Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 3

Recent edits.

I reverted Phyesalis' recent edit as a violation of WP:NOR. The unsourced, unattributed assertion that "while FGC is not a religious practice, it is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures" specifically violates this policy, as does the corresponding rearrangement of material to match this POV. There are examples of inexplicably changing language away from "circumcision." There is a WP:NOR violation in the phrase "Another hadith often quoted is..." -- who says it's often quoted? We don't know. More examples: the long series of sentences after the introduction of Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa -- where only the first sentence is properly attributed as his belief; beginning sentences like "Using the hadith is specious because ..." clearly are presenting an argument rather than attributing an opinion, called for by WP:V. Generally, the edit is rearranging sourced material and inserting unsourced material in order to form an argument; this practice is specificallyprohibited by WP:NOR; see especially WP:SYN. I suggest that in the future such edits be applied in much smaller forms, so that their validity and adherence to policy can be more specifically and individually addressed. Blackworm (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, this is the second time you have accused me of something that I haven't done. Please review this summary of changes [5]. The language of "subjugation" was there before I edited the passage. My edit summary clearly stated that I was working with prexisting material with a preexisting source. Second, I removed "often quoted" for the very reason you suggest, but by reverting all my changes, you put it right back to the original. Second, Dr. al-Awwa is the Secretary General of a group of religious/legal scholars. His opinion is that of an expert. Third, I introduced no new material. If you did some basic fact checking you would see that all the material I added was either from pre-existing sources or had been previously established by sourced material in the body of article (a la the UN(?) assertion that FGC "was not a product of religion alone". Since FGC predates both Christianity and Islam, and the prevailing view is that it is not a religious custom, praytell, where have I intro'd OR and SYN? Your apparent personal beef with me seems to have made you incapable of reading a basic page history diff. Please stop reverting my contributions. You don't know what you are talking about. This is another example of your steamroller disruptions. Phyesalis (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your rv., but changed the wording regarding "specious use". That is the only legitimate point you had (and only slightly, the info is intro'd as Dr. al-Awwa's opinion in a single paragraph and didn't nec. need an additional qualifier, but I added one just because.) No reason to change it now. Phyesalis (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you reverted the now changed material without previous discussion, and then have the temerity to accuse me of being uncivil (again). This behavior is disruptive Blackworm. Please stop your POV pushing and discuss changes. Phyesalis (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The change from your original problematic edit only partially addressed one problem I described in the above post dated 00:34, 29 November 2007. There remains the issue of unsourced attributions, unwarranted changes in article organization, unexplained changing of terminology, and the rearranging of sourced material to form an argument. Since I have already mentioned these problems, and you did not address them in your edit nor directly address them in your discussion, I reverted your change in adherance to WP:V. Further, you cannot violate Wikipedia's policy on civility with every discussion post you make, then demand discussion. Given your sustained hostility and personal attacks, and your seeming inability to directly understand and/or address objections to your edits, preferring instead to present irrelevancies (e.g., "Second, Dr. al-Awwa is the Secretary General of a group of religious/legal scholars. His opinion is that of an expert."), any discussion with you at this point is done solely as a courtesy. Blackworm (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm's objections

In an effort to avoid an edit war, I have chosen not to use my remaining two reverts to undo Blackworm's continued rv on "Cultural and religious aspects". Instead, I have posted a comment on his talk page and decided to take the last collection of accusations and respond to them in detail. I know this is long but I don't know else how to deal with the behavior. This section is a prelude to an RfC:User. I have tried to remain cool, I have tried to discuss this, I have provided mutliple references from peer-review journals, I have noted several of Blackworm's points and changed material accordingly, I have stepped back and a third party suggested that we both step back and all of this has proved to be unsuccessful. Blackworm continues to address his comments and accusations at me, not at the article, nor other users who have improved upon my contributions and tacitly deemed them appropriate. He has not provided a single piece of documentation for his varying claims of OR, POV, SYN and V. Blackworm contends that my contributions to "Cultural Aspects" are OR. He finds my intro statement "while FGC is not a religious practice, it is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures" to be particulary contentious. I argue that this is merely summation of cited sources provided in the body of the section. To support this argument:

• The article states that "UNICEF stated that when "looking at religion independently, it is not possible to establish a general association with FGM/C status" sourced from a UNICEF fact sheet/report.
• Judaism - The article then provides sourced statements saying that FGC is not in Jewish sacred literature, nor is it practiced in Judaism, except by a single minority religious sub-culture in the past, no documentation has yet proven the continued practice.
• Islam - The Islam section states "While FGC predates Islam and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims, it has been discussed in some hadiths. FGC is not an Islamic religious practice, though some advocates will quote hadiths to support its practice in Islamic cultures. The meaning and legitimacy of such mentions are disputed by the greater islamic community.[22] Genital modification and mutilation of is not endorsed by the Qur'an.[23]" There are 13 sources, the majority of which state that FGC is not a part of Islamic practice (including the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an). None of them state that FGC is a part of Islam, although some dismiss isolated sub-cultures which argue for it and then explain why they're not legit.

Blackworm contends that I introduced "Another hadith often quoted" and objected to it. However, reviewing the diffs show:

• The language predates my first edit to that section [[6]]. I didn't add it, so it doesn't show up.
• In my second edit under line 202/203 "Another hadith often quoted" is in red in the previous edit (meaning that it had been present but unchanged in the first edit) and in red in my second edit (meaning that I too objected to the unsubstantiated quote and changed it to "One of the quotes used" this is supported by the source. The source is not mine. And when Blackworm reverted my edit twice, twice he reverted it back to language that he said he objected to. But let's compare the contraversial edit:

• Original text:

  Another hadith often quoted is `Aishah narrated an authentic Hadith that the Prophet said:"If the two organs to be removed by circumcision are met, then performing Ghusl (ritual bath) is obligatory."(This Hadith is in the well-known books of collections of Prophetic Hadiths , written by Malik, Muslim, At-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and others) Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, Secretary General of the World Union of the Muslim Ulemas states "such an argument can be refuted by the fact that in Arabic language, two things or persons may be given one quality or name that belongs only to one of them for an effective cause."

• My edit:

  While some scholars, such as Sheikh Sayyid Sabiq, author of Fiqh As-Sunnah argue that "[h]adiths stating the legality of female circumcision are da`if (weak); none of them is sahih (authentic)",[7] other scholars argue that authenticity alone does not confer legitimacy. One of the sayings used to support FGC practices is the`hadith (349) in Sahih Muslim: Aishah narrated an authentic Hadith that the Prophet said:"When a man sits between the four parts (arms and legs of his wife) and the two circumcised parts meet, then ghusl is obligatory." Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, Secretary General of the World Union of the Muslim Ulemas states that while the hadith is authentic, it is not evidence of legitmacy. In idiomatic usage, the Arabic for "the two circumcision organs" is a single word, orkhitaanaan, where the plural of one word is used to denote not two of the same form, but two different forms characterized as a singular of the more prominent form. While the female form is used to denote both male and female genitalia, it is identified with the prominent aspect of the two forms, which in this case is the male circumcised organ. The connotation of circumcision is not transitive. Using the hadith is specious because "such an argument can be refuted by the fact that in Arabic language, two things or persons may be given one quality or name that belongs only to one of them for an effective cause."

• Blackworm's current revert:

  Another hadith often quoted is `Aishah narrated an authentic Hadith that the Prophet said:"If the two organs to be removed by circumcision are met, then performing Ghusl (ritual bath) is obligatory."...

Blackworm argues that my edit regarding the al-Awwa paragraph under "Islam" was OR. When I responded and explained the usage and subsequent modification of text based on his argument, Blackworm characterized my response as an "irrelevancy". Can I get a WTF?

I went back to the ref'd source and all the material I found was in there. Now, I think my edit makes the paragraph much more comprehensible. Blackworm objected to the unattributed use of "specious" but if you look in the ref, that's nothing controversial. But in attempt to find some peace-bringing compromise, I changed it to "Dr. al-Awwa continues arguing that the hadith is specious because..." but nothing will satisfy him. He reverted it again without discussion. Seriously can I get someone else's input on this? Phyesalis (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is plain to see that your argument in support of adding "while FGC is not a religious practice, it is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures" is pure original research. You present a potential, if flawed, argument in support of that position, but Wikipedia is not the place to present such arguments. For you to make this claim, you must find a reliable source making that precise argument. Then, it may be added, but if disputed, challenged, or contradicted in any way, it must be attributed to the author(s). Note that your claim in particular is seemingly contradicted by material in the article stating that certain people practice FGC while pointing to the Book of Genesis. This would, at the very least, require the opinion to be attributed.

You are correct that I misread the diff of your changes; you did not add "Another hadith often quoted is." I apologize for the claim, the confusion, and the time wasted discussing that particular text. However, your change is still problematic because it does not consistently make clear that the opinions presented are those of al-Awwa, for example in the sentences beginning, "In idiomatic usage...", "While the female form is...", "The connotation of...", and "Using the hadith is specious because..." (which you later corrected). It is also much too long -- it would be much better to summarize al-Awwa's disagreement, otherwise we appear to be supporting his position (undue weight).

In general I believe you to be (consciously or not) pushing a notion of "rightness" and "wrongness" through emphasis on certain things, rearrangement of material in support of arguments presented elsewhere (or invented, as above), and stating opinion as unattributed fact. This is not Wikipedia's goal. Wikipedia is not an advocate, not a reflection of supposed international political consensus, and not an direct agent of social change.

I believe you will find that my patience and willingness to discuss with you greatly exceeds the average response you will get when submitting material unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I do this because you are new to Wikipedia, and most eager new editors fall victim to the same misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and especially, what it is not. I was no exception, and I am still learning, and willing to be taught. However, patience runs thin in the face of incivility, hostility, RfC:User threats, disrespect, personal attacks, and accusations of bad faith. As I have said, I do not feel a responsibility to continue to respond to you under those circumstances. Blackworm (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa - show me one incidence/source to the contrary in the body of the article, one that argues FGC is an Islamic, Christian, Judaic, or any other religious practice. Clarifying al-Awwa's opinion is in no way evidence of supporting his opinion, and since it is part of the mainstream opinion, this is not undue weight. Attempts to restrict it is in effect censorship. It is cited from his book. All the material presented was in the source. I took a minor liberity in rewording it, but it in no way invalidated or exaggerated his point. Please present documentation (to contradict all the other documentation) to support your claim that this is a minority opinion. Please explain how this material violates what WP is not. Phyesalis (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You see, this is the problem. If you want to claim that FGC is not a religious practice (i.e. anywhere or anytime), you need a source that says so -- you cannot deduce this yourself from a case analysis. The onus is on YOU to show that your claim is supported, not on others to disprove it. See WP:OR.

You have not shown that his opinion "is part of mainstream opinion," or in any way outweighs the opinion he is arguing against. Again, per policy, the onus is on the editor wishing to ADD material to show that it warrants inclusion, not the other way around -- your demands for me to show that it is a minority opinion are invalid. See WP:OR again. I never said you invalidated nor exaggerated his point; I'm saying his point is overexplained and overrepresented. It can be better summarized. Also, finding a majority opinion does not mean that Wikipedia should argue that opinion. There is a neutral point of view.

Please stop this nonsense about censorship. If you want to be treated with respect, and want policy explained to you by more experienced editors, halt this adversarial attitude, and give some respect back. Blackworm 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis asked me to review the continuing exchange here, as a neutral third party, and I can see why they were getting frustrated. Blackworm, in my opinion you're not coming from a firmly steadfast position. You might've been at first, but as the exchange has continued it looks like you've been subtly shifting your weight to remain at odds with what's being said. As though you're not interested in reaching a compromise, just being "against" what Phyesalis is saying.

That's my opinion as a neutral bystander.
Good luck to both of you on finding an amiable solution.

pixiequix 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are not relevant. You are commenting on the editor, not the content -- you have not addressed any arguments for or against, only injected some vague bias against me personally into the discussion, apparently based on some kind of analysis of my motivations. This is not how Wikipedia works. Did Phyesalis come to you and ask you to comment on me, or on my arguments? If the former, you should have said, "no." Blackworm 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, please keep your hands inside the cart at all times, do not bite the heads off of editors, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Please do assume good faith. I did ask her to comment on the dispute. I wrote "Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on FGC. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections (it was linked). Your opinion would be greatly appreciated." It's neutral. Why should she not have responded to a request for help? Phyesalis 09:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Blackworm. I just read your comment on your talk page. I'm going to spend a little time adding in the new sources I found. I'll revert it back, then make the changes. Okay? I look forward to improving the article together. Phyesalis 09:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, made changes and added three new refs. Please check the quotes that support the info. If you have a problem with the wording, please leave a note about the changes you make and why. This will help me to avoid such issues in the future. Phyesalis 12:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just realized that I didn't explain any of my changes.

