This is an archive of past discussions about Female genital mutilation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Photographs of the procedures and the results are available under applicable licenses. I considered adding some to the article, but I imagine there are editors who would immediately remove the pictures for whatever reason, so rather than initiating what I suspect could be an edit war, I thought I'd open a discussion here. Does anyone object to adding some photographs? 24.146.27.243 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Now having seen the picture that you added[1], I think it is too graphic and is not really appropriate for inclusion here. By the way, did you take this photo yourself? Nsk92 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact, it looks like the image was downloaded from the internet[2][3] Seems unlikely to me that the uploader really held the copyrights to the image, as the file desciption page claims. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by too graphic? can you cite policy on that? I'm skeptical because many articles about surgery, body modification, and other subjects dealing with the human body contain very graphic images. for instance: eye surgery, genital modification and mutilation, acid throwing, decapitation, and so on. I do realize that what is valid in one article is not necessarily valid in another, but if you feel this article deserves special censorship of the details, please elaborate as to why. also, maybe you can educate me on whether editors are permitted by wikipedia policy to use their suspicions about copyright as leverage in eliminating content they find objectionable. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
First, about copyright. If see an image with a clearly improper license, I tag it accordingly whether or not I think the image would have been useful if it had been free. About too graphic. This image clearly has the effect of pushing the viewers' emotional buttons really hard. That may be fine in an opinion piece but not in an encyclopedia article. That's why we have the WP:NPOV policy and that's why strong emotional language (and not just pictures) is also supposed to be avoided in Wikipedia articles. Nsk92 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The picture is an actual photograph of a real FGM procedure, it's a typical and accurate depiction of the reality of these rituals. The girl in the picture had portions of her genitals permanently removed in exactly the manner that is the subject of this article. The image isn't doctored to support a given perspective, it doesn't have any superimposed personal opinion, it is just the simple truth of this subject. It may be upsetting for you, that is your POV (mine too), but obviously the people in the picture who carried out the act, and others like them, would see it as something positive, that would be their POV.
The expectation that the truth would be offensive to many people (which I agree is true here) does not make factual information POV. This is a well established principle, that the simple truth is not POV, regardless of whether the public would be likely to react strongly to it. If you disagree, maybe you can cite previous cases where content was censored on wikipedia on the grounds of causing an emotional response, in spite of being applicable, informative, and accurate. (will wait for agreement or counter-argument before moving forward) 24.146.27.243 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
"This image clearly has the effect of pushing the viewers' emotional buttons really hard." - so does the subject matter itself. It's no reason to avoid representing it in an encyclopedia. Especially not here. 85.227.165.111 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, the problem is not that the image is offensive as such, but rather that it is too emotionally jarring and thus is not appropriate for this article, per WP:NPOV. As noted before, for topics like rape or decapitation, a picture with an overly graphic description of these acts would not be appropriate either (even though such a picture may provide an accurate description of the act) and we do not include them. Plus, like I said, the image is a pretty obvious copyvio. I have listed it at PUF and I am fairly sure that it will be deleted, making this discussion rather moot. Nsk92 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
If it's alright with you, I'd like to deal with the subject of that specific image's copyright in the scope of that specific image, and to deal here with the question of whether it's valid to add graphic depictions to this article. I understand that you're saying it's POV to provide facts or details that some may find upsetting, but my understanding is that, to the contrary, it is specifically POV to delete content where the cause for deletion is that some may find it upsetting and/or objectionable. My understanding is that wikipedia policy is to document all subjects, even subjects of extreme sensitivity on the part of some individuals, as neutrally as one would document the details of, for example, making a dovetail joint in carpentry. Maybe you can enlighten me by citing some specific policy statement that supports what you're saying, though. Also, decapitation does contain graphic depictions that would exceed censorship standards for broadcast media in many countries, and that would be very upsetting for many people, this is the case for many articles. I mean, the fact that wikipedia contains content that many would find extremely objectionable and/or horrifying, and that this is permitted under wikipedia policy, wouldn't seem to be reasonably disputable. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you are still not getting my point. Of course, it is necessary and appropriate for WP articles to deal with controversial subjects, including subjects that some people find upsetting. However, dealing with these touchy subjects is supposed to be done from a neutral point of view. Therefore both strong emotional language and images likely to produce a particularly strong emotional response are supposed to be avoided. For example, in an article about abortion it would inappropriate to use an image giving a close-up of a doctor performing an abortion (even though such an image would be an accurate representation of the procedure). In the decapitation example, there is only one image that pushes the envelope a bit in terms of the jarring emotional response impact, namely File:LeonardGSiffleet.jpg. A close-up photo showing the sword actually severing the head would definitely bee too graphic and not appropriate. For topics dealing with young children, the threshold for where an image might, figuratively speaking almost give someone a cardiac arrest is in a different place compared with images of violence involving adults (like File:LeonardGSiffleet.jpg) and the file we are discussing here, is definitely over that threshold, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm really not getting your point. It seems to be that you believe there's a line somewhere in the sand where if a sufficient number of people find factual documentation sufficiently objectionable, wikipedia policy is to censor it. You could be right, but that's not my understanding. Given that you are removing and/or blocking what would otherwise be informative and relevant content, and it would be difficult for me to prove a negative about such a rule not existing, can you cite the policy you're referring to so I can learn about it too? Also, about the abortion article, I would agree that it is heavily censored, and is one of several examples where wikipedia is hawkishly scrubbed of forbidden content that certain political groups in the US are keeping out of nearly all forms of media and educational materials. Other examples would be the Israeli army's actions, which have limited coverage relative to other war documentation, and the meat industry, which has minimal coverage in spite of encyclopedic content being widely available in the public domain, and extensive gruesome animal death content existing in other articles. Planned parenthood, AIPAC, and the US meat industry also happen to be some of the highest spenders of lobbying dollars in the US, AIPAC spending more on political funding than any other lobbying group on earth. Protection of these groups seems to be in direct conflict with stated wikipedia policy, however, and most articles receive no such protection, following an explicit policy of treating the reader's sensibilities with complete indifference. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have explained to you my point several times already, at significant length. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV. In any event, the image in question has been deleted as an obvious copyvio, which makes discussing this image rather moot. Move on. Nsk92 (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've read the NPOV documentation, it seems to say the exact opposite of what you're saying, as does Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored which says Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Though, again, if there's a basis to the policy you're stating, please inform me, I'd like to see it as I'm apparently uninformed. About the copyright, the image is in the public domain, as are a plethora of others that would be equally applicable, but rather than addressing a moving target which mutates between moral and copyright objections when drawn into question, I'd like to first deal with your stated reason for deleting the image from the article, which was that you feel it violates wikipedia policy on ethical grounds. Again, can you cite the policy you were/are referring to? If not, would you agree that the image, if legally acceptable, would not be removed by you if re-added? 24.146.27.243 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You couldn't presumably show graphic depiction some other things (e.g., murder, rape), but then avoiding such images and describing things in such a way to provoke the least emotional response also has WP:NPOV issues (for example, the male circumcision article, which also has no images of the procedure, only its aesthetic result 20-odd years later, and images celebratory of circumcision, which only evoke negative emotional response in those opposed to male circumcision). One solution for those shocked by images of male and female circumcision is described in Wikipedia:Options_to_not_see_an_image. We could flag it as a bad image, again assuming there are no copyright issues. Blackworm (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Options_to_not_see_an_image says that "images are added to the bad image list because of concerns about disruptive use and vandalism, not because someone finds the image objectionable." However, I would have no objection to using a mechanism that would make images available to those wishing to see all available information, but that would enable images to be avoided by those who would prefer not to see the details of FGM. Another possibility might be to move a portion of the article into a secondary article covering a collection of topics that would be less likely to offend genital mutilators, and then the primary article would include written details and images of the actual procedures and their aftermath, perhaps having images strategically placed at least a page from the top, and having a link at the top of the article saying something like "This article is about female genital cutting procedures. For political and ideological information, see Female Genital Cutting (Cultural Factors)." 24.146.27.243 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The image was deleted in error, however, you didn't cite copyright concerns in removing the image from the article. You cited NPOV concerns, which I'd like to resolve before trying again to move forward. Blending NPOV accusations with copyright infringement claims to create a moving target is not constructive as they are separate questions. The NPOV claim would apply to any/all graphic images, regardless of their license, and would presumably be a roadblock in adding further images, as you would presumably remove them, so first I'd like to try to resolve your NPOV concerns before trying to resolve legal concerns about any specific image. I think the easiest way to put this question to rest would be for you to cite policy supporting your claim that offensive content is POV and should be censored. I would also ask you to consult Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored and in particular, the sentences Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. Maybe you can shed some light on where I'm in error in saying that policy seems to be that finding content objectionable is not a reason to delete it. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, for Pete's sake, stop it already. And look up Wikipedia:Tendentious editing while you are at it. Regarding the "public domain" thing. The fact that an image has been circulating on the internet for several years does not make it a "public domain" image. For a copyrighted image to be released into the public domain, the original copyright holder has to explicitly give up the copyrights to the image. Then it would indeed go into the public domain. Positive documentation of the fact that the original copyright holder has released the copyright must be provided before the image may be uploaded as a "public domain" image. See the WP:IUP policy. Nsk92 (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyright issues aside, is the NPOV issue resolved? If not, can you refer to a specific policy supporting what you were saying? 24.146.27.243 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it is certainly not resolved, at least not in the way you want it. Simply asking the same question again and again and refusing to listen to the answer does not constitute WP:CONSENSUS. For the last time, if you have not heard me the previous times, the relevant policy is WP:NPOV. Now, your behaviour at this page has become disruptive. Please stop it and move on. If you are still not getting my point, you can inquire it at Wikipedia talk:NPOV and have someone else explain the basics of WP:NPOV to you. Nsk92 (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've read WP:NPOV, the problem isn't that I'm refusing to look at it, or a language or comprehension issue, as English is my first language and I am fairly well educated. It's that it doesn't seem to support what you're saying in any way, and I'm not sure why you can't refer to where it does. From top to bottom, a large number of statements on the page would actually seem to conflict with what you're saying, let me cite a number of them. From WP:NPOV:
An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.
material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"
All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.
Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.
That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact, but that the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb is a value or opinion.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction.
Also, the policy only seems to deal with statements in the form of text in wikipedia's words, not factual absolutes such as quotes or photos, which are only subject to questions of verifiability and relevance, as I understand it. Though, again, please enlighten me by pointing out where your view is supported in policy, or at least be more specific than "have someone else explain the basics of WP:NPOV to you." 24.146.27.243 (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nsk92 here, and I'm afraid I don't understand why you (24.146.27.243) are quoting several passages from WP:NPOV, when none of these appear to contradict what Nsk92 has already explained about this situation. Jakew (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jakew, thank you for joining the discussion. Could you refer me to a specific statement in policy supporting the view that upsetting images are POV because they may reflect badly on a given side of a topic? I quoted text from NPOV that seems, in my opinion, to conflict with that idea by saying that all major viewpoints and their supporting evidence should be included, and even if those with another perspective would take deep offense to that information, the appropriate action is to also document the opposition, not to remove the offending facts. Though, I'd like to give careful consideration to what you're saying, but I don't have much food for thought here, with you and Nsk92 claiming that policy says a given thing, but not citing any specific statement in policy to support what you're saying. I mean, is the policy statement you're referring to a secret? Am I not allowed to look at it? If that is the case, maybe you can refer me to the person who has authority over that policy of secretiveness, so I can ask them to include me in the discussion. Or, if you're referring to public policy, why can't you quote the portion you're referring to? Also, if this is personal opinion, you're entitled to it, but wikipedia does have policies, and they include being uncensored and documenting all sides of a subject including potentially offensive details. Also, please note the specific statement in wikipedia policy that material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV." There is a distinction between documenting the facts of a major POV that might be considered offensive or wrong, and writing your POV in wikipedia's words, which is what constitutes a POV edit.24.146.27.243 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The policy is not secret; it is WP:NPOV, and Nsk92 has already explained how it applies in, for example, his/her post dated 16:30, 17 July 2010. Jakew (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the post at 16:30, 17 July 2010, Nsk92 stated strong emotional language and images likely to produce a particularly strong emotional response are supposed to be avoided as the apparent basis of their argument. I can't find anything to that effect in WP:NPOV or any other policy document, particularly in reference to images rather than text in wikipedia's words, and if it doesn't exist then the argument would seem to be unfounded. Can you refer me to where wikipedia policy says something to the effect that strong emotional language and images likely to produce a particularly strong emotional response are supposed to be avoided? My understanding is that even deeply offensive statements and actions by others, and their supporting evidence, can be fully documented so long as wikipedia is not represented as having a stance, and the article is balanced with documentation of major competing views. For instance, it is valid to document what Hitler said and did, in potentially upsetting detail, but not to suggest that wikipedia supports his views and actions. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPOV requires neutral presentation of the various viewpoints expressed. Such neutral presentation is wholly inconsistent with the use of "shock tactics". This is so fundamental to WP:NPOV that it is frankly astonishing that you're again asking for evidence of the obvious. We don't use emotional language; we adopt an impartial tone. Similarly, we must be careful to select images that inform without trying to "shock" readers into adopting one position or another. Jakew (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking you to back up your assertion because it specifically isn't supported by WP:NPOV which is explicit in that it deals with the nature of text in wikipedia's words, not quotes, images, or other objective materials which are subject to other guidelines, and it, along with WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored and WP:Sexual_content says that wikipedia can and will contain content that is extremely shocking, if it is also informative, relevant, and otherwise in compliance with encyclopedic guidelines. For instance, Dovetail_joint contains images of dovetail joints and the process and tools involved in making them, because images of a process can be extremely helpful to the reader in understanding the process. If dovetail jointing were somehow socially unacceptable, one could consider the same images shocking, but they would still be relevant and important to the subject. "Shock value" should neither prevent otherwise applicable content from being included, nor should it be reason to include content that would otherwise be inapplicable. In this article, pictures of FGM that are as explicit and relevant as those in Dovetail_joint should be included, this article shouldn't be less informative than Dovetail_joint simply because it deals with a shocking subject. WP:Profanity does say that Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. but I think it should be obvious that if FGM were, for example, a procedure that modified tree branches, images of the procedure would definitely be important to the quality of the article. My assertion isn't that we should choose unnecessarily shocking images in order to convince the reader of the "right" point of view, it's that explicit images of the procedure should be included in order to fully inform the reader, even if the procedure is shocking. I mean, if your position is that this should be an image-free article only because it deals with a shocking subject, I believe that is in error, but if you believe the specific image was unnecessarily graphic in a way that went beyond what is required to fully depict the subject in the same way that we would if this were a woodworking procedure, then I say please work with me on your specific objections and on choosing a less objectionable image (many are available in the public domain) that is still as explicitly informative as would be expected in an article dealing with a less shocking subject. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The claims have been in direct conflict with [[WP::NPOV]], and I've explained why, exhausted every possibility I can think of in citing relevant policy rather than simply asserting that I am correct. No one has actually cited so much as a single word of policy in opposition to visually documenting FGM procedures, and beyond the general claim of "POV" and referring to [[WP::NPOV]], my responses to which have been ignored, no reference has been made to any supporting aspect of policy. I feel very strongly that while some important information, including images, may be extremely shocking (mass graves from the holocaust etc..), it is important to fully inform the reader on important cultural issues, including providing visual depictions of the reality of some difficult cultural issues. I'd like to address your concerns, but I think it is you who are beating a dead horse by insisting that an image you don't like is "POV" simply because it is shocking, and refusing to account for how policy supports your position. It would be my strong preference to discuss the details of [[WP::NPOV]] that you feel support your claim, but if my only option is to engage in contentious editing on an unresolved matter of dispute, and/or to seek assistance from an administrator, then I will. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't offered a personal opinion about the image, so it is unclear why you believe that I don't like it. Nor have I said (let alone insisted) that it is "POV". I do not appreciate being misquoted. Your claims have indeed been in conflict with WP:NPOV, as has been explained to you, and cherry-picking individual passages from policies while ignoring the whole does not change this fact. I would strongly advise against edit-warring; and you should be aware that it can result in you being blocked from editing. The choice is yours. Jakew (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with what Jakew said above. Moreover, as I said before, with the image deleted this entire discussion is moot anyway. 24.146.27.243, if and when you find and upload an image with proper licensing info and in compliance with the WP:IUP policy, and suggest adding it to the article, there will be something to talk about. As it is, you are just wasting everyone's time here and are engaging in a classic example of tendentious editing. By the way, you are more than welcome to consult an administrator and I am pretty sure that if you do, you'll be told the same things we've been telling you here. Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(in response to Nsk92) You're mistaken about the copyright, and the question is easily resolved (I've been contact with the copyright holder about this, in fact), but there's no point in uploading again until this "adding the image is POV" subject is put to rest. Presumably, if I am in error (which is possible), an administrator would cite the letter of policy that is violated by adding the image. That would be acceptable, that's all I want, and that would mean consensus. However, the spirit and letter of NPOV policy have nothing to do with images, quotes, and other factual materials. The only questions would be whether the image is informative and useful in this article, and given that it may be offensive, whether the article would be less significantly informative without it. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(in response to Jakew) Nsk92 asserted that inclusion of the image is "POV" and you said he explained what the issue was, which seems to suggest that you agree, but if I misquoted you then I apologize. Maybe you can tell me what wikipedia policy you feel adding the image is in conflict with (an explicit quote would be great) and why, so I can either understand your concern, or address it. As for edit-warring, I have specifically gone out of my way to attempt to open a discussion before making changes, and I am doing everything I can to ask those in opposition to my edit to refer to the policy they feel I am violating so that an understanding (perhaps on my part) can be reached. However, when another editor is reverting an edit of mine, stating that it violates policy, but refusing to cite the specific policy that it violates, my choices are either A) to remain ignorant (assuming I am) and to simply trust the opinion of that editor, or B) to assume based on lack of supporting evidence that the editor is in error and to move forward with an edit without consensus, seeking assistance if necessary. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
As has already been explained multiple times, the specific policy is WP:NPOV, which requires neutral treatment of the subject, something that is incompatible with "shock" imagery. Repeatedly asking a question after it has already been answered is becoming disruptive. If you want to seek advice from an admin, by all means do, but as Nsk92 has advised you, you'll probably get the same response. Jakew (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand you feel the image is shocking and you feel that makes it a POV violation. Can you back that up? What part of WP:NPOV are you referring to? 24.146.27.243 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The part that reads "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view", which, as has been explained to you many, many times, is inconsistent with the use of shock tactics. Please be advised that I am unlikely to answer this question if you ask it again, as this pointless repetition is becoming tedious. Readers will likely be opposed to the practice of FGC as a result of a neutral description; we don't need to (figuratively) hit them over the head with a hammer. Inclusion of shock imagery heavily biases the article in one direction. We don't do that. Jakew (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you feel that any/all images documenting the details of the procedure would be "shock images" due to the nature of the procedure? I mean, to propose a somewhat silly scenario, if you had a machine that could magically generate relevant images for any article, where it would work perfectly for any article about woodworking or a socially neutral surgery, would the machine be considered a biased POV editor when used in an article like this, due to generating shocking content? 24.146.27.243 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
While I don't agree with your conclusions about the existing image, fair enough. I'm going to take a break from this article because I think it's good to have a span of time before making potentially contentious edits, and then I'll post another image. I do believe that the factual details of this subject should be included in explicit visual form, shocking as they may be, but I will try to choose an image that contains minimal shocking elements beyond those required to informatively depict the subject. 24.146.27.243 (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: Nsk92's statement: "Therefore both strong emotional language and images likely to produce a particularly strong emotional response are supposed to be avoided." I agree with that to some degree, but issues arise since that is essentially a judgment call on the part of editors, and without a lot of scrutiny waters down WP:CENSOR in an unacceptable way. Disputes along these lines inevitably turn into simple votes where no one need justify their opinion with sources nor logic; editors need only to assert that a term is invalid ("sensationalistic," "shocking," "emotive"). Thus, a count of editors' points of view about what constitutes strong emotional language, and the higher number wins. If one further gets the people in their Wikiprojects and other Wikipedia interest groups who feel the same way as them to help, then they can make the arbitrary edit, and no one needs to explain or justify anything, as no one has violated policy.
Often, language is seen as strongly emotional by those on one side of a controversial issue, but seen as a more accurate by those on the other. Editors with a simple majority view on a controversial topic who edit that topic's article, or even a sizable such minority that has established a POV in an article already, may indeed share a view about certain terms or images; and they may use this nebulous aspect of NPOV to justify consistently using certain language and images, and/or changing the language and images in new edits to match the tone and views of the existing language and images. It is no coincidence then that the language and images often subtly favor one side throughout an article or set of articles, despite many editors honestly believing they are simply following WP:NPOV. The same group who argue for emotional responses for some material can and will also insist upon defending existing material other editors claim provoke a strong emotional response -- since there is no strict definition of what is and isn't emotional, and the policy seemingly isn't set up to deal with this, one cannot ever show any inconsistency or impropriety in that form of editing. That's why I don't back your statement very much. I believe removal of material on this basis must be generally frowned upon and only done in extreme cases where an overwhelming majority believe the language or images overly provoke emotion. WP:CENSOR also, always applies, and this argument is often used to bypass it. Blackworm (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Why not “Female Genital Mutilation”
This is the term officially used by the United Nations, and the most commonly-used in English-language publications. So, why “Female Genital CUTTING” is used as the title of this article? To “not offend” peoples who generally does not speak or understand English? I thought Wikipedia article-naming was about logic, not Political Correctness… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.196.239 (talk • contribs)
The following edit claims to be removing vandalism.
It doesn't look like vandalism to me. however, I don't
have time right now to figure out whether the article
is better with or without the information:
[4]☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
FGM "modification" or "injury"?
