called custom feel, OED defines mutilation as the infliction of a violent injury on a person. Unless if these young girls affected do not consider the process 'inflicted' upon them, or 'violent', I find no other word in proper English that describes this operation. And now I have added some points on laguage and usage (and therefore legitimised my intervention in the eyes of wiki-patrolists) perhaps there is a member who would like to explain the merits of considering FG Mutilation an aspect of that - oh so very - sacrosanct expression of regional identity some would call 'culture' and others deem 'primitivism' Reg457 02:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reg457 (talk • contribs)

Your opinions are interesting, but some of them are apparently contradicted by some reliable sources, cited in the article. Indeed, as the cited quote in the article references section says: "However, the use of the term ["FGM"] may offend women who have undergone the procedure and do not consider themselves mutilated or their families as mutilators." Other sources discuss circumcision of females and males in the same context. We need sources, not assertions. Blackworm (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I think what he's saying is that this article is extreamly POV. This article doesn't even attempt to stay neutral. I get its considered a horrible thing by most people, but clearly there are those who support it. For instance, I'd assume we'd all say murder is a bad thing, but that's no reason it cannot be defined, and discussed in a way that would be free of emotion yet most likely bring the average reader to the conclusion that it was a negative thing. KenBest (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the practicing cultures don't consider it a horrible thing. Your argument seems based on your personal views on the topic. Do you find statements in the article to be factually incorrect? What action are you calling for? Blackworm (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunna

The article says: "Types I and II FGM is usually performed, often referred to as Sunna circumcision especially among Afro-Arabs (ethnic groups of African descent are more likely to prefer infibulation)." But according to fr:Discuter:Mutilation génitale#Sunna, here "sunna" means "tradition" and has nothing to do with Sunni islam. So I think the wikifying is misleading. Apokrif (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

never say never

this article seems racist, it says christianity and judiaism had nothing to do with female genital cutting yet lets the reader get the impression that only muslims practice it because muslims are bad people. Dioxholster (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, however, states that the practice of FGC cuts across religions, and lists Jews along with Muslims, Christians, and followers of indigenous religions as being among people who practice it.

The above is from the article, and seems to give a view of a major health organization that is contrary to that expressed in your comment. Blackworm (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"never" has been changed to "Not". To claim an absolute position of "Never", references in terms of a scholarly study need to be provided. Otherwise it would be POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dungsniffer (talk • contribs) 07:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

FGC in South Asia

FGC seems common among the Muslim population of Sri Lanka, and I guess it should be found in India as well. In the media, this is often presented as an African issue, but I have a book by a Sri Lankan Muslims on his ethnic group where he describes the practice quite extensively (and actually supports it). Seems to be type I as far as I can tell. Someone have information on this? And why this focus on Africa? Jasy jatere (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I invite you to summarize the state of female circumcision in South Asia, by citing your book. Assuming it meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and other policy, I see no reason it shouldn't be included, if information is lacking. Blackworm (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FGC is practised by the Bohra Muslims in India, further in the form of so called ‘pricking’ in Malaysia. It is also practised in Indonesia.

(References: Ghadially, R.: “All for ’izzat’: The Practice of Female Circumcision Among Bohra Muslims,” Manushi 66:17-20, 1991. Isa, Ab. Rahman, with Rashidah Shuib and M Shukri Othman: “The practice of female circumcision among Muslims in Kelantan, Malaysia," Reproductive Health Matters 7(13):137-144, 1999. Newland, Lynda: “Female circumcision: Muslim identities and zero tolerance policies in rural West Java”. Women’s Studies International Forum 29:394-404, 2006.) Hssajo (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the focus on Africa? I’d say because the American activist Fran Hosken never went to South Asia. (Perhaps she did; I'm being sarcastic.) Her book The Hosken Report: Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females (first published in 1979) focuses on Africa. She was the one to coin the phrase “female genital mutilation” and her views have had an enormous impact on the public understanding of this phenomenon. Hssajo (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Misleading and Unverifiable Statistics on Egypt

This article has SERIOUS SERIOUS errors. The most pervasive of which is suggesting in several places that possibly 95% - 97% of Egyptian women have received some form of FGC. This is an astounding claim to make about a fairly cosmopolitan nation like Egypt. So when you check for references in the article to back this claim, there are none!! There is a map taken from a small web-site, the map uses "data from Amnesty International", but does not provide any information of what Amnesty research was used. Nor can I find any Amnesty study that shows Egypt having FGM of such high level.