• al-Awwa - I made it clear that all the info is his. I did trim it down (removing most of the lengthy eg bit and rewording for brevity). However, this position is quite important to the Islam section as it explains one of the two main arguments for why FGC isn't considered to be prescribed by Islam (which it would have to be in order to be a religious practice). This is not undue weight.
• provided three additional references to support the very basic and unoriginal assertion that FGC is a cultural practice, a regional practice, that it is not a religious practice, and that it is particularly not a Muslim religious practice. Two of these come from peer-review journals. The other is from a signed article from Shell-Duncan on a reliable university research center website.
• made some minor wording changes
• did change some "circumcision" refs for brevity, but did leave others when it was expeditious. Phyesalis 12:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing personal.
I was just offering an outside opinion.

pixiequix 19:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, it seems our recent breakthrough in communication was short-lived. Your reinstatement of your edits and addition of more material is disheartening. I was under the impression, apparently false, that in return for a detailed repair of the material you wished to insert, I would not merely revert edits that violate Wikipedia policy. This apparent compromise was broken. It will be more difficult to reach an agreeable conclusion under these conditions. Blackworm 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I thought we had come to a truce, one that did not include the stipulation that I abstain from contributing to the article. On your talk page you agreed that reinstating the material and working through it was better than reverting and that you would recontexualize the material that I had added. I made 2 different sets of edits.

• The first reinstated my older edit and in it I added 3 citations to address your concern about OR. All three make it clear that FGC is a cultural practice. I even compromised and left the wording as "primarily a cultural practice".
• I also attempted to address your concern about the length and wording of al-Awwa as stated above.
• In the second set of edits I went to an entirely different section "Prevalence" because it was tagged for sources. I pulled out some info that was sourced, though improperly quoted, fixed it and moved in down in the section. I also added more info from the source and tried to keep the info in the paragraphs grouped by region. (That section does have a lot of problems. The 95% figure has no source that I can find.) I don't see how any of this contravenes our understanding.

You're not suggesting that I should stop editing the article, are you? Now, I didn't think you were, which is why I resumed editing after we had resolved the dispute: you agreed that reverting was not the best solution and committed to reworking them instead. Phyesalis 06:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be compromise here. Blackworm is simply suggesting that FGC is interpreted as Islamic practice in some societies. I made some revisions. Look at them. Brandoid (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Faraz Rabbani

I moved the reference to Faraz Rabbani from the section on Shia opinions to the Sunni section. He is Sunni, as is stated in his Wikipedia bio. C3young (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Further Changes to Sunni and Shia rulings on FGC

I changed the titles to these two sections to something more general. I also added a clarification on one of the rulings mentioned under the Sunni view. If anyone has a problem with the ordering of the text, please go ahead and change it. I hope that the additional content remains as it paints a clearer picture of the Sunni view. C3young (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Categorization and POV

Please see WP:CAT#Some general guidelines, number 7. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is problematic. I have been thinking about what to do with this. Any ideas or suggestions? Brandoid (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "maintenance of cleanliness"

Anonymous removed "maintenance of cleanliness" from the list of social justifications. Now, I acknowledge that the wording on that is not so hot. However, I'm wondering if we could get a reason for the removal? Phyesalis (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating it, Blackworm. I agree with its inclusion. Phyesalis (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Islam and FGC

The article states, with multiple sources that FGC is not a religious practice. One school does not make for a majority representation. If editors believe that the section should be changed, it would be greatly appreciated if they could post suggestions here. Phyesalis (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Majority" is irrelevant. It's obviously a religious practice for some, thus we can't claim without attribution that it is not (i.e. ever) a religious practice. Blackworm (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There are four sources which state that it is not a religious practice, but a cultural practice under "Cultural aspects". There are numerous sources which state that it is not an Islamic religious practice, including a standard reference text on the Quran. Just because one group practices FGC does not mean that it is a categorically Islamic practice. Do you have any suggestions for rewording it? Phyesalis (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you continue to argue against things I have not said. Did I say "it is a categorically Islamic practice?" Did I say it was a "majority?" No. I said it is a religious practice for some. Can we agree on this first? Blackworm (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, and I am not trying to be difficult, I'm not on board with saying it is a religious practice for some Muslims, given the current citation. Just because one school requires it doesn't mean it is a "religious" practice. Islam is a combination of religious and cultural practice. The documentation states that:

• FGC is not a religious practice but a cultural practice
• the Quran neither requires nor encourages FGC
• hadiths that discuss it are either invalid or misinterpreted
• there is no documentation that contradicts any of this

therefore, it would seem that while one school requires it, it is a matter of culture and not religion. Even so, if we had documentation to support the position that it was religious, what would you prefer it say? If you would suggest some wording, perhaps we could stop arguing and find some common ground. Phyesalis (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice this discussion when I made one or two edits just now. I would also like to change this: "While FGC is not a religious practice, it is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures." We can't verify that FGC is not a religious practice. The most we could say is that author X says it's not a religious practice -- not that it isn't. There's evidence that FGC is connected to religion, on this page and on the Khalid Adem page. I suggest changing it to "FGC is not restricted to people of a particular religion but is practiced by some Muslims, some Christians, some Jews and by some people of no religion." I think that's a better representation of the quote in the footnote. I also removed "Although FGC is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures, its prevalence cannot be construed as a religious practice." Incidentally, note the new page Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children: I'd appreciate help expanding it.

Remember the WP:NPOV policy. If one author says it's not a religious practice and another author says ".The term ‘’Sunna’’ suggests that the practice is acceptable, or even recommended or required for Muslims, although most Islamic theologians consider it to be either optional or discouraged by Islam." (Gruenbaum footnote) then we have to represent both sides of the story. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Islam section: What is the difference between a hadith which is authentic, and one which is legitimate? The word "legitimate" doesn't seem to appear on the hadith page. And what does "transitive" mean in this context? "He further states that the connotation of circumcision is not transitive." --Coppertwig (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited in the section "Scholarly and religious debate" (Riyadh University, Al-Azhar University, Sahih Muslim collection of ahadith,World Union of the Muslim Ulemas) are all Sunni. Should this section be combined with the section on Sunni views? C3young (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the following prominent scholars, please do not remove:

Abu Dawood, who relates the narration in his collection, states the hadith is poor in authenticity. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani describes this hadith as poor in authenticity, and quotes Imam Ahmad Bayhaqi’s point of view that it is "poor, with a broken chain of transmission" Zein al-Din al-Iraqi points out in his commentary on Al-Ghazali’s Ihya ulum al-din (I:148) that the mentioned hadith has a weak chain of transmission." Yusuf ibn Abd-al-Barr comments: "Those who consider (female) circumcision a sunna, use as evidence this hadith of Abu al-Malih, which is based solely on the evidence of Hajjaj ibn Artaa, who cannot be admitted as an authority when he is the sole transmitter. The consensus of Muslim scholars shows that circumcision is for men".(Studentoftruth (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

"[FGC]" Quote.

Phyesalis, your edit summary said: "Cultural aspects - returning footnote to original, quote does not state "female circumcision", please refrain from editing footnotes if you haven't read source material, assume good faith"

Note the brackets around [FGC], implying that the original phrased was replaced. I assume the quote in the source said "female circumcision," since the latter phrase is in the title of the article. There is no reason to change the quote to say "FGC," if indeed it said "female circumcision." You have asserted that the quote does not say "female circumcision" -- are you asserting that the original source does not say "female circumcision?" If so, what does it say?

Also, your directive to "assume good faith" is completely misplaced, and yet another violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. See also "Assume the assumption of good faith." Blackworm (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Exactly, you assumed, you did not change the footnote because you had read the source - you changed it on the assumption of what? Because you thought, without a shred of proof, that I changed an article's comment from "female circumcision" to "FGC"? Please. The article says "the practices". I replaced the somewhat ambiguous phrase "the practices" with [FGC], in accordance with the article's consensus on terms, in order to establish that the author is talking about the subject of the article. Given your history of objections here and on Reproductive rights, I figured it would be prudent. It is not harassment to politely remind editors to assume good faith when the action is particularly "egregious". Changing the footnote for an article you have not read on the assumption that another editor has replaced one term with another is particularly "egregious". Your edit is a de facto accusation of lying. Accusations of lying are violations of WP:Civil. You have no reason to dispute it. If you haven't read the article, and you assume good faith, you don't really have much room to object. Please refrain from changing footnotes if you have not read the source. Phyesalis (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The source actually says "the practices." Since the source refers to the practices as "female circumcision" and not "FGC," I changed the quote to say "[female circumcision]." Blackworm (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You are going way too far in suggestion that my edit was an accusation of lying. The only suggestion is that it chooses a term not used by the source -- which was correct, and I have now fixed. There is no "consensus on terms" here, also, despite what you wish to believe. Blackworm (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see item 41 "Requested move". Consensus has established FGC as the dominant term, as suggested by article title. Phyesalis (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly the "dominant" term (as proven by Google and Google Scholar searches), it is evident from that discussion that "FGC" was chosen here, despite being the least used term of the three, for the same reason it is used (externally, not internally) by the UN/WHO -- as a euphemism designed to avoid offending those who practice it, and to avoid politically incorrect associations with male circumcision. Regardless, the source in question here uses "female circumcision" and that's clearly what the quote should reflect. Blackworm (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorial consensus for this article has been established in section 41, with the decision to title the article "FGC". I'm not sure why you would think otherwise when I suggested you read the section on this page. The source in question actually uses "genital surgeries" first before noting that "female circumcision" is a euphemism. In order to maintain continuity with the source and article terminology consensus, I'm going to change it to [genital surgeries]. Phyesalis (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The section you are referring to deals only with the choice of title. Your interpretation of it to recast all sources' mention of female circumcision to "FGC" is misguided and inappropriate. The source in question does NOT use "genital surgeries" first, it uses "female circumcision" first: in the TITLE of the article. I'm willing to accept "genital surgeries" since that is used prior to the quote.

More importantly, however, the article statement, again, and not surprisingly, does not reflect the quote. Nowhere do the sources say "its prevalence cannot be construed as a religious practice"** -- nowhere does the source say "FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice" -- these are your interpretations, which are in fact directly contradicted by at least one of the sources cited, namely, the one that says "The term ‘’Sunna’’ suggests that the practice is acceptable, or even recommended or required for Muslims, although most Islamic theologians consider it to be either optional or discouraged by Islam." It is also contradicted by other sources stating that a religious school calls the practice obligatory under their religion. Your interpretation, again, is original research.

• • One source says "Thus, there is no unequivocal link between religion and prevalence." It is clear from the preceding source discussion that this means that one cannot link the prevalance of the practice to (any) religion, which is entirely different from saying "its prevalence cannot be construed as a religious practice," a phrase that is nonsensical besides being original research. Blackworm (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be willing to move this up to the Islam and FGC section? I think we've found a compromise on the footnote issue (yay!). It would be helpful if we could keep these disputes organized by posting comments in relevant sections. It's time consuming to respond to the same issue in two different sections and difficult for others to follow. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

De-weaseling

Good work, Blackworm! --Coppertwig (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Recovering from July 20 edit

this edit deleted some material without explanation and deleted a ref tag, apparently leaving the reference display messed up ever since then. I've restored the deleted material and hope to fix the ref tags in a few minutes. I don't have much of an opinion at this point in time whether the restored material (other than the ref tag) stays in or not. Anyone may feel free to ask me to self-revert it out again if you provide some explanation why to remove it. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The situation is more complex than I thought. I've deleted this: <ref name="WHO_FGM-fact" /> because it has no content and doesn't display properly (i.e. there is no corresponding other ref tag containing the actual data). Maybe someone can find the corresponding data somewhere in the page history or someplace. The edit I mentioned above did mess up the ref tags, but they were immediately fixed, and then soon afterwards this edit deleted the data for <ref name="Skaine_FGM"/> , which then displayed as an error. Here's the data; someone may want to restore this to the article: <ref name="Skaine_FGM"> Female Genital Mutilation: Legal, Cultural and Medical Issues, by Rosemary Skaine; McFarland 2005, ISBN 0-7864-2163-3. </ref> which displays as

The situation is much more complex but at least now the refs are displaying with no red error message.