The Term modification is too neutral to be used for a practice that is forbidden by law and Human Rights. I dont know why it is too hard for some people to rate FGM on a moral Yardstick on the "NO" Side of it. [1][2] If you call this "modification", you have in my view not the professionality to work on an Encyclopedia that also offers knowledge to Children and the Youth itself. --Santiago84 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
@Santiago84: I have been ignoring this article for a while so I may be missing some subtleties, but your concern is not what the text is saying. Naturally any claim that FGM was simply a modification would be absurd, but the text in the lead is quite different. It says that any "modification" is FGC. As to whether there is such a thing as a mere modification in practice is a different matter. At any rate, the [1] reference is key. At one time I read the WHO definition, but on looking at the article now, all I see is a footnote which unhelpfully says "Definition used by the World Health Organization". That is not an adequate citation! The issue should be resolved by finding the WHO definition and basing the article's definition on that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Santiago84, many of us personally take a stance against FGC, but Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy that means that articles cannot take a stance one way or the other. And really, FGC is the same thing whatever words are used to describe it; there's no need to use loaded terminology. Jakew (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This NPOV usage is completely bogus. We use what reliable sources say, discounting outlying sources per WP:UNDUE. If someone came here and suggested that FGC be described as "female genital enhancement" because that was NPOV (the proponents believing that is what they were doing), the suggestion would be rejected. Not because editors here can magically determine what is POV and what is NPOV, but because reliable sources quickly dismiss the suggestion of an enhancement. If sources define FGC as an injury, that is what the article would do. I doubt sources do use that term as it does not really make sense as a definition ("injury" might be a description, but it is not a useful definition). Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree: there's no reason why we should use non-neutral terminology even when that terminology is commonly used. Fundamentally, NPOV is about documenting, rather than expressing points of view, and using non-neutral terminology makes it difficult to do that. That said, a definition of an established term may be a special case, as sometimes terms and their definitions are deliberately used to convey a point of view. Quoting a definition may be a useful approach. Jakew (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
As suggested above, I can't find my copy of the WHO definition, and ref [1] in the article needs to be fixed regardless of this discussion. Is this (currently ref 34) the supposed WHO definition (I can't see the quoted text in it)? I see that the WHO link just given unequivocally states Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. Why not used that as the definition? Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Not an unreasonable suggestion. I've cited this source and have modified the text so as to explicitly quote the WHO; since "injury" is now attributed there is no NPOV problem. Jakew (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
When a statement is attributed (X said ...), the statement is given as the opinion of its author. When a statement is not attributed, it appears as a fact given in "Wikipedia's voice", and it is those which particularly must follow WP:NPOV. Of course attributed statements have to satisfy things like WP:DUE. However, there can be no serious suggestion that a statement by WHO fails NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh... No. Everything must follow NPOV. Not just unreferenced statements. There absolutely can be a serious suggestion that a statement by the WHO fails NPOV. And there is. Dbpjmuf (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Jeez This is ridiculous, Dbpjmuf. A citation isn't tagged for NPOV, as it is simply verifying a statement. A sourced quote allows the reader to view and weight the validity or neutrality of the statement for themselves. If you have an UNSOURCED statement that is biased, then yes, tag away, but you don't tag a quote from a source. That should be common sense. Many quotes on many articles are biased on Wikipedia, that is why you cite them with the original source. You can add sourced quotes from reliable sources that disagree with WHO if you so choose, but a sourced quote, by itself, isn't tagged because you can't "fix" it, it is a quote. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Recently an IP has removed a substantial number of circumcision terms. This is violating NPOV as all terms need to be represented as equally as possible based on sources. Santiago undid my revision of the IP that has been long standing for months. I did not add anything to the article but merely reverted it to it's former balance, a balance I might add that has stood for months. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Maybe it has stood for months but... The fact that some persons prefer words like "circumcision" or even "modification" and then argue that otherwise it would violate NPOV, is very unlogical itself. The question of terms used that define down the practice or, how the IP User called it "euphemistic", is also not a new issue. I would like to talk about the argumentation of NPOV. Neutral Point of view, we have to differate a fact from an assessment. That FGM violates the Right of a Human is fact and not an assessment, therefore to argue that the term Female genital cutting violates NPOV is a wrong understanding and application of the meaning of NPOV (The entire article is named Female genital cutting). NPOV means that the article need to be written in the best objective form. The best objective form also needs to contain systems thinking and categoization in right and wrong. To argue that differating FGM in right and wrong would be forbidden due to NPOV violation is simple not objective and an abuse of the original meaning of NPOV.
Again: NPOV means best objective form. FGM violates human rights. Violation of human rights is wrong. Categorizing into right and wrong is necessary for an objective form to obey the NPOV principle, especially if it is about human rights.
--Santiago84 (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Santiago and thank you for responding. First NPOV means neutral point of view. I am all for human rights and completely against male and female genital mutilation but our opinions do not matter. All of the terms used today for the same practice should be scattered throughout the article based on number and availability of sources. What seems illogical to me is the title. The term circumcision has been around for thousands of years. That being the case, the article should be titled female circumcision accordingly. Not the recent shock terms used to generate horror. What matters is the semantics of history which we have swept under the rug. My supposition may surprise or confuse you based on my stated beliefs for human rights. Perhaps my last edit under Double standard? will illuminate my logic better. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
14 June 2011 (comment moved from To-Do list)
We cannot judge and say whether this procedure is wrong because every culture has its beliefs. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.Sherenegutierrez (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC) —Preceding comment has been moved from the To-Do list. —MarB4•ɯɒɹ•08:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Double standard?
Female circumcisions is generally regarded as abuse, while male circumcision is regarded as normal medical procedure? What are the reasons for this? 12.213.80.36 (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Your assignment is to read both articles thoroughly. There is a reason that the most common term is Female Genital Mutiliation for women, and Male Circumcision for men. Atom (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Because the extent of the respective forms of mutilation are often quite different. Male circumcision rarely removes the entire glans, for example. 85.227.165.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC).
I'm sure a lot of people regard both as a form of abuse! (unless it is performed on a consenting adult). However, there may be a difference in that alteration of the male genitals usually causes less future medical problems and is less likely to result in death or serious harm.86.179.43.73 (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the anons on both points. I have cited this hypocrisy in the past and tried to correct through article name changes and much sourced material with little support as I'm sure Atom remembers. Unfortunately there are more editors that try to protect and glorify male circumcision ergo distancing it from female circumcision by completely changing the name. Of course the operations are different because the male and female sex organs are different but the results are tragically the same. By this same philosophy we should be calling male circumcision male genital cutting or male genital mutilation. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason for the double standard, to put it bluntly, is racism. Poor, ignorant, dark-skinned Africans do, it's grotesque and irrational; well-off, fair-skinned Jews do, it's a sacred covenant. -- Stormwatch (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"Violence against women"? "mutilated"? Let's talk about this article's neutrality
I do realize that female genital cutting is much more disastrous than male, in that:
Entire loss of clitoris = severe loss of sexual pleasure
Entire loss of labia = possible addition of birth complications
But let's not forget that the cutting isn't violent in intent. For this reason, "Part of a series on Violence against women" is simply incorrect.
I also don't like seeing "mutilated" used in one line of the article:
According to the study, an estimated 50 women or girls are believed to be genitally mutilated every year in the Netherlands.
While I do personally believe both male and female circumcision at birth are wrong, and essentially right-infringing violent acts, it's an opinion that I wouldn't allow to detract from neutrally explaining both sides of the argument.
Thanks for pointing out the reference to "mutilated" in the "Psychological and psychiatric consequences", which was of dubious neutrality. Fixed. Jakew (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Iraq
All the sources indicate that FGM are only practice in Kurdistan Iraq and specially in the rural area of that region [1]. This has been clarified in the wiki article but the middle east picture Indicates that 75-95% of the whole Iraqi women practicing this, which is completely incorrect. I suggest changing Iraq color map to yellow (local- I posted a corrected map below). Since the current graph is totally misleading and does not replicate the truth.
Iraqi Kurdistan is a local small region in the north or Iraq and according to the reports it is only practice in some part of that region.
Hello, i am sorry but i believe you recognized the wrong color, the color refers to the 50-75% prevalence. I get your point but the studies are also out of date, nowadays a lot of studies are taking place, why it is mentioned that there will be an update of the prevalence on the map. In addition there are a lot of studies and sources which indicates that the prevalence is present outside of the kurdish Region (Kurdistan) [5]. That FGM is practiced in the kurdish region of Iraq is commonly known due to it was a region which had been choosen first for a study. But just because we only have data of these region does not mean that it ends there, it simply means that these region has already been studied and others not. Another problem is when new data are available, a lot of persons dont want to accept them and start to argue "it is only practiced in the kurdish region of iraq" only because it is more known than the latest studies. [6] This is a good source, it is about the kurdish region but it mentions that FGM is more widespead in Iraq, Islam and the middle east. They say the problem is that other communities dont work with the research team or human right groups, which makes it much more difficult to gather data.
--Santiago84 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi again,
First: To me it looks like the color of the 75 -95% , and I am not a color blind person . Even if not , it's a misleading color.
Second: The first source you mentioned [7] says its in Nordirak (Nothern of Iraq) ie. Kurdistan and the second source talk about the same.
Third: This practice is done by Kurd people in that areas Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkish according to many references mentioned in the same (wikipedia) articles. So if you want to generalize it to the whole Iraq (according to your theory) you should generalize it to other countries as well because there are not enough studies.(Which I completely disagree with generalization)
Fourth: Since when we built our scientific studies on speculation. As long as there are no studies to proof that it's all over Iraq you can't simply say that.
Fifth: From the source you mentioned [8], showed that even in Kurdistan there are a huge different in the ratio between cities. While in one city it can reach 80% in Dohok where third of Iraqi Kurds live the ratio is only 7%. So the generalization theory does not work at all.
sixth: you accused me to not accept new studies by saying "a lot of persons dont want to accept them and start to argue". Which is not accurate. First this issue is not new, and I am only asking to base you graph on well conducted scientific results. By the way I am deeply knowledgeable about that area when it comes to cultures and/or habit and differences. If it happens to meet someone in any defense with such graphs he will be failed for sure.
By Generalizing without any study about the other regions is just like saying (certain ethnic group of the United state for example are criminal because we caught several rapers with the same complexion) this is (with my all respect) called racism.
I don't know why you mentioned "FGM is more widespead in Iraq, Islam and the middle east.". I am not talking about Islam , I am just asking you to support your graph and conclusion with evidences from creditable sources. Up to now all the sources you mentioned are talking only and conducted interviews only from Kurdistan the northern area of Iraq. And it is only in part of that region as well.
I concern for truth and logic only. There is evidence that shows that FGM is an islamic problem, that iraq is an islamic country and that it is practiced in entire Iraq due to an near 100% level of FGM in Kurdish region. Such an amount also affects neigbour regions. Simply because the documented prevalence isnt that famous, makes out of a logical conclusion only my own opinion or generalization? And that this logical conclusion is rasistic? Iam sorry but a rapper, if he would be from a different ethicnity than the native one, can't use the argument that he cant be judged because this judgment would be rastistic. And for your example "By Generalizing without any study about the other regions is just like saying (certain ethnic group of the United state for example are criminal because we caught several rapers with the same complexion) this is (with my all respect) called racism" No, this is already evidence, to can name a certain ethnic group as criminal because of evidence given through all are accused for rape leads to the conclusion that this ethnic group does not share same moralic and ethic behaviour in which a rape is wrong and criminal. When these group now applies their believe that a rape is ok inside a society in which a rape is a crime than to judge every single one has nothing to do with racism but to have followed justice because they have been judged for their crimes because of their actions not because of their ethnicity.
Besides some question in return: "A Man who has been circumcised at the age of 12, who suffers now from a psychic trauma. If such a person would rape women, can he be held responsible for his behaviour even when he suffered from a psychic trauma before?--Santiago84 (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:)))
First you couldn't comment on many of my observations !
Second: according to your sources and your graph FGM is not practiced in nearly 100% of Iraq Kurdistan ( learn the meaning of nearly) Pleas don't contradict yourself
Third: There are more than 1.2 billion Moslems all over the world your theory implies that the number of FGM women around 600000000 or Moslems only live in Iraq and confused?!! Wikipedia is not the right place for racists. Or is it ?!
Third: Your argument is far from logic or science
Finally: you just reviled yourself my friend, and that's all what I wanted to know
I always teach my student's there are two type of people: scientists whom argue to know the truth, and fools who argue to win
I would insist again for the graph to be changed to the one I suggested in my first argument. Anyone who reads this please do that
Thanks
Brainthinker (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? how dare you?
One thought to the thinking of "your theory implies that the number of FGM women around 600000000" well, the men are circumcised as an initial ritual in Islam this way, and our evidence of prevalence of FGM speaks for itself. Although has Islam not the best reputation if its is about protecting human rights of women. So much for this argumentation.
But back to the racist thing of yours... Do you call a muslim woman who mentions that FGM is prevalent in Islam and that FGM is not restricted to north-Iraq also as racistic? This reminds me of supression. --Santiago84 (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh Jeez
Why are you mixing things up ??
We are talking about FGM not men circumcision?!!!! what's going on here ? are we using the same language ??? By the way male circumcision are practiced by many such as JEWS and Muslims!!
No they did not , they DID NOT CONDUCT ANY STUDY OTHER than Iraqi Kurdistan . All the study mentioned that it's something common between Kurdish community in that area in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey.
Why would I call women who mentioned FGM racists ??? what's up with you ?? I am really confused here ??
Your map based only on your personal believe without any study or knowledge and I demand it to be change to reflect the facts
Hello, i will not respond to this irrational comment in any subjective way. The theme is about the prevalence of FGM in Iraq. Again, the prevalence of FGM in Iraq is not restricted to Northern Iraq or the kurdish region, as you can see through various sources [2][3][4][5] To ignore the fact that FGM is practiced in Islam reminds me of an affilation affected behaviour of the User Brainthinker (talk), such a behaviour is not neutral nor follows it human rights. --Santiago84 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
man you don't have a source saying it's common in Iraq
I read the references; they are only referring to the northern Iraq.
be reasonable and accept others opinions
I agree with the rest the map should be changed to local until we found a creditable study about the rest of Iraq
i shall mention the truth and accept others opinions? the truth is independent from opinion. The sources say that it is linked to the Islam, that most of the practicioners belong to the Sunni Islam, why it is also called "Sunna Circumcision". The entire region there is populated by Moslems, especially Sunni. Now we now that FGM is practiced by Sunni Moslems and that they live in these Region. We now know that it is practiced in Iraq entirely, but we were only be able to gather informations from a certain region. Just because we only have information from the region in which some of the women "talked", doesnt mean that it is only practiced there. Again, FGM is practiced by Sunni Moslems, and the entire region is populated by Sunni Moslems. I don't know how otherwise i can explain it, do you really need a letter of a university, UN or WHO which says "FGM is practiced in Iraq" even if logic, research, and facts told you this years before?--Santiago84 (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hahah
I like it when you say WE now know ??
Again you contradict yourself and said very very big mistake?
First if it an Islamic thing why you didn't generalize it to every entire Muslim country why only Iraq ???
Second the majority of Iraqi are Sheii not only Suni ??
Third and most important ? The word sunna here mean to Shareya which is section of the Islamic religion not the sunni Muslims?
I am not gonna discuss Islam and FGM as it's not the subject and as mentioned in the many sources it's not recommended to do that in Islam when it comes to girls
Brainthinker (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I dont generalize FGM to every entire islamic country, i simply quote sources... and sources say that it is also an islamic problem, that sunni Islam practices FGM and that there a lot of sunni Moslems in the Middle East. You say that FGM is not recommended in Islam but on the other hand you say that the word sunni (related to FGM) is not reffering to sunni Moslems (for the prevalence) but to the Sharia? You claim that i contradict myself, but you really do it. I will not continue this discussion any longer, you miss sense of behaviour, attitude, logic and moral. To ignore the facts of a source and continue to follow a claim because you are used to it is unprofessionell. you dont seperate a wrong information from a truth information, you only accept informations which you choose, doenst matter if they are right or wrong. I also want to remind you that you called me a rassist and that you altered the image that was uploaded before, this is unaccaptable behaviour.--Santiago84 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Female genital cutting → Female genital mutilation – This may be a polarized issue, but most Wikipedia name request changes are. Female genital mutilation is by far the most commonly used term in Academic, Legal, Medical, and Non-Governmental circles, and thus conforms to WP:COMMONNAME. It has been suggested that the current name is an amicable compromise as per WP:NPOV, however this is not a proper implementation of that policy. WP:NPOV is not a trump-card for WP:COMMONNAME for use by those people who for one reason or another disagree with the wording of the most common name. Wikipedia in fact has a policy specifically for pages such as this, WP:POVTITLE, which has not been followed in this case (text included below). Lastly, to keep the current name is to give undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to the people who disagree with the term Female genital mutilation, we must remember that Wikipedia is about what is verifiable and sourced and not what one or more member's opinion on an issue is. There is no debate in the relevant literature over whether these procedures are in fact mutilation, and Wikipedia should reflect the consensus achieved in English language, verifiable, and authoritative sources.
WP:POVTITLE: "When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental." Vietminh (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I believe that this move request represents a misapplication of WP:POVTITLE, for several reasons. First, POVTITLE applies "when a significant majority of English-language reliable sources", and obviously a certain amount of common-sense is needed in determining whether a majority is significant. Certainly there's no doubt that FGM is used more commonly than FGC (about 4.5 times more frequently according to Google Scholar), but there are signs that this difference is decreasing over time, from 7x (88:616) in 2000 to 3x (129:390) in 2011. While FGM is clearly used more often, the difference in current literature is not overwhelming. I think both terms can be described as common. Second, the stated intent of POVTITLE is that it is justified in cases where "the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors" (emph again added). That is not the case here — multiple sources (cited in the article and including prominent bodies such as the UN and REACH) have identified neutrality problems with the term and have avoided its use for that very reason. Taken together, this is a clear situation in which a) external sources have identified a neutrality problem with one term, b) a new, more neutral term has (in part) taken its place, and c) the terms, while not equal in present-day frequency of use, are at least in the same ball park. Jakew (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
First of all I must say that the google scholar results you listed here do not tell the entire story. Googling "female genital mutilation" and "female genital cutting" in quotes and per year will tell you how many articles per year were published with that title. I googled "female genital mutilation" for every year from 2000 to 2011 and found that the number of articles published with the use of that term increased every year except 2006 and 2010. The 2011 results are probably so low because the 2011 publishing year isn't over yet.
I personally do not lend extraordinary weight to google (or even google scholar) results, but for all of those who would factor that into their decision I have published the results here. Clearly the instance of both has increased over time, though both actually decreased in 2010, so I think we should be cautious about using google scholar results to decide this title. What we can know is that this is not a clear cut case of one term replacing another, and as of 2010 (the last complete year) FGM was used 3 times for every 1 time FGC was used. Lastly, the pov issue here is very much with the people who are arguing over the title rather than the sources. Lets be clear about the intentions of the UN bodies which have began to use the term FGC. According to their own websites (as listed on this page and described there), the term FGC is being used in communities where the term FGM is counterproductive to the overall goal of reducing the instance of FGM. FGM is the term that they use in their official published sources and they specifically state that the intent of using FGC is not to replace FGM, and is only for those instances where FGM is detrimental to their goals. Vietminh (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So, if we look at ratios, 616/88 = 7.0, 749/88 = 7.4, 651/122 = 5.3, 726/163 = 4.5, 826/217 = 3.8, 907/254 = 3.6, 993/286 = 3.5, 973/309 = 3.2, 994/325 = 3.1, 1100/345 = 3.2, 1020/321 = 3.2, 390/129 = 3.0. Jakew (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If we look at these results in isolation then the there's no dispute that the ratio has decreased, however, as I said google is constantly updating google scholar with new articles in different publisher years, so these numbers don't stay the same just because the year has passed. Choosing a specific year range is also somewhat arbitrary, if we chose to only look at 2005 to 2010 then I doubt either of us would say that the trend has shifted significantly. In the same way, if we expanded our search to 1990, or 1980 we might see that things go up and down over time as interest in the topic shifts and changes. It may just be the case that google doesn't have access to many sources in the early 2000s that use FGC, and that the ratio has always hovered between 4 to 1 or 3 to 1 and is not actually changing. Vietminh (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Ratio between FGM and FGC results in Google Scholar by year, 1996 to 2011 Okay, according to the article the term was introduced in 1996, and (consistent with that) I could only find 11 uses of the term between 1980 and 1995. To avoid instabilities owing to very small figures, I've therefore plotted the figure to the right from 1996 onwards. As you can see, the trend is quite apparent in this period, too, falling from 32x the number of papers in 1996 to 3x the number in 2011. You are quite right that the numbers are subject to increase as Google update their indices; however it does not seem reasonable to suppose, without a plausible reason, that Google would do this in a non-random way such that the ratio between FGC and FGM would be skewed.
Please note that I'm not suggesting that we extrapolate from this to the future; that isn't our role. But I hope that it makes it clear that, in the long-term view, the usage of FGC can now reasonably be regarded as "common". Jakew (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I will stipulate that FGC can now reasonably be regarded as "common". Never-the-less, FGM remains much more common. That's what matters to deciding titles in WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I have requested the move based on Wikipedia policy and not google results which I have already indicated I lend no special weight to. But now I'll give you an example of why you shouldn't lend weight to them either, I will also tell you why the results you have aren't at all reliable. Using the search term "female genital cutting" does not tell us the context of the result google finds. I'll give you an excellent example of this: I googled "female genital cutting" from 2010 to 2010, (link here:[[33]]). I draw your attention to the 3rd result from the top (that is, the 3rd most relevant result that google could find across that entire year for that term), the title of this article is "Sexual function in women with female genital mutilation". Given that the title of this article clearly favours the term FGM, I opened the pdf that google links to in order to find how exactly the term "female genital cutting" was used in the article. This is the text I found on page 2 of that article:
"Worldwide, it is estimated that 100 to 140 million girls and women have undergone some form of FGM, and each year 2 million girls are thought to be at risk (1). The World Health Organization (WHO) classification is superior to terms used by the public or even some scholarly reviewed publications. The latter terms include female genital cutting, female circumcision, female Sunna circumcision, and Pharaonic circumcision."
If the 3rd result on the first page of google scholar search is a result which refutes the use of the term FGC, then I submit to you that you can't rely on google scholar results (or ratios of results) as a method of determining whether FGC is replacing or augmenting the term FGM. Also note that the 4th result also uses FGM in the title, and that the 6th result is another which refutes the use of the term FGC. If stats are what matter, then I'll put that into numbers. 30% of the top results for the term "female genital cutting" for the year 2010 are refuting the use of the term female genital cutting.Vietminh (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Support. A GoogleNews search for 2011 gives 803 hits[34] for FGM and only 43 hits[35] for FGC. To me that demonstrates overwhelming prevalence of the usage of the term FGM over FGC in the current sources. Perhaps things will change in the future but we should not put the cart in from of the horse. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Support. First i need to apologize, i did not see that there is already a discussion here. BTW i also named it accidently "mutiliation" rather than "mutilation", appologies for this too. I strongly support that the Article should be renamed to "Female Genital Mutilation". It is the offical term of the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, universities, human right groups, etc. To argue that FGC should be used, because it is more neutral, is Euphemism. Euphemism is not neutral itself, because it manipulates over belittlement. The usage of Female Genital Mutilation is not manipulating, because it expresses the brutality and therefore declines this violence against human rights.--Santiago84 (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Support I find the proposal to be compelling and the only oppose argument, that of Jakew, to not be persuasive at all. First, Jake seems to interpret POVTITLE to allow us to use titles with non-neutral words only when the name with the non-neutral words is used by a significant majority of the sources, implying that in a situation where it's less than a "significant majority" we should use the alternative less common, but still common, name without the non-neutral words. I suggest that's reading more into POVTITLE than is there. At most I read it to mean that we are required by POVTITLE to use the name with non-neutral words only if it used by "significant majority", but are still allowed (though not required) if the majority is less than "significant". But that's just reflecting the basic common name rule - the strength of the requirement to use the most common name varies directly with the significance of the majority of references that use it. I also find that as long as only a small minority of the sources have identified neutrality problems and don't use it for that reason, it doesn't affect us. That is, "the non-neutrality and judgment is that of [the majority of the sources], and not that of Wikipedia editors". But to verify, I will raise this issue at WT:TITLE. If there was more evidence of the term falling out of favor in contemporary use I would be persuaded, but I just don't see it.
