Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Prevalence

Hello, before it ends in an Edit War.

The practice of FGM is more widespread than sooner expected, due to new research and evidence. The sentence that FGM is predominatley practiced in east Africa and the Near East cant be sustained anymore. This conclusion is based on out of date research. The new research name Countries of Africa and the middle East. The percantage of the prevalence is higher in eastern african countries due to research are already accomplished there. To claim that therefor the predominative prevalence and origin is based in eastern africa is wrong and premature. One good example is the near accomplished research in west Africa where the prevalence is also sourced on an high level. As mentioned before, often when new research are released, persons reject them and start to argue that it is not practiced "entirely" there. This reminds me of "simply because the research isnt that famous yet, makes it wrong" This is no logic behaviour. --Santiago84 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this before, I believe. As was explained then, FGM/FGC is still predominantly practiced in Northeast Africa (where it is believed to have originated and dispersed from [1]; not Eastern Africa much less Africa as a whole -- the map you uploaded doesn't appear to be sourced to any other map [2]), and parts of the Near East (as opposed to all of the Middle East) and Southeast Asia (as opposed to South Asia as a whole). The key word here again, as before, is predominantly, not exclusively. The article states "FGM is predominantly practiced in Northeast Africa and parts of the Near East and Southeast Asia,[8][9]"; it does not state that "FGM is exclusively practiced in Northeast Africa and parts of the Near East and Southeast Asia,[8][9]". Middayexpress (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And again, research of FGM are still ongoing, if new evidence and research is accomplished and revealed than we have to update and adjust the informations on Wikipeida. Now we have a lot of updates and references available, it is our task now to update the content on this article. The map is an update of the previous prevalence which was based on references around 2000, 2004 and 2007. As actual research are released we will have to update the informations sooner or later, and iam tired of going over every update again and again. Claim vs. Fact. The practice is predominantly origined and practiced in East Africa, this is getting more and more to a claim due to new research point into a different direction, which name a more widespread area and even the islam itself.--Santiago84 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your last message means, but this is what I'm going to leave you with to meditate on for today: Within Africa, FGM/FGC is and has always been associated with Egyptian and Cushitic peoples (Afro-Asiatic speakers native to Northeast Africa). These are the peoples that the practice as a whole is believed to have originated with. Wherever the custom is practiced today on the continent (and many parts of the Near East as well), it is attributed to either a) direct Cushitic and/or Egyptian influence, much like other common Cushitic customs such as fish avoidance; or b) indirect Cushitic and/or Egyptian influence through the spread of peoples affiliated with these latter groups. For example, with regard to FGM/FGC in contemporary Kenya [3]: "The Somali and Rendille of the northeast are the main groups still speaking Cushitic languages, though their arrival in Kenya was more recent. Today, only the Boni speak a language related to the Southern Cushitic of the the first farmers and herders, although the Boni themselves are hunter-gatherers. For the most part, the earliest Cushites were absorbed by peoples who came later and they adopted new languages and customs. The changes were not all one-sided, however: circumcision and clitoridectomy, practised by the early Cushites, became important cultural rituals for many of the peoples who succeeded and absorbed them." Do you see what I'm trying to communicate now? FGM/FGC is a Northeast African custom, which is why it is primarily still practiced (and at its highest frequencies) in that part of the world. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