Note: When editing this page, please be careful with the ref tags. If you remove a citation, you should check that no other footnote requires that data to display properly. (Look at the list of references in your revised version and see if any look blank. Look at the previous version before your edit and see if they already looked blank before. Please don't do edits that make some of the data in the footnotes disappear like that. I can help you figure out how to straighten out the ref tags if you ask me on my talk page. See also Help:Footnotes. If you remove citation information, it would be nice to place that information on this talk page in case anyone wants to get any other quotes out of the same source. Ref tags are tricky; putting <ref> and forgetting to close it with </ref> can mess up the display of all of the rest of the page, or a large part of it. If you insert and delete stuff you need to make sure the tags are working properly. I'm still planning to try to fix some of the blank footnotes. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was wrong: I thought there were a few blank footnotes in the current version. They only looked blank at first glance. Actually they contain url's. They still need to be reformatted -- maybe I'll do that. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Complexities re whether any mention in Jewish religious texts

Currently it says "FGC is not mentioned in any Jewish religious text." with the two footnotes being these two url's: [8] [9] The first one, in my opinion, does not support the statement and could possibly be seen as contradicting it. The second one supports the statement, though it's a statement by one individual (sounds like one who is an authority on the matter though). What to do? Just delete the first footnote? The first URL says "Circumcision was widespread in many ancient cultures. Some of these also practiced female circumcision, which was never allowed in Judaism." The second one says "The fact remains that African followers of the major world religions practice these customs. Male circumcision is an absolute requirement of Islam and Judaism, whereas female circumcision is not even mentioned in any religious text. However, scholars of African cultures would testify that on our continent traditional and tribal rituals commonly supersede religion." --Coppertwig (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC) No, wait. He seems to be an authority on female circumcision, not necessarily on Jewish texts. Maybe change the wording to "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that female circumcision was never allowed in Judaism. Toubia (1995) states that female circumcision is not even mentioned in any religious text." I think I'll make that change. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your proposed edit, although I definitely think Toubia's statement is debated. "The Koran differs from the Torah in its complete silence regarding male circumcision and the omission of any mention of female circumcision." [[10]] I believe that source is referring to the "two circumcised parts meeting" phrase in the Koran, referenced elsewhere in this article, I believe. Blackworm (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I have no objection to your proposed edit. Sorry if that wasn't clear and if the above doesn't seem very helpful. Blackworm (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Benatar not properly sourced?

I greatly appreciate supporting quotes in cites, especially cites to references not widely accessible online. It makes it much easier to find the relevant material, and also holds the material up for scrutiny by other editors. I believe the following is a bad example of a proposed supporting quote:

Found in a cite: quote="...clitoridectomy, for example. Of course, in addition to being strange (at least to those outside of the cultures where it is practiced), is also very harmful. It is this harm that separates female genital excision from male circumcision."

I don't understand what purpose is served by beginning such a quote, "...clitoridectomy, for example." What information has this given us? The following sentence only uses the pronoun "it" -- but what is "it?" Is "it" clitoridectomy? Clearly the way the source is quoted implies this, but we can't be sure, because the previous sentence is truncated. It would be extremely helpful if it could be restored.

Unfortunately, this situation makes it difficult to support the article text's inclusion. The "harm" of the third sentence's conclusion is the "harm" of the previous sentence, and that "harm" is applied to the "it" -- the "it" which we don't know what "it" is. The WP article uses this quote and this source to say: Benatar et al. state that practices such as clitoridectomy and excision are not analogous to male circumcision because of the difference in relative harm. I see two problematic issues here:

• The "difference in relative harm" is the source's "harm" of doing that thing that we aren't sure what "it" is, although it may perhaps be confirmed to be clitoridectomy, and thus correctly following the source. However, that remains to be seen, thus the quote in the current form is unacceptable, as it is potentially misleading.

• Claiming that anything "separates female genital excision from male circumcision" does not mean one is claiming "clitoridectomy and excision are not analogous to male circumcision." Many things may be "analogous" to other, "separate" things without inconsistency.

If no one suggests an edit, I'll try to do my best on it and see what happens. Blackworm (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not analogous, that's part of the whole point. If something significant separates the two, then they are not analogous. This is what the quote says:

There is value in stepping back from one's cultural assumptions. When one views male circumcision from another cultural perspective, one can only wonder what possessed ancient people to first think of removing the foreskin. Considered independently, it is about as strange as deciding to remove a part of the earlobe from all children. [End Page 43]

This is just the view many people have of clitoridectomy, for example. Of course, in addition to being strange (at least to those outside of the cultures where it is practiced), is also very harmful. It is this harm that separates female genital excision from male circumcision.

Phyesalis (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide more context for the quote.

You don't seem to dispute my assertion, "many things may be 'analogous' to other, 'separate' things without inconsistency." If you agree, then it follows that saying something is "separate" from something else does not necessarily imply it is "not analogous." If we were to summarize "separates" as "not analogous," we would be engaging in interpretation.

I do not believe it true that "If something significant separates the two, then they are not analogous." That is not what I believe "analogous" means. That is what "synonymous" means, perhaps, or perhaps "identical."

The only information I would feel comfortable putting in Wikipedia by sourcing that quote is: "Benatar et al. claim that clitoridectomy is "very harmful," and claim that this harm "separates female genital excision from male circumcision." I don't feel that all sources must be directly quoted, but I believe that this source's statements are extremely prone to interpretaton and thus must be carefully summarized. Thoughts? Blackworm (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Phyesalis does seem to disagree about analogies, saying "If something significant separates the two, then they are not analogous." in comment above. Gotta take the turkey out of the oven. More later. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems true, but my assertion was not directly claimed to be false, leading to it being unclear if Phyesalis believed both assertions were true, despite it apparently leading to a contradiction. To make it clearer, I'll specifically ask: Phyesalis, would you agree that "things may be 'analogous' to other, 'separate' things without inconsistency?" Blackworm (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To further provide help on what I see as interpretation, Physalis used the phrase, "something significant" in an argument above. Benatar et al. never called the difference in relative harm "significant," although I believe this is a reasonable interpretation because they clearly found it significant enough to mention. However, we must limit our interpretation intended meaning of "significance" (our word, not Benatar's) to "the harm is significant enough for Benatar to mention as a reason for separating (A) and (B)," certainly not "the harm is so significant that Benatar obviously meant that (A) and (B) are not analogous." It seems to be the edit is making the latter argument, which goes beyond reasonable interpretation of the source in my opinion. Blackworm (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Phyesalis, for providing that quote. I guess you have access to some documents that we might not. The second-last sentence looks as if it might be missing the word "it".

From that quote, I can't discern whether Benatar believes that clitoridectomy is very harmful, or whether he is asserting that some people view it as being very harmful. I also can't discern whether he is contrasting very harmful clitoridectomy to less harmful circumcision of males, or whether he is contrasting (very) harmful clitoridectomy to harmless circumcision of males. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if we make it closer to the wording of the original? I suggest "Benatar states that harm separates female genital excision from male circumcision." I oppose using the phrase "relative harm" because it suggests that Benatar admits that male circumcision is also harmful (although less so), which I don't see as being supported by the quote. I oppose saying "analogous" because Benatar didn't say anything (in that quote) about whether they're analogous or not, and it could be construed to mean something else, e.g. to be a comment about whether the male and female excisions can be of homologous parts. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, wait. I propose we simply remove the Benatar et al comment and footnote entirely. The paragraph of this article that it appears in is talking about whether to use the term "circumcision" to apply to females. As far as I can tell, the Benatar quote above is not talking about which term to use, but making comments about female genital excision itself (as opposed to comments about the words for it). Using that quote in that paragraph would be OR synthesis. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a citecheck template to that section because of the situation we're discussing re the Benatar et al source. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, however, then the uncited gender integrity comment needs to go. As it, even if sourced, would most likely constitute the same proposed OR violation. And it's uncited and challenged. Phyesalis (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you see a problem with a different edit, I suggest you change it and see if there's opposition, or propose the edit in a new section. I concur with you and Coppertwig re: the removal of the Benatar statement. Blackworm (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the words "gender integrity" in the article. I agree with Blackworm, if you want to change something, either just change it or start a new section on this talk page and quote the words you want to change and quote what you want to change them to. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the following two sentences, including the Benatar reference, which I put here in case anyone wants to use it again: Benatar et al. state that practices such as female genital excision is not analogous to male circumcision because of the difference in relative harm. Genital integrity advocates, on the other hand, sometimes refer to all imposed forms of genital cutting as "mutilation."

Apparently I found the comment Phyesalis was referring to: it was the very next sentence after Benatar, so I found it when I went to delete the Benatar sentence. I think we can probably find references to statements that will help fill out the paragraph. I'm not sure, but I think I may have seen some. (Incidentally, I'm planning to soon create an article on the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children.) --Coppertwig (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this edit which inserts "Cook states that..." and "...and that "this procedure in whatever form it is practised is not at all analogous to male circumcision." because it uses prose attribution to present the information in a NPOV way, it accurately reflects what the source says, it helps lengthen a paragraph that needed to be lengthened, and it flows smoothly into the following sentence. I'm just going to change "and" to "but" because it will flow more smoothly; the "but" is justified, IMO, by the word "however" in the source, which means essentially the same thing IMO. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I said, "I see your point". I did not say I supported its removal. The "genital integrity" comment, to follow previous logic, doesn't actually relate to the section on FC. If it remains, it belongs in the FGM section, which does not suffer from a lack of length. Although I find the addition of "Cook states" to be superfluous (particularly if no one provides a source that contends otherwise), I support Coppertwig's rewording over removing it. Phyesalis (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Coppertwig for finding an additional source, suggesting wording and resolving the issue. Excellent work. I'm sorry that it's taken me this long to mention it. Phyesalis (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Western FGM

The article says a lot about what africans and muslims do, but what about the kind of female genital mutilation that people did in countries like the US until the 50's to cure masturbation by removing the clitoris or burning it with acid etc? There's only a very brief mention of this under the christianity section. This should be addressed as well because the "western civilization" DOES have a history of FGM. 201.23.32.2 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source: Pomerans, Erica (2005). The Origin of the World: Science and Fiction of the Vagina. Reaktion Books. p. 201. ISBN 1861892101. In Britain, clitoridectomy seems to have completely disappeared after the Baker Brown scandal. Only very occasionally did someone in authority still dare to say in public that the total ban of the practice was perhaps going too far. In the United States, by contrast, Baker Brown had numerous followers. According to the historian G. J. Barker-Benfield, clitoridectomies were performed from the 1860s until 1904, and circumcision of the clitoris (that is, removal of the foreskin) was advocated as a cure for mental illness. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) --Coppertwig (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another: Darby, Robert (2005). A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the. University of Chicago Press. p. 143. ISBN 0226136450. Although several European authorities had recommended clitoridectomy to treat nymphomania, they had few English followers. One was Samuel Atwell, who wrote in 1844 that "an enlarged clitoris" was sometimes marked "by exquisite sensibility of its mucous membrane," which often "gives rise to sexual passion and subdues every feeling of modesty." The result was headaches, attacks of hysteria, and loss of mental discipline, and Atwell recommended extirpation of the organ in these instances. English doctors tended to be skeptical, but one cited a comment in Thomas' Practice of Physic that "as the clitoris is the seat of pleasure ... nymphomania might possibly be cured by extirpating the organ." {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) I've left out superscripts for footnotes that are in the originals. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. this edit removes material on Western female circumcision -- material that, at least at first glance, appears to be supported by a citation. Shouldn't that material be restored in order to improve the balance of the article as requested above? (The paragraph on "in the United States", maybe not the line about preventing stillbirths, which may be more of a medical procedure and which I'm not sure is verified.) --Coppertwig (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- I posted on the editor's Talk page regarding some objections I had with that edit, but have not received any response.

Also, Coppertwig, re: [this edit], I think the entire part that begins "Although sexual excitement..." until the end of the paragraph should be deleted as WP:SYN. What do you think? Blackworm (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jailed for circumcision in France

I found an English-language source about the same subject as the link in the to-do box above to a French-language article: "Woman jailed for 48 circumcisions". BBC News. BBC Online Network. 1999-02-17. Retrieved 2007-12-27. A Malian woman has been jailed for eight years for circumcising 48 girls following a Paris trial which pitted French law against African tradition.
"The court also convicted more than two dozen parents who took their girls to Hawa Greou for genital mutilation. Most received suspended prison terms....
"Female circumcision became a crime in France in 1984, but it was not until 1991 that the first conviction was handed down. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) --Coppertwig (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Down to petty questions of top billing, and completely missing the point.