P.S. I just read the relevant section of the article and am even more convinced. According to that section, the organizations that avoid the "mutilation" form due so to avoid alienating communities that engage in this practice. Since Wikipedia is presumably not concerned with its political influence in these communities (or anywhere for that matter), I don't see how that should even be a consideration for us. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we aim to have political influence anywhere, but we do aim to use neutral, impartial language (see WP:NPOV#Impartial tone), and I think it is self-evident that we do not want to alienate potential readers, regardless of where they might happen to live. Per WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view we "Prefer non-judgmental language". I appreciate that this needs to be balanced against frequency of use; in my opinion the difference is not so great that NPOV can or should be ignored. Given that this is not a case of Wikipedia editors replacing common usage with their own inventions, but rather a case in which non-judgmental language has already been proposed by prominent reliable sources and is in widespread usage in scholarly sources, I have to come down on the side of following the sources and NPOV. Apparently I'm in a minority on this point. Jakew (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm less interested in the popularity of your argument than in how well it's based in policy and guidelines. Article titles are not article content, and many of the considerations that apply to content, like NPOV, do not apply to titles, at least not in the same way. The way NPOV applies to titles is we're supposed to be neutral in deciding which title best meets the principal naming criteria:
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
In short, each side needs to show that the title they support meets this criteria better than the other, when evaluated from a NPOV. In this case I think it's a wash on the last three, but the proposed title clearly wins on the first two. That's how we decide titles, so far as I know. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Support I get 29,400 post-1980 Google Book hits for "female genital mutilation", compared to 6,230 for "female genital cutting". NPOV has to do with controversy among the secondary sources. It does not require us to take barbarian opinion into account. Those who use the word "cutting" are not usually arguing in favor of the practice. Kauffner (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Support Naturally those favoring the practice also favor use of "FGC", and those needing to cooperate with the practitioners bend over backwards to use their terminology. However, Wikipedia should not use feelings of inclusiveness to determine a desirable title, and as the discussion above shows, "FGM" satisfies COMMONNAME. Attempts to rule out FGM per POVTITLE are not appropriate as "mutilation" (while obviously an accurate description) is not an invention of editors, but is the term that is widely used. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose it should be called female circumcision, since this is only about one type of female genital cutting/mutilation, and not a general article covering all forms. Body modification styles of mutilated female genitals is found among some subcultures that also modify/mutilate male genitals having nothing to do with this article's topic. 70.24.248.237 (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, this article covers all forms of what is considered female genital mutilation. The things you're referring to are outside the scope of this article and this RM, as both Body Modification and Genital Modification have their own wikipedia pages. Vietminh (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
May i ask when the movment of the article will be aproved or declined? I think the result for a movement of the article is: 10 support, 1 oppose (1 oppose was canceled previously) and one abstain. For myself its clear that the article should be moved and terms inside the article changed from "female genital cutting" to "female genital mutilation" --Santiago84 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Its not a question of whether it will be approved or declined but as to whether a consensus was achieved. The Requested Move tag says "The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached." So sometime after 18:28 on July 28th (exactly 7 days after I submitted the request to move) an admin will likely move the page, as the single oppose is not based on policy and seems to be confused as to what the topic of this page is. I'd wait until that occurs before you make any terminology changes.Vietminh (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
sure. I believe you were the one who proposed that the page shoud be moved, thank you for this, in my point of view it was long overdue. Iam looking forward to work with you on the FGM page, even if it is an horrible theme which can get very exhausting to argue with others, i still appreciate your work and proposal.--Santiago84 (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Terminology
first 5 subtopics
Now that consensus has been established on having the article named female genital mutilation, I just wanted to comment on which terms I think should be used in the article. I have changed all the acronyms "FGC" to "FGM", and have removed or changed some of the usage of the word "cutting" (haven't read all the article all the way through to check every usage of it). I think the term cutting when used as a word to describe a specific process is fine, but for the sake of consistency I don't think the acronym "FGC" or the words "female genital cutting" should be used. I also think we should limit the term circumcision only to where the source calls it that, but that seems to be the case already and I only found one instance of the term circumcision being used against the source name (the WHO diagram, which I changed). Lastly, I think we should avoid the use of the term "mutilation" by itself, specifically not saying "mutilated" (i.e. "x number of people were mutilated"), though I am sure that's already been discussed in the past.
I was surprised at how smoothly the dialogue about the name change went and I am deeply thankful for all involved for keeping it civil and productive. I hope we can keep the same atmosphere going because it would make for a better article if that were the case. Vietminh (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Repeatedly linking to WP:NPOV is not helpful. We all understand that some editors will never accept the "FGM" terminology so there is no need to remind us. The move has happened, so current consensus is clear and any new information (with explanations) should be presented in a new section.
@Vietminh: I agree with your edits and your comments, and yes, the article should not overdo use of "mutilation". Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually the move is a separate issue: the argument for the move was that WP:TITLE (specifically POVTITLE and COMMONNAME) required the use of the most common name, and that this took precedence over any NPOV concerns. That argument does not apply in the context of the content of the page, and so consensus in one context cannot be assumed to apply in the other. I should add that one of those arguing for the name change made exactly this distinction, writing: "Article titles are not article content, and many of the considerations that apply to content, like NPOV, do not apply to titles, at least not in the same way." Jakew (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
More explanation of a problem and a suggested solution would be useful because each side in a disagreement could claim that WP:NPOV (or other policy) supports their position, so merely saying that something violates NPOV is not sufficient. "FGM" is just a widely accepted and accurate description of certain practices—it would be an NPOV problem if commentary were added describing the practices as, say, heinous, but using the widely accepted word "mutilation" to describe mutilation is not POV. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
First, there doesn't seem to be universal agreement that FGC (or all forms of FGC) are mutilation. Consider, for example:
"Ultimately our decision to use the term “female genital cutting” was in order to acknowledge that not all forms lead to mutilation of the genitals and that mutilation is not the intent of the action."[36]
Or: "This stems from the fact that communities that practice FGC often find the use of the term 'mutilation' demeaning, since it seems to indicate malice on the part of parents or circumcisers."[37]
Or "An important caveat, however, is that many members of societies that practice traditional female genital surgeries do not view the result as mutilation."[38] (p221)
Or: "Certainly, for example, the practitioners of female genital cutting do not view the practice as "mutilation" or violence"[39] (quoted via Google Scholar).
Or: "However, because practicing communities simply do not view FGC as mutilation, using this term at the local level is quite offensive and generates more resistance and anger, hurting the program at its most critical point."[40]
So while it is certainly a common viewpoint that FGC is mutilation, it isn't universally held and I don't think we can assert it as though it were factual. (I'm not sure if it is a majority view or not, as that would depend upon the size of the communities that do not regard it as mutilative. I personally share the view that most forms of FGC mutilate, for what it's worth.) Describing the practice as "mutilation" effectively does assert that it mutilates, which is incompatible with NPOV's requirement that we "Avoid stating opinions as facts". That is the first problem. Others are that the term "mutilation" is:
Judgmental (per UNFPA: "This stems from the fact that communities that practice FGC often find the use of the term 'mutilation' demeaning, since it seems to indicate malice on the part of parents or circumcisers. The use of judgmental terminology bears the risk of creating a backlash, thus possibly causing an alienation of communities that practice FGM/FGC or even causing an actual increase in the number of girls being subjected to FGM/FGC."[41])
Non-neutral ("Recognizing that neither "female circumcision" nor "female genital mutilation" is a neutral term[...]"[42], quoting via Google)
Political ("Naming this practice is highly controversial. Both of the terms "circumcision" and "female genital mutilation" have been criticized as political"[43], again via Google).
No sources, to my knowledge, have argued that FGC is judgmental or non-neutral.
Can we seriously claim that by using such language we're adhering to NPOV's requirement that we "Prefer non-judgmental language"? By describing FGC as "mutilation" are we maintaining an impartial tone? I don't think so.
The solution, I think, is simple. For consistency with the title, the first sentence should present FGM first. Elsewhere in the article, however (obviously excluding quotes) we should generally avoid using the term FGM and should instead prefer FGC, in accordance with the principles I've highlighted in bold above. This is relatively trivial to implement: just revert Vietminh's recent changes and then modify the first sentence. Jakew (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, iam sorry i could start to argue but i do it the most simple way, [44][45] there are no "neutral" Words or Wikipedia - Neutral point of view for this, this is against the will of a person, and therefore is wrong, evil, bad or whatever. I disagree with Persons who argue that we dont have the right to judge others, who "accept this practice" and that we therefor have to avoid using words wich condemn it. It is moralic and ethicly wrong and therefor we have the duty to condemn and battle it on every level.--Santiago84 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to begin, Santiago84. I don't understand why it's so important to condemn FGC. If we use neutral language rather than denouncing FGC as "mutilation", do you think it will result in the incidence of FGC increasing? Seriously? Personally, I'd expect if anything a small tendency in the opposite direction, because choosing words that don't offend people's beliefs makes it more likely that they will keep reading and learn about the harms of FGC. But more importantly, I don't think we get to pick and choose when to apply the NPOV policy: we have to apply it consistently, and everywhere, otherwise we have no legitimate basis to apply it anywhere. And then we end up with no neutrality at all — just the opinion of the last person to edit the page. Jakew (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It is important to condemn FGM because our entire society, moral and ethic values are based on justice and right and wrong behaviour which defines FGM as a crime. Exactly we have to apply NPOV all the time, but we also need to apply it correctly and i doubt that the intention of NPOV is to force us to use neutral words to desribe such an horrible crime. "just the opinion of the last person to edit this page" iam not sure i understand this point correctly, due to a lot of persons work here and once opinion doesnt define logic or the truth.--Santiago84 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The point of this article isn't to argue for or against FGM, it's not platform for changing the practice of FGM, and its not meant to engage people to make them have epiphanies about FGM. It's to reflect what is said in verifiable sources in the most neutral way we can (neutrality meaning reflecting source material without passion or prejudice). So if anyone is worried about offending people, or how the words on this page might influence people's views on FGM, don't be. That isn't our concern, that is the concern of the organizations that work to reduce FGM and the publications which write about it. Our job is to provide the information they have published, and to give due weight to all points of view. If you let them do their jobs and we do our jobs right then those goals will be met without us having to bicker about them on this talk page. And that rant is for both Jakew and Santiago, because you're both too concerned with what people will think about what is said here. Vietminh (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
@Santiago84: No! Please do not follow such ideas at Wikipedia. An encyclopedic article must not offer commentary expressing an opinion on the merits or defects in the subject. In some topics, it is reasonable to provide attributed opinions ("X says FGM is great, but Y says FGM is horrible"). However, such writing is often bad and does not convince anyone (it's really only useful in an article about some controversy). It is important for all editors to completely refute the idea of having the article express judgment because that is what WP:NPOV requires, but also because all experienced and successful editors know extreme neutrality is required, and if someone starts promoting an "FGM is horrible" approach, the only result will be that the pendulum will swing too far in the opposite direction, and we'll be back to describing what is widely recognized as mutilation as merely cutting. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I've read the excerpts you've put here Jakew and all they confirm is again that some people think the term FGC should be used to describe these procedures and not FGM. I accept the validity of those points, and I think that we should cover that point of view in the article (which is done under the "varying terminology" section). However, the vast majority of sources think that using the term FGM is not politicization and is in fact the correct term, and there are several sources which specifically refute the use of the term FGC as an attempt to distract from the nature of these procedures. We must give proper weight to the sources we find, not merely alter the article because a debate and/or counter point exists. Someone always has a counter-point or takes exception to something, the question is how much weight to give them, and the answer can be found in how much of the literature reflects that debate. So I must say this again, NPOV is not a trump tool for the sensibilities of people who may be offended (or our hypothetical interpretations of such offence), or in other words: neutral language is not the same thing as non-offensive language. To that end I offer you experts from the following relevant Wikipedia policies:
WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."
WP:YESPOV "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone."
WP:CONSISTENCY "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion."
On point 1) I think we've done that, we've noted that a debate exists and we've given it a breakdown in the very first section of the article, on point 2) I think we've done that, we are not disparaging the subject by saying "mutilated" or "mutilation" over and over and over, we're using the acronym FGM instead. At the same time, we are not sympathizing with the subject by not using the most widely used terminology. On point 3) I think this is a no-brainer, when the article was called Female Genital Cutting the acronym FGC was used in the article, now that its called Female Genital Mutilation we should use the term FGM in the article. Vietminh (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) To address your points, Vietminh, first of all it is simply wrong to state that "all they confirm is again that some people think the term FGC should be used to describe these procedures and not FGM". As I pointed out above, they also confirm that a) some people disagree that some or all forms qualify as "mutilation", and b) a number of specific criticisms of FGM have been published. These are important points, with implications for NPOV, so please at least acknowledge their existence. I'd also appreciate it if you would actually address the points I raised, since we have to find the way to best satisfy all applicable policies (and parts thereof), not just the ones you raise and not just the ones I raise.
Secondly, I think you need to support your statement that the "vast majority of sources think that using the term FGM is not politicization and is in fact the correct term". I'm not so sure that this is true. I've found that, while a lot of sources happen to use the term "FGM", relatively few sources explicitly argue for FGC.
Now, let me address the points you raise:
Regarding WP:WEIGHT, I agree that we've described all common terms in the article, but beyond that I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. If we literally apply "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" to the frequency of use, we ought to have a 3:1 ratio of FGMs to FGCs, but your edits replaced all instances (except for the terminology section and the definition sentence). If we literally apply it to those expressing arguments about terminology, then it would be rather difficult to predict (though if you're able to provide evidence for your "vast majority" claim, that might help). But in any case, WEIGHT generally dictates how we document points of view, generally it doesn't govern how we express them, because we shouldn't be doing that in the first place. For example, if 80% of people think that movie X is awful, and 20% love it, that doesn't mean that 80% of the sentences in Wikipedia should say that movie X is awful. We should devote more space to negative viewpoints about it, but while doing so we're expected to remain neutral ourselves and avoid endorsing any particular viewpoint. Similarly, we still need to use neutral, non-judgemental terminology when describing FGC.
Regarding WP:YESPOV, I can't understand why you think this supports your edits. You say that 'we are not disparaging the subject by saying "mutilated" or "mutilation" over and over and over, we're using the acronym FGM instead', but that acronym means female genital mutilation. If it would disparage the subject to use the full phrase, then why would abbreviating it make a difference? I'm afraid I don't understand your argument that 'we are not sympathizing with the subject by not using the most widely used terminology', so I can't comment on that.
Regarding WP:CONSISTENCY, yes, I agree that it would be nice to be able to be consistent with the title; however, NPOV takes precedence (note that NPOV is a policy; CONSISTENCY is a guideline).
That is all those sources confirm, and this is a dead end debate and you know it. It is fine that some people don't qualify some things as FGM, the point is that the vast majority of reputable sources do qualify them as FGM. Also, the burden of proof of that is not on me, it is on you. Consensus was achieved for the name change because the majority of sources use FGM, and on that same name change request I pointed out to you the reliability issues with your methodology for ascertaining how much FGC was used. I acknowledge that some people have raised issues with the term, but as I have pointed out to you more than once now, their issues are with where the term should be used and not with whether it is mutilation or not. For the sources that say that not all of these procedures are mutilation, that is given its due weight in the article already (here). Also, that most sources continue to use FGM despite the existence other terms shows how they do not accept that FGM has any political tones to it. Also you're contradicting yourself, you're saying that there are multiple policies that we must satisfy, but then saying that NPOV trumps all those policies. NPOV doesn't trump anything, NPOV is the base guideline through which we carry out those policies. It is the method through which they are implemented.
Now as for the specific policies in question. For Weight: I never suggested that we should include any sort of ratio, and I would not support doing that. I merely pointed out how we've satisfied our requirements under this policy. For YESPOV, I said that we shouldn't use the word "mutilation" or "mutilated" in isolation, as per the example I gave in the opening of this discussion (saying "x number of people were mutilated"). That kind of language would cause neutrality problems I am sure, and if you can`t see the difference between using those terms in isolation and using the acronym or full name then I can`t help you. My point about sympathizing with the subject is this: you are sympathizing with the subject. You`re thinking a lot about non-judgmental language, but you`re not thinking about how the language you want to use is sympathizing too much with a particular point of view. Our job is to reflect what it said in the sources, the majority of sources use the term female genital mutilation without fear of it offending anyone. Lastly, NPOV does not take precedence over consistency. If Female Genital Mutilation is the title, then that is the term we should use in the article, end of story. If we followed the kind of application you are espousing then we would have articles that contradict with their titles or which do not logically connect with them. My overall point is this, and this is what was established in the name change request: FGM is the neutral language, its not our job to soften up articles for people who might be offended by them. Otherwise we`d be calling a penis a pee pee and a vagina a woo-hoo, or calling rape “non-consensual sex”. Controversial topics will have language that might offend, and as I`ve pointed out numerous times, true neutrality means we don`t let our personal feeling or the hypothetical feelings of others factor into our decisions. Lastly, I would not accept the term FGM/C because it is by far the least commonly used term. If the title is Female Genital Mutilation then the only acronym usage that is consistent is FGM. Vietminh (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) You say: "the point is that the vast majority of reputable sources do qualify them as FGM". I would agree that the majority of sources use the term, but that's not what you claimed. You specifically said that the vast majority "think that using the term FGM is not politicization and is in fact the correct term", which is a different matter. As I understand it, you're now backing away from that claim. Do I understand correctly? Also, you claim that I bear the burden of proof; that's true for my own claims but not for yours. It's unreasonable to expect me to prove your claims.
You say that, regarding people who've raised issues with the term, "their issues are with where the term should be used and not with whether it is mutilation or not". As I've pointed out above, though, that isn't true. Examples given above such as "many members of societies that practice traditional female genital surgeries do not view the result as mutilation", "not all forms lead to mutilation of the genitals", etc., explicitly address the issue of whether it is mutilation or not.
You say that "Also, that most sources continue to use FGM despite the existence other terms shows how they do not accept that FGM has any political tones to it". That is not a logical deduction. They might be unaware of other terms. They might not have read articles critical of other terms. They might accept that FGM has political tones and like them. Yours is but one of many plausible explanations.
You say that "you're saying that there are multiple policies that we must satisfy, but then saying that NPOV trumps all those policies" -- not quite. It does trump a guideline, but it doesn't necessarily trump other policies. In any case, so far we've only considered one policy and one guideline, so it's a moot point.
Regarding WEIGHT, I'm not sure that I understand your response. Do you agree or disagree with what I said?
Regarding YESPOV, let's stipulate that we won't use the word "mutilation", etc., by itself so there's no need to further discuss that. The issue here is "female genital mutilation" or its acronym form, FGM. Are you seriously suggesting that by using these terms we're not disparaging the subject? The fact that such a term is judgemental is surely self-evident, but since I've provided a source you can use that if you prefer. Either way it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that it is judgemental. You say "the majority of sources use the term female genital mutilation without fear of it offending anyone"; that may be true, but to revisit my earlier analogy most film critics give their opinion of a movie without fear of offending. NPOV doesn't apply to them. It does to us.
Regarding CONSISTENCY, you say "NPOV does not take precedence over consistency. If Female Genital Mutilation is the title, then that is the term we should use in the article, end of story". You're wrong. Per WP:POLCON: "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence." Jakew (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Also I am trying to compromise on this one. I am sure that you would not have liked it if when the article was called female genital cutting that the people who disagreed with that title used the term FGM instead of FGC in it. The compromise I am offering to people who don`t like the term FGM is that we will maintain the mentioning of the neutrality issues (notice I never changed that content), that we will maintain the opening paragraph explaining the origin of the different terms, and that sources which refer to it as cutting (and are cited in the article) can make reference to that term (the number of which are used being dictated by proportionality). As another measure, we won`t go around saying mutilated or mutilation, even though as you point out we could if we wanted to be consistent. However, I am not going to get dragged into manufacturing neutral terminology that is not consistent with the consensus on the name of the article or the majority of the sources, the whole point of the Request to Move was to resolve that issue. I don`t see how any of this is unfair or inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Vietminh (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
1) What I said was in response to your claim that there was a debate about politicization, my point is that the vast majority of sources use FGM and see nothing wrong with doing so despite others uses FGC. I didn't ask you to prove my claims, I merely said that given the consensus which has been achieved the burden of disproving them is on you. Because otherwise as valid as your points are, they've already been resolved. 2) Yes, the people who do FGM don't think its mutilation, no, that isn't our concern here. We can note it, but it can't dictate the content of the article to any large degree because it is not reflected in the sources to a large degree (many people have pointed this out to you). The vast majority of sources say it is mutilation despite what these communities say. 3) We're talking about Academics here, they are very much aware of the ongoing debates in the literature to which they respond, it is implausible that any expert writing on the subject wouldn't be aware of different terminology. 4) NPOV is the way we do things, it trumps nothing as there is no other way to correctly do the things we're doing 5) On Weight: We've satisfied weight, that's my point. Weight doesn't require us to do a ratio and I wouldn't support it. 6) There is no conflict between NPOV and consistency here because FGM is the neutral term and the consistent one (as established in the RM). I'm sorry if I've confused you on this point I should have made that clearer from the beginning. Either way, I can't believe you would seriously argue against the Wikipedia Manual of Style on this one. If the title is female genital mutilation then that is the term we should be using in the article, that is just common sense.
I think I have offered a compromise that you are just not willing to accept, and that's fine, I can't change that. But the consensus is that the title should be FGM and so that should be the term used in the article. I highly doubt that many people would disagree on that point, because FGC was used when the title was female genital cutting and the use of FGM was confined to the first paragraph like FGC now is. The only people that would disagree with the usage of FGM would disagree with the term all together and that's a whole other debate which just got solved in the RM. I'm not going to do some sort of % based split or create a new term, or use an even more obscure term than FGC just to settle this because that was the mistake that got made before (consensus was that was against policy as per the RM). FGM meets all of the guidelines under the manual of style: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#General_principles. It is internally consistent, it follows the sources, it is clear, and it has a global view which does not pander to any specific culture. I know under follows the sources you would contend that there is a "clear reason to do otherwise", but again I point to the RM which just decided which term is neutral and more commonly used. I don't know what else can really be done here, I'm open to suggestions but as I say I think the consensus has clearly come down on the side of using FGM, and I think given the unanimous decision on the RM that we don't need to have the re-verified. Vietminh (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Also when you respond, how about we both shift this conversation more towards what you're looking for in the article. We both have different interpretations of the policies and guidelines and that debate is just gonna go on forever. I would just like to hear what you think should be done with the terminology in the article given the consensus on the name change, maybe we can come to some conclusion about where to go from here. Vietminh (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
1) I don't think I said that there was a debate about whether terms were political; rather I said that at least one source has noted that FGM is a political term. That's one of several things to consider when trying to understand which is the most neutral term to use. NPOV does require that we use non-judgemental and impartial tone, and that means that we have to evaluate the language we propose to use. Ignoring these requirements in favour of the most popular term may be tempting, but it's not compatible with NPOV.
2) The fact that some people don't think it is mutilation is relevant because NPOV differentiates between facts and opinions. Opinions can be documented but not asserted. Since we can verify from reliable sources that there are a range of views on that subject, it is an opinion that FGC is mutilation. It may well be the majority viewpoint, but it's still a viewpoint, and can't be asserted as though it were a fact.
3) I'm afraid that you haven't made a persuasive case. Academics are typically deeply involved in their particular research interests; they may not be remotely interested in terminology.
4) I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument here. NPOV is a policy. We either adhere to it or we don't. Hopefully we do!
5) Your argument regarding WEIGHT doesn't make a lot of sense. Firstly, the fundamental principle of WEIGHT is that viewpoints are presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". If we take that to mean that terms should be used in proportion to their prominence, then that doesn't imply that we should only use FGM; it implies that we should use a 3:1 mix. I don't see how you can argue that it means "completely ignore the prominence of each viewpoint and just select the most common", I'm afraid. But as I've pointed out, in cases where one term is judgemental we cannot use it anyway, so the question of weight is moot. The first question to ask is "what terms are consistent with our policies"; the second is "given this list of candidates, how should they be weighted".
6) FGM is not the neutral term, as I've explained at length. CONSISTENCY doesn't explicitly say that we should use terminology consistent with the article's title, though I think that's often a reasonable interpretation. In cases where that would violate NPOV, it's not a reasonable interpretation. I don't think I'm arguing against the MOS here; I think most editors would think it obvious that guidelines are rarely if ever crafted with the intent that they should trump policy, and hence should only be followed as far as doing so would not conflict with policy. It's like a road sign that says "no stopping": if a child runs out in front of you, you stop, because the rule that says "preserve life" takes priority. I don't think anyone would argue that doing so violates the intent of the sign.