With my last message i wanted to express that informations change over time. When new studies are released we have to update old ones or define old research as incomplete and not suitable anymore. I'am sorry but i disagree with the argumentation that FGM is linked with the Cushitic people and their language. In Mali (west Africa) the prevalence of FGM is near 100% and there is no link to the Cushitic people and their language line. I can't see a restriction of prevalence of FGM to Cushitic people. You said that "FGM/FGC is and has always been associated with Egyptian and Cushitic peoples" this is again based on old research. We have to differate the real prevalence, also in history, and the time when "we" started to get to know that it is and was practiced there. For Example, FGM was prevalent in Egypt 2000 bc. the first evidence of FGM in Egypt are dated 100 bc on a letter of a chinese traveler who traveled through Egypt. He returns home and releases his knowledge to other Chinese. They only know now that FGM is practiced in Egypt, they dont even know the percentages of prevalence. Books are written that FGM is prevalent in Egypt. Now he travels to Sudan and from there he returns 90 bc to China. Then he releases the new research. A lot of persons say "no, FGM is practiced in Egypt, not Sudan, and even if, it is originated from Egypt!" Just because the chinese received the information that it is practiced in Egypt sooner than the information that FGM is also present in Sudan, let a lot of persons believe that it is originated there. But we know that it has been practiced in Egypt and Sudan 2000 bc. We nowadays face a similar problem. Just because we only have studies of certain countries does not mean that FGM is restricted to them, our "conclusion" that it is originated from Egypt is based on the uncomplete research of prevalence and therefor also a claim (The old paintings "we have" from Egypt. Just because we only have these old paintings as evidence doesn't mean that it is originaly from Egypt, it simply means that these are the oldest records). --Santiago84 (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This kind of issue must be resolved by reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot lead the world in a realization that some practice is more or less widespread than had been understood. What sources support a change to the wording in the article? With regard to the need to update maps, remember that articles should rely on secondary sources and it is often not appropriate for editors to update articles based on their own interpretation of primary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my intention was not to use my own interpretation. As you can see the prevalence of FGM has been updated recently by WHO and UN studies also with change in prevalence, therefor the map of prevalence wasnt conform anymore with the actual prevalence of the sources. The actual map is an image of the prevalence (after updates of prevalence) based on official research (primary sources), i asure you there is no personal interpretation of mine inside. But as i said, we have to update old informations.--Santiago84 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, neither I nor the sources that I have cited for those statements are talking about the BCs, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there. Your own self-made map appears to show that FGM/FGC in Africa is mostly practiced in the Northeast. It also suggests that it is not really practiced in most other parts of the continent, aside from a narrow band stretching westwards from the Northeast (i.e. the Sahel). And this makes perfect sense since, as the quotes and links above indicate, the Northeast is where the custom is believed to have originated and dispersed from. The practice thus is not predominant in all parts of Africa, but rather heavily concentrated in a specific area as the sourced material indicates. Herodotus and Strabo, among other classical authors, wrote about the Ancient Egyptians practicing FGM/FGC, by the way [4]; archaeologists have also found excised mummies, so it's not merely speculative [5]. At any rate, we can't keep going back and forth like this forever. If you have a proposal to make as far as the phrase in question is concerned, please present it with the supporting material in tow and we can then evaluate it. Separately, how do you feel about an origins section? This important topic doesn't seem to be discussed anywhere yet in the article. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Psychological and psychiatric consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT

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

Psychological and psychiatric consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual Effects - WP:NPOV and WP:OR

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

Sexual effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FGM vs. FGC has clearly been settled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sections needing work and missing sections

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

History of terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act. In 1990, this term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa. In 1991, WHO recommended that the United Nations adopt this terminology and subsequently, it has been widely used in UN documents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To address these points in order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since her initial study Lightfoot-Klein has spent her lifetime working against FGM, has published dozens of articles and several books against FGM and currently lectures on the issue. This needs to be mentioned. [6][7][8]

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

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

Psychological consequences

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

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

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

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

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

The deleted section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attempts to end the practice

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

[9] [10] Rubywine . talk 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Forced FGM, Asylum

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

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

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

[11] [12] [13]

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

Controversy

The article needs a section on controversy. Amongst others:

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

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

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

.

Copyright Violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio

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

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

---

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

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

Yeah they have, [14], they identified the source of text in the article that is not free to copy. Thats why I reverted. If there is a copyvio, reverting to restore it is putting the wiki foundation at risk unnecessarily. This is the one template you should never remove and edit warring to remove it could well earn you a block. If there isn't a copyvio it will be removed by the system presently. I would suggest you self-revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pleaes read carefully:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CopyVio - Fixing the Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia copyright issues stats that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Example Two here[15] is a DIRECT copy/paste with "In this spirit" appended to the beginning. That is not permitted on Wikipedia. There is no discussion on who agrees or not. It is not permitted. End of story. And must be fixed as it's a copyvio.
• Example One is a minimally slight paraphrase of the actual text, which is plagiarism, which also is not permitted here. Additionally, it can indeed be considered a copyright violation. Such lawsuits have happened in the US, and it's been found in various of them that it's so close to the original that it does indeed constitute copyright violation. Either way, it is not permitted and there's nothing to discuss about who thinks it's ok.