Clearly, [this edit] serves to reinforce the fact that the arguments presented (exclusively by Phyesalis, if I'm not mistaken) in favour of Phyesalis' unilateral recent shifting the focus of this article away from discussion of FGC's religious aspects where they exist, to a contradictory mix of:

• presenting FGC as being done for religious, [...] reasons in the lead and as having the UN Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices calling for tact and patience regarding activities in this area and drawing attention to the risk of "demonizing" certain cultures, religions, [emph. mine -BW] and communities, and such completely incomprehensible:

• Although FGC is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures, FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice, and while there is a correlation between FGC prevalence and religions like Islam and Christianity, prevalence rates vary by culture. These variances preclude an unequivocal link between religion and FGC.

Please help me, I have no clue how or why something being primarily a cultural practice would be evidence of it transcending religion, especially if there is evidence of people practicing it today as part of their religion. This is a direct assault on WP:NPOV. The second sentence, I've already dissected as pure nonsense when it was expressed slightly differently, in my edit of this Talk page, 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC). How do you walk up to a person practicing FGC as part of their religion and tell them that "no, here at Wikipedia, we've precluded an unequivocal link between religion and FGC." It is documented that people practice this as part of their religion. Claiming without attribution in prose that they really don't is insulting to me, as it reeks of ethnocentrism, but more importantly, it wholeheartedly violates POV as it is verifiable that it is falsehood in the case of certain religions. It's like saying, "no one thinks FGC is a duty of their religion," when that statement is clearly contradicted by reliable sources. It's not Wikipedian to make that claim, especially without attribution to a notable party. Why no one has the courage to come forward in agreement with me on this is extremely discouraging.

Phyesalis, your coming in here and writing all this nonsensical stuff (I'm really sorry, but I assume you are an adult and can handle criticism of your writing, and frankly, attempts to walk on eggshells and not hurt your feelings seem to have totally failed), reverting attempts to delete it that are based on sound interpretation of policy by an apparently more experienced editor, then turning around and telling that editor, basically, to "fix it yourself if you don't like it," is unacceptable behaviour. Please, please come to a meeting of minds with me on this, at least.

This article needs heavy trimming to bring certain sections into consistency. To both recent editors, squabbling over details of which term comes first, you are both missing the point. Comment on the huge dispute over the large amounts of questionable material added recently, please. I'm almost sure Phyesalis agrees with me that your input would be appreciated by all. Be bold, rather than a mute spectator.

I switched the top billing of the terms again to draw attention to this much more important point. If some editors take that action as a WP:DISRUPTION or a WP:POINT VIOLATION or WP:INCIVIL or WP:WHATEVER, so be it; in my view, it is NOT any of those things. Blackworm (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article should not state that female circumcision is not religious or transcends religion or anything along those lines. Statements must be verifiable. The "tiny minority" clause in WP:NPOV only directs us to leave out certain verifiable statements; it does not mean that something that is 99% true is allowed into the article. Statements must be verifiable, period, not merely 99% verifiable, and not merely true about 99.99% of the population. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a minor nitpick with this, Coppertwig, and it's why I don't support the wording of one of your views on the mediation page: I don't believe something like "FGC is not a religious practice" is 99% true, even if it is true in 99% of cases. It's like saying "breast cancer doesn't happen to men," because 99% of those affected by breast cancer are women. Applying WP:NPOV, and especially in the absence of any material claiming that no person practices FGC as part of their religion, I consider the statement to be 100% false -- again, Wikipedia's version of "false," i.e. unverified. Further, debates about whether Islam, for example, calls for FGC are for imams, scholars, whoever -- Wikipedia is not a party to that debate, and thus must not explicitly deny the views of any significant group of self-described Muslims. Blackworm (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WHO Definition

The WHO is clearly in favor of outlawing and stamping out the practice of FGC. Therefore isn't using the WHO's definition (which contains heavily connotated words like describing FGC as any "injury") a step away from NPOV? If we are going to quote a definition of FGC, we ought to use a source that comes does not push an anti-FGC agenda so heavily. This is a volatile enough topic. Thoughts? Brandoid (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no other definition, other than that obtained by a simple reading of the English phrase. The WHO's redefinition of this phrase to represent a different set of procedures than what the phrase suggests otherwise, is what the article is all about. As for an anti-FGC agenda, it's clear that most if not all editors who have edited this page share the WHO's strong anti-FGC stance, as evidenced by phrases such as "victims of FGC" appearing in the article, and many persistent factual errors that seem to go uncorrected if correcting them would weaken an anti-FGC stance in any way. I believe the proper way to address any NPOV issues is simply to attribute views (including definitions) to their sources, as I have attempted to do for the WHO. Blackworm (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not share the anti-FGC stance, and wish to bring this article as close as NPOV as possible. With that being said, I did see the "victims of FGC" and planned on changing it. I agree with your attributing views to their sources. I will try to work on rooting out such phrases as "victims of FGC", etc. Thanks! Brandoid (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural Imperialism at the W.H.O?" by Bettina Shell-Duncan, at http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/cultural-imperialism-at-the-who/ Hssajo (talk)

That blog post is not by Shell-Duncan, so the title is not her creation, but she is referenced and quoted at length in it. So the Shell-Duncan cited in this article who talks about "female circumcision" being a euphemism is actually a consultant for the WHO?! That was an interesting bit of news to me. Her response in that article is very enlightening and basically echoes many of the things I've been saying here. It seems even she is now accusing the WHO of being disingenious. Thank you very much for this link! It may provide clues toward excellent sources for making this article better. I'm not sure if that article itself is considered a reliable source, but Shell-Duncan's criticisms certainly seem relevant here. Blackworm (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Type II factual errors and statement unsupported by source corrected.

I corrected the factual error in describing Type II circumcision. I also removed the following sentence which seems unsupported by its cited source: Due to the sewing together of the leftover labia minora epidermis, which contains sweat glands, a buildup of sweat and urine in the closed off space beneath this closure can lead to local or urinary infection, septicemia, hemorrhaging and cyst formation. The reference is to a study of 300 Somali women, and there seems to be no indication of the cause of the complications, nor any indication that the complications mentioned all occur from Type II circumcision. Perhaps this could be rephrased and added to the "medical consequences" section.

I will now attempt to tackle the factual errors in the "Type III" section. Blackworm (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed some apparent problems with the Type III section. Perhaps a next step for me will be is to improve the "Medical Consequences" sections, which begins with an off topic discussion of age, and is otherwise poorly written. Note that the second paragraph, for example, begins with Other serious long term health effects are also common, but the first paragraph neglects mention of any long term health effects, mentioning only immediate effects. The damage recently done to this already poor article will take a long time to repair. Blackworm (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job! Work is much needed in these areas. Brandoid (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article

The following was recently added to the section under 'female circumcision':

• Several dictionaries, including medical dictionaries, define the word circumcision as also applicable to procedures performed on females. The word circumcision is used in this way in medical sources, medical journals, journals of social studies, and prominent newspapers.

I have removed it, because of several problems:

1. Unlike the rest of the paragraph, which discusses what sources have said about the terminology, it is a synthesis of sources that use the terminology. Per WP:PSTS, we should "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source", but the only apparent function of this collection of sources is to do just that: to perform a synthesis of them to demonstrate that the term is correct and/or widely used.
2. The {{cite web}} templates are incorrectly formatted, and consequently do not appear.
3. The material appears to be about "circumcision", whereas the section is about "female circumcision".

Jakew (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no synthesis, the text is stating a fact verified by the sources. We don't require a paper in a journal telling us what the dictionary says, to reference a dictionary definition. Same goes for the other sources. The problem I'm solving with these edits is undue weight, because previously, the entire paragraph presents opinion countering common usage, and that common usage has not been established.

The references were repaired prior to your edit.

Your third point seems nonsensical on its face. Female circumcision is the circumcision of females. Blackworm (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, WP:PSTS states one should "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge [...]". Are you arguing that this is not the case for these edits? Can you show me specifically where and how you believe the edit engages in any of: analysis, synthesis, interpreation, explanation, or evaluation? Blackworm (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict.) Whenever you make a statement like "several dictionaries ... define", you're actually performing a synthesis of sources, Blackworm. It may or may not be WP:SYN, depending upon whether it serves to advance a position, but it's always synthesis. In this case, however, it does seem to advance a position: that the term is correct and/or in common usage.

A more worrying example is when you say "The word circumcision is used in this way in medical sources, medical journals, journals of social studies, and prominent newspapers", you're making a statement about the terminology that cannot be found in any of the sources you cite. Not only is this synthesis, but it is also a novel interpretation of the individual sources themselves. For example, consider this source. As far as I can tell, it doesn't even mention medical journals, let alone discuss the usage of the word 'circumcision' in that context. The statement is pure original research.

The term "female circumcision" is not quite the same as "circumcision". Sometimes a pair of words means nothing more than the individual words (eg., "female legs"), but in some cases the phrase itself can be a euphemism with a subtly different meaning from the individual words (eg., "male menopause"). Thus, it's important to be precise about language.

If you want to establish that usage of the term is common, then I suggest you find a source that explicitly makes such a statement. Jakew (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In your first paragraph, you merely repeat your assertion of synthesis, you do not show how or why you believe it is synthesis. Compare, for example, this article sentence fragment which you have certainly read in this article and seem to support (if indeed you did not author it): ...while advocates of circumcision regard it as a worthwhile public health measure, particularly in the control of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Is the above "synthesis" in the way my edit is synthesis? I would agree the above is complete WP:OR, since nowhere do the sources claim they are "circumcision advocates," nor do any of the sources claim to be "particularly" interested in HIV. Somehow, however, the above seems to meet with your approval. Why is this?

In your second paragraph, you are making a straw man argument. I'm not claiming the source is discussing usage, not is its discussion required. I'm claiming it's using circumcision to refer to something done to females, and showing that the term female circumcision is used to refer to the procedures which are the topic of this article. I am making descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge WP:PSTS. Period. Unless you dispute the accuracy or the applicability of the descriptive claims, then you have no case to suppress the material.

Your sentence about "female circumcision" is pure WP:OR. Female circumcision is the circumcision (remember, and I can't stress this enough, that "circumcision" means the removal of parts of males and females, despite Wikipedia's ongoing fraud with respect to this information) of females, and since circumcision is used on its own to refer to the circumcision of females, it's clear that female circumcision is not a separate term but merely a disambiguating phrase, exactly like male circumcision, which is also often heard in scholarly sources and elsewhere.

I didn't say I wanted to establish that the usage is common, I said I wanted to present the common usage. I infer that the use of circumcision to describe procedures done to females is common, based on the verified facts my edit presents, i.e., that that is what the damn dictionary says, and what the journals say, and what the newspapers say. If a reader choose not to infer that the usage is common from the verified facts my edit presents, that is their prerogative. The edit establishes the usage of the term -- then, all the following material, arguably synthesized to present a criticism of this usage, is presented. WP:NPOV is served. Blackworm (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a dictionary definition may help here. One definition of synthesis is "the combining of the constituent elements of separate material or abstract entities into a single or unified entity"[11]. So, for example, if I were to cite your previous post, and state "Blackworm uses the word 'the'", it wouldn't be synthesis. However, if I were to cite both your previous post and the post I'm currently writing, and state that "Wikipedia editors use the word 'the'", that's a synthesis of sources.

Synthesis is sometimes acceptable in Wikipedia, but it depends upon the circumstances. We have to ask a) whether the result of the synthesis is original (does any single source support the claim), and b) whether it advances a position.

Article talk pages are intended for discussion of changes to the associated article, hence it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the content of another article here.

You say "I'm claiming it's using circumcision to refer to something done to females", and that's the problem. Terminology is a complex subject, and we need to rely on experts in this regard, who can analyse patterns and trends in usage. Indeed, your edit illustrates the kind of simple mistakes that can be made if we don't rely upon experts: consider your use of the plural (eg. "newspapers") when the evidence you cite supports only the singular (eg. "a newspaper"), or your classification of this as "medical source" when it is in fact another article in a medical journal. An expert might be in a better position to judge whether to say "in a newspaper", "by one journalist in his/her articles in several newspapers", "once in a specific newspaper", "in several newspapers", "in most newspapers", or perhaps "in at least one newspaper".