As a result, I have removed all of the following information from the main page, until someone comes up with reputable references to back such an absurd claim.

However, it remains a culturally accepted practice, and a 2005 study found that over 95% of Egyptian women have undergone some form of FGC. {{cite web |url=http://features.us.reuters.com/wellbeing/news/L30168862.html |title=Circumcision Rites Gone Wrong |publisher=Reuters |accessdate=2007-08

the above sentence and reference has been removed from the main page. because the link is dead as of 3:00am EST May 22, 2009. The Reuters site where this article is purpotedly hosted seems to be working just fine.

This law had proved ineffective and in a survey in 2000, a study found that 97% of the country's population still practiced FGC.

above sentence does not even have a reference. Dungsniffer (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see comment below for sources verifying these statements. If you have alternate reliable sources with differing views, please present them. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. OK. Here is the actual study on which all the Egyptian data in the article is based. If the reference link goes bad (as it did), than the entire Egypt part of the article becomes unverifiable, if one checks for cross reference, as I did earlier. This link and study should be more clearly referenced in the main article. http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pub_details.cfm?ID=586 Dungsniffer (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't "unverifiable" since I found an alternate source for the article after one minute of searching. Note also that Internet archives exist. You may also wish to read WP:DEADLINK, which says: "Dead links of online newspaper articles can be converted to references to off-line sources. Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." Blackworm (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the latest figures is from 2004. Egypt then had a prevalence of 96% according to the DHS. (DHS Comparative reports 7. Female Genital Cutting in the Demographic and Health Surveys: A Critical and Comparative Analysis. USAID, 2004). Hssajo (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Highly POV Map Removed

Map: Estimated Prevalence of Female Genital Cutting (FGC) in Africa. Data based on uncertain estimates.

This map clearly has no scientific data to back-up its claims. It is taken from a news web-site which has the following to say about its own biased creation!

There are no exact data on the prevalence of FGM in Africa. The map is based on data selected from various sources, destined not to have used the same methology collecting them. Most available data were on a country basis, though often named peoples were singled out as practising FGM. These data were thus projected on the approximate areas these people inhabit. Note that the map's scale is very coarse, the presentation not giving room for the very many local variations in prevalence.

And then continues with the following gem of an anti-Muslim POV!! As a very coarse and general illustration, the map however has some analythic value. For example, as clearly will be seen, although FGM is most common in Muslim countries, FGM prevalence in no way follows the prevalence of Islam. Rather, FGM prevalence seems to follow regional cultures independent on religion.

This map has been removed primarily because it shows Egypt as one of the main FGM practicing nations, data and research references to back which claim is nowhere to be found in the main article, or at the site from which this map originated. Dungsniffer (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Data to support the prevalence of FGM in Egypt is provided in the article, as a link to a news story (which you deleted, and I restored), and is also supported by World Health Organization documents, including this one. The map's issues are presented to the reader, thus seemingly eliminating NPOV concerns. Please note that your changes, including changing the stated prevalence of FGM in Egypt to "5-20%," may be viewed as violating Wikipedia's policy on original research. Blackworm (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lowry quote

I have removed a quote from Lowry's Virtuous Woman because I don't believe the two parts belong together. The ref shows them being from pages 29 and 35. The first part decries masturbation, and the second part from later in the book does not seem to refer to FGM but to a surgical procedure to relieve a condition known as clitoral adhesions. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Circumcision which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)