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

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

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

Copyright tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I saw your comment about "a couple of major editors" misunderstanding copyvio issues (I assume that was in reference to Santiago84 and me). I can confirm that I have not made anything beyond minor edits to the content of the article (never got the chance to do that because of the title/terminology debate). So in this regard we are dealing only with edits by santiago84 that could possibly be copyvio (unless there are one's pre-dating him). I've checked Santiago's contribs page and most of his edits seem to be in the section "laws and prevalence" and the various subsections on the geography of where FGM occurs. The geography subsections probably aren't an issue because they don't cite the WHO, but Laws and Prevalence does. If the basis for continuing concern of copyio is Santiago's misunderstanding then I suggest further efforts be focused on the Laws and Prevalence section. Vietminh (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of copyright template

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. Wasn't sure that you understood the YOU can fix the copyvio and then get the template removed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

WP:OWNERSHIP

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

Firstly I am perturbed at the strong tendency towards territorialism over this article displayed by Vietminh and Santiago84. [17][18][19]. I appreciate that they are responsible for getting the article moved from FGC to FGM, but that is no excuse for hoarding this article, rejecting contributions from new editors [20], patronising new editors [21][22] [23], and intense personal hostility towards new editors [24].

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

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

Thirdly, Jake's remark about not wanting to see voluntary clitoridotomy painted as harmful is completely baffling. [25] Frankly Jake, if that is what motivates your persistent and energetic efforts to downplay the issue of female genital mutilation, then you are shooting yourself in the foot. You should be making every possible effort to distance voluntary procedures from this article, and certainly not trying to blur the boundaries between cosmetic surgery for sexual fetishists and involuntary mutilation of third world children.

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

• I have to say, I regard your reference to my "persistent and energetic efforts to downplay the issue of female genital mutilation" as extremely uncivil, and a personal attack. I'd remind you to comment on content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Fine. Go and lodge a complaint about it. The more people looking at the history of this article and its talk page, the happier I am. Rubywine . talk 17:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh wow am I sick of you using that "comment on the content" crap. I mean really. When you edit to an extent that your views are very clear, then we comment on your behavior and will voice our concerns with it. That is what ANI is about, in fact, and actually nothing in there Ruby said was insulting you, so get off it and move on.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not "crap", it's policy. Editors can and do get blocked for inappropriately discussing editors rather than edits. Jakew (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I applaud you for going as in depth as you did to essentially prove one thing, that my assessment is my own and that you disagree with it. If someone is commenting on edits you've made or have argued for then that's fair game and not at all a personal attack, and those comments can be made here because they are discussing past edits and comments as well as ongoing and potential issues within the article. I am personally tired (as it seems others are) of you repeatedly warning other editors about personal attacks when it is not warranted. If you think these occurrences are serious enough then as Rubywine suggested, please follow up on them at the appropriate venue. Otherwise please stop making these accusations, because as other editors have pointed out to you, they are a distraction from discussion about improving the article. Whatever you decide to do, there's little point in debating this with me any further, because that too would be a distraction from discussion about improving the article. Vietminh (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have our full attention : what should we do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tag removed

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

References

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

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

Fix all plagiarism

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

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

recent work

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing names of sources

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

Main image

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

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

Classification

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

• This article says (my bold):

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

• But the WHO says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having spent the last few minutes conducting a fairly informal survey, I'm inclined to agree that the overwhelming majority of current articles seem to use the WHO's scheme. So I don't think there's a pressing need to discuss other classification schemes; they seem largely to be historical in nature. Jakew (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Note about references

I'm going through the sources to make sure they say what we say. When they don't address the issue we use them for, I'm removing them, so if you see me write "removing unnecessary ref" or similar, that's why. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some other sources:

• "The practice of female genital mutilation is on the increase nowhere in the world except in our so called developed societies. “Designer laser vaginoplasty” and “laser vaginal rejuvenation” are growth areas in plastic surgery, representing the latest chapter in the surgical victimisation of women in our culture. [...]"[26]
• "Finally type IV [FGM] is all other procedures as it is unclassified, but includes cosmetic genital surgery (designer vaginas), such as labioplasty, vaginoplasty, piercing[...]"[27] Jakew (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, I cited three sources that explicitly (or implicitly, in the case of the WHO's definition) regard elective female genital surgery as FGM. There are other such sources, too, such as "some contributors to the BMJ discussion insist that the designer vagina should be regarded as a form of female genital mutilation."[28] and "Some authors view FGCS [female genital cosmetic surgeries] as female genital mutilation (FGM)"[29] Or "Cosmetic Genitoplasty: It's female genital mutilation and should be prosecuted"[30] Or "Some respondents considered cosmetic vaginal surgery as a form of FGM[...]"[31] The existence of these sources suggests that it is misleading to state that "The term FGM is not applied to [...] elective procedures". That statement isn't true: some authors evidently do apply the term to elective procedures. However, I was able to find a source asserting that cosmetic surgeries aren't FGM: "My classification of genital surgery as FGCS does not include surgery for trans- sexual or intersex people,3 nor is it 'female genital mutilation' (FGM)."[32] We could say something like "there are mixed opinions as to whether elective surgeries constitute FGM". Jakew (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to quote NPOV back to me as we've had many, many, many discussions about it. I understand that its our job to cover all points of view in the manner in which you quote. What I am suggesting is the following, the WHO states that FGM is "internationally recognized" (meaning by more than just the WHO) as a human rights violation and that it is physically and psychologically harmful to the people who have it done to them. The source you cite disputes (or draws into question) this claim and is arguing that the writers who make claims of physical and psychological problems lack evidence and that their claims are unsupported. This is in direct contradiction to the bulk of sources cited in the article so I think it is prudent to question the authority of this source (its got nothing to do with consistency). NPOV does not require us to include every single point of view that exists, and given the aforementioned international recognition of FGM as a human rights violation that is physically and psychologically damaging I see no reason to introduce into the article a pov which runs counter to that assertion, because it is simply not widely held enough to justify its inclusion. That and the RfC clearly established a consensus that FGM was mutilation (see the supporting comments given by the people who supported the FGM terminology) and that the article should reflect that, so again I see no reason to re-introduce a pov to the article that argues FGM doesn't have serious psychological or physiological consequences.

As for the source I linked to, beyond the opening statement there are several others which help to refine the definition of what FGM is, including "The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.", "It is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15 years", "In Africa an estimated 92 million girls from 10 years of age and above have undergone FGM", and "FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women". If we substituted the word FGM for "vagioplasty" or "labiaplasty" or "sex re-assignment surgery" I think it becomes clear that this definition of FGM does not include them. I'm sure you're not going to accept that alone, but putting this reasoning together with the sources slimvirgin cited I think it is sufficient to support the restoration of his wording. Also I wouldn't support saying there is a "mixed opinion" because that would inflate the size of the debate in proportion to its relevance to the topic. The current wording is fine in that it is minimalist and quotes the source and allows the reader to decide the application, but if slimvirgin thinks its important to distinguish I think there is ample support for such a move. I leave it to him. Vietminh (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's address this point-by-point.

First of all, the words "Some writers" do not mean "all writers", and the statement that some authors fail to cite evidence is not the same as stating that no evidence exists. But that's something of a moot point anyway, because we're not proposing to cite this source in support of claims that FGC does not cause psychological or physical harm, or that it isn't a human rights violation. The issue here is whether it is an uncontested fact that elective surgeries do not constitute FGM.

Third, looking at the passages you quote from the "key facts" document, none seem to exclude elective surgeries. "The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women" seems to apply equally to elective surgery (most cosmetic surgeries have no health benefits). "It is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15 years" doesn't imply that it cannot be carried out later. "In Africa an estimated 92 million girls from 10 years of age and above have undergone FGM" doesn't provide any information either way. The only debatable point is whether "FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women" applies, but as pointed out above, some sources regard elective surgeries as "surgical victimisation", while others say "It's female genital mutilation and should be prosecuted". So it seems that there is certainly some outrage about elective surgeries, which would be consistent with viewing them as rights violations.