As I've pointed out above, the RM was on the subject of the page title. The discussion we're having now is about content. I absolutely agree that consensus favours FGM as the title, but it is erroneous to interpret that as a consensus to use the term FGM in the body of the article.
In terms of resolving this problem, we need to avoid using "FGM" by itself, as this is judgemental and non-neutral. Consensus dictates using it for the title, but beyond that we need to be very careful about using it. Some options are: a) avoiding the problem altogether by referring to "the procedure", "surgeries", etc. (probably realistic in some cases, but not everywhere); 2) Using quotation marks around the term, thus attributing the viewpoint to a source rather than asserting it ourselves; 3) using another term: FGC, etc. Several sources do not adopt a stance on the choice of FGM or FGC but, rather, use both, referring to "FGM/C" or "FGM/FGC". This isn't an invention of WP editors, nor is it particularly obscure. Prominent examples include USAID, UNHCR, UNICEF, and UNFPA. I still find it more judgemental than FGC, but it is much better than FGM by itself. I hope that you'll reconsider this compromise. Jakew (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I know you've explained at length why you don't think that FGM is a neutral term. However, consensus is against you on this, in the RM it was established that FGM is the most common and most neutral term to use. To use any other term is to give undue weight to the sources which dispute the use of this term which are in the minority. I also strongly encourage you to entertain the concept that neutrality and potential to offend are not the same thing. Because something has the potential to offend does not mean that it is not neutral, and it in fact does not matter whether it will offend people at all. In this sense, we are not being judgmental when we use the term FGM because that is what the majority sources refer to it as, the judgment is theirs and not ours. Therefore: I am not supportive of going out of our way to use the term "the procedure" or "surgeries" (esp. surgeries, that implies some level of medical authority where none exists), if these are used in descriptive and natural language then so be it, but I don't think they are good replacements for the more descriptive term of FGM. I am also against use FGM in quotes, you use quotes are things that are unverifiable or hearsay, FGM is none of those things and Wikipedia is by default attributed to sources so that's a moot point anyway. I recognize that several sources use the acronym FGM/C. However, I don't support that because those sources are even smaller in number than the ones that use FGC exclusively. You list several prominent one's yes, but the WHO which directs these organizations uses FGM, as do the majority of legal and scholarly sources on this topic. I know you think this is an amicable compromise, but it is just weaseling back in the term FGC which is unacceptable to me. Lastly I will remind you again, judgmental language does not matter so long as it is the judgment of the sources and not our own. It is likewise not our responsibility to use non-descriptive terms so as not to potentially offend, that is being un-neutral and given undue weight. FGM is the neutral term even if is judgmental, as it is the only one which does not require us to bring our personal feelings on judgementalness into the fray. I encourage you to accept the consensus on this term as you did with the RM so that we do not have to enter into a protracted battle over the term, the result of which is already clearly established. Plus its really just common sense, FCG was used when the title was FGC, the title is FGM now and we should use FGM. Either way, I don't see any point of you and I continuing this debate because we've both had our opinions heard. Its time for other people to weigh in.Vietminh (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting my arguments, Vietminh. First, I've explained why both myself and sources judge FGM to be non-neutral. Second, as explained multiple times, the RM was on a separate subject, and almost all arguments were about commonality, not neutrality.
Now, you say "To use any other term is to give undue weight to the sources which dispute the use of this term which are in the minority". That's like saying that, because most film critics think a film is awful, remaining impartial fails to give adequate weight.
Then you say "I also strongly encourage you to entertain the concept that neutrality and potential to offend are not the same thing". I'm not concerned so much with 'potential to offend', but rather with whether the term is non-neutral, judgemental, as these are the requirements of policy.
They you say: "In this sense, we are not being judgmental when we use the term FGM because that is what the majority sources refer to it as, the judgment is theirs and not ours." You're basically arguing that black is white here; NPOV is about documenting viewpoints, not expressing them ourselves. Later on, you repeat the same error, by saying "Lastly I will remind you again, judgmental language does not matter so long as it is the judgment of the sources and not our own". You're flatly contradicting policy here.
Since you've rejected all of my proposed compromises, and since your changes clearly lack consensus and violate policy, I'm inclined to revert your edits to restore NPOV. However, I'm going to wait for a few days to see whether anyone else has any input or suggestions. Jakew (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Jakew, The minority of sources judge FGM to be unneutral but the vast majority of sources DO NOT USE THE TERM FGC OR FGC/M and DO NOTE NOTE ANY NEUTRALITY ISSUES, we have given due weight to the sources which point out the neutrality issues and we have documented them by specifically noting them in the article. In this regard your film critic analogy makes no sense, we have maintained neutrality by not over-emphasizing what a minority of people say. So I say that again, no significant amount of sources note any neutrality problems with the article, I do not understand why you think you are entitled to dictate this article's language based off what a handful of sources say. Also when I did the RM I brought up neutrality specifically, it was 50% of my argument and the vote was unanimous. Even if the RM were a separate issue, 3 people here including myself have already told you that retaining the term FGC in the article makes absolutely no sense so you have no consensus to revert either. Also I will remind you that your interpretation of NPOV was specifically rejected in RM, so again you have no consensus to revert. Vietminh (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This was in reply to someone in feburary who inquired about the term FGM "See WP:NPOV. While "mutilation" is more commonly used, of the commonly used terms, "cutting" is far more neutral than "mutilation". See also #Moving the article, above. Jakew (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)" I can see you've made your mind up about this a long time ago regardless of what anyone is gonna say... Vietminh (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm always willing to be persuaded by new arguments; I just haven't encountered any convincing ones yet. Jakew (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me again address these points in turn:
You say, "the vast majority of sources DO NOT USE THE TERM FGC OR FGC/M and DO NOTE [sic] NOTE ANY NEUTRALITY ISSUES". It's certainly true that the majority (~75% of recent sources) do not use the term, but it's somewhat disingenuous to say that they don't note neutrality issues, because relatively few actually discuss terminology at all. It is rather like saying that only a very tiny fraction of books say that Sir Christopher Wren was a good architect: technically true, but misleading because most books don't even mention him. If you want to discuss what viewpoints sources have actually expressed about terminology, rather than what sources happen to use which terms, a significant number express a preference for FGC.
As noted above, the RM was on a separate issue. Regarding this section, Santiago's argument has no weight because it is not policy-based (rather, it is an argument against NPOV), and Johnuniq hasn't responded (except to disagree with Santiago) since my comment of 12:06, 29 July 2011, so I don't know his present thinking on the subject. In any case, one doesn't need to have consensus to revert; rather, a revert is one way of indicating that an edit doesn't have consensus. Since the previous stable state of the article had de facto consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS#Process), but the new changes do not, the obvious thing to do is to restore that state. Jakew (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Johnuniq offered his opinion yesterday, he specifically said he agreed with my suggestions and specifically disagreed with yours. Santiago's opinion is equally valid, your interpretation of what is a valuable opinion does not determine what occurs on this encylopedia, also you aren't a very reliable source of determining the validity of his comments because you are obviously on the other side of the issue. A new consensus has been established, you are reverting against that consensus and you know it. And what I said was not at all disingenuous, the vast majority of sources do not note any neutrality problems with the use of the term FGM. By not discussing terminology they are no noting neutrality issues. We cannot confine our analysis of what term to use to only those sources which note neutrality issues or else we will get a skewed picture of what the literature says. Vietminh (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I'm afraid you're mistaken. Johnuniq only made a single comment to this talk page yesterday, and that mentioned neither your suggestions nor mine; as I said, his comment was directed at Santiago. I don't know what he currently thinks; he may still agree with you, but I'm not willing to make that assumption unless he says so.
As noted, Santiago's opinion has no weight because it is an argument against policy, and there is currently no consensus for your changes, so reverting is wholly consistent with policy.
Your argument that "the vast majority of sources do not note any neutrality problems with the use of the term FGM" is somewhat baffling. If sources don't express a view about terminology then they don't have a viewpoint about neutrality of terms; that's a truism. Not expressing a viewpoint is not the same as expressing the view that there is no neutrality problem (or, as commonly put, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but you are acting as though it were. Jakew (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Quote from Johnuniq yesterday on this page: "@Vietminh: I agree with your edits and your comments, and yes, the article should not overdo use of "mutilation". Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)" That's a strong support for my position over yours. As noted you do not hold the sole determination over what is policy, Santiago clearly does not support your point of view. Also, I am not arguing that the absence of evidence is evidence, I am saying that when only a minority of sources make light of any neutrality problems we must give those sources their due weight and note that they do so. But we cannot allow the minority view to dictate the content of the article, otherwise that is not a neutral point of view. It appears someone else has weighed in as well, so any reversions would be against consensus. Vietminh (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You're quite correct: that was posted yesterday. However, it was posted before my comment dated 12:06, 29 July 2011, not after. As noted previously, Santiago's comments are not policy-based and consequently have no weight; any experienced Wikipedian will agree with me on this point. Unfortunately Eac387 was canvassed (by yourself); I do intend to wait a reasonable amount of time to give non-canvassed editors a chance to weigh in, so that true consensus can be judged. Jakew (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)\
He doesn't have to come back to re-affirm his opinion once because he already noted that he doesn't accept your interpretation of NPOV when he said "More explanation of a problem and a suggested solution would be useful because each side in a disagreement could claim that WP:NPOV (or other policy) supports their position, so merely saying that something violates NPOV is not sufficient. "FGM" is just a widely accepted and accurate description of certain practices—it would be an NPOV problem if commentary were added describing the practices as, say, heinous, but using the widely accepted word "mutilation" to describe mutilation is not POV. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)". That said, I will gladly post a message on his talk page and ask him to come back here and comment on the discussion which has taken place since that time so we can get his final opinion. Also I didn't canvass, I notified the stakeholders of the ongoing discussion and that is not against policy. Quit grasping at straws.Vietminh (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
When a person requests an explanation of the problem it ordinarily suggests that they're willing to consider the possibility that there might actually be a problem once that explanation has been provided, wouldn't you agree? And I think we've had enough talk page requests. Jakew (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I think his opinion is clear when he says "it would be an NPOV problem if commentary were added describing the practices as, say, heinous, but using the widely accepted word "mutilation" to describe mutilation is not POV." I can't imagine it getting any clearer than that. But hey, I respect that you like to have 10 people tell you you're wrong before you believe it so I posted on his talk page and asked him to come back and clarify what his position is in light of the entire discussion that has taken place. Once he does that it will be 3 people who have told you that they don't agree with your assessment of NPOV (Santiago supports my argument which does cite policy). Plus one comment which was "canvassed" (see that's the proper use of quotes right there), asking a person to re-affirm a position in light of changing facts is not canvassing. Anyways, I've made my interpretation of NPOV and all relevant policies known. We'll let other people weigh in and see who's position has support and who's position has no support at all. Vietminh (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I just read over all of the arguments presented here and I agree with Vietminh’s assessment. It makes absolutely no sense to continue to use the term FGC in the article once that name has been changed, though like Vietminh said we should not go out of our way to bother people by saying “mutilated” throughout the article. I do not agree with what Jakew has said here, we must give proper weight to the sources and their content, which means we should not continue to use FGC. Also his interpretation of neutrality seems to be based on his own opinion of what is neutral. NPOV says we should not speak in terms that either disparage or sympathize with the subject, and I think that’s what FGM does because otherwise we are sympathizing too much with one source or another. Eac387 (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
My position is as Vietminh has quoted above (timestamp 11:05, 29 July 2011), and I am puzzled why there is so much discussion about what terminology to use in an article which consensus has recently agreed should be titled "Female genital mutilation". To repeat what others have said: the article should not unnecessarily use the word "mutilation"—it is not Wikipedia's role to rub people's noses in the TRUTH or any other point of view. However, gold-plated sources use the term FGM and so should the article. Jakew has expressed an opinion regarding WP:NPOV that "it is an opinion that FGC is mutilation. It may well be the majority viewpoint, but it's still a viewpoint, and can't be asserted as though it were a fact". In some ways, that statement is correct: the article should not lecture readers with something like "this practice mutilates women" (when phrased like that, the assertion is someone's opinion and would need to be attributed). However, in other ways Jakew's statement is not correct, as a glance at the sources will show (consult a dictionary for the meaning of "mutilate"—it is the correct word to describe many of the practices mentioned in the article, and the article can use that word because of the sources). At any rate, the issue has been well discussed and there is no point striving for unanimity as that is not achievable, and all that is required is consensus. Anyone disagreeing with consensus can raise the matter at WP:NPOVN. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for updating us with your opinion, Johnuniq. I don't think that we have consensus at this time, but I'm hopeful that it will be achieved in time. Jakew (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
There are only a couple people arguing for alternative terms and it is clear that a concensus has been reached. I'm sorry if you don't care for the term, but this is what the majority of the group has decided on, and we have provided sources upon sources to show that FGM is the common phrase used, at least in English-speaking countries. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
NPOV and Terminology continued
For all those who have not read the previous section, there is a debate over whether this article should continue to use the term FGC or whether given the name change which has occurred we should switch all FGC terms in the article to FGM. The dispute thus far has been over competing conceptions of NPOV, I am starting a new section to debate NPOV specifically.
I am going to explain my interpretation of the NPOV policy and from there we can proceed to determine whether there is consensus or not on this issue.
The way I see it there are three considerations that we must take into account from NPOV. Naming and NPOV, Weight in NPOV, and The explanation of how to achieve NPOV, I will systematically review these below.
"In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed."
I believe this is the most clear cut case of why we should use FGM, as this is an almost identical policy to POVTITLE which was the basis for the consensus on the recent Request to Move. From the excerpt above it is clear to me that it does not matter whether FGM may be considered biased, un-neutral, or even judgmental. FGM is the most commonly used term by far and is thus the most recognizable and clear term which could be used. The article further satisfies this requirement by explaining the controversy with the names in great detail.
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."
Again this requirement has been satisfied by explaining the different terminology in the first section of the article. If we were to use the term FGC throughout the article we would clearly be giving undue weight to the sources which use that term because they are the minority view. We would also not be giving proportional prominence to each viewpoint, as again we would be completely over-representing the use of the term FGC and/or FGM/C.
"Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone."
"Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
I believe that using the term FGM in the article would satisfy the non-judgmental language criteria. As is indicated in NPOV we must speak in a tone which neither sympathizes with nor disparages the subject at hand. I do not believe that using the term FGM disparages the subject because it has received prominent support from the World Health Organization and other Non-Governmental bodies, and is also the primary term which is used in current academic papers and in legal documents that surround the issue of FGM. I believe that to use the term FGC is to sympathize too much with the subject at hand. As noted in the article itself (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Varying_terminology) the use of the term FGC is confined to those areas where it would be detrimental to the overall goal of reducing FGM. In regards to the section on proportionality, I think FGM makes even more sense. The very first section of the article is dedicated to explaining the varying terms which are used to describe FGM, and I believe that nothing else is required of us under NPOV. If we were to use FGM in the title but continue to use FGC throughout the article (or conversely the term FGM/C) it would give a false impression of parity between the terms, and consequently undue weight. If someone were to come across this article and were unfamiliar with the topic, they would get the impression that FGC is by far the most commonly used term, whereas in reality it is not.
Given the arguments I have presented here I think that best option, and the only option which satisfies NPOV, is to use the term FGM in the text of the article. Thank you for reading my extremely long explanation!
Vietminh (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Mutilation is an accurate description and those most commonly used by Government and other bodies. It is therefore the correct term and its an NPOV violation to try and avoid it. --SnowdedTALK08:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I think we've discussed most of these points above, so to avoid repetition I won't address those at length. Suffice it to say that "Achieving neutrality" section of NPOV strongly favours FGC (or, at least, not the judgemental term FGM); as does "Impartial tone" (which you haven't mentioned).
I believe you're misapplying "Due and undue weight", because we shouldn't be asserting an opinion in the first place. Nobody disputes that FGC is cutting, and the term has neither negative nor positive connotations, so by using that term we aren't really asserting a viewpoint about the subject. In contrast, using the term "FGM" asserts that FGC mutilates, it has strong (and usually intended) negative connotations, and hence it is clearly an assertion of a viewpoint. By analogy, suppose we have an article about a politician. When polled, 80% of people described her in glowing terms, 5% in negative terms, and 15% in terms that were neither positive nor negative. Due weight suggests that we should devote more attention to those who were positive about her, but when discussing those views we should still remain neutral ourselves, even though only a minority of respondents were themselves neutral. That's because Wikipedia's "voice" must be impartial.
Possibly the strongest argument you've made is "Naming". However, the key sentence in that policy section is "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity". Put another way, when applied in a specific case the question must be whether lack of clarity would outweigh need for neutrality. Does using "FGC" create a lack of clarity or otherwise cause confusion? I'd suggest probably not. Firstly, the term "FGC" is already in common use, and secondly we already discuss alternative names and document terminology, so the reader should understand what is meant by FGC (it also helps that the two acronyms are very similar). So any reduction in clarity is probably minimal. If we consider the compromise I proposed above ("FGM/C" or "FGM/FGC"), the reduction in clarity is basically zero, because these include the FGM acronym. So this policy section doesn't appear to justify, and certainly doesn't require, the use of "FGM". Jakew (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem I have pointed out with FGM/C is that it suggests a parity in usage/commonality, I think we can all at the very least agree that FGM is the most commonly used term while FGC is not. FGM does assert that FGM is mutilation, which is fine, because all of the prominent bodies, sources, and laws in question believe it is mutilation. We are not being un-neutral by reflecting the views which are most commonly held, so long as we give due weight to those which are not (which the article does). My point about weight is if we're gonna give due weight to the most commonly used term, as well as the less commonly used term, we can't be using the less commonly used term (FGC) throughout the article. Yes we must speak about this topic neutrally, but again, to use the lesser used term throughout the article would not be being neutral. As for the naming conventions, we`ve both offered our interpretations on that and I think people will read that and decide for themselves, I don`t wish to make this section as long as the last. Vietminh (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, asserting such a view inherently violates NPOV. It doesn't matter that lots of people, organisations, etc agree with it. You are effectively claiming that it is perfectly all right to assert an opinion as long as many people agree with it, and that's not what WP:NPOV actually says. Neutrality is not about endorsing the most common point of view; it's about avoiding endorsement of any point of view. To quote the 'nutshell': "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." The fact remains that it's an opinion that FGC mutilates, not a fact, and we don't assert opinions. Jakew (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've said it before and I will say it again (by directly quoting myself) "We are not being un-neutral by reflecting the views which are most commonly held, so long as we give due weight to those which are not (which the article does)." If you turn your own logic around: It doesn't matter that a minority of people or organizations disagree with the use of the term FGC, you are effectively claiming that is alright to assert an opinion as long as a minority of people agree with it, and that's not what WP:NPOV actually says. Neutrality isn't about endorsing the least common point of view; it's about avoiding endorsement of any point of view. To quote the 'nutshell': "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." The fact remains that it's an opinion that FGM isn't mutilation, not a fact, and we don't assert opinions. Vietminh (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree: we shouldn't assert that FGC isn't mutilation. Using the term "FGC", however, does not make such an assertion. Jakew (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Let not conflate requirements for neutrality compliance in article naming with neutrality compliance in adding and keeping article content. We can't give balanced views to all sides in one little title - presenting a balanced view of all sides is the job of article content.
In article titles our only requirement is to meet the principal naming criteria at WP:AT as best we can, and we meet the neutrality requirements by following usage in reliable sources in evaluating potential titles against each other with respect to that criteria (naturalness, recognizability, conciseness, preciseness and consistency). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that issues of title and content are separate. The discussion about titles is above, consensus to move was reached, and nobody (to my knowledge) has proposed to change it. This is a discussion about content. Jakew (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Maintaining true neutrality
This is a really good issue because I don't think there is a problem here of anyone involved being particularly biased personally about it one way or the other. That is, it really is a bunch of people trying their best to understand what neutrality means, and how best to apply it here. So bravo to everyone, sincerely.
Jakew is of course correct that we "shouldn't be asserting an opinion" because that's what neutrality essentially is.
The problem is that the central question here is about whether FGM is so controversial that it should be avoided in favor of FGC, and that question is itself obviously controversial too. So true neutrality must involve not asserting an opinion on that question too. But is that possible? The question must be answered in order to decide a title for this article; how do we do that without asserting an opinion about it?
Well, NPOV and POVTITLE both tell us how: simply follow usage in reliable sources.
So, I suggest we put all our biases and opinions aside and focus exclusively on actual usage in reliable sources, and follow suit. If we discuss anything other than actual usage, like the reasons some sources may or may not using a given term, we're not being neutral.
Focusing exclusively on actual usage in reliable sources, without regard to anyone's opinions about reasons and justifications for using one rather than another, is how we establish and maintain neutrality on deciding titles in controversial cases like this one, and many others, including the one currently being discussed at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Requested Move.
I think we've resolved the issue of the title already: for better or worse, we're using FGM. But with regard to the content, that's another matter, and one which we're still discussing. I would suggest that usually, there is no conflict between commonality and neutrality (the word "apple", for example, is both a commonly used and neutral name for the fruit). However, when there is a conflict, we must give it due consideration. We cannot simply ignore neutrality issues and use the term most commonly used in the sources; that's popularity, not neutrality, and the two shouldn't be confused. Jakew (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
My point is this: let's be neutral about neutrality. Using the term most commonly used in sources is being neutral about neutrality - we're not asserting any opinion about whether this or that is neutral. We're letting others (those creating reliable sources) decide that, and how serious it is, and we just follow their lead. The most popular term may or may not be the most neutral, but we cannot decide that without breaching neutrality ourselves. So the only truly neutral position to take is to follow usage in sources, for better or for worse. Anything else is being less neutral.
NPOV means not passing judgement. Using A instead of B, despite B being more commonly used, because A is judged to more neutral, is passing judgement regarding the lack of neutrality about B, and the significance of that lack of neutrality. That's a lot of judging for someone who is supposed to be reflecting a neutral point of view.
(ec) The first problem with your argument is that the "others" who create reliable sources frequently do not have a neutral point of view, and they almost certainly aren't required to have one. Sources are not only allowed to have non-neutral viewpoints, we actually need them to have viewpoints so that we have some viewpoints to document! So when you say "we're letting others [...] decide [whether this or that is neutral]", it's a bit misleading. "Following their lead" is no guarantee of neutrality.
The second problem with your argument is that we have to judge neutrality, because unless we do it's meaningless to say that we write from a neutral point of view. What does (for example) "Prefer non-judgmental language" mean if we cannot permit ourselves to determine what language is judgemental? It's gibberish: just empty words. Just as we carefully choose our sentence structure to make it clear that we're documenting a point of view rather than asserting it, we must also choose our words, and that requires that we assess their neutrality. To accept your argument would render NPOV null and void.