Finally, it's true that some authors use "circumcision" to refer to that of females, but it seems absurd to suggest that this tells us anything about how other people use language. It seems perfectly possible that, for some people, "circumcision" is a gender-neutral term which merely requires disambiguating, and for others, "female circumcision" is a separate term. My comments about "female circumcision" are indeed OR, as indeed are your own statements. This fact seems to underline again the problems that occur when editors analyse usage of terms themselves, and makes even more clear the need for a reliable source. Jakew (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

By that definition, any two sentences in a WP article are synthesis. Your "the" example doesn't hold; a better analogy would be to say "The word the has been used by Wikipedia editors" -- which under the circumstances of your example would be verified fact. The kind of synthesis prohibited by WP:SYN is one specifically used to advance a position or view held by the editor. It doesn't apply here. The kind of synthesis mentioned in WP:PSTS seems to be a different definition of synthesis, i.e., 1 c: the combining of often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole; or 2 a: deductive reasoning b: the dialectic combination of thesis and antithesis into a higher stage of truth. Those don't apply here. Again, all I've done is present verifiable facts about one usage of circumcision -- exactly what the rest of the paragraph does.

Is the "synthesis" original? Does the edit say more about the sources or their contents than can be reasonably inferred? No, it doesn't, or at least you haven't shown how it does. At worst, it's a summary. Your (a) does not apply. Is it "advancing a position" not attributed to sources? No, it isn't. Your (b) does not apply.

The article the sentence fragment I quoted appears in is irrelevant to the example. I'm not proposing any edits to a different article here. Pretend it doesn't exist in any article. In the interest of understanding your position, I will ask you clearly: do you believe the sentence fragment I quoted is synthesis? Do you believe it violates WP:SYN? Do you believe it violates WP:OR?

You make a good point with "newspapers" versus "a newspaper." I'll find and include a second source or change the edit to comply. You seem to argue that a medical journal is not a medical source -- I disagree, but you've alerted me to some redundancy which can definitely be improved. I'll make some changes to the phrasing to address these concerns. But you don't need an expert to assert "a newspaper" or "newspapers" (assuming two or more can be cited). Again, all I'm doing is making descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge (WP:PSTS).

I never suggested anything about "how others" use language. I present a definition of "circumcision," and a few examples of the usage of the word that counter the presented views that such usage is incorrect or euphemistic. Honestly, the other presented views seem sudden, bizarre, and out of place without this introductory context. I don't dispute that some may use it differently. You seem to be disputing that anyone uses it that way at all, by objecting to this edit. I am presenting "a usage," not "the only usage," and nothing in the edit implies otherwise. Blackworm (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, and in fact most Wikipedia articles consist of synthesis, but they aren't necessarily "bad" synthesis. WP:SYN specifies when synthesis is unacceptable, and WP:PSTS specifies additional requirements when the sources are primary.

Your recent changes help ("used in this way in some scientific articles" would be better still), but the synthesis still seems to advance the position that "female circumcision" is widely used. In light of the sources I've found (below), this position doesn't seem to be original - indeed two of the three sources describe its usage as "common", and one indicates that it used to be so. But given that these sources are available, I see no reason for the synthesis. Do you? Jakew (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be challenging my claim, yes, unsupported by the source cited, that the "Journal of Tropical Pediatrics" is a medical journal. Please confirm whether or not this is the case. If so, I suppose I could invoke WP:COMMON, maybe point you to [this page], which says, Journal of Tropical Pediatrics is covered by the following major indexing services: Science Citation Index - Current Contents: Clinical Medicine Reference Update Medline (Index Medicus). Again, if you are challenging this, I believe these challenges are not very credible. Blackworm (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not disputing that the Journal of Tropical Pediatrics is a medical journal, and I'm unsure why you'd think I was doing so. If you wanted to say something like "a medical journal stated that lesions associated with urinary problems were the commonest type of complication in women who had been circumcised", I'd agree, though I'd prefer to say "Agugua reported that..." in the article. The problem occurs when, instead of describing what the source says, you instead make the language used by the source itself the object of study. Similarly, we cite historians when discussing history, and we cite biographies when discussing historians. Jakew (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? The language is the topic of the subsection, so clearly the language used by people is the object of study. If I were to name the individual sources, rather than say what kind of source they are, would that address your concerns? Blackworm (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, language is the topic of the subsection, but it wasn't the topic of the articles that we're citing. That's the problem.

Imagine, if you will, that we're writing an article about "language used in medical journal articles". We could look at a selection of these articles, and calculate statistics about mean word length, words per sentence, noun:verb ratios, and so on, but wouldn't you agree that all that would be original research? Instead, shouldn't we find scholarly articles about the language statistics, and rely upon those?

That's an extreme case, but I hope that it illustrates my point. The point is that we can use a source as a (hopefully) intelligent commentary about the subject, or we can use a source as raw data which we then analyse ourselves. And the difference is important. Jakew (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent.) In [this edit], I change the second sentence in an attempt to address your concerns, Jake. Blackworm (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Here are some possible sources that themselves comment on the usage of the term 'female circumcision'.

• "...commonly used terms for these procedures are female circumcision..." (Morison et al. The long-term reproductive health consequences of female genital cutting in rural Gambia: a community-based survey. Trop Med Int Health. 2001 Aug;6(8):643-53.
• "Until the 1970's, the concept ‘female circumcision' was used, but has since come to be understood as an euphemism." Dellenborg, A reflection on the cultural meanings of female circumcision. in: Re-Thinking Sexualities in Africa, Amfred, 2004, ISBN 917106513X
• "In beginning, I must make it clear that the term "female circumcision," although common throughout much of the literature, is an incorrect, euphemistic..." Gordon, Female Circumcision and Genital Operations in Egypt and the Sudan: A Dilemma for Medical Anthropology, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Mar., 1991), pp. 3-14

Jakew (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to step in here and say that I believe Blackworm's edit to be valid according to wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:OR states that "care should be taken not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources". It is mainly a NPOV construct. Blackworm has stayed true to his sources and has not pushed an agenda independent of his sources. If you have issues with the individual sources, question them instead of the entire clause, which seems to be well supported. Brandoid (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, Brandroid. Several of the sources don't discuss the term "female circumcision" at all, they just happen to use the term when discussing another issue. It isn't clear whether they have any view about the term itself. Also, to quote from the same sentence in WP:NOR, we're using "them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context".

The sources above, however, directly discuss the usage of the term "female circumcision", and describe it as a "commonly used term" or "common throughout much of the literature". The intent is clear: to make a statement about the frequency of usage of the term. I therefore propose to use these instead. Jakew (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this compromise. We leave the statement about the dictionaries, since those sources are indeed talking about word usage, and replace the second sentence with something that uses the sources Jake presents? Brandoid, I share your opinion that the current edit is valid and does not violate policy, but Jakew has a point that it would be better to avoid making observations about primary sources, even obvious ones, if such observations can be found in secondary/tertiary sources. Blackworm (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Jakew (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. Blackworm (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And tweaked. Blackworm (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed material from WHO Type I FGC section.

I removed the following:

Although labeled Sunna by Islamic advocates of the practice, most Muslim clergy oppose all forms of female genital cutting as it is viewed as a social custom, rather than a religious practice. According to Dr. Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Salieh at the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law:

Islamic juridical logic cannot acknowledge the distinction between female and male circumcision, both being the mutilation of healthy organs which is damaging to the physical integrity of the child, whatever the underlying religious motivations. Furthermore, both practices violate the Koran: "Our Lord, You did not create all this in vain" (3:191), and "[He] perfected everything He created" (32:7).

— 

It seems tangential at best, under the definition of WHO Type I FGC. Blackworm (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo's Edits on January 23, 2008

Blackworm, I would like to inquiry about the revert that just occured of my recent edit to this article. If "female circumcision" should not be abbreviated in the intro like the other two terms are, why is it thus abbreviated lower in the text? Next, why all the brackets in the intro, if it's possible to make the sentence more appealing by removing them? As for referencing authors, it's standard practice and common courtesy to first-time readers to provide the full name of an author upon first mention and then to make further references using the last name only. Why the exception for this article? Lastly, isn't it true that the term "female circumcision" is not as common today as it was earlier in history? Blackworm, please respond to my concerns when you can. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Homologeo. I'll answer your questions in order:

• It seems to be another mistake that female circumcision is abbreviated lower in the text. This abbreviation serves no purpose. I have just corrected the second instance to which you refer.
• I don't share the opinion that removing the parentheses makes the sentence more "appealing," but I don't object to your version (minus the abbreviation of female circumcision). Please feel free to remove the parentheses.
• I disagree that giving the first names of authors is standard practice or common courtesy. A reading of scientific journals suggests otherwise. Note that the circumcision article follows the convention of only mentioning the primary author's last name throughout. The author's name serves only to attribute the views in prose; there isn't a need to present the full names of authors, and their full names are irrelevant.
• It may be true that the term "female circumcision" is not as common today, but by writing "was once used," you go further and imply that it is no longer used, thus my objection.

I hope this addresses your concerns. Blackworm (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your response addresses my concerns quite well. Thank you. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased Article?

Does anyone else think this article may be biased as it seems to focus on the negatives of female circumcision and does not appear to address any perceived medical benefits of female circumcision? Bagofants (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think are many reliable sources talking about perceived medical benefits of female circumcision. It is not studied, since there is no worldwide public interest (e.g., $$$) in finding any such benefits (unlike routine male circumcision, a solution that has had millions spent on searching for a medical problem to justify it for at least 100 years). The only source I've seen showed that female circumcision protects against HIV, and if I can find it again perhaps it should be included. What is truly missing is the discussion of cultural benefits, the same cultural benefits male circumcision supposedly provides, i.e. fitting into the community/religion. Clearly Western bias against female circumcision pervades this article, just as Western/American bias in support of male circumcision pervades that article. Blackworm (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Blackworm. I agree that cultural aspects of FGC definitely need to be discussed, because this practice plays a significant role in many communities, especially within traditional African society. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re FGC & HIV, Blackworm may be thinking of Stallings' IAS 2005 presentation, which also cited 3 previous studies. Stallings found a "surprising and perplexing significant inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV", and concluded "that it is due to irreducible confounding". Jakew (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is very biased. However, as blackworm stated, it's difficult to balance the article just based upon the sheer body of anti-FGC work out there compared to strict anthropological or even pro-FGC work. In time, I believe we can make this article work for everyone. Brandoid (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's surprising that this article discusses the attitudes towards female genital cutting in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, but very little is said about African Traditional Religions. This practice is most prevalent in African traditional communities, and is often attributed to ATR practices, so it would makes sense for there to be a major component to this article that deals with ATR as it relates to FGC. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is arguably a case of undue weight indeed, and possibly good-faith ethnocentrism. There seem to be fewer sources presenting traditional African points of view. I would personally like to start to address the weight by trimming the "Islam" section, large portions of which were inserted by one editor. One section presents a detailed argument of a scholar claiming that FGC is not required by Islam. Those edits were contested on weight grounds and now this had led to mediation. Since good faith mediation requires patience in editing disputed sections, editing those sections has stopped. Blackworm (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"The only source I've seen showed that female circumcision protects against HIV..."

"Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: for Better or for Worse?" Rebecca Y. Stallings & Emilian Karugendo. Presentation at the 3rd IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2005. Hssajo (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. The abstract says, The authors sought to explain an unanticipated significant crude association of lower HIV risk among circumcised women [RR=0.51; 95% CI 0.38,0.70] in a recent survey by examining other factors which might confound this crude association. [...] Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum. (Emphasis mine.)

Jakew, I can't open PowerPoint documents. Can you point to a source supporting your statement contradicting the above, that Stallings attributed the lower risk of HIV infection to "irreducible confounding?" Blackworm (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a way to read the PowerPoint source. It says:

# The surprising and perplexing significant inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV seropositivity remained highly statistically significant in the final logistic regression model, despite the presence of other significant potential confounders, namely, geographic zone, household wealth index, woman´s age, lifetime sex partners, and current/past union status.

As no biological mechanism seems plausible, we conclude that it is due to irreducible confounding.