Finally, your criticisms — such as they are — apply to only one of the seven sources cited. It is difficult to escape the fact that multiple sources do refer to elective surgeries as FGM. I'm happy enough with the current sentence, too. Jakew (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, I accept the moot point I was just voicing my concerns about the source you cited (which was before you cited several others, so it is not as if I ignored those if that is what you implying), if a source has problems in its suppositions then I have trouble accepting its conclusions (won't bother debating this further, as you say its not being cited anyway). My point about the WHO document is that the expanded criteria it sets out do not seem to align with assessments of the 3 elective surgeries listed. Certainly sex reassignment surgery does have health benefits, and the age and geographic criteria suggest to me that Western countries are at a minimum not the focus of the document. As for a human rights violation, I have trouble believing anyone could honestly suggest its a human rights violation if an adult woman in a western country opts for an elective surgery (I've yet to see any plastic surgeons tried at the Hague). Yes, these sources do seem to believe its FGM, but the one source you cite clearly points out that legally speaking its not considered FGM in the UK. Plus the two you quoted above are editorials and not peer reviewed journals. So weighing legal reality against opinion pieces, I would opt for the legal reality. Vietminh (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could rephrase it as a statement about what is legally considered FGM, but the question is, in which jurisdiction? Some jurisdictions have adopted a stricter position than others. From memory, US federal law does not apply to an adult who has given consent. I've seen varying interpretations of UK law re consent (though it does explicitly apply to adults). Sweden's law requires that it "must not take place, regardless of whether consent to this operation has or has not been given". Norwegian and Danish laws are similar. Consequently, "any change of the female genitals, which is not medically motivated, ought to be punishable"[33] I think I read that Switzerland is similar, but I'd have to check to be sure. From memory, the rationale for these stricter positions seems to be that (in the view of policy makers) no women could ever consent to FGC if she knew how awful it was, so consent cannot be considered valid.

I agree, by the way, that elective surgery (in Western countries or indeed anywhere else) aren't the focus of the WHO or other bodies. But then, one wouldn't expect them to focus on those, as they must represent only the smallest fraction of FGC instances worldwide. It seems rational to expect the WHO, etc., to comment on the more typical and (if I may be permitted to express a point of view here) vastly more troubling examples of the practice, where it's forced on unwilling victims. Jakew (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As I say, unless Slimvirgin wants to pursue it further I'm satisfied. I don't see any fault with using a direct statement from the WHO which isn't under dispute. I think the lengths we would have to go to to compromise the wording would inflate the debate beyond what is worth mentioning, and are certainly not worth the effort unless slimvirgin wants to debate it further. Vietminh (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree there's no sense in saying more about the cutting term. Regarding the sentence that FGM isn't applied to elective procedures, WHO specifically addresses this, so I moved it to the terminology section, third para. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Where do they specifically address it, SlimVirgin? Jakew (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

See the first source in the footnote, p. 28. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"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." Okay, thank you. Jakew (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Emerged in the late 1970s

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

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

The term was coined in 1979, according to [34]: "Decrying the oppression of women by men, American Fran Hosken in 1979 advocated for the use of the term “female genital mutilation” (FGM). Although “mutilation” had previously been used to describe the act, it was Hosken who constructed the phrase “FGM”[...]" That's supported by other sources as well, eg., Elizabeth Heger Boyle's "Female Genital Cutting: Cultural Conflict in the Global Community", JHU Press 2005, p109.