The third problem with your argument is that, while the underlying reason for choosing a term may be concern about the neutrality of other terms, use of that term is not necessarily an assertion of the point of view that those other terms are unacceptable. It certainly doesn't imply that to the reader who is unaware of the discussions behind the scenes. For example, if I refer to an apple tree in those words, I'm not expressing a viewpoint about the suitability of the name Malus domestica. It's not in any way non-neutral to use the less common of those two names. (But, of course, since both of those terms are neutral there would be no issue about using the common name.) Jakew (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a difficult concept to grasp; took me a while... But here's the thing... somebody has to come up with reasonable and neutral terms to refer to topics. We could take on that task ourselves, at least by rendering judgement on the job that the reliable sources do in that regard, or we could simply rely on the job that they do, imperfect as it sometimes is, and just follow suit, by using the term that most of them use. If nothing else, if we did the latter, it would cut down on a lot of debate and consternation at WP, much of it highly unproductive. After all, the question of which name or term is used most commonly in reliable sources is usually much less contentious than which should be used when we also consider neutrality, because the latter question is much more subjective. Moreover, I see no reason to believe that the result of a WP that simply followed the most common usage of sources would be substantively worsened as compared to what we often try to do now. I mean, following the most common usage is not random selection. Reliable sources are subject to editorial standards that include considerations of neutrality (some more than others), so any most commonly used name has already been filtered in these respects in a manner that is deemed acceptable for, well, most reliable sources. As to sources that are not neutral - I suggest it's reasonable to assume that they essentially balance each other out, more or less. We're not suggesting following the lead of any one particular source - we're talking about using that which most reliable sources are using. How bad can that really be? Don't we have much better things to do than try to improve slightly on that, which is the best outcome we could hope for?
I acknowledge we sometimes have to judge neutrality - an obvious case is when we invent descriptive titles for articles about contrived topics like List of countries to which reliable sources don't refer. I'm just suggesting we avoid judging neutrality whenever we can, in particular whenever we can follow common usage in reliable sources.
I disagree that usage of a less common term doesn't imply discouragement of the use of the more common term, at least in some cases. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Wp:npov dictates neutral wording. "Cutting" is straight-forward descriptive and neutral. "Mutilation" expresses an opinion. North8000 (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
To Born2cycle: it may well be easier to ignore the question of neutrality, but it's even easier to write a blank page. If we're willing to invest the effort to write an encyclopaedia then it's not much more effort to write a neutral one. And — to be frank — NPOV is not negotiable anyway. Jakew (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, what do you think is more neutral... a) to trust the assessment of reliable sources or, b) to go by the "consensus" opinion about what is "neutral" of a few Wikipedians? I really want to know your answer to this because it gets to the crux of the matter here.
That it's easier to ignore neutrality of a term when deciding whether to use it is just a bonus. The main reason to ignore the neutrality of a term when deciding whether to use it or some other term is to comply with NPOV. To not ignore neutrality means to judge the neutrality of the term, per our own opinions, rather than be neutral about it and just trust the assessment of the reliable sources. No one is negotiating NPOV - this is about complying with it. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
As I've pointed out previously, the mere fact that a RS uses a term is no indication that it is regarded as neutral. When a source discusses a term, however, it may explicitly or implicitly identify a term as being more neutral than another. For example, sources that I've cited above have identified the term "FGM" as political, judgemental, and non-neutral, all of which are meaningful assessments in an NPOV context. No sources that I'm aware of have indicated that FGC is anything other than neutral; indeed, this was why it was introduced. So I don't believe there is any conflict between the neutrality assessment of reliable sources and that of Wikipedian editors. Jakew (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This US government source acknowledge the debate and both sides. Neither term is neutral. One favors the view of one side, the other favors the views of the other side. If we deliberately pick one or the other, we're choosing sides; which means we're not being neutral. The only way to be neutral is to let someone else decide - predominant use in sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The source you mention discusses why some people favour each term, but it doesn't indicate that FGC is non-neutral. Nobody disputes that FGC involves cutting of the female genitals; nobody has argued that it is judgemental, etc. It's a neutral term. Look at it this way: if three quarters of reliable sources described George W Bush as an idiot, should we "follow the sources"? Or should we apply our NPOV and BLP policies and, instead, note that certain sources have described him as as idiot? Applying your logic, not describing him as an idiot would be non-neutral, because we'd be failing to assert an opinion asserted by a majority of the sources.
Once again, I'm reminded of the obvious compromise already proposed by this (and other sources): 'For these reasons, a number of international organizations offer a compromise: "female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)."' Jakew (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we're having a semantic discord. Let's take a step back. When you say "neutral term", what exactly do you mean by that? Neutral relative to what? It seems to me that the only way for "neutral term" to mean anything is in a context of two opposing sides, and the term favors neither. Do you define it differently?
By the way, if 3/4 of reliable sources described GWB as an idiot, then, yes, I would say we should too, and we would be in compliance with NPOV and even BLP if we did. The thing is, of course 3/4 sources didn't do that, regardless of how popular that characterization was in the world outside of reliable sources. Thank you for making my point! --Born2cycle (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
There are of course several senses in which something can be said to be neutral, but I think the most important is best called "neutral with respect to the subject of the article". A phrase like "female genital mutilation" can be read as either a name and a description, and the latter is of concern because it is judgemental: it says that those who practice FGC mutilate women, and that's the kind of strong opinion that we should not be expressing. Furthermore, reliable sources document the fact that practising communities do not regard it as mutilation: the accuracy is disputed, in other words. So FGM is not a neutral term.
"Female genital cutting", on the other hand, is a neutral term because the accuracy is not disputed, and it does not judge the subject. (I've yet to find a source that argues otherwise.)
I think the sense you're talking about is "neutrality with respect to terminology", but it's not feasible to be truly neutral in such a respect, as we have to refer to the subject somehow. The closest we could get would be to use the terms in proportion to their prominence, perhaps using FGM in 80% of cases and FGC in 20% of cases. Unfortunately that still leaves the larger — and more pressing — problem of neutrality with respect to the subject.
Okay, "neutral with respect to the subject of the article" - so relative to only one point? Assessments of neutrality cannot be made relative to only one point. What is the definition of "neutral" you have in mind? If it is unrealized, you will have to think about it.
The dictionary defines "neutral" in terms of two opposing sides (not helping or supporting either).
Say Germany and France are in a war, Germany is winning, but France would win if Switzerland helped them. Switzerland chooses to stay out of it claiming neutrality, but France say that by staying out they are favoring Germany. Who is right?
This is how I see it. There is a "war" out there in the Land of RS, between the proponents of using FGM and those of using FGC. Our job, to be neutral, is to reflect the winner. If we do otherwise, we're not neutral, in any sense of the word that I can fathom. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (revised) --Born2cycle (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "relative to only one point" — could you expand on that?
Neutrality as defined by Wikipedia's policy is often more complex than a battle between opposing sides, but even when it is concerned with two opposing views it's not defined as backing the winner. Rather, it's defined (very roughly speaking) as adopting an impartial, disinterested position, backing neither "side" but, rather, documenting the views held by each without endorsing either of them. "Susan Scholar says that GWB is an idiot" is a hypothetical example of a neutral sentence: it describes an opinion but doesn't assert it. There's no way to tell whether the person who wrote that sentence agrees or disagrees with Susan; it's impartial. "GWB is an idiot" is a non-neutral sentence, because it's asserting an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Jakew (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your response to the GWB analogy, I don't know what to say. I'm frankly rather stunned; I genuinely didn't expect you to respond in such a way. I must commend you for internal consistency in your approach, even while I find your misunderstanding of NPOV deeply concerning. Even in that hypothetical scenario, it should be perfectly obvious that such characterisation is an opinion (and a disputed one), and hence should not be asserted by WP. Jakew (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not an accident that your hypothetical GWB/idiot scenario is only hypothetical. We really can trust the assessment of reliable sources, in aggregate, over our own opinions. That's what being neutral means. In this case they are most commonly going with FGM. To go against their assessment is not only holding a judgmental opinion about which is more appropriate to use, but it's holding our opinion over theirs. It is anything but neutrality. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not what neutrality means at Wikipedia. A popular viewpoint is not necessarily a neutral one. While an oversimplification in many ways, it's often easiest to think of neutrality as an absence of an opinion. Jakew (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, neutrality is an absence of opinion. Normally, we choose the most common name used in RS to refer to something. To say in a given case that we not do that because that most common name is inappropriate for some reason, is not an absence of opinion! It's holding the opinion that using that name is inappropriate for some reason. That's not NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
But, as I've pointed out above, we have to assess whether proposed language is compatible with our policies. If we can't form an opinion about how they apply, what's the point in having those policies in the first place? Jakew (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
When we have to form an opinion, we have to form an opinion. NPOV requires us to be as neutral as reasonably possible, when necessary. When the issue is whether A or B is more politically correct (for lack of a better term), there is no need to form an opinion. We can be Switzerland and not take a stand. There is no need to form an opinion here, except about which use is more widely used in sources (and that's not a controversy so no NPOV issues).
Therefore the truly neutral position is not form any opinion, and simply follow the sources. Believe me, I personally am totally neutral with respect to the FGM/FGC usage controversy. I really don't care about that. I do care about naming policy and neutrality, which is driving my passion here. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
But we do need to form an opinion: how else are we to implement requirements such as: "Prefer non-judgmental language", maintain an "impartial tone", and "Avoid stating opinions as facts"? Just looking at which term is the most popular only works if we completely ignore these requirements, which obviously isn't an option. Jakew (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think all that was written with general article content in mind, where clear common usage is not something that can usually be used as a neutral gauge. In other words, yes, all that applies where we have no choice but to do that. I mean, "Avoid stating opinions as facts" has no bearing on the process of deciding what term to use to refer to a topic. Yes, when we have to choose - like when we're inventing a descriptive title for a topic that has no name, then we need to be judgmental, and while being judgmental all that advice about non-judgmental language and impartial tone applies. But to even go there is already a compromise of NPOV - we're not longer being neutral, but as neutral as we can be. It's even more neutral to not even go there at all, and just use the language most commonly used in the sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree: it applies to article content regardless of common usage (which, in any case, is not the same as neutrality). In some instances it is possible to create an exception for commonly-used terms, but one that must be considered carefully, carefully assessing how to weigh neutrality against clarity. "Avoid stating opinions as facts" is relevant when one of the candidate terms expresses an opinion about the subject, as in this case. Jakew (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Terminology, again
(Section heading inserted by Jakew, 07:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC).)
Google book search estimates 31,700 hits for "female genital mutilation" and only 6,980 for "female genital cutting". So if we let RSs vote, it's a landslide for FGM. But I strongly disagree with Born2cycle that this is the generally correct approach to neutrality. I'm too late to comment on the move, but let's consider it on the article content. Obviously, most publications in this area are by people trying to get the word about about how awful it is, or what to do about, how to help the victims, etc. I understand and sympathize with that. But it's also clearly a POV. The fact that there is a more neutral term that lags in use by only a factor of 5 suggests that many serious writers find good reason to be more neutral in their writing. We ought to at least be considering that, not letting sources vote for how we cover issues in WP. Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Wp:npov dictates neutral wording. It does not say that non-neutral nouns can be substituted if they are more common. "Cutting" is straight-forward descriptive and neutral. "Mutilation" expresses an opinion. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality means not being judgmental about conflicting views. It doesn't mean judging which view or word is less judgmental. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
A rare occasion that I disagree with you. :-) You are basically saying that the more prevalent term is by definition the neutral term. That is not correct. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a view represented in reliable sources that the appropriate term to use when referring to this topic is FGM. There is another view also represented in sources that the term should be FGC. Normally, when there are disparate views, per WP:NPOV, we are supposed to "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views". But in this case, whether selecting which to use in a title, or which to use to refer to the topic in the article content, we must select one. I suggest the best way do that that neutrally -- proportionately and as far as possible without bias -- is to favor the one most prevalent in sources. Any other approach favors the less prevalent view, is more biased, less fair, less proportionate, and, thus, less neutral. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
We have already done just that, by naming the article for the more common term, even though it is judgemental. Do we now have to go further, and expunge the more neutral term from the article? That seems to be more or less the current proposal. But more generally, I do not agree that "favor the one most prevalent in sources" is generally the right approach to NPOV; the admonition to "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views" is not as simple as "favor the one most prevalent in sources". Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't mean that exactly. But "favor the most prevalent one" is closer to meaning "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views" than is "favor the one a small group of WP editors judge, if they can even come to a consensus, to be most neutral". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Clearly the article should not overdo the "mutilation" aspect—it is not Wikipedia's role to offer a commentary on how bad FGM is, regardless of the fact that there are groups in society who want that assertion made. However, there are also groups who want to downplay the issue, claiming that female circumcision is just like male circumcision. Accordingly, the article should neither overdo nor downplay the fact that many forms of FGM really do involve what the word "mutilation" means—it is not acceptable to assert how horrible FGM is, and it is not acceptable to downplay the issue by avoiding "mutilation". There are plenty of reliable sources like the WHO who use "FGM", and we should not second guess the situation by discounting such organizations on the basis that "well, they would say that, wouldn't they". Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly; balanced consideration and balanced fair representation of viewpoints is called for, not a hard-over easy decision like Born2cycle calls for. I'm not saying we give much weight to those who claim it's not mutilation, but certainly a significant minority of sources at least present the topic in a more neutral-sounding way, and it would be unwise to rule out neutral uses in our article. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, given anything that's truly horrible, you don't have to use judgemental language to express how horrible it is (and if you can't express that without using loaded terminology, it probably wasn't very horrible in the first place). Assume, for the sake of argument, that the reader will agree with your statement that 'many forms of FGM really do involve what the word "mutilation" means'. Do you think it's necessary to beat him/her around the head with the word to make him/her see that? Jakew (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not judgmental to use the word "mutilation" to describe what actually is mutilation (is there a reliable source saying FGM is not mutilation?). If the article avoids concerning readers who think FGM is merely cutting, then the article will concern readers who think that many forms of FGM are much more than "cutting", and ignoring the practice of the extremely reliable sources which use "FGM" would itself be the opposite of NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've already cited sources in my earlier response to you noting that not all forms of FGC are mutilation,[46] and documenting that many people do not regard it as mutilation.[47][48][49][50] So clearly there is some dispute over that issue. As for cutting, there's no argument over that issue: FGC is cutting. Some sources prefer to use stronger language to express their horror at the procedures, but that's not an argument for us to do the same. Jakew (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming End of story. We have allotted space for those names which are less commonly used by describing them in the beginning of the article, nothing else is required of us. If we start using the term FGC in the article then we are giving undue weight to the least commonly used term and thus being un-neutral. Also, google results are not a very reliable for determining actual usage of a term. On google scholar 1/3 of the top results in 2010 for the term "Female Genital Cutting" are articles that specifically say the term FGM should be used and specifically note why FGM is either the preferred or superior term. If these are the top results that draws all of the other ones into question. Lastly, we cannot have a balanced perspective in this article, or indeed have a neutral article, if we are going to let the minority of sources dictate what terminology gets used. The facts are this, only a minority of sources use the term FGC, and of those sources only a minority note any neutrality problems with the term FGM, and only a tiny minority of that minority disputes that FGM isn't mutilation (i haven't even seen said sources, Jakew says they exist though). Most importantly, all of the prominent UN bodies that use the term FGC use it ONLY in communities where the term FGM would be a detriment to reducing the instances of FGM. All of those sources make it perfectly clear that FGM is mutilation and that is a violation of women's and human rights. Putting that together with a conservative estimate that 75%+ of all sources use FGM I don't see any compelling argument for not using it. In fact, as Snowded said above, I think it would be an NPOV violation not to use it.
Also please, when i paste this http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming do read it. I want to hear someone make a compelling argument about how we have not satisfied all of the requirements of this section of NPOV which is set up to deal specifically with this kind of issue. This is the crux of it right here, are we really gonna go around to articles like Rape of Nanking or Jack the Ripper and rename them and/or change the terminology because its appears judgmental or un-neutral? Vietminh (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I've already discussed "Naming" above, Vietminh. To quote myself:
Possibly the strongest argument you've made is "Naming". However, the key sentence in that policy section is "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity". Put another way, when applied in a specific case the question must be whether lack of clarity would outweigh need for neutrality. Does using "FGC" create a lack of clarity or otherwise cause confusion? I'd suggest probably not. Firstly, the term "FGC" is already in common use, and secondly we already discuss alternative names and document terminology, so the reader should understand what is meant by FGC (it also helps that the two acronyms are very similar). So any reduction in clarity is probably minimal. If we consider the compromise I proposed above ("FGM/C" or "FGM/FGC"), the reduction in clarity is basically zero, because these include the FGM acronym. So this policy section doesn't appear to justify, and certainly doesn't require, the use of "FGM".
You're very egocentric Jakew, I wasn't speaking to you when I posted that, this is a public talk page remember? I am speaking to the two new users which are on this page and I am inviting them to respond to the arguments I have presented previously. Also don't lecture me about being repetitive, you've been spewing the same rejected argument about NPOV since the RM. Vietminh (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:NPA and it's not a personal attack to call you egocentric when you assume that whatever I say on this talk page *must* be directed towards you. Also I believe there's a policy on Wikipedia that specifically says not to sling wikipedia policies at eachother without any interpretation being offered. I suggest you review that, among a great many other things. Vietminh (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Moving towards compromise
I'd like to propose again that we consider using the term "FGM/FGC" or "FGM/C" in the article (I'm not proposing to change the title), as a compromise between those who favour FGM and those favouring FGC. This isn't my own invention; it is used by high-profile organisations such as USAID, UNHCR, UNICEF, and UNFPA). It includes FGM, and FGM appears first (in FGM/FGC) and is the only one of the two acronyms that appears in full (in FGM/C). And it is much less judgemental since, by presenting a choice of "mutilation" or "cutting", it avoids asserting the opinion that FGC mutilates.
I know that Vietminh dislikes this proposal; however it still seems to me to be the most workable compromise proposed so far. What do others think? Jakew (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The assertion that FGM isn't mutilation isn't a viewpoint that we need to take into consideration, there are no major sources that are asserting that FGM isn't mutilation, and all of the sources you provided above are clear that FGM is mutilation. As is the World Health Organization which the UN organizations you've listed above. Vietminh (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
As I say, this isn't a viewpoint we need to take into consideration. The UN source you provided just now does not dispute that FGM is mutilation, and it specifically notes what I have been saying to you over and over, which is that the term FGC is only used in those communities where it might offend, but that it does not change that these procedures are mutilation. So what have we got remaining here? 3 journal articles up against the 1000s of journal articles which use the term FGM and don't see any problem in doing so. Are we really going to dictate terminology in this article based off of 3 journal articles? Especially when we've got the UN telling us its mutilation? Vietminh (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The relevant passage in the cited UNFPA source is: "communities that practice FGC often find the use of the term 'mutilation' demeaning, since it seems to indicate malice on the part of parents or circumcisers." Clearly the appropriateness of the term is therefore disputed. Contrary to your assertion, it does not say that the term FGC is only used in these communities, and the document itself uses FGM/FGC. As to the other sources, these are just examples, as I'm sure you must be aware. Jakew (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
As I say, and as I have said repeatedly over, and over, and over again. FGC is only used by those organizations in the communities where the term may be considered controversial (i.e. in those communities). The full quote reads: "Some organizations have opted to use the more neutral term 'female genital cutting'. This stems from the fact that communities that practice FGC often find the use of the term 'mutilation' demeaning". I would appreciate if you quote things in their entirety and not merely extract portions of articles which favour your position, I've asked you to stop doing this before. The appropriateness of the term has been questioned within the context of reducing the instances of FGM, none of the UN bodies have at any point asserted that FGM is not mutilation. As for the other examples, you're going to have to produce more than 3 journals to convince me that any significant amount of sources have questioned whether FGM is mutilation, I'm not in favour of a tiny minority of sources dictating the content of the entire article, as per numerous passages in NPOV. Vietminh (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I acknowledge that you've said it repeatedly, but you still haven't provided any evidence that it's true, which to my mind is rather more important than repetition. And the text you quote seems to contradict your claim, since it states that some organisations have chosen to use the term. Note the absence of qualifiers: it doesn't say "chosen to use the term in certain communities", for example.
Given that you're criticising me for my quoting style while, at the same time, truncating a quoted sentence, I presume this must be a joke? Some levity is certainly appreciated.
As I explained previously, the sources I've already supplied are examples. I could supply more, but there is little point in expending the effort, because my point is already proven: the idea that FGC mutilates is an opinion, not a fact, and must be treated accordingly. FGM asserts an opinion, and FGC does not. Jakew (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait. That's your position. That FGC is not mutilation? The World Health Organization has a FACT sheet that disagrees [56]. If "procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons" is not "the infliction of serious damage on something" (def'n of "mutilation"), what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
No, my personal viewpoint is that FGC (or at least most forms thereof) is mutilation. However, Wikipedia is not about my viewpoint; it's about neutrality, and we must distinguish between facts and opinions, and act accordingly. You can't resolve neutrality problems by proving that one side is right, so even though you and I (and the WHO) agree, we still can't treat it as a fact. We report opinions. We don't assert them. Jakew (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried to apply this general argument - that X is Y is opinion and Z asserts the opinion X is Y as if it is fact, so we can't use Z - to any other article/situation in WP? I ask because it seems both applicable in countless situations and at the same time practically untenable, but would love to be proven wrong about that with an example. Got one?
Now consider Patriot (American Revolution) and see how your argument applies there... That American colonists who rebelled against the British were patriots is opinion not fact. Patriot (American Revolution) asserts an opinion, not fact, and so we can't use that. Isn't that the same reasoning?
Let's try one more. That cycle facilities "segregate" cyclists from motor traffic is opinion not fact. Segregated cycle facilities asserts an opinion, not fact, and so we can't use that. Am I missing something? Or would you change these titles and stop using these terms in these articles too? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't think of a way of identifying any examples, as for every article there are an infinite number of terms that it doesn't use. I imagine it would be fairly easy to find counterexamples, though, just as it is with "Wikipedia should not include original research". Unfortunately there are plenty of articles that don't conform to our policies, but that's usually a poor reason for failing to fix one article (for a related argument, see WP:OSE).
Having said that, I don't think these are very good counterexamples. While I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the subject matter, "segregated cycle facilities" seems a poor choice of title to begin with (I'd have probably searched for "cycle lanes", though perhaps that's a British term), but that's a side issue as we're discussing content not titles. As far as I'm able to tell there doesn't seem to be any real dispute about the segregated nature of such facilities. I may be quite wrong about this; for all I know the academic literature may contain a raging controversy on the subject of both the title and the (allegedly) segregated nature. But my impression is that it's not a contested viewpoint. In any case, the article would probably benefit from rewriting many of the instances of "segregated cycle facilities" as "these facilities", etc: neutrality issues or not, it would certainly flow better that way.
"Patriot" is probably a better example. The points in favour of the present usage are: a) the capitalisation of the term throughout, which (slightly) distances WP from the implications, and b) that while the patriotism of these people was doubtless questioned at the time, there is probably little controversy in the present day. (Again, I'm guessing based on relatively little knowledge of the subject, but it seems a reasonable guess.) But overall, I think it's a bit of a grey area. I'd want to be more familiar with the subject & sources before reaching any firm conclusions, but my initial thoughts are that it's possibly not the best term to use (isn't "Revolutionaries" also clearer?). Possibly it might be another situation where "Patriot" is a good title but another term is best used in the text; I don't know. Jakew (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
After thinking this through today it is clear to me that this debate is just going to go on and on with no end, as we are all just revolving around interpretations of NPOV which are inherently irreconcilable. To that end I offer to stipulate to the compromise of using the acronym "FGM/C" (not FGM/FGC because that suggests parity where none exists, or that the terms are interchangeable when they're not, and because it is not a name which is used in the sources) under the following conditions:
1) That the usage of this term at no point be used as a stepping stone or justification for changing the article title back to Female genital cutting or changing it to Female genital mutilation/cutting.
2) That all the pages which link to this one throughout the encyclopedia link to Female genital mutilation and not anything else, by this I specifically mean that pages like http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Circumsision that have hatnotes or sections about this page use the title FGM and not FGC or FGM/C.
3) That the content of any pages which discuss this one either use the term FGM or be re-worded so as not to require the use of any acronyms whatsoever. The reason being that I do not think we should use the FGM/C acronym before we have explained why it is being used.