Note the contrary conclusion from the final published paper. I suspect that this power point presentation preceded the paper's publication, and raised several eyebrows, especially the completely unsupported phrase "no biological mechanism seems plausible" leading to the desired conclusion that FGC must simply not be responsible for this protection against HIV. Had I been in the room, I would have mockingly laughed out loud. At least Stallman et al. seem to have corrected that nonsense for their actual published abstract, linked to above (isn't peer-review is a wonderful thing sometimes). The published abstract is clearly a reliable source, moreso than this obscure Power Point presentation of the (presumably then-unpublished) study. Blackworm (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the way that conference presentations work. Briefly, the author prepares a talk (these days, this usually includes a slideshow), and also an abstract. Neither the abstract nor the presentation is a "published" study in the conventional sense, though presentation at a conference often precedes publication in a peer-reviewed journal. If an analogy helps, the relationship between abstract and presentation is much the same as that between abstract and full text in a published paper. Both abstract and presentation, as you will note, are on the ias-2005 website. It is difficult to see how one could be reliable and the other not, and I can see no basis for such an argument, except perhaps a desire to push the POV that Stallings' conclusions are "nonsense"...

I also suggest you re-read the sources carefully. The abstract notes that "A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data", which is somewhat different to saying that it was not attributable to confounding in any data, as you seem to think. And as the presentation notes (slide 37), "There are several important risk factors which were not collected in the 2003-04 THIS which might be explanatory confounders of this perplexing conundrum, including ethnic group, age at time of circumcision and type of circumcision." Jakew (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you reject that one is reliable and the other not, then are they both reliable, or are neither of them reliable, in your estimation? Those are the only remaining two possibilities, unless I'm missing something. Blackworm (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult question. We'd certainly prefer peer-reviewed papers, but a conference presentation may be acceptable as part of the discussion. Perhaps a better one is are they reliable enough? That depends, in part, on what one intends to do with them. Presumably any discussion of FGC and HIV would include the (published) studies by Msaya et al., Kapiga et al., and Klouman et al. cited on slide 11 of Stallings' presentation? Jakew (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting.) I'm not sure that I agree that the reliability of sources is determined by "what we do with them," except to the extent WP:OR and WP:V must be followed, also by attributing challenged views. I'm guessing that's what you meant. Perhaps it would help if you suggested an edit. How about, as a start: Stallings et al. concluded that a lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with any other risk factors they studied. (I hope you will not argue that "another" in the original source, in this context, applies to a particular factor they are withholding from us?) If you reject this edit, please suggest one. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:V requires sources of a higher standard when the claims attributed to a source are "extraordinary", so to some extent the minimum bar for reliability is determined by what we do with sources. See WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that we need to discuss HIV here, and it might be better not to make any edit. However, if we are to add some material, I'd propose something like the following:

Three studies found no association between FGC and HIV infection.[12] [13] [14] A fourth found a reduced risk of HIV infection among circumcised women that could not be explained by confounding with other variables that were available and examined in their analysis. The authors concluded that "[a]s no biological mechanism seems plausible, we conclude that it is due to irreducible confounding."[15]

Jakew (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you think we should dicuss HIV and FGC? Don't you think it should be studied more? Perhaps some mass controlled trials sponsored by the WHO?

Your edit is misleading because it implies the fourth study came up with the raw data, instead of the Tanzania HIV/AIDS Indicator Survey 2003-04 by the Tanzania Commission for AIDS, which states,

Unexpectedly, the results show that women who are circumcised are slightly less likely to be HIV positive than those who are not circumcised (4 versus 8 percent). This is contrary to the hypothesis that genital cutting among women can act as a means of transmission of the virus. Among men, the difference in HIV prevalence between circumcised and uncircumcised men (7 versus 6 percent) is not significant; however, it is surprising to find no apparent protective effect of male circumcision.

Funny how I've never seen that document referenced by the WHO, isn't it?

The above is the data that Stallings et al. tried to explain away, and failed, and this has to be clear. Your edit also inexplicably chooses to present only the one conclusion not common between the abstract and the presentation. The actual, relevant conclusion is The surprising and perplexing significant inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV seropositivity has not been explained by other variables available and examined in these analyses. What "seems plausible" to these people seems quite a bit more irrelevant, especially when no biological mechanisms were studied. It's clearly a statement of faith that the data are flawed, because of the moral and ethical "conundrum" created if one applies the science properly. I hope you can see this. Regardless, if you insist on its inclusion I have no objection, as long as it's clear it comes from a PowerPoint presentation with the name of only one author on it. Blackworm (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any point in discussing HIV and FGC because the apparent scientific consensus is that there is no association (3/4 of authors report no association, 1/4 report an association due to irreducible confounding). Thus, it seems to be the sound of a dog not barking.

Indeed, as far as I can tell, the only claim that there is a true association is original research authored by User:Blackworm. If/when you publish your own interpretation of Stallings' source data, in which you explain why Stallings et al. "failed [to explain away]" the data, why the authors' views are "irrelevant", and what happens when "one applies the science properly", we could include that point of view. Until then, please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox: our role is to summarise views that have been expressed in reliable sources, not to advance our own hypotheses.

My suggested paragraph did not imply that the authors gathered the data themselves. In fact, it made no comment on source data in any of the four studies. It seems reasonable enough to add such material for all studies, but I see no reason to do this selectively. Jakew (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is your assertion of what the "apparent scientific consensus is" any better? Wouldn't you say you are "advancing your own hypothesis" there? Should I start dropping WP:OR and WP:SOAP too?

Unlike you, I am not committed to derailing this discussion with bickering about editor behaviour. Your strawman attack above is irrelevant, since nowhere do I claim I wish to insert my views. Stick to the content. There is the 2003-04 THIS that I quote above, Stallings et al.'s abstract, and Stallings (solo) PPT presentation. Each say different things. I plan to include material from the first two sources, and you are of course welcome to include material from the third source, citing it correctly as a separate source with separate authors from the second source. Blackworm (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is rather pointless to cite the authors' abstract, since their presentation contains the same information and more. It is also questionable whether THIS should be cited, partly because it is largely redundant (Stallings' presentation contains much of the same data in their crude analyses), and also because it would tend towards giving undue weight to this dataset. Incidentally, in your above quote from the THIS summary you omitted the following: "It is important to note that more sophisticated analysis is needed to explore these relationships; for example, most of the circumcised women come from regions with low HIV prevalence, which may be due to factors other than circumcision practices." Jakew (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is nonsense, Jake. You say "their presentation," referring to "the authors." If it's "their presentation," why aren't both their names on it, unlike their abstract?

How can the 2003-04 THIS be redundant? It predates Stallings et al., and indeed Stallings' work is based on it. If anything, that would make elements that Stallings repeats, redundant; not the other way around.

Your claim of "undue weight" appears to be WP:OR. Do you know of other similarly reliable datasets with this information for other countries? I invite those to be presented as well. Otherwise, your claim of "undue weight" remains WP:OR.

Yes, I stated 2003-04 THIS findings, and omitted their recommendation and a caveat. What is your point, exactly, other than to republish that information here, violating WP:SOAP?

In any case, you haven't added anything relevant to this discussion. I assure you my edits incorporating this material will be just fine. Blackworm (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Both names are on it, Blackworm. See slide 1 of the presentation: "Rebecca Y. Stallings, [Chi]2 Statisticus Consultoris, USA and Emilian Karugendo, National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania."

Strictly speaking, both the THIS report and Stallings' work are based on the THIS dataset. It is inaccurate to state that Stallings' work is based upon the THIS report. The THIS report contains crude analyses of the data, noting that "more sophisticated analysis is needed", and Stallings' presentation contains both crude and adjusted (logistic regression) analyses of the data. Since the information in one is effectively a superset of the other, it is clear that one is redundant, and it seems obvious which is the better choice.

Yes, I know of other analyses of FGC and HIV, and I cited three in the text which I proposed above (at your request). Since you acknowledge (indeed, you first noted) that THIS and Stallings' are the same dataset, your OR objection is puzzling. Surely it is obvious that we should give roughly the same weight to all four studies?

My point is that your quotation omitted a detail that the author(s) of that report judged to be "important". I therefore wanted to make sure that you were aware of it, since it may affect any attempt to summarise. Jakew (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting.) You're right about both names; I should have read more carefully. Now the only question remaining is why you'd prefer to source a PowerPoint document that requires special software to read properly (and opens editors to viruses), instead of a simple, easily accessible, safe HTML abstract of the presentation. You seem to insist on presenting the authors' conclusions regarding plausible biological mechanisms and irreducible confounding, conclusions they saw fit to omit from their abstract. I don't have any remaining objection to that -- we'll just need to cite your separate PPT source from the abstract I will cite for the other conclusions. And of course, should any sources come to light examining possible biological female genital pathways for HIV, or stating that such pathways are plausible, we can cite those and discuss their views.

You say, It is inaccurate to state that Stallings' work is based upon the THIS report. The Stallings' PPT source says, This analysis and its findings are derived from the 2003-04 Tanzania HIV/AIDS Indicator Survey (the THIS) [...]. I'll leave the reader to decide if your comments is relevant. The THIS report is one thing, Stallings' examination of THIS data is another thing. The THIS results were "unexpected" and called for more study, and Stallings' "sought to explain an unanticipated significant crude association of lower HIV risk among circumcised women" in the THIS survey "by examining other factors which might confound this crude association." They concluded that "A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data," and characterized this as a "conundrum."[16]

If I were to nitpick, I might argue that their data is not strictly a "superset" of the THIS data. Stallings' conclusions in the PowerPoint about "plausible biological mechanisms," for example, is clearly not derived from THIS data (nor is it remotely clear what that statement is derived from). Their stuff about "logistic regression models" also seems to imply a specific interpretation of the data (do other "models" exist which might cause one to arrive at different conclusions about the same raw data?). Regardless, there is no need to argue about that when citing all three sources is perfectly appropriate. If you feel a need to mention the other three studies, we should indeed begin by summarizing them. Blackworm (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FGM

Please move the article to Female Genital Mutilation, this name is correct and encyclopedic, as you see in WHO and UN's articles. Thanks --Taranet (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone can perform the move -- in fact, you can -- in a few days if there are no objections here. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Female Genital Mutilation" is no more correct than "Female Genital Cutting", which is also used in WHO and UN documents. In fact, I'd suggest that recent usage favours FGC (which is, of course, a more neutral term). Jakew (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To summarize:

• Circumcision - Gender neutral, centuries-old term for any ritual cutting of genitals of males or females
• Female Genital Mutilation - Term introduced in late 20th century by those opposed to the circumcision of females, wishing to define it as mutilation, and separate it from male circumcision so the two are not thought of in the same context
• Female Genital Cutting - Term adopted externally by the same people who invented the term "FGM," once they realized their advocacy goals were better served by the latter term when speaking to people who do circumcise females. They continue to use "FGM" in their internal documentation and literature aimed at Westerners, but use "FGC" in Africa to hide their implication that parents are mutilating their children.

Take your pick. What kind of Wikipedia editor are you? Blackworm (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is part of a recently accepted mediation case. Is there a template for this? Also, please note the archived discussion to keep the title as FGC and not move it to FGM because WP:NPOV trumps WP:NAME. This should be addressed before contradicting community consensus. Additionally, it is documented that "circumcision" is a euphemism in female genital contexts. --Phyesalis (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I didn't see your note--Taranet (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That most editors are "type (c)" is a testament to how difficult it is for NPOV to prevail anywhere there is an overwhelming majority sharing an opinion. There was no demonstration that "FGC" is more "NPOV" than "circumcision." Additionally, the sources rejecting the term "circumcision" date from the same period as the introduction of "FGM" and "FGC" and are obviously part of the same advocacy. Clearly the true euphemism is "female genital cutting," since a euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant.[17] The idea that the circumcision of females in Africa is similar in any way to the circumcision of males in the West is extremely unpleasant to many opponents of the former and supporters of the latter, such as the World Health Organization. Thus, "circumcision" was replaced by, i.e., substituted by, "female genital mutilation," which was in turn substituted by "female genital cutting." And we are to believe "circumcision" was the euphemism? I find that POV ridiculous, but clearly natural and called for in the context of strong, powerful, widespread advocacy against the practices, advocacy in which Wikipedia editors also participate through their editing of the article. Blackworm (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So, there seem to be four parts to your argument:

• You believe that the term "female circumcision" is "extremely unpleasant" to those who hold a certain point of view, and therefore we should use it (it's not clear whether this is to spite those who hold a particular point of view, or in a form of resistance against a particular point of view).
• You believe that the term "female genital cutting" is "an agreeable or inoffensive expression" (and therefore violates WP:NPOV in some unexplored but counter-intuitive way).
• You disagree with the reliable sources who argue against use of the term "female circumcision", and consider at least one of these arguments to be "ridiculous".
• You believe that there are ulterior motives for the opposition to the term "female circumcision", and therefore believe that those expressing this view should be ignored at the least.