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

I do not support the restoration of that sentence that Jakew is referring to. I don't think listing dates of emergence for a specific term adds anything of substance to the article and I am concerned that this could once again be used as a justification for creating a debate on the use of the term FGC by suggesting that it is "newer" or that it has in some way replaced the term FGM. That's not the case and there's no benefit to creating the perception of it otherwise, the terminology section explains the origins of the term FGC adequately as it is now. Vietminh (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not wanting to have a debate on Wikipedia's talk pages is an extremely weak justification for excluding content from an article. The fact is that the term is newer, and has begun to replace the older term (as the supplied sources show), and this is encyclopaedic information that informs the reader about the way that terminology has changed over time. Jakew (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I politely suggest that you do not go down this road again Jakew, this is the last time I will address this with you and I sincerely hope this is the last time you will bring it up. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the term FGC has in any way begun to replace the term FGM. That is a view that you alone hold and it is not a view that is supported by any sources or any other editors here. As the article states, the term FGC is used in communities where the term mutilation may cause offence and that is all. The result of the RfC was a consensus that the term FGM has been and is the most commonly used (that was the justification for using the term) and no one has at any point supported your argument that the term FGC is replacing the term FGM. I will not have this argument with you specifically, because the issue has already been definitively decided and you are coming dangerously close to bringing it up again. That you don't agree with it is fine, however, I and other editors have repeatedly reminded you that you must accept the consensus and not continue to seek to insert your view into the article when it has been rejected. Please again, I politely request that you not continue this line of discussion past this point. Vietminh (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, Vietminh. Several sources state that the term FGC has begun to replace FGM. For example, "The term “female genital cutting” is now used in the literature rather than “female genital mutilation”."[35] and "This [FGM] is the term used by the majority of English speakers, as well as many activists who direct interventions against the practice, but there seems to be a clear shift toward using FGC."[36] I agree that consensus in the RfC was clear that the article should use the term FGM, and I assure you that I'm not proposing to change that. I respect your decision not to discuss the issue further. Jakew (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're starting to use sources to advance this argument rather than interpolated google scholar results, and that you're not trying to re-open the debate from the RfC. I will point out that you've got one source that is rebuked by the fact that FGM is currently being used in published sources and official documents (both legal and NGO derived), and you've got another one which without citation or reference says "seems to be a clear shift". I can't support inclusion of a statement which says its replacing FGM in absence of a source which actually cites a statistic or data on the use of the terms. Normally such statements would be fine by themselves, but given that most of the sources that use FGC seem to advocate for its use as well, they thus have a compelling reason to say that its replacing FGM because they are attempting to make it do so. The statement would thus amount to 'the people who use the term FGC believe that the term FGC is replacing the term FGM'. Which isn't exactly an "a-ha" moment if you see what I mean. Vietminh (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find I've cited them before, Vietminh. The first argument you offer is original research. The second imposes quite an extraordinary requirement that is not required by any policy. If you seriously believe that we can only report claims made by sources that cite accompanying statistics then we'd need to delete a fair portion of the article.

In any event, I haven't proposed (at the present time) to add (in the case of the first) or restore (in the case of the second) either of these two sources. What I have proposed is to restore the fact that many organisations began to switch to the term in the mid-1990s. Including rough dates helps the reader to understand the history of terminology: how it has evolved. Jakew (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion about terminology ought to end, because it seems to have been going on for months. FGM is used significantly more than FGC:

• Google:

• "female genital mutilation": 1,720,000
• "female genital mutilation/cutting": 960,000
• "female circumcision": 895,000
• "female genital cutting": 222,000

• Google Books:

• "female genital mutilation": 33,900
• "female genital mutilation/cutting": 575
• "female circumcision": 53,700
• "female genital cutting": 7,060

• Google Scholar:

• "female genital mutilation": 15,300
• "female genital mutilation/cutting": 449
• "female circumcision": 12,800
• "female genital cutting": 3,430

• Google News:

• "female genital mutilation": 64
• "female genital mutilation/cutting": 4
• "female circumcision": 28
• "female genital cutting": 6

People who prefer FGC are likely to argue that it's being used more. But it's hard to know how that could be quantified, so I can't see the point of labouring it. In the meantime the article is poorly written, with lots of primary sources, many of them not supporting the text, so those are the issues it would make sense to focus on. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'm de-watchlisting this article, at least for the immediate future, so focus on whatever you see fit. Happy editing. Jakew (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Image of Type III

I've removed the Type III image, because it was taken from this paper, and shows FGM on a "karyotypic male presenting as a female with delayed puberty." That raises the question of how typical it would be. It's also labelled Type IV, which confuses the issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In case someone wants to understand this later, the removed image is File:Type IV circumcision.jpg and the image appears in this revision. The image name and description refer to "Type IV" total infibulation based on the older classification by Nahid Toubia (1994). The article uses the more recent and widespread terminology of the WHO, which is why the removed caption referred to "Type III". The difference in terminology was discussed above at #Classification.

The image, while confronting, was useful to show what FGM can involve. However, I agree with SlimVirgin that it is not suitable to use an image for a case that is not clearly typical (my guess is that the image is typical of type III, but of course that is not a suitable basis for content inclusion). Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, just to let you know, I've nominated Comfort Momoh for DYK, which may gain this page some extra visitors too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)