4) That the opening paragraphs of this page either retain the usage of the term FGM or be re-worded so as not to require the use of any acronyms whatsoever. The reason being as before, that I do not think we should use the FGM/C acronym before we have explained why it is being used.
5) That said rewordings do not use either the word "cutting" or "mutilation" so as to preserve due weight and neutrality (respectively).
6) That the "varying terminology" section make absolutely clear in the FGM paragraph that the term FGM is the most widely used term (without making reference to any of the supposed decreasing trends of use, because as I have pointed out the methodology which has been used to assert this is unreliable), and at the end of this section a sentence/paragraph be added explaining why the term FGM/C is being used, and that this sentence/paragraph not make reference to any of the sources which claim FGM is not mutilation because none of the most reputable sources claim that FGM is anything but mutilation.
7) That at no point a paragraph about the usage of the term FGM/C be added to the varying terminology section, because this would be giving undue weight to the term which is by far the least commonly used of all those that exist. The use of this term here is inherently a compromise and we should not give the appearance that it is anything else but that.
Okay, thank you for considering this proposal, Vietminh. Here's my initial response to your conditions:
In the spirit of compromise I will agree not to nominate the article for renaming for a period of one year. (Regarding this and other points, I obviously can't speak for others.)
I'll agree to using links to the full title.
I'm not sure that I can agree to this one.
If you're happy with the first sentence as it is, so am I.
As I understand it, that's fine.
If we can find a reliable source asserting that FGM is the most widely used term, I'm happy to cite it, but I can't endorse original research. Re FGM/C, we do already have a sentence at the start of the 'terminology' section that mentions it, so I'm not sure it would make sense to add anything at the end. Wouldn't it be better to keep related information together?
You said in point 6 that you want to add a sentence or paragraph about FGM/C, but here you say that at no point should a paragraph about it be added? That seems self-contradictory. Could you explain better what you have in mind? Jakew (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
1) Yes, I agree that obviously other editors who are not involved in this discussion could nominate the article, I just want to make this compromise with the most active editors here so that if that did happen we could collectively explain to said editors the consensus that we have established and the reasons for it.
2) I'm glad we agree on the links, just so I can be 100% sure on where you stand, are you also okay with using Female genital mutilation as a title for any sections on other pages? For instance this page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutilation (the title of this page is a separate issue, I don't particularly like it myself, I am just using it as an example) has a section which briefly describes this page and the title of that section is Female genital mutilation. Would retaining titles like that be an issue for you?
3) I suppose its somewhat impractical to do this, so in the spirit of compromise I'll drop this one.
4) Good point on the first sentence, so I'll drop this as well
5) Glad we can put this to rest as well
6) Upon consideration I am happy with the way the opening paragraph of the terminology section is worded, being that I proposed this at 4am I neglected to re-read that section, so if you're willing to leave that opening statement as it is then I am as well. On the second part, yes I agree that keeping the information together would make more sense, so I suppose the best thing to do would be to add a sentence following the content which is already there and explaining why the term FGM/C is being used in this article.
7) In this regard I meant to say a sub-section akin to the FGM/FGC/Circumcision not be added, but I don't sense that you want to do that anyway and are fine with keeping this section as it is, so I apologize for the confusion in this regard. I'll put it in an affirmative wording that is probably more clear: the only change I want to make to the terminology section is to add another sentence at the end of the opening paragraph which explains why this article uses the acronym FGM/C and not something else. Vietminh (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, as long as we both understand that it's not binding on other editors.
Except for links, I'd prefer to use "Female genital mutilation/cutting" in other articles (or FGM/C once that is defined), for much the same reasons as here. I won't press to use "Female genital cutting", though. If you really dislike the FGM/C acronym I've no particular objection to rewriting the text such that an acronym isn't required. Incidentally, the section of the GM&M article that you mention urgently needs some attention, as it currently begins "Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital mutilation". I've been postponing fixing it until we've achieved a consensus here.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
We need to make sure that the added sentence complies with WP:SELFREF, but otherwise okay.
Okay.
I'd like to add that I've no objection to referring to FGM (in either the full or acronym form) in quotations or (in moderation) where the use of the term is attributed to a source (eg., "Fred says that FGM is horrible"). But using FGM/C (or its expansion) when speaking in Wikipedia's voice seems a fair compromise between the two conflicting understandings of NPOV that we seem to have here. Jakew (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright, for direct attributions using the term that the source uses makes sense, and I would have no objection to the term FGC being used in the same manner. So long as, as before, the sources are given due weight. I'm not sure that it makes sense to me to use Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting for subsection titles on other pages, as in every other instance I have seen these subsection titles are identical to the main article that they link to. It would make more sense to me to use Female Genital Mutilation as the subsection title, and then use FGM/C in the text of the subsection than it would to use Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting as the subsection title and then not use any of the acronyms in the text.
I understand that what has been said here is not binding on other editors, but once we have completed our discussion on this I intend to give other editors time to weigh in on this compromise so that some manner of consensus can be established and we can give stability to the article. Given how many people have weighed in (and how much they have haha) I don't think we should initiate this compromise without other editors giving their input. This is notwithstanding obvious changes which need to made to the GM&M article, I'm sure that article could be prepped for insertion of FGM/C if you wished to do so sooner rather than later. Vietminh (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think we have agreement regarding direct attributions. I also agree with you that we'll need to get input from others — a compromise between the two of us isn't much use if nobody else agrees to it. I'm hopeful, though, that it might prove to be a path towards consensus, which so far has seemed out of reach.
The main remaining point of disagreement, it seems, is references to the subject in other articles. As I understand it, you're suggesting that we use "female genital mutilation" as a section heading and then refer to it using the acronym FGM/C in the text. I found it easier than I expected to find an example of a subsection title that differs from the linked article; hoping to find a list of articles in summary style, I navigated to WP:SUMMARY. To my surprise, the example given (on the right-hand side) lists as a heading "Prelude to War" linking to Events preceding World War II in Europe. The actualWorld War II article doesn't contain that heading (at least not when I looked), but it does contain "Chronology" (linking to Timeline of World War II, "Background" ([Causes of World War II]]), "Invasion of Ethiopia" (linking to Second Italo–Abyssinian War), and "Japanese invasion of China" (Second Sino-Japanese War). So I think it's safe to conclude that other articles do use headings that differ from the titles of the linked main article. Is there any other reason why we should avoid using FGM/C (expanded) as a title? Jakew (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I am hopeful as well that this can be the basis for moving towards consensus. Thank you for finding these examples, its clear to me after reading these that there is obviously nothing saying that we *must* use Female genital mutilation in summary titles on other pages, though admittedly the examples given on the WP:SUMMARY page are different than the case we're dealing with here. Specifically, I think to say "prelude to war" and then link to "causes of world war two" is less contentious then the issue we're dealing with (given all the discussion about NPOV and common names). After reading the guidelines on WP:SUMMARY it seems clear that what a summary gets called depends as much on the context of the article it is summarized in as on the title of the article it links to. So I will agree with this statement you made beforehand:
"Except for links, I'd prefer to use "Female genital mutilation/cutting" in other articles (or FGM/C once that is defined), for much the same reasons as here. I won't press to use "Female genital cutting", though. If you really dislike the FGM/C acronym I've no particular objection to rewriting the text such that an acronym isn't required."
I'm sure for one reason or another multiple things will end up being used, and that is the decision of the editors on those specific pages. Though avoiding Female genital cutting (and FGC) and Female genital mutilation (and FGM) would be best for the purposes of this compromise. The ultimate best choice would be as you say to re-write to avoid the acronym where possible (on both this page and others). This would be onerous and difficult but I believe it would eliminate the NPOV concerns for all concerned. What do you think about that idea? (in a general sense, I don't wish to add further conditions to anything when after what I have typed here I think an agreement has been come to) Vietminh (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I think rewriting to avoid acronyms is good practice, both in terms of neutrality and readability. As you say, though, it's not easy, and perhaps it's best viewed as a long-term process.
We seem to have agreed that we've agreed (if you see what I mean). Now seems to be the time to get input from others. My thinking is that the best approach is to: i) prepare, in a new subsection, a statement with a concise summary of what we've agreed (for simplicitly, it's probably best for us to edit this in place until we're both happy); ii) leave a neutral note on talk pages of all editors who've commented in this section, asking for their input, and iii) see whether we have consensus. Thoughts? Jakew (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes that sounds like the best way to do it. I'll draw up a list of points based on my understanding of what we've agreed to, once we've confirmed that we agree with that list we can then leave a neutral note as you specified. Vietminh (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Compromise
After much discussion Jakew and I have ironed out a compromise which we believe will satisfy the competing demands and interpretations of policy which have been offered in the previous weeks. I will list these compromises below in hopes that all of the editors (on both sides of the issue) will agree to them and we can establish a consensus.
1) We use the term FGM/C in the article and on summary pages which link to this article (except where a source specifically uses either FGM or FGC, and we are able to quote or otherwise directly attribute the usage of the term to the source).
2) We do not use the words "mutilation" or "cutting" by themselves in the article or on summary pages that link to it.
4) At the end of the opening paragraph in the Varying terminology section, we add a sentence that explains why this article uses the term FGM/C (note: the sentence must comply with WP:SELFREF).
4) We all agree not to nominate the article for re-naming for a period of 1 year (Jakew has offered to do this to assuage my concern that the terminology changes will be used as a basis for re-naming the article, I think it is a good idea if all of us here agree to this).
5) If editors outside this agreement inquire as to why the article title and the terminology used in the article differ, or if editors outside this agreement nominate the article for a move, we explain this compromise to them and why it was done.
Lastly, Jakew and I have also agreed in principle that over the long term we should work to reduce the use of the acronyms or terms FGM, FGC, or FGM/C in the article all together. It is our belief that this would go a long way towards resolving the different interpretations of NPOV that we all have. This isn't part of the agreement listed above but it is something worth considering in the context of the agreement being made. Vietminh (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was requested to comment. If the main folks involved agree on the compromise, that is the huge thing. My brief weigh-in's here said that IMHO "mutilation" is a POV/ non0neutral term. But that is secondary, if the main folks involved agree on the compromise, that is the huge and main thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
In respect of 1 the default should be mutilation unless the source uses cutting and its appropriate in context. I don't see how 2 works as the words should relate to the source in question. Also for the record "cutting" is not a NPOV position any more than is circumcision. Per the sources (and reality) we are talking about mutilation and should not shy away from the word or compromise it. --SnowdedTALK21:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I really appreciate the effort, but I see no compromise here. It's a violation of NPOV to eschew usage of a term commonly used in reliable sources in order to placate a minority view. This is the epitome of taking "political correctness" way too far. If it's politically incorrect to use it, then this will be reflected in the sources. Only then should it be reflected in WP.
A minority of sources does use FGM/C, but it's a small minority. To favor that usage here would represent the views about the usage of these terms unfairly and disproportionately, which is contrary to NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the comments by Snowded and Born2cycle. It's great that two editors have worked collaboratively, but no local consensus can reach a conclusion that in any way restricts future edits. A lot of the discussion on the talk page has been somewhat unnecessary because in the end we need to focus on a particular edit, and comment on whether V/NPOV/DUE apply to that specific case. It is not necessary for unanimity to be achieved, and indeed a Google search quickly shows that there are many corners of the Internet where enthusiasts have spent years pursuing an interest in circumcision and/or FGM—articles and talk pages on Wikipedia are not immune from their influence and we should not expect to convince everyone involved. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
(unindenting) This is very unfortunate. At the time of writing, there are three editors willing to accept the compromise (myself, Vietminh, and North8000), and three against (Snowded, Born2cycle, and Johnuniq). In terms of FGM there are (depending on how you count) 4 or 6 in favour (Vietminh, Born2cycle, Johnuniq and Santiago84, plus invited contributions from Snowded and Eac387) and three against (myself, Dicklyon, and North8000 against). So at present we don't seem to have consensus for either of these options.
The question is, how to move forwards? We could revert to the previous stable state, which did have consensus. We could try another compromise, if somebody else can think of one. Or we could try mediation. Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No matter what spin is placed on the issue, the consensus is clear: the current article has no major problem. I explained just above why unanimity will never be achieved. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't see (but it is a very long and at times tedious thread) any real dispute about the dominance of FGM in the literature. You can always go to an RfC on the subject if you want but I think an independent editor will come to the same conclusion. Oh and by the way I was not invited, I have had the article on watch for some time. --SnowdedTALK09:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to rephrase: the issue we've been arguing about is whether usage by the majority of sources is the be all and end all, or whether we should consider other factors. RfC is an option, but since there seem to be two conflicting interpretations of NPOV here, I think mediation might be a better approach. You were invited in this edit. Jakew (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
If a specific source uses cutting then its OK to use it in the body of the text. Otherwise its the majority of sources. If you want to change wikipedia policy then take it up elsewhere; the position at the moment isvery very clear. Mediation will be rejected by me as it will just result in endless repitition per the above conversation. Oh and if you check you will see that I had edited the article with a clear preference BEFORE that invitation --SnowdedTALK10:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to change Wikipedia's policy, Snowded. Please don't misrepresent things. I'm sorry you've decided not to cooperate with mediation. I'm aware that you edited before the invitation; nevertheless you were invited to participate in this discussion, and had not done so prior to that invitation.
As an interesting aside, I've just checked usage in the titles of the sources that are actually cited in the article. Of the references, 50 include the word "mutilation", and 25 include the word "cutting". An even narrower gap. Jakew (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I try not to waste time on discussions between a small number of editors which are going nowhere. Title is clear, of you have a reference that uses cutting and its appropriate to the section then its fine. Otherwise enough effort has already gone into this. Personally I think your arguments are against policy but you can always go to the appropriate forum. --SnowdedTALK10:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Much as I share your apparent frustration, I'd suggest that the fact that we still haven't reached a consensus is clear that we haven't expended enough effort discussing it. Nevertheless, I can respect your decision not to further engage. Jakew (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
May I recommend that Jakew be ignored until something new and actionable is proposed. He is very talented and very dedicated, and no amount of discussion will ever deflect him. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Johnuniq is not being rude, s/he is being realistic. Sometimes you need to realise that however passionate you are about an issue here there is a time to give up on it. That time has come for you, hopefully you will see it. --SnowdedTALK12:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Even if I were to do so, there would still be two other editors opposing the use of FGM within the article, for equally solid, policy-based reasons. I suppose you could propose to pretend that they don't exist either, but that's no less rude, and no more realistic. We do have a problem here, and the problem is that we've so far been unable to reach consensus about terminology. Vietminh and I are trying to find a solution to this problem; attacking one of us doesn't help. Jakew (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
A lot of valid points were made here, I think its somewhat unfair that Johnuniq outrightly suggested that Jakew should be ignored, but he does have a point inasmuch as Jakew is an unlikely person to be swayed. Though in Jakew's defence he did concede to the consensus on the RM, and he did come from a position of wanting to completely revert the edits I made to compromising as per above. In any event I'm not sure I really see a way forward on this at the time being, so perhaps Johnuniq is right in that we should wait until something changes. I don't think reverting to the previous terminology would result in anything productive, it may have had a long standing consensus but the current consensus (or lack thereof, depending on how you look at it) does not favour such a move. I know Jakew would say that the previous and long standing consensus would favour a revert, but I don't think it does in this case. Most of the editors who have weighed in here (sans myself) are not at all new to this page, they've been active on the talk page and have edited and monitored the article for a long while now. So it is not as if we have an entirely new group of editors who have came in and shook things up, that is to say the current consensus is not "among a limited group of editors, at one place and time". Jakew has already put in a request for comment and no outside users have commented yet, so that appears to be a dead end. I also don't think a request for arbitration is really warranted in this case. I've read through WP:CON looking for some suggestions on how best to evaluate this situation and where to go from here, and the thing I have found which I think bears the most weight on this situation is the following passage from http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_pitfalls_and_errors
"Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run."
If we are are not going to move forward with this compromise and we are all going to go back to espousing our original views than I think this is most definitely the pitfall that we could run into. Vietminh (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Any edit has to be justified from sources. If another editor continues to push a position after it has been resolved, or against consensus then tendentious behaviour can be taken to ANI. Its also legitimate to point out to an editor that they are isolated in wanting to continue to discuss a question which has been resolved and to suggest they be ignored --SnowdedTALK08:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: I did not say Jakew should be ignored, I said that Jakew should be ignored until something new and actionable is proposed. When a new and actionable topic comes up, of course every comment will be considered by all reasonable editors. However, there is no need for every discussion to continue until unanimity occurs—the result of that would be that the more neutral editors (those without considerable emotional investment in the topic) would abandon the talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to both Snowded and Johnuniq: That`s fair enough, I guess the word ignore just caught me as too strong but when put in context seems less offensive. This was exactly my position toward Jakew until Dicklyon and North8000 commented on this discussion. But in all fair assessment, and with due respect to Jakew, I think that if we continue as before than Jakew`s pursuit of getting rid of FGM could be considered tendentious editing. I`ve re-read the comments by Dicklyon and North8000, Dicklyon`s argument is focused exclusively on rejecting Born2Cycle`s and whats more, I asked him (as I asked all of you) to come here and to comment on this compromise. His response was to remove what I posted on his talk page and to not offer any further comment, so I think we can assume that he does not wish to debate this further. Likewise, North8000`s comments don`t seem to explicitly favour Jakew`s position either, and above he said that “Wp:npov dictates neutral wording. It does not say that non-neutral nouns can be substituted if they are more common.” which is in fact not true as per http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming. So he may be willing to reconsider that once he is aware of that policy (we don`t need to debate this once again, there is no dispute that the policy exists, there is only dispute over how we should exercise it). So as I say above, I think we should just leave it as it is. I was willing to compromise on this issue to exhaust all options, now that that`s been done and rejected I see no compelling reason to make any changes to the terminology at present. I could see how there could be a debate over whether there is consensus on the term FGM, but I cannot see any debate over whether there is consensus to discontinue this discussion as is. The comments since the compromise was offered make it clear that everyone, minus Jakew, seems to want to drop this until something in Johnuniq`s words “new and actionable” is proposed. I am in favour of that approach, without prejudice to any outcome, because further debate will only yield a repetition of what has already been clearly established. Vietminh (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Both times I've commented were per a request, so I'm not deep in on this. If it would help nudge this towards a balance to make a compromise possible, I would point out that the threshold for the rare exception of using POV wording in the title isn't just majority prevalence in sources, it's when it's when it's overwhelmingly the identifying term used. Second, I saw a mis-statement (presumably implying it was based on wp:ver) saying that flatly any edit (i.e. any change) requires sources. Verifiability is required for insertion or retention of material. That's pretty well it, anything that overreaches that is a probable mis-statement. So, to give one example where that it is opposite from correct, often a lack of a source is the reason for an edit (removal). More to the point, it is incorrect to say that any edit requires a source; that would tend to just lock in the status quo, good or bad. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
What follows is information for North8000, not attempt to restart this debate again: One of the disputes between the opposing sides has been quantifying whether the term FGM is in fact overwhelmingly used. As Dicklyon points out, a quick google search reveals that it is certainly the most commonly used (75%+), but as I have pointed out google results do not necessarily tell us the whole story. If you google "female genital cutting" in google scholar you'll most certainly find results for sources that use the term, but you will also find that many of these results are sources which discuss why the term ought not to be used, or why other terms are preferable, and you will also find sources which express an order a preference like the article itself does (i.e. 'female genital mutilation, also called female genital cutting or circumcision'). In short its difficult to know the true usage, and it may be higher or lower than 75% (depending on your measure). Born2cycle was right to point out though that FGM/C is by far the least commonly used of all the terms. So the problem we have here is really that we don't have a neutral term that is widely used enough to justify replacing FGM, and we also can't agree on whether we should just not use any acronyms at all. As Snowded has pointed out, it may be an NPOV violation in itself to avoid using FGM in favour of something else, for my part I think avoiding FGM in favour of either FGC or FGM/C does present serious issues with due weight. The question really boils down to, if not FGM then what? And if nothing then why? We're stuck in the middle because this isn't a 50/50 split case where we can just opt for the more neutral term and be done with it. Born2cycle was right to point out before that this really does deal with a fundamental question of what neutrality is, and of course the scenario of what to do when we cannot agree on what is neutral. Should we should fall back on the sources or on our own judgments? Each presents a serious problem which I don't think can be solved by slapping the two acronyms together. Vietminh (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we are somewhat stuck, and am still trying to work out the best solution. In the meantime, there is another possibility that we haven't yet seriously considered. Although we have to use a single term in the title, we don't have to use the same term throughout the article. While I do appreciate the desire for consistency, it seems to me that from either interpretation of NPOV there's an argument for using a mixture. In terms of impartiality, using non-neutral terms in some of the article is slightly better than using them everywhere. From the "due weight with respect to terms used in sources" perspective, using terms in proportion to their use in sources is better than over-representing one term by using it almost exclusively.
I'm therefore proposing the following as a temporary compromise until a better long-term solution comes along:
Where a source is cited, we use the term (or, if there are several, what appears to be the preferred term) used by the source.
Where a source is not (yet) cited, we try to maintain a 3:1 ratio of FGM to FGC (very roughly speaking; I'm not proposing that we use a calculator when making every edit).
It stands to reason that we can use other language such as "it" or "the practice" where it is suitable to do so. Jakew (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If you check back most people have supported a position that the use of the term in the main body of the text should follow the source. Otherwise wording should follow the name of the article, calculating ratios is without precident on wikipedia to my knowledge. Otherwise as far as I can see we are not stuck, the matter is resolved, which does not mean that everyone is happy but that is the nature of wikipedia. Continuing the discussion is becoming tendentious and that is a behavioral issue --SnowdedTALK09:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Usually when I see an impasse, the folks that have their preferred version in at the moment say things like your last sentence...that is not right. North8000 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
They also say it when a discussion has gone on long enough and nothing new is being said. If Jakew is not happy then he can raise an RfC and involve the community. There is no requirement to have everyone in agreement and the compromises proposed so far break policy. It isn't right that editors should have to constantly monitor ongoing discussions that are going nowhere. --SnowdedTALK10:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe Snowded is right in this case North, especially in regards to calculating a ratio of source usage which I agree is unprecedented (and at any rate is difficult to quantify at both ends). The article is in the default position right now, the terminology following the article title. We are looking for a compelling reason to change that, not merely compromise because one editor is carrying on to such a point so as to force a compromise. I have no doubt, and say so without offence, that you and others who comment will move on from this page after you have contributed to your satisfaction (even if the outcome isn't in your favour). This is because, as you yourself have said so, you are not highly invested into this page. Jakew is, he will still be here arguing for the use of the term FGC, as he has for weeks on end now. He has already decided that this is the most acceptable term and is not willing to give that up under any circumstance. This ratio of term is just the latest attempt in that line of action. I agree that this is bordering on tendentious editing now. Failing to find a compromise, Jakew is proposing yet another measure that goes back to including FGC in the article when that has already been explicitly rejected by a great percentage of editors here. We are not progressing toward a compromise by returning to the original point of departure between the two sides. Vietminh (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
RfC: how should we refer to the practice?
While the title of this article is "female genital mutilation", there is a dispute regarding the terminology that should be used within the article. The two main candidates are: "Female genital mutilation" (FGM), the term used by a majority of sources, and "Female genital cutting" (FGC) which is the next most common term. While debate has focused on these two, a hybrid, "Female genital mutilation/cutting" (FGM/C or FGM/FGC), has been proposed as a compromise. Prominent organisations have adopted various terms: eg., the World Health Organisation uses FGM,[1] USAID uses FGC,[2] and UNICEF uses FGM/C.[3] There is controversy in the literature, much of it directed at the term FGM. Some authors have argued, for example, it is judgemental[4] and "tantamount to an accusation of evil intent",[5] non-neutral,[6] and political.[7]
The matter under dispute is how we should apply NPOV policy (WP:NPOV#Naming in particular). Some argue that we should exclusively use the terminology used by the majority of the sources, arguing that it would violate NPOV to use a less common term. Others question whether "FGM" is sufficiently ubiquitous to do that, are uncomfortable with the lack of impartiality in that phrase, and believe that a more neutral (but still common and easily recognised) name is more compliant with NPOV.