As far as I can tell, you seem to be arguing against WP:NPOV, and on the basis of original research. Jakew (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterization of my arguments, fraught with logical leaps. Blackworm (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, 'Clitoral Hood Removal' is more similar to 'male Circumcision'. But this FGM or FGC is really Mutilation.--Taranet (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the train of thought which lead to this article being named what it is (i.e., not "female circumcision"). But that is a contradiction, since clitoral hood removal is FGC. "Female genital cutting" also includes procedures that involve no cutting, such as pricking with a pin, or insertion of herbs, or removal of pinhead-sized amounts of tissue, or other procedures most would view as less invasive than male circumcision. The definition also makes labiaplasty fall under it, and yet we don't discuss labiaplasty in the article because Wikipedia advocate/editors have implicitly added to the definition that FGC must be forced or coerced, not sought after by women. Blackworm (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's Round 2 (or 3 or 4) for the article title... Well, once again, female genital cutting is the most NPOV term available that is also used by mainstream organizations around the world. To simply state that FGC is mutilation does not make the case true, because there is a number of procedures that fit into the category of FGC, several of which can hardly be deemed mutilation. Not sure what people have against the word cutting, when it's clearly the most neutral term available - one that does not attempt to slant the subject matter in one direction or the other. Let's let facts and information within the article speak for themselves, rather than biasing the text from the get-go. Readers are not stupid, and will make their own conclusions. Besides, the article does not attempt to conceal the other frequently used terms (female genital mutilation and female circumcision), and clearly explains which groups use what terminology and why. In my opinion, the article should stay where it is, for there's no need for extra controversy and mudding of water. For the moment, this seems to be a quality text that a number of editors put a great deal of time and energy into creating. If there's something within the content that is an issue for anyone, editors are free to edit and to discuss changes on the Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I googled FGM, and was shocked when this article came up as a response. The Wiki community seriously considers "female genital cutting" a neutral terminology? The word "cutting" does not even begin to encompass the practices involved in FGM, all of which are painful and have negative consequences which I won't detail because they're already in the article for you to read yourself. While the term may be used in WHO and other international organization documents, the reasoning for this is overwhelmingly so that advocacy in local communities is not damaged by perceived insensitivity. It is used not because it is accurate or neutral, but as a political strategy to make it easier to advocate for the eradication of the practice itself. However, when we are discussing the practice with anyone other than a particular individual who believes in the practice, there is no reason to continue using the white-washed/euphemistic term. The white-washing only serves to insulate people from the reality of the practice and allow them to brush off its seriousness -- something which seems pretty non-neutral to me. The article as a whole seems to give the minority viewpoint on this issue altogether too much weight. The evidence against FGM is pretty overwhelmning, and the inclusion of "sensitive" terms and arguments which are obviously unfounded is biased in and of itself. It's the same as having an article about slavery titled something like "Compulsory non-paid employment" and saying things like having a whole section (one that is nearly as large as the one detailing the harms of the practice) which says things like "it is argued by advocated of compulsory non-paid employment that black-skinned persons are inferior and deserve to be enslaved. Other arguments include the argument that black-skinned persons are not actually persons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.69.229 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, 68.13.69.229, individuals from communities where FGC is practiced do not use Wikipedia? Even if that was true, their opinions and sentiments would still count. Mind you, African traditional communities constitute millions of people. Besides, in what sense is this article devoting "too much" attention to the pro-FGC lobby? I really do not get that impression from the text. In fact, I'd say there's need for further elaboration on the cultural value various societies assign to FGC. This means that this article needs to become more NPOV by incorporating the reasoning numerous African traditional societies use for upholding this practice, not the other way around. Furthermore, how is calling something "mutilation" more NPOV than calling it "cutting," considering that both terms are widely used? Finally, many agree that WHO's argument for minimizing alienation and demonization of communities practicing FGC is quite legit. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how any of these terms can be NPOV. Either it's reprehensible mutilation or it's acceptable cutting. Both terminologies make a value statement, because the dispute over the practice is not a question of whether it's good or bad (considering the harms are well-documented), it's a dispute over whether it's acceptable or unacceptable to allow it as a cultural practice. FGM is a term which implies that it is not acceptable, because it mutilates, implying irreversible damage; FGM is a term which implies that it is acceptable, because it's just cutting, connotating a procedure as harmless and simple as hair cutting. My argument is not that FGM is neutral, but rather that neither are; and that in light of the likely readership and the overwhelming evidence, FGM is the most reasonable choice. Essentially, NPOV cannot be satisfied with regards to the name, no matter what, so you default back to the standard Wiki NAMEing norms. While there are plenty of African tribal communities, the ones which practice FGM are typically small and less developed. That means they probably don't speak very much English or have computers to access Wikipedia with. Their perspectives should definitely be included, particularly within the text of the article, but FGC is not the most widely used terminology likely to be recognized by the readers of Wikipedia, and it's not likely to reflect their perspectives, either.

Also, this article, in attempting to cover everything from an NPOV, makes the same mistake as mainstream news outlets make on global warming. There is not a whole lot of dispute over the facts on either issue, but there is a lot of media coverage for the minority view. While the minority ought to get its voice, when the consensus is overwhelmingly and reasonably falling on one side, that view should be more represented in terms of article space. I thought this article walked on eggshells throughout the text in a very counterproductive way. The issue is not nearly as complex as it is presented as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.240.100 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A difficulty with your argument, of course, is that calling something "cutting" does not imply that "it's just cutting, connotating a procedure as harmless and simple as hair cutting". For example, consider "cutting off a leg". "Cutting" neither implies that it is unacceptable nor that it is acceptable, and for that reason is far less loaded than "mutilation". Jakew (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that in your phrasing, you modified the action by specifying "cutting off". If you wanted to call it "female genital cutting off" I'd be more inclined to think your argument held water. Seriously, the first two things "cutting" brings to mind are kindergarteners with safety scissors and hair cutting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.79.4 (talk) 12:56, March 29, 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was clear before but I'm fine with this article being named what it is, if that's the consensus. I just find the merging of female circumcision into "FGC," a term that includes some procedures that are by no reasonable interpretation circumcision, is a disservice to the reader. We don't even explain the difference between the terms, we instead focus on which term is most common, or a "euphemism." This misses the point that the phrases are not synonymous. Perhaps that is the next thing to be made clearer with a good source. Blackworm (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"...and other such procedures?"

Why was this edit made? What is and other such procedures? Why are we concerned with "style" over accuracy? Adding the word "such" makes it seem like we are saying the procedures are similar. Is putting herbs in a vagina to make it tighter (one form of FGC) similar to female genital surgery? Blackworm (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph on Sexual consequences

There are some errors in what is said about sexual consequences.

"In the early 1980s, Hanny Lightfoot-Klein traveled throughout Sudan (where Type III is the prevalent form of FGC, ~90%) asking women who had undergone FGC how often they had experienced orgasm during intercourse.[61] Many of the women had no idea what an orgasm was. Others interviewed (especially if the surgery excised less tissue) not only insisted that they did achieve orgasm, ranging from 90% of the time when they were young to 10% of the time once they had children, but were open to talking about their experiences. The women were able to describe in great detail exactly what an orgasm meant to them."

I don't have Lightfoot-Kleins book right here now, but an article summarizing her study can be reached here: Lightfoot-Klein, Hanny (1989): "The Sexual Experience and Marital Adjustment of Genitally Circumcised and Infibulated Females in The Sudan". The Journal of Sex Research Vol.26. No.3, pp.375-392. http://www.fgmnetwork.org/authors/Lightfoot-klein/sexualexperience.htm

There she wrote: "Contrary to expectations, nearly 90% of all women interviewed said that they experienced orgasm (climax) or had at various periods of their marriage experienced it. Frequency ranged from always to rarely. Some women said that they had intense, prolonged orgasms, and this was verified by their happy and highly animated demeanor as they described it. Other women said that their orgasms were weak or difficult to achieve."

Obviously, there seems to be a misrepresentation of what Lightfoot-Klein acyually said in this FGC Wikipedia article. Further, the sentence "Many of the women had no idea what an orgasm was" probably has an entirely different source. This sentence may originate from Elchalal et al. (1997) who wrote; "Women interviewed in Sudan who had undergone female genital mutilation had no idea of the existence of orgasm" (p.649). THEIR statement, in turn, has as its only reference Dorkenoo & Elworth (1992): "Dr. A.A. Shandall found that some of the women he interviewed in the Sudan had no idea at all of the existence of orgasm" (p.9, my emphasis). Shandall published a short article in 1967. Wow! Rephrased 40 years later in Wikipedia.

Can I ask someone to deal with this? I am not a native speaker of English, so I'm afraid I'll mess up the grammar (and the references). Best wishes from Sweden, Hssajo (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this suggested edit, for Lightfoot-Klein:

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

As for the other source, how are we to deal with the fact that the modern source misrepresents the older source, as you point out? It seems the referenced 1967 source is saying almost what Lightfoot-Klein is saying (that some don't experience it), though in a much more vague way. I'd be inclined to ignore it as redundant.

By the way, your English is very good! If I were you I wouldn't worry about grammar, and I can gladly help with formatting references. I hope you'll stick around and continue to help improve this article! Blackworm (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Blackworm! I have inserted your suggestion and added some references at the top of the section on sexuality. I also have to say that I really liked much of your discussion here on this page, for instance whether the WHO can be seen as a completely neutral actor or not. Above ("WHO definition") I have added a link that may interest you, raising this issue. Best, Hssajo (talk)

Thank you Hssajo. Nice editing. I responded to your post above in the "WHO definition" thread. Great find on the article. Blackworm (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Infibulation

This section is heavily biased. This may be a result of the fact that it builds almost exclusively on a thirty year old article (Pieters 1977). There is so much updated literature on this. For instance, several recent studies show that the clitoris is more often than not intact (or almost intact) beneath the bridge of tissue created by infibulation. (E.g. Nour, Nawal M., Karin B. Michels, and Ann E. Bryant: "Defibulation to treat female genital cutting: Effects on Symptoms and Sexual Function." Obstetrics and Gyneacology 108(1):55-60, 2006; Gordon H, Comerasamy H, Morris NH. "Female genital mutilation: Experience in a West London clinic." J Obstet Gynaecol. May;27(4):416-9, 2007; Catania L, Abdulcadir O, Puppo V, Verde JB, Abdulcadir J, Abdulcadir D: "Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C)". J Sex Med. Nov;4(6):1666-78, 2007.)

Further, reinfibulation is pictured as commonly required ("Afterwards, the patient may insist that her vulva be closed again"). Reinfibulation is a Sudanese practice, but rare in e.g. Somalia. I think this, among many other things, needs to be clarified. Will anybody be offended if I give it a try? Hssajo (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it needs more sources and fewer generalizations drawn from one study of a particular group. I think a good start would be to move the discussion of infibulation outside the WHO-Type III definition. WHO-Type III FGC is defined as excision with infibulation, not infibulation alone. Thus, an infibulation performed with no excision would not be WHO-Type III FGC. The potential for confusion is high here, and my preference would be to take discussion of the various types of FGC outside of the WHO categorizations, since the WHO types are often inclusive of very different procedures within one type (the phrase "with or without excision of the clitoris" in the Type I definition being a prime example). By doing so we would also not be framing the topic according to one organization's view, which seems like it's more in line with WP:NPOV. But hey, it's just a suggestion. Be bold!

On your most recent edits to the lead paragraph, I'm very happy that cites were added, but it seems odd that these sources would verify the existing edits perfectly. We have to make sure that the article text is an accurate summary of the source, and it would be helpful if you could quote brief sections of these sources to show that they support the article text. In any case, I will try to find these articles and rework the section. Thanks again for your help! Blackworm (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The WHO classification and definition of infibulation

The WHO typology is under revision and the draft I have seen deals with this problem. In the upcoming typology, type III is defined as a sealing with or without excision. But with the current typology, the problem persists. (The WHO typology also fails to describe the kind of female circumcision practiced among certain groups in Addis Ababa – see Rye, Simon, 2002: Circumcision in Urban Ethiopia: Practices, Discourses and Contexts. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Social Anthropology, University of Oslo – where parts of the inner labia are removed to “open” the girl, but nothing else.)

I kind of like the idea of describing the practices outside the WHO classification, but would that meet with the criterion of consensus among the editors?