Two compromises have been proposed, though neither have achieved consensus to date. These are: 1) adopting the dual term FGM/C, or 2) using a combination of terms, in approximate proportion to the actual usage in sources. Even after lengthy debate, we have still not found language that is satisfactory. I'm therefore hoping that additional input from the community might lead to a consensus.
^Gruenbaum Ellen (2001). The female circumcision controversy: an anthropological perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 3.
^Sussman, Erika (1998). "Contending with Culture: An Analysis of the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996". Cornell International Law Journal. 31: 193–250. Recognizing that neither "female circumcision" nor "female genital mutilation" is a neutral term[...] [quoted via Google]
^Elizabeth Heger Boyle and Sharon E. Preves. "National Politics as International Process: The Case of Anti-Female-Genital-Cutting Laws". Law & Society Review. 34 (3): 703–737. Naming this practice is highly controversial. Both of the terms "circumcision" and "female genital mutilation" have been criticized as political [quoted via Google]
Outside opinion: This is a very controversial topic, evincing strong feelings, but that's a good reason to be even more careful that our NPOV policy is studiously followed. I understand that "female genital mutilation" is the most common term, and it is the name of the article. I think the lede and "Varying terminology" section show the situation pretty well. I don't think any changes are needed in those two sections. As for the rest, usually I dislike using abbreviations and multiple names for things, but given the detailed descriptions of the nomenclature I doubt readers will get confused by varying terminology, and the NPOV concerns are legitimate. The "Procedures: World Health Organization categorization" section uses "FGM", and that makes sense, since the WHO's analysis is described and the WHO uses this term. But for every subsequent section, the reader will be well aware of what FGM or FGM/C mean, and I think it would better fulfill our NPOV policy to use FGM/C in these sections. I personally find the procedure nauseating, and I wish it would go away, but we can't overuse terminology that is designed to evoke a moral reaction. – Quadell(talk)18:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is accurate to say that the term FGM is "designed to evoke a moral reaction", that implies intent where none exists. The WHO did not designate the term FGM to describe this procedure in order to evoke reactions from people, moral or otherwise. Vietminh (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Before I continue I just wanna say I'm not trying to be argumentative on this, I was the one who proposed the FGM/C compromise above, and I am glad that we've got some new input here. FGM does have the potential to offend I agree, but the question is who does it have the potential to offend? The other terms FGC and FGM/C were not proposed to to be more neutral for the general public. They were specifically proposed so as not to demonize the people who practice this, as part of the overall goal of reducing the instances of FGM. The article says "According to a joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement, the use of the word "mutilation" reinforces the idea that this practice is a violation of the human rights of girls and women, and thereby helps promote national and international advocacy towards its abandonment. They state that, at the community level, however, the term can be problematic; and that local languages generally use the less judgmental "cutting" to describe the practice." So the question for me is really, is the potential to offend (i.e. the potential to be non-neutral) really that great so as to require avoiding FGM? If you tell me this I'll shut up, because I don't wanna badger you hahaha. Vietminh (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not worried about anyone being offended; I'm only concerned about maintaining NPOV. There are certainly some reliable sources that indicate that the term is judgmental and political. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use the term; it only means that we should exercise caution when we use the term. – Quadell(talk)19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I and other editors have agreed that we should not use the term "mutilation" by itself, because that would be could construed as outside NPOV. And I also agree, there are reliable sources that raise the concerns you note. But there are also a great number of reliable sources that do not note any problems, and we have to give due weight to both those views to maintain NPOV. Vietminh (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
FGM - For several reasons: (1) FGM is far more commonly used than FGC, based on the information provided above, and my own brief research; (2) consistent with title of the article (see Requested Move above); (3) the POV that the practice is a mutilation is no more or less of a POV that it is a mere cutting: so both are POVs, but FGM is far more commonly used by disinterested academics; (4) the majority of uses within this article are acronyms (abbreviations) so the issues with the term "mutilation" are irrelevant, since the reader sees the letter "M" not the word "mutilation"; (5) adopting FGC would be entirely unacceptable since that usage is very small compared to FGM; (6) Using the hybrid FGM/C is better than FGC, but is very rarely used in the literature, and it is contrary to WP policies to adopt rare terms (among other reasons, because then WP could be seen to promote such a hybrid); and (7) compromise #2 was to use both terms in the article, in proportion to their usage in the soruces: that is like Solomon splitting the baby: although it is an easy route for us editors, it would terribly confuse the readers (they would think that FGM and FGC are two distinct practices, and that the article is referring alternately to one or the other, based on which is used). --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
FGM Both, interchangeably: I was randomly selected to comment by Wikipedia:Feedback request service. "Mutilation" is used in the title, so I don't imagine anyone's arguing it never be used in the text. If you want to argue against ever using "mutilation" you'll need to argue for a page move as well. It is cutting. No doubt about that. I see no harm in using "cutting" in the text, along with mutilation. If you start an RfC on moving to Female genital cutting, I'll support the change because I fear "mutilation" may alienate our most important readers - advocates who may be persuaded to change their view - per several of the sources cited above. But that's a different argument. (Why is this RfC located above three threads started on the 2nd, 6th and 8th of August?) It happens to children incapable of consent, let alone informed consent and has a significant impact on appearance and function, so it is mutilation. I don't buy the cultural relativism argument. Wife-beating and child marriage are acceptable in some cultures but they're still assault and child abuse; this is mutilation. I've been convinced by the arguments in this section and threaded discussion below: Given that the term encompasses stitching and is seemingly by far the most common descriptor for the practice, I've changed my vote; though "cutting" could be used where the source uses the term and it is not referring to the practice involving stitching. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Revised 10:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Anthony: my concern about using both FGM and FGC within the article is that users may think they are two different practices, or two variants of a practice. Readers may think "Oh, this paragraph concerns FGC, but the next paragraph concerns FGM" when in fact it was just some editor randomizing the two terms. Better is to adopt one term throughout the article, and describe the synonyms (and associated POV issues) at the top of the article. --Noleander (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Anothonycole: I don't think any of the options you have given here are realistic proposals. For one, we already had a request to move prior to this RfC, and the term Female Genital Mutilation was unanimously selected as the title for the article. Also, the one area of agreement between both sides on this issue is that the title and the terminology used in the article are separate issues that are not necessarily tied together (Wikipedia has separate guidelines for text and title, nowhere does it explicitly say they must be the same). Lastly, and most importantly, Wikipedia is not about persuading people to change their view one way or the other, that is in fact the exact opposite of being neutral. Our job as editors is to reflect what sources say within the guidelines and policies Wikipedia gives us. Its not our place to persuade people on an issue one way or another, and in the same sense, it is not our job to ensure that no one is alienated from an issue in one way or another. I will also remind you that because this is an English Wiki our audience is primarily English speaking whereas the practitioners of FGM are primarily not English speaking, so the potential to "alienate" as it were, is minimal (this is secondary, just something to consider). The question presented here is over the neutrality policy and how best to apply its competing demands in this case, if we stray outside of that there's little sense in having a conversation about which of the official terminologies we should use. Vietminh (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for letting my bias against cutting girls' genitals with a razor blade show. You are right, Vietminh, we're not here to persuade. But, nevertheless, language that might alienate readers who have a cultural investment in the practice should not be overdone. If I read you correctly, we're in agreement about using both terms, mutilation and cutting, in the article, where each is appropriate. Which seems to be Johnuniq's position, too. Noleander, the lead sentence makes it clear the terms are used interchangeably, and care in how the terms are used in text should obviate the misunderstanding you're concerned about. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Its perfectly understandable, and I wouldn't even say it is a bias. No one here is disputing that FGM is mutilation, and I don't think any reputable source worth its salt would ever suggest that its not mutilation, even if it might call it something else. It seems to me that we have achieved some modicum of consensus on this, we all seem to agree (either actively or tacitly) that the article should be re-written to reduce how often it uses acronyms. Once that's done we all seem to agree that if we use either FGM or FGC depending on what the source calls it, and we give due weight to the sources, that this problem will be resolved. I think given the layout of the article that confusion between the terms wouldn't be a problem because contrary viewpoints are divided into different sections. If they've read the varying terminology section they'll understand what's going on. That being said, I don't think we should use the terms "interchangeably" in the sense that we shouldn't write one sentence that uses FGM, and then another that has FGC and so on. But that's just part of the whole acronym reduction anyway. Vietminh (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no actionable proposal, and it is not possible or desirable for a discussion to establish rules concerning general use of terminology devoid of context. Of course this article will need to use "mutilation" when that term is appropriate (V, NPOV, DUE), and of course it will not use that term otherwise. Further, not only would it be bad writing to overuse the term regardless of its meaning, but no article should lecture to its readers, and "mutilation" and "FGM" must not be used excessively. There is no need to find a term that satisfies every editor or every reader—in fact that won't be happening because enthusiasts on one side or the other are going to be disappointed whatever the outcome (some would want the article to emphasize the mutilation aspect, and others would want to emphasize the cultural equality aspect with extensive quotes from those who believe it's not mutilation). There is actually no need for the article to follow either of those extremes: just describe the practices and the reactions with moderate language based on the normal policies. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, most of any potential neutrality issues could be solved by following the best practice guidelines for editing articles. The article uses the term FGM too much to begin with and it needs to be reworded to make it more readable and to make the language more natural. We would not have to sit here and have a debate of this scope if the terminology was not as central to the article as it is now. Dragging this debate out as is being done now is actually contrary to the interests of all involved and is putting a stranglehold on improving the article. Vietminh (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Per multiple previous discussions (and ignoring for the way the RfC is framed) FGM is the proper name. We can say "It" or whatever per guidelines on style in the text. If the source used for a comment uses cutting and its contactually correct and complies with eight issues then it can be used --SnowdedTALK10:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
FGC, FGM/C, or a fair combination, in that order of preference. FGM is non-neutral, and the loss in clarity by using alternatives is so minimal that using FGM exclusively seems unjustifiable. I do understand the argument about giving due weight to terms used in sources or potential sources, but I think that neutrality about the subject of the article has to take precedence. While not ideal, the dual term FGM/C seems acceptably neutral to me (I read it as "female genital mutilation or cutting"), and it does include the term "FGM". If that compromise should not succeed, however (as seems likely), I think we need to look at using multiple terms in a fair way; using FGM exclusively would even fail the "due weight according to use in sources" interpretation of NPOV. There seems to be some support for this above, but I think we need to work out the details of such an approach and what constitutes "fair". Several editors have expressed their support for reducing the use of acronyms in this article, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.
FGM. FGM is far more commonly used than FGC by disinterested academics. The reason that this is the case is that mutilation is an accurate term for a procedure which involves the removal of body parts, permanent damage to other body parts, severe pain, and long-term health consequences including acute bleeding, chronic genito-urinary infections, infertility, difficulties in childbirth and dangers to the child. Cutting is therefore an extreme euphemism. The term 'cutting' may also misdescribe the technique since FGM may also be accomplished by scraping or cauterising. Adopting FGC would be entirely unacceptable since (1) it represents a strong POV (2) it may not even describe the technique used and (3) its usage is very small compared to FGM.Rubywine . talk03:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your second point, the accuracy of FGM has also been questioned (and by a source: Sexuality Education Resource Centre Manitoba): "Ultimately our decision to use the term “female genital cutting” was in order to acknowledge that not all forms lead to mutilation of the genitals and that mutilation is not the intent of the action." Jakew (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Cutting is a type of mutilation. Cutting also could imply the woman has done it to herself, i.e. someone who practices self injury, or an accidental cut, i.e., when women cut themselves while shaving their genital areas (yes this happens), or it could even be thought of as body art that people choose to do. Women who practice SI sometimes do practice it on their genitals. So if this were named FGC would you suggest we talk about self injury in this article too? I think it would be misplaced, but it's called FGC so.... Also would be put body art in this article since we are talking bout cutting? Some body art involves scarring procedures. And I wouldn't be surprised if people have scarring done on their genitals. I would think that would be better placed in the body modification article, but since you propose this be called FGC.... Again cutting is a type of mutilation, and can imply all kinds of different meanings unless it is clearly discussed in the article of what type of mutilation it is. Let's also consider the fact that when a woman's genitals are mutilated, they are not always cut. They can be sewn shut, which involves no cutting at all. To be frank, the point of view of a man trying to tell me what is "less offensive" here seems a little absurd, when women have a little more experience on what would constitute as mutilation to their very own genitals. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
FGM. Just note the alternate phrase used in the lead. Books google has 34,000 returns on "female genital mutilation" and only 7,000 on the less used phrase. Since there cannot be even the pretense of a medical reason for doing this, it clearly is mutilation and not cutting which is like renaming rape "rejected insertion." Let's not engage in euphemizing it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
FGM is more commonly used, but the gap has narrowed over time. The ratio was 32:1 in 1996, but only 3:1 in 2011 (see here for a graph). At a rough estimate (based on whether the words mutilation or cutting appear in the titles), 50 of the references cited in the article refer to FGM, while 25 refer to FGC — a ratio of 2:1. Jakew (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
But see that doesn't matter because the fact remains that cutting is a type of mutilation. You can give me a million people who use the term FGC, but it would still be too simplistic and disingenuous. Cutting does not encompass all the stuff that goes on during these procedures, which can include scraping, sewing, cauterization, using any sort of corrosive substances on the genital area, pricking, abrasion, skinning, etc. So cutting cannot fully encompass all of these types of mutilation. Do you wish to mislead someone who does not understand the practice and let think think it is this simplistic? Your sources for people calling it FGC don't mean a lick of difference, because they and you are not realizing all that encompass mutilation, and probably they are only referring to the WHO's recognized types, not other practiced types. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
In many ways, it's probably more accurate to say that mutilation is a type of cutting, or more generally, a type of alteration. Mutilation is a very specific type, which describes how the speaker feels about that alteration, whether (s)he believes it disfigures or harms. To use your above example of scarification, one person might describe that as mutilation, while another might not (presumably a person who wants to undergo such a thing doesn't think they're making an appointment to have themselves mutilated). Similarly, many women who've been subjected to these procedures do not consider themselves mutilated. To a large extent, it's an opinion. But there's no argument that it involves cutting; that's a fact. Now technically you're right that not all forms of FGC involve cutting, but they're still called FGC by multiple reliable sources, and (as I understand it) it's exceedingly rare in practice to find forms in which cutting is not involved. Jakew (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are still incorrect, cutting is a type of mutilation. A person can be mutilated in a varity of ways including, but not limited to, burns, tears (caused by blunt trauma), abrasion, puncture wounds, crushing, 2... The sense you are speaking of are incised wounds and what most people colloquially understand to be as "cuts". Trying to heap all these types of mutilation into the incised wounds definition is not only misleading, it's just plain wrong. No one in the body modification community, including myself, would describe scarification as mutilation. No one in the body mod community has every described scarification as mutilation. No one does it to us against our will. We choose to do this. Now if a woman chooses to slice off her clit, sure. But people making her do it? That is mutilating a child. I am not sure where you get the information that it's "exceedingly rare" to find practices where no cutting is involved, or that "many women" would not consider themselves mutilated. These women had no choice in the matter. Of course the women do not consider themselves mutilated if they have never known any other way. The funny thing is you're acting like because women can enjoy sex after being mutilated, because they don't consider themselves mutilated, then they haven't been mutilated. Well, I don't consider myself crazy and I get along fine when I am under supervision, so I must not be mentally ill. I mean seriously here. Your logic is coming from the bias of a man's point of view. And no, I do not hate men, but that is the only way you are seeing it. You are not taking into consideration the woman's thoughts, her ideas, etc. And some people are trying to be purely clincal here, but the fact is you need to understand this shit fully to make a decision on the term. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. If you want to try to emphasize, you need to do more research on it, and in fact really do more research on what it is to be a woman in society overall. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Also let me correct myself here. I'm sure there are men in this discussion who get it. I really believe there are. But I can only imagine that a man, of all people, would not get it. So being a man does not mean you won't get it, but if someone is not going to get it, the chance of being a man is high IMO.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
FGM. It is the commonly used. Explain the less commonly used terms in the section on names for the practice. Using more than one name would just be confusing (and lead to more debate about proportions). Zodon (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
FGM. The neutral point of view regarding this practice, throughout the civilized world, is that it is a form of mutilation. People who like the practice are not within the range of accepted opinions. Nor is their opinion represented anywhere in the article. So it is hard to see what is non-neutral about the term. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
FGM Is the commonly used term. Also FGC is a little more disingenuous. The word mutilation actually describes what is happening to a woman. Cutting doesn't always imply mutilation. There are also other terms, like the Ritual Cutting, which is used in other parts of the world, and Ritual nicks, which is an actual accepted practice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, I found this out by reading one of the articles below. To call these anything BUT mutilation is completely deceitful, and I consider it POV playing down the practice. Also, because in some instances the vagina is sewn shut--this is not cutting. This is pure mutilation. Cutting is a type of mutilation. But to call it simply cutting? No.
Bill: Transporting girls outside U.S. for FGM would be illegal. (2010). Contemporary Sexuality, 44(8), 7.
Ameigh, S. (2010). Mutilation by Any Other Name. Humanist, 70(4), 8-9.
Ball, T. (2008). Female genital mutilation. Nursing Standard, 23(5), 43-47.
Zaidi, N., Khalil, A., Roberts, C., & Browne, M. (2007). Knowledge of female genital mutilation among healthcare professionals. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 27(2), 161-164.
Mortimer, M. (2007). How to Stop Female Genital Mutilation. Herizons, 20(3), 23-26.
Ogunsiji, O., Wilkes, L., & Jackson, D. (2007). Female genital mutilation: origin, beliefs, prevalence and implications for health care workers caring for immigrant women in Australia. Contemporary Nurse, 25(1/2), 22-30.
Melhado, L. (2006). Risks of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes increase with severity of female genital mutilation. International Family Planning Perspectives, 32(3), 154-155.
Raya, P. (2010). Female genital mutilation and the perpetuation of multigenerational trauma. The Journal Of Psychohistory, 37(4), 297-325.
Utz-Billing, I., & Kentenich, H. (2008). Female genital mutilation: an injury, physical and mental harm. Journal Of Psychosomatic Obstetrics And Gynaecology, 29(4), 225-229.
FGM. My initial inclination was FGC, but then I decided to read the article and it's very balanced (and I became convinced that FGM is the term most strongly endorsed by reliable sources). The terms FGC and FGM are both offered in the lead, and later unpacked and examined. The article addresses this controversy in a very balanced way. -- Scray (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment. "Neutrality" is not based on a consensus about morality or emotional impact. We should not be setting ourselves up as either moral or PC police. Neutrality is based on whether the article reflects RS in a balanced way. The article title should reflect the weight of usage in the sources used to compile it. See WP:Neutrality#Naming: If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. Arguments for FGM based on personal or political views are irrelevant; equally irrelevant are arguments for FGC on the basis of not offending those who practice it. Most common usage is the primary and perhaps only criterion here. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think policy is rather more nuanced than you're suggesting, Cynwolfe. Firstly, a fuller quotation from policy helps to place it in context. It says: "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." It seems a bit of a stretch to interpret that to mean that we must use the most common term regardless of neutrality: that we "may" do something does not mean that we "must", and policy indicates that we need to weigh losses in neutrality against gains in clarity. Secondly, using the common term exclusively actually fails to reflect the weight in sources; the only way to do that is to use a mixture of names, as available sources do. Finally, neutrality isn't about picking the most common viewpoint and asserting it. Neutrality regarding language is judged just as we'd judge neutrality about any other issue: by carefully assessing whether it asserts opinions, is judgemental, is sufficiently impartial, etc. This isn't the easiest of issues to be neutral about, because we all have strong views about this subject (and all opposed to it), but as Quadell has pointed out it's particularly important to be scrupulous in applying policy in such cases. Jakew (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The policy advises clarity, not the imposition of our political views or emotional responses. I don't see anything here to contradict what I said. My readings on this topic have not been for formal research, and I haven't contributed to the article. I do read about the practice in mainstream media regularly, and my impression is that "mutilation" is more common than "cutting" and would be clearer to the reader. But this is only my impression; the decision should be based on the weight of usage in the sources used for the article. Anything else will be confusing for the reader, and will by definition not be neutral, because it will be based on our trying to dictate what we think is correct. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
FGM As cited above by numerous folks, this is the appropriate term utilized by scholars to discuss this horrific (yeah that was not a neutral comment) activity. From NPR to scholarly journals, documentaries and even Oprah, this is the term. SarahStierch (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Because circumcision, for one, is not the common usage. For another, it is disingenuous and can be misleading to the reader. When a male is circumcised, his whole "pleasure" organ is not cut off. When female is "circumcised," in some cases, her clitoris is removed. This is a case of mutilation. Also, some people would argue that male circumcision is mutilation. So again, female circumsizion is a type of mutilation.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Circumcision, male or female, is performed for a variety of cultural and religious reasons. A different culture may consider it mutilation, but the procedure itself is called circumcision. Common usage is not the ultimate deciding factor when naming an article, especially when common usage is judgmental and all other terms can redirect. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-judgmental descriptive titles. Tattoo, Body piercing and Genital piercing is also a form of mutilation, how is this different? USchick (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The procedure is not called circumcision, the WHO classifies 4 different forms of the procedure and refers to them all as Female Genital Mutilation. Additionally no reputable source refers to it as circumcision because that suggests a physical or medical analogy to male circumcision where none exists. Also this RfC isn't about naming the article, its about the terminology used in the article. There was however an RM prior to this RfC which had unanimous support for the name Female genital mutilation as per this article titling guideline: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names. Also the difference between body piercing is that its done with the consent of the individual who seeks it and it does not usually destroy or disrupt normal body or sexual function in the individual. FGM does, so that analogy doesn't really apply in this case. That said, we give due weight to the term in the article by explaining its origin and meaning, and we also give due weight to practitioners by explaining the cultural or religious aspects of why this procedure is performed and by linking to the main article that discuses them: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_cutting. Vietminh (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The procedure is not called circumcision? By whom? By the WHO? Male and female circumcision has been around for thousands of years, long before the medical establishment and much longer than the WHO. The WHO is not a good source for English language terms and definitions. A much more obvious choice is a dictionary, which defines both pharaonic circumcision and sunna circumcision, look it up. USchick (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I know for a fact that anyone who has undergone body modification would not refer to their piercings or other forms of modification as "mutilation." But a young child who is made to have her clitoris cut off, or labia sewn together without her choice in the matter is undergoing mutilation. I made the analogy of body mods earlier to indicate why cutting is not a good term--because it could indicate consensual body modification. But mutilation is clear when it is not consensual and it is a form of mutilation. Circumcision is a simplistic way of putting it and is a way of making it sound "nicer." I believe back when it became more covered in the US media back in the 90s, it was called female circumcision, and it was very misleading to all of us. We didn't understand that they were actually mutilating young girls. I was a teenager at the time and didn't comprehend the levity of these rituals. Now that I am older, I know that circumcision is not the term to be used. It is plainly mutilation.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The WHO is the foremost authority on international health in this world, and it is far authoritative than a dictionary off of the shelf (especially because a dictionary contains obscure or uncommonly used words, doesn't tell us anything about how often they are used, and doesn't include phrases or acronyms). The WHO classification is also backed up by decades of academic and medical research papers which use the term FGM, or the more recent inventions of FGC or FGM/C. The question is not 'who doesn't call it female circumcision?' it is 'who does call it female circumcision?' and the answer is very few sources, none of which are as authoritative, reputable, or numerous as the WHO or scholarly publications (see the source list provided in the RfC). Lastly, no one is disputing that these procedures have been around for 1000s of years, but saying that such existence is a basis for using the term female circumcision makes no sense. The modern English language has only been around for hundreds of years, so it hasn't been called "female circumcision" for 1000s of years. As for the time that modern English has existed, your assertion about the use of the term "female circumcision" is original research (WP:ORIGINAL) without a source to back it up. Even if it were true; scholarly, published sources from more recent times take precedence as per WP:SOURCES. Without offence to you, I'm not going to reply any further past this because its clear both from this RfC, the recent RM, as well as the entire editing history of this article that calling it female circumcision has no support. Its just not an option that is on the table. Vietminh (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the procedure called in its native language? Do people who practice it call it mutilation? Or is that POV that we assigned to another culture? How is that encyclopedic? USchick (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Not only that, but its policy to favour English language sources on an English language Wiki, especially when it comes to naming things. All POV concerns are addressed in the article, and the others it links to, see the sections: varying terminology, reasons for female genital mutilation, cultural and religious aspects. Vietminh (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The only way I could find male circumcision comparable to FGM is if it included the partial/total removal of the glans. Fortunately it doesn't so they are not comparable.--Dia^ (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
FGMWikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles deals with this. Basically, when a clear majority of the best sources use a title that some editors personally believe is biased, then we use it, too. If we were making up a title (e.g., if the sources used a dozen different terms equally), then we would aim for something that was non-judgmental/unbiased in the opinion of editors, but since we aren't inventing a descriptive title in this case, then we stick with the sources, even if some editors believe that the sources are using a "biased" title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
FGM because is the most used term and because IS a mutilation. There is difference is I say I cut my finger or I mutilated my finger. And this practice in the overwhelming majority of the cases is a mutilation. (On a personal level: to the ones that find the term "FGM" offensive I can only answer that I find the practice a million times more offensive). --Dia^ (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment. This issue should never have been raised as an RfC. Involuntary / forced genital mutilation is a violation of human rights, a fact now increasingly recognised within the countries where it has been traditionally practised, and therefore there is no need to present a 'more neutral' account. We are not social workers who need to deal with clients who might be offended by the use of the accurate term FGM. People are wasting their time discussing this issue; aside from the fact that it is obvious that most editors are opposed there are more important things to do. The article needs substantial work in some areas. I have found sources being misquoted and misrepresented to present a positive bias in favour of the practice. I have deleted one paragraph from psychological effects for this reason. The entire section on sexual effects was extremely misleading. It was, beginning to end, an argument that sexual enjoyment is possible for women with FGM. It even quoted multiple sources about non-mutilated women to support this argument, which was nothing less than OR. That particular material was deleted yeserday by Henrietta, after I pointed it out as being OR. The remainder of the sexual effects section was so misleading of its main source, Lightfoot-Klein 1989, that I have temporarily deleted it - see later talk section for a full explanation. The article in general is out of date. It relies on some very old material. It needs a careful review for bias, and it needs additional sections. There is far more discussion of these issues in several later sections of this page. I would urge people coming here to comment in the RfC to take a closer look. Talk:Female genital mutilation#Sections needing work and missing sections. Rubywine . talk11:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I have had second thoughts about my earlier comment. Not only do I withdraw the sections I have struck through above, I commend Jakew for taking an action which led to this article receiving attention from a wider audience. Many new editors including myself have had the opportunity to comment and contribute, which is a good thing. Rubywine . talk16:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Result
Per the consensus achieved in this RfC, all instances of the acronym "FGC" have been changed to "FGM" (not including use to outline the differing terminology). All instances of the phrase "female genital cutting" have been changed to "female genital mutilation", and all use of the word "cutting" (when used as a short-form for the phrase "female genital cutting") has been re-worded. Vietminh (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Appropriate terminology
The debate over what terminology this article should use will never be fully resolved as proponents for each side will continue to make their case. Per WP:CONSENSUS, unanimity is not required, but it is important to properly review available information. This comment is my response to the sources presented by Jakew in reply to my question above: is there a reliable source saying FGM is not mutilation? The sources merely confirm what we already know: some forms of FGM are not mutilation, and the practitioners do not regard it as mutilation, and using the term "mutilation" may cause concern to practitioners and a possible backlash against the eradication of the practice. In addition (as applies to every topic from global climate change to 9/11), there are proponents on both sides who earnestly argue their case. In the sources presented, I see no authoritative claim that most forms of FGM are not mutilation—the closest relevant arguments are that cultures are equivalent and each group finds something "yucky" about other groups, and that there is no evidence that FGM has any significant negative health outcomes (although that is not relevant to whether the practice is "FGM").