Added references in the introduction

The references I added concerning cosmetic genital surgery in the West and intersex surgeries are written from a critical perspective; in that sense they may not reflect the more neutral tone of the text. In these texts the practices are juxtaposed and critically discussed. On the other hand, would it make sense to refer to a general labiaplasty/vaginoplasty/clitoriplasty text, which not in any way relates to the issue of female circumcision? Besides, the fact that genital surgeries performed among Westerners are generally not considered to be “female genital mutilation” or “female genital cutting” becomes clear in these articles. And that reflects what is said in the sentences “The term is almost exclusively used to describe traditional, cultural, and religious procedures where parents must give consent, due to the minor age of the subject, rather than to procedures generally done with self-consent (such as labiaplasty and vaginoplasty). It also generally does not refer to procedures used in gender reassignment surgery, and the genital modification of intersexuals.” Perhaps I did not understand your objection correctly? If not, let me know. Anyway, I am really glad if you are willing to take a closer look at the texts and be the one suggesting revisions… Hssajo (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: WHO classification, I'm very surprised to hear that the WHO is planning to reclassify these types. This seems like it is going to lead to a huge amount of confusion regarding existing sources. I'm also disappointed if the phrase "with or without excision" will appear in yet another WHO-Type, since it complicates the discussions of severity and other issues. Will WHO-Type III FGC still be the "most severe" form of FGC under that definition? It doesn't sound like it, and we will have to make clear that the existing sources who claim it to be were working under a previous definition. What a mess; the WHO couldn't have created a more fuzzy and confusing picture of FGC if they tried. Perhaps it's okay to them if we don't really understand it, as long as we understand that it's all to be opposed as a violation of human rights. WHO knows.

Re: Intro. I don't have any specific objection other than I'm not sure the sources support the claims made in the article (because I haven't read them). I was hoping you could confirm that was the case via a quote or two. This doesn't mean I don't believe the claims in the article to be generally true (I wrote that part!). I also don't mind removing the existing text and summarizing the sources if that's what's called for in the lead. (I will try to look at the sources you provide and comment more intelligently on them then.) In case it's not clear, the purpose of those two sentences was to establish the context for the topic of female genital cutting. If we rest strictly on the WHO's definition, clearly female genital cosmetic surgeries (FGCS) are a subset of FGC. Those two sentences were intended to narrow the context to what the sources actually discuss as being FGC (and indeed, what we present as FGC), but I could not easily find a source explicitly claiming FGCS is not FGC. Perhaps a solution is to define the topic as we see fit, instead of using the WHO's definition. This would also perhaps solve the current problem of false equivalency between female genital cutting and female circumcision. Another solution might be to also discuss FGCS here. Blackworm (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

’WHO knows.’ I really enjoyed that one!

If you are about to the review the subject, you may also want to read Sheldon & Wilkinson: ”Female Genital Mutilation and Cosmetic Surgery: Regulating Non-Therapeutic Body Modification”. Bioethics 12(4):263-285, 1998. It can be downloaded in pdf if you google the title. They try to sort out whether FGCS is/should be banned under the UK legislation on FGM. Even if it’s ten years old, the discussion is still relevant. And even if it includes some erroneous beliefs (on health consequences), they make some important points.

Thanks for elaborating on your questions about my references. I could get back to you regarding these sources whenever you want me to, but not at the moment. It’s bedtime in Sweden! Hssajo (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that WHO has already gone public with their new typology: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm Hssajo (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Molly Melching really say that?

"Molly Melching of TOSTAN believes that in Senegal the practice of female genital mutilation could be ended within 2–5 years." Did she really say that, without adding any prerequisites? I tried to find the source given, but could not make the link work. Trying to google it, I only found an almost identical FGC article on Cassiopedia (and now I am really confused; I didn't even know that encyclopedia existed). Can this statement still be there without a reference that can be found? (Forgive a newcomer for being trying.) Hssajo (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Updated typology from the WHO (2008)

Perhaps this typology is not the optimal way to describe these practices, but as long as it is there in the article, I think it is a good idea to offer the most correct information. I tried to update the section, but messed up the existing references. Is there anyone out there who would like to insert the new typology?

• Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy).
• Type II — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision).
• Type III — Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation).
• Type IV — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

Discussed more in detail in Eliminating female genital mutilation. An interagency statement (WHO, 2008), which can be downloaded from here: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm Hssajo (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in references

I'm not crazy about having long quotes in the references - for one thing, I've seen them not even quoting anything from the referenced text (I think some editors were using it to indicate which part of the article they were providing a reference for...) Anyway, unless the source isn't available online, I don't think the quotes are terribly valuable. If anything they could be seen as an editor trying to minimize exposure of the source to just the fragments that support a claim. I also think they clutter up the reference list. Thoughts? Ciotog (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The quotes are extraordinarily valuable for catching instances where the editor is reading more into the source than what the source explicitly says, and showing that the article text is verified. If the fragments support the claim to a very high degree of certainty, they are also useful. Blackworm (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be a case where comments are beneficial, but attaching the quote to the reference seems somewhat excessive to me. Especially if the quote is from the article, not the source (as I found in a couple of places). Ciotog (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly quotes should be from the source. If they aren't, they should be deleted. I encourage the use of quotes because they enable editors to detect cases where an editor is engaging in unreasonable interpretation. Blackworm (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for quotes from a source available on-line - that's why page numbers are given, so the original source can be easily referenced. I generally see providing quotes as a way for editors to say "don't bother looking at the source, here's the only small bit I want you to see". Further I find them either too short to provide enough context from the source, or too long so as to clutter up the reference list. Ciotog (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The WHO and the new improved WHO-Type I FGM: "clitoridectomy."

The new WHO documents are overwhelming -- both their definitions of FGC (WHO: "FGM") and the type classifications have been changed as of this year, rendering all previous sources' comments on WHO Types ambiguous. The WHO states that this is to "accommodate concerns and shortcomings," yet immediately I'm confused as to how to proceed with editing the section on WHO-Type I FGM, which they describe as "Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy)." If we are to define a procedure involving only the removal of the female prepuce, leaving the clitoris intact, as "clitoridectomy," this poses a serious question; it would thus seem logical to describe circumcision of males as "penectomy." I don't believe the WHO wishes to suggest this, yet the penis is the homologue of the clitoris,[18] and the prepuce is a common anatomical structure of the female and male[19] -- in males, it is also called the foreskin. Further, medical sources define clitoridectomy differently from the WHO, as "excision of all or part of the clitoris."[20]. How should we approach these apparent contradictions? Blackworm (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems fairly straightforward. We can simply change:

• The WHO defines Type I FGC as the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood, termed "hoodectomy" (or "clitorodotomy"), with or without excision of the clitoris, see Diagram 1B.

To:

*The WHO defines Type I FGC as "Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy)", see Diagram 1B.

Jakew (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So your approach would be to ignore the contradiction with medical sources? Interesting. Actually the diagram seems needs to go as well, since it uses the old types. I'm glad actually, because its source seems to be a Wikipedia user (WP:OR), and it can't possibly illustrate each type with one image given all the use of "and/or," "with or without," and "part or all of." That reminds me, though, now that WHO makes clear labiaplasty and other genital cosmetic surgeries undertaken voluntarily by adults in the West are FGC, we can simply find such an image of female genitals and use that in the article to illustrate one result of FGC. Blackworm (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless another source has raised the issue of a contradiction (if indeed there is one), we couldn't claim that there is one without conducting original research. If I'm mistaken, and there are indeed reliable sources that discuss this issue, then please let me know. Jakew (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are attacking a straw man with the apparent claim that I wish for us to claim contradiction. I do not. I claim contradiction, in my sound editorial judgment, as a reason for presenting the other sources. If you are claiming that that is WP:OR, then apparently by your logic, if the WHO released a document on some obscure subject that incidentally claimed the Earth was made of yogurt, you would suppress information to the contrary in the article on that subject, citing WP:OR, until someone commented specifically on the yogurt implication in another source. It's not a valid line of argument, and not in line with the spirit of WP:OR or any other policy. Again, I'm not suggesting we claim a contradiction. I'm saying one valid view is that this source (WHO) is in conflict with other sources, and that if indeed we use their quoted word "clitoridectomy," there is a need to present those other sources' views -- we can let the reader decide if there is a contradiction, a benevolent fraud, an advocacy-motivated obfuscation, simple confusion, or whatever else they can dream up. Presenting the WHO's view of what clitoridectomy is, with no other comment, in the face of medical reference works saying it is something else, is clearly undue weight. I'm quite sure the editors here can come up with a reasonable wording that is neutral and contains no original research. This problem will be addressed, however. Blackworm (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, the purpose of this article is to inform the reader about female genital cutting, and this specific part of the article reports on the WHO's definition of Type I FGC (they don't seem to define clitoridectomy; they just use the word as part of their definition). At best, it seems wildly tangential to include a mini-discussion of various definitions of 'clitoridectomy', and at worst this seems like original research.

If you don't understand why it is original research, I suggest that you re-read that policy, paying attention to the section on synthesis. Regarding the example, the policy explains "To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism".

My impression is that you're claiming a 'controversy' here although none actually exists (in reliable sources, that is - it's quite clear that you disagree). But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a huge controversy over this issue. Perhaps you can show me that I'm wrong by providing some reliable sources that discuss the definition of clitoridectomy within the context of the WHO's definition of Type 1 FGM/C? Jakew (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See the yogurt example, Jake. Lots of medical sources specifically comment on "clitoridectomy." The part that makes the Smith/Jones example original research is the phrase, If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be ... If I wanted to write, "This definition of "clitoridectomy" differs from [medical source], which says ..." then you MAY have a point, taking the letter of WP:OR to the extreme, though in that case, again, WP:COMMON would probably need invocation; the WHO's usage is clearly outside the medical definition. What I want to write in the article is, in fact, "[Medical source] defines 'clitoridectomy' as ..." which poses no problem. Perhaps you should re-read some policy now; it's always a good thing to do. Blackworm (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Blackworm, what is prohibited is "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". If the juxtaposition of the two statements serves to advance a position by implication (in this case, your position that "medical sources define clitoridectomy differently from the WHO"), then it is not allowed. There isn't a magic loophole that allows one to say "Oh, it's alright because I didn't say so explicitly". Jakew (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a position, it's my observation about the sources, which combined with my understanding of WP:NPOV, cause me, in my editorial judgment, to support presenting more sources to resolve the problem of undue weight (which is my position). As I attempted to illustrate with the yogurt example above, I do not agree with your interpretation of policy, which I view as overreaching and lacking of common sense and neutrality. Blackworm (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the editor inserting the "Smith and Jones" material would have felt the same way...

I'm afraid it is a position, and it relies upon two assumptions: a) that the WHO is attempting to define clitoridectomy (in addition to Type 1 FGC), and if so, b) that the WHO intends for the entire sentence (as opposed to, say, the part before 'and/or') to act as a definition for clitoridectomy. If there were any evidence to support either of these assumptions, we could say something like "the WHO defines clitoridectomy as X, while [other source] defines it as Y."

However, since there is no evidence to support either of these assumptions, we cannot present this material as such. Instead, we're presenting the material as the WHO's definition of Type I FGC. Legitimate WP:NPOV questions, therefore, include whether there is any dispute about the WHO's definition, and criticism of the WHO's definition. They do not, however, include generating alternative points of view - in this case, deciding that the WHO is defining clitoridectomy, and claiming that the resulting definition is at odds with those in other sources - that is original research. Jakew (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your (a) is misstated, it is sufficient to show that the WHO is using clitoridecetomy to refer to something other than that used by medical sources, and your (b) is shown by a simple reading of the phrase. Any reader of English would assume (b) when reading that sentence. If they only meant "clitoridectomy" to refer to the part before the "and/or," they would have placed it before the and/or. Especially given the WHO's strong advocate stance and desire to use common English words and phrases to suggest things not suggested by the words themselves (like "female genital mutilation"), WP:NPOV calls on us to identify and attribute these novel uses of these words. Where the words are technical and not as common, it calls on us to present the majority definition, and not let the reader's easily made and mistaken assumption stand. If a source defined "Globfraz" as "cutting off the male foreskin and/or the penis (circumcision)" I'm reasonably certain you would insist on a clarification, not argue that the "circumcision" may have only been meant to apply to the part before "and/or." Blackworm (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, since Wikipedia does not allow original research, it is not sufficient to show that the WHO is