This source explains that they use "female genital cutting" to acknowledge that not all forms of FGC lead to mutilation, and that mutilation is not intended. Further, FGC is a more respectful way to describe the procedure, and health care practitioners should use the language that is most acceptable to the woman they are working with. The source then lists the WHO FGM classifications, and the medical complications that may arise. The source does not suggest that the term "mutilation" is inaccurate, merely that it sometimes does not apply, and that it may not be acceptable to women being treated.
This source promotes the idea that cultural differences need to be engaged, and that each culture regards some practices in other groups as "yuck", and that there is good reason to be skeptical of much anti-FGM advocacy. There are suggestions that male and female circumcision are equivalent. It states there is very little evidence to support the assertion that FGM increases mortality or mobidity, and there is no evidence to support claims that genital alteration makes it impossible to enjoy sex (as most of the clitoris is internal it mostly remains intact, and several circumcised women have said they enjoy sex). This source rejects use of "mutilation" to describe a coming-of-age and gender identity practice embraced by millions of women. However, the source provides no opinion on whether clitoridectomy and excision is actually "mutilation", only that those involved, including women, do not regard it as mutilation.
"Frequently Asked Questions on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting" UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund)
This source makes it clear that avoiding the term "FGM" is a tactic in order to avoid a backlash from those who practice FGM—a backlash that may cause "an actual increase in the number of girls being subjected to FGM/FGC". The source uses other methods to make it clear that FGM often involves mutilation (quoting from a woman subjected to FGM, replying "yes" to "can it [FGM/FGC] still be condemned?", and more).
"Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice (review)" Human Rights Quarterly
Article not publicly available, but the title and extract suggest that the source would not be suitable for anything other than a view on the legal situation (any comment on whether FGM was mutilation would be an opinion from a source with not relevant expertise).
"Culture clashes: balancing local and international interests in ending femal genital cutting practices" LBJ Journal of Public Affairs
Good summary of interactions between international and local groups relating to FGC. Written from a public affairs perspective, and provides some recommendations for how anti-FGC programs would be most effective, including a need to use appropriate language for intended audience: at the international level, the value-laden term FGM is helpful to emphasize negative aspects, while locally "FGM" is counter productive as it offends local groups who engage in the practice. This source makes no comment on whether or not FGM is actually "mutilation", and does not attempt to justify "value-laden".
I have previously indicated my position: most forms of FGM involve what is accurately described as "mutilation", and that term is widely used by highly reliable sources (example), and it would violate WP:NPOV to fail to use that term when appropriate. Nevertheless, the article must describe its subject neutrally, and avoid commentary—while it is accurate and sourced to say "FGM", that term should not be overdone. There can be no overriding agreement here about what term should be used throughout the article: each paragraph needs to be considered individually. I think that inventing a term like "FGM/C" as a compromise between those currently discussing the issue would not be effective in the long term, and that all we can do is to keep the article neutral by not advocating the "mutilation" aspect, but likewise, not being shy to duly represent the reliable sources who regard the practice as mutilation. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that I've already provided quotes from these sources that do provide evidence that FGC is considered mutilation by a significant number of people, there seems very little point in having a lengthy discussion about other parts of the same documents that do not mention the issue. It's getting rather exasperating to have to keep reminding you of this. I've also pointed out previously that we're not "inventing" the term FGM/C; that term has already been invented by sources such as various United Nations bodies. Once more, it is not our place to judge whether the people who believe that FGC is mutilation are right, or whether the people who believe it isn't mutilation are right; our role is to report on these viewpoints while remaining impartial. Jakew (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Not to say where it should end up (because I don't know), but IMHO the standard for using a heavily POV noun in the term is that it is the overwhelmingly common term for it, not just the standards described above. Another complexity is that the places it is most prevalent are mostly non-English speaking, which means that English sources will tend to be opinions from outside of the places that it is mainly practiced. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source saying FGM is not mutilation?
I want to revisit this very important question asked by Johnuniq.
It is not judgmental to use the word "mutilation" to describe what actually is mutilation (is there a reliable source saying FGM is not mutilation?). If the article avoids concerning readers who think FGM is merely cutting, then the article will concern readers who think that many forms of FGM are much more than "cutting", and ignoring the practice of the extremely reliable sources which use "FGM" would itself be the opposite of NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've already cited sources in my earlier response to you noting that not all forms of FGC are mutilation,[57] and documenting that many people do not regard it as mutilation.[58][59][60][61] So clearly there is some dispute over that issue. As for cutting, there's no argument over that issue: FGC is cutting. Some sources prefer to use stronger language to express their horror at the procedures, but that's not an argument for us to do the same. Jakew (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's a list of Jakew's sources. I'm just posting them all here for the moment, for convenience. I want to come back and examine each of them in turn. Please also refer to Johnuniq's own comments above.
SERC is a non-profit organisation in Manitoba. Their misson is to provide intercultural training to health and social service professionals. This document contains a brief section on their terminology for FGM. It says
Throughout SERC documents we use the terms Female Genital Cutting/Female Genital Mutilation (FGC/FGM) interchangeably. A need for respectful terminology that is also responsible from a medical and legal perspective led our agency to a thorough examination of the current terminology. Ultimately our decision to use the term "female genital cutting" was in order to acknowledge that not all forms lead to mutilation of the genitals and that mutilation is not the intent of the action. FGC is intended to be a more respectful way to describe the procedure. Ideally, health care practitioners would use the language most acceptable to the woman they are working with.
It's perfectly clear why they choose to use FGC; it is "a respectful terminology". But there is nothing in the document to explain or support their comment that "not all forms lead to mutilation". The remainder of the document itemises the four types of FGM and then classifies dozens of horrific medical complications. The least severe type of FGM involves the removal of the prepuce and/or clitoris, which has numerous complications. Do they believe that removing these is not mutilation? They simply don't say. Since they give no evidence in support of the contention that "not all forms of FGM are mutilation", or even the briefest of explanations, but they provide powerful evidence to the contrary, I don't agree that this document meets the requirements to be a reliable source for that contention. Rubywine . talk07:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes the opinion exists, but Wikipedia demands a reliable source. This source doesn't meet the requirements stated in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.
In relation to the specific contention that FGM is not always mutilation, this document indisputably fails the requirements for a reliable source. Rubywine . talk07:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Since "mutilation" is inherently subjective, this is a source of opinion, not fact, and must be judged accordingly. Jakew (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Mutilation is inherently subjective? According to whom? The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives it a plain and simple definition:
"Mutilate. 1. Deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or bodily organ; cut off, severely wound (a limb or organ); maim, mangle. 2. Make … imperfect by removing or severely damaging a part."
Please don't make assumptions about whether I like or dislike dictionary definitions. As it happens, I have no disagreement with it, and I think it supports what I'm saying. Jakew (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you really offended that she said you're propbably not a lexicologist? You've made it clear that you don't like the word "mutilation" and she has made no assumption. Since it says "cut off" in the definition, it actually disproves what you have said to me--which was mutilation is a form of cutting, not the other way around. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't comment on the lexicologist part of the comment. I also have no strong views either way regarding the word "mutilation"; I certainly don't dislike the word. I do, however, have grave concerns about its use in this article. The sense in the definition is not merely "cut off"; the sense is "cut off, severely wound (a limb or organ)". Thus, cutting one's hair or fingernails is not generally regarded as mutilation, even though something is cut off. Some women choose to undergo clitoridotomy — that is, removal or splitting of the clitoral hood, sometimes known as "hoodectomy" (try Googling for that or "designer vagina" if you want details). They generally wouldn't describe themselves as "mutilated", even though it meets the definition of type I FGM as classified by the WHO. Similarly, as noted above, voluntary scarring isn't seen by those who elect it as a mutilation, but others may well disagree. Are any of these things a mutilation? Some people say it's a mutilation if there's no consent, but the dictionary definition doesn't mention consent. It mentions the severity of the wound, which can be debated, and whether an organ is removed, which is sometimes debatable, depending on the context. There's rarely a single right or wrong answer; it all depends on one's perspective. Jakew (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Again as someone who has identified herself as part of the body mod community it's clear I know about "designer vaginas" as you put it. I put it as body modding, as most people would. The thing is when it is consenual, it is not mutilation. That may only be my opininion, but that is what I have been saying through this whole conversation. It looks to me that you are the only person advocating that we don't offend the people who practice this on children through the fallacy that it's a cultural difference we don't understand. It's not a cultural difference we don't get, we do get it. It's mutilating female children to make sure they remain chaste, to retain their feminity, etc. etc. There are practices in Western culture that we do to make sure that girls remain chaste, too. Some of these are wrong to do. One of them is not informing them about sex at all until they are adults. For instance, a child must know about sex all their life to understand how to be safe about it. I learned about it when I was three and that's how I didn't end up barefoot and pregnant. This is just a more primitive way of making sure girls remain chaste. They probably aren't told about sex at all. But I've digressed here. There are different types of mutilation. You have confused yourself with culture and meaningless practices that torture human beings. Holding down a person who doesn't want to undergo scarification is mutilation. But consenting to it is not. Frankly, you are just wrong here. And there are many people who have said it in passive ways. I will say it straight out. You are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong. Also if you wish, you can go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Body Modification and ask them about mutilation and see what they have to say about it. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
A moment ago you were relying on the dictionary to support your argument, but now you argue that "when it is consenual, it is not mutilation". Can you please quote the dictionary definition that specifies this criteria? Because I don't see it above, and haven't seen it in any of the other dictionaries that I've consulted. If we're going to throw away the dictionary when it suits us, then we haven't got a valid basis for relying upon it in other cases.
It's strange that we find ourselves debating the issue, because we're essentially in agreement that body mods generally aren't mutilation. I also think that most forms of FGC are mutilation. The difference seems to be that I'm happy to accept that this is just my opinion. And my opinion is no better than yours, or that of a person who thinks that consensual body mods are mutilation, or for that matter of a woman from a community that practices FGC who thinks it isn't mutilation.
Incidentally, I haven't made any arguments about cultural differences we don't understand, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth (or keyboard, perhaps). I'm just trying to adhere to NPOV. That's all. So far it appears that consensus favours "FGM" anyway, and if that's still the case when the RfC closes then that's what we'll do. I don't agree, but I've done my best to speak up for NPOV; that's all I can do. Jakew (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Even if there were reliable sources verifying that it is common for medical services to use terms like "pharaonic circumcision", that would not be a reason to avoid more accurate and widely sourced terms like "mutilation" being appropriately used in the article. The "circumcision" terms have been used, and that's why they redirect to this article which deals with the whole topic. There are many highly reliable sources describing the practice as "mutilation" (WHO example), and "pharaonic circumcision" is now only a "by the way this description has been used" comment in reliable sources—if unsure about whether the practice satisfies the dictionary definition of "mutilation", review the image in the article with caption "Type IV, performed during childhood, on a 21-year-old Sudanese Woman". Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A) This is not medical terminology. Medical terminology is "mutilation." I have given several examples of articles in medical journals that refer to it as mutilation. B) I find it highly offensive as a woman that you would advocate for a term such as circumcision, which is a misnomer. While men do receive some discrimination due to non-circumcision, it is nowhere near the level of FGM. Unlike men FGM impedes women's ability to have sex or sometimes even receive pleasure from sex. For women FGM is about taking something from her against her rights--oppression by society and ideas that have essentially been set forth by men. It's about something that women have no choice in deciding. From the moment a woman is born in so many cultures, we are second class citizens, then to have their genitals sliced up as someone sees fit? Even if her clitoris is not removed, even if her labia is not sewn together. What the fucking hell? No. And what if her parents decide not to do this because they consider this practice vile, but she lives in a community where this practice is common place. She is relegated to some lower position by other women, her femininity is called into question--even her purity--which is a common thing that is called into question of every Western women every single day. God knows people call me slut if I wear a short skirt out dancing or choose to wear a black bra with a see through shirt. So she will feel shame because her parents chose not to slice, skin, cauterize, or sew up her genitals. Some women will actually do this as adults due to their shame. Alice Walker wrote a book about it. Look it up. (And she only calls it "circumcision" because that was the terminology at the time, thus showing how dated this is.) Women experience psychological damage due to these rituals, and to put it so simply as "circumcision" is downplaying the whole practice and giving it a "nice" word so people don't have to think about what is really going on. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree FGM is the preferred term (as I have said in the discussion currently above on this page). That said, most of what you wrote violates WP:Talk as it has little to do with the article; your above rant is out of place here - WP is WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -- Scray (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There are other articles about all kinds of procedures that don't have "mutilation" in the title and I'm not sure this article should be treated any different simply because people are emotional about it. See Castration, Penis removal, Penectomy, Infibulation, Vaginoplasty. I'm sure lots of people are vehemently opposed to Sex reassignment surgery, and yet we somehow manage to be neutral about all other subject matters except this one. There are lots of practices that involve the removal of sex organs for all kinds of reasons including singing, see Castrato. USchick (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
While intellectually your statement is correct, it is not useful here because no knock-out argument will convince everyone—therefore we have to rely on Wikipedia's policies. In this case, the term "mutilation" is appropriate because that is the term used by gold-plated reliable sources. This is not the place for a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
In above discussions I have given logical, non-emotional reasons. I was just very offended by this user's insistence on downplaying the idea that is anything but mutilation. Even the word cutting at least implies a sort of mutilation. But you will see in the "Threaded Discussion," I have given reasons ie, common use, that cutting is a type of mutilation, and that the term cutting is misleading, due to the fact that cutting can happen due to self harm, body modification, or accidental cutting. Mutilation is not a term that people who perform surgery or consensual acts would use.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I think contributors are confusing value laden with POV. The term mutilation reflects the fact of the harm done by this act. Perpetrators of atrocities and their apologists will establish strongly argued positions (such as holocaust denial) which fly in the face of verifiable facts and use this to trick reasonable people into thinking that the truth must lie between the two "extremes". Another trick is to use a "neutral" euphemism to disguise a real evil eg. police action to describe war. A compromise with a lie is not NPOV and the correct term is female genital mutilation. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
You have really great points. I want to say something here: in Alice Walker's book, which I linked up there, she is quoted as saying "torture is not culture." I think that sums it up perfectly. Are we to find a "NPOV" way to refer to what is commonly known as honor killing too? Let's try honor expiring. It will be less biased and offensive to the people who practice it. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest USChick be ignored on this, it is clear from the RfC that the consensus is to use the term FGM. USChick is intent on making an emotional argument about this topic so it is pointless to try and remonstrate with her using policy. I say this because I had the exact same conversation with her in the threaded discussion above, and I made her aware of all the relevant policies. She has twice chosen to ignore those policies and continue to argue from a view which is outside of policy and which has been rejected by all of us. If she starts anymore sections debating this topic I would submit that that qualifies as tendentious editing: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing.Vietminh (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It's rather uncivil to propose that someone should be ignored. Please don't do it. If USChick's arguments have no merit then people won't respond. Jakew (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't suggest she be ignored, I suggest she be ignored on this. If she wants to make constructive edits or contribute to the discussion on this article that is fine. If she wishes to continually seek to re-open discussion on a topic that has been decided whilst using a point of view that has been rejected by everyone here than that is tendentious editing and I am perfectly within my bounds to suggest what I did. It may sound harsh, but it is no more harsh than when Johuniq made the same suggestion before the RfC, I only wish it had been followed...
Also you know full well that people will respond to arguments that are without merit because they are locked into an emotional debate, Wikipedia is not a forum and I also within my bounds to remind people to stick to the sources and policy and not engage in emotive responses with other editors. Vietminh (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Johnuniq's uncivil comments do not justify further rudeness; if this continues I will take it to the appropriate place. If you think that someone's behaviour is inappropriate, then I suggest you do the same. In the meantime, there's no excuse for not being polite. Reminding people to stick to the sources is fine; suggesting that other editors should be ignored is not. Jakew (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I have probably never been uncivil at Wikipedia, and certainly have not been uncivil on this page. I won't say any more on that here, as it is not the place. Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks civil to me given the tendentious editing. I'd be careful Jakew, your own persistence on this after a clear consensus has been reached hardly looks good --SnowdedTALK12:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
USChick has made two of the seventeen comments in this section, while a request for comment on the subject is active. That's hardly tendentious editing, by any stretch of the imagination. And even if it were, it wouldn't warrant uncivil behaviour. As for your attack against myself, I remind you of my own words from two days ago: 'So far it appears that consensus favours "FGM" anyway, and if that's still the case when the RfC closes then that's what we'll do. I don't agree, but I've done my best to speak up for NPOV; that's all I can do.'[62]Jakew (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Accusing someone who is clearly not an uncivil editor (Johuninq) of being uncivil, is itself uncivil Jakew so I'd watch that. Secondly, its not 'just' two edits. It began in the RfC which is fine, but while the RfC was still ongoing she started another section designed to initiate discussion on a POV rejected in the RfC, and then following that commented on another section in the same manner. That is tendentious because she is continually trying to sidestep the RfC because she disagrees with where it is going, and I don't need an outside opinion on that when editors here are agreeing with me and my assessment. Also please do not threaten to take something to WQA when the position is yours and yours alone, I thought from the RfC that you would have learned the impropriety of seeking outside opinion as a last resort/outlet for your opinion. Vietminh (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
If an editor makes an uncivil edit, it is reasonable to point that out. Now, you're essentially arguing that minority opinions should be steamrolled, and that's fundamentally incompatible with the way consensus works. If USChick wishes to create a section and comment in another to try to persuade people of her case, it does no harm whatsoever, and it helps the consensus process. People can read what she says if they choose, or not if they prefer. There is no evidence of any sort of tendentious behaviour, and, I repeat, no excuse for being impolite towards her. Jakew (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, tendentious editing is uncivil so I pointed it out. There is a difference between merely offering an opinion and engaging in tendentious editing. The difference occurs when an editor tries to break off and start a new discussion when a consensus is clearly established, she twice tried to advance a rejected point of view outside of the RfC as a goal to extracting changes out of other editors, that is tendentious and improper and does not help the consensus process and I am completely within my bounds to suggest her tendentious editing be ignored. People can read what I say and ignore that if they want to, but that doesn`t change that I am within my bounds of suggesting it. I say again that I was not impolite, I said her line of tendentious editing should be ignored, not that she should be. Snowded agrees that there was tendentious editing on her part and multiple editors disagree with her point of view in the RfC as well as outside of it. I apologize that I do not accept your assessment of whether tendentious editing occurred, but I am not alone in saying this and additionally I don`t think someone who is himself under investigation for tendentious editing (and apparently has been before) should be trying to tell others what is and what is not. Vietminh (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
WOW, I missed a lot in two days!. What's the title of this article? What USchick thinks? Awwwwww, I didn't think anyone cared! Thanks Jakew for your undying support and for being a lone voice of reason. :-) USchick (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Jakew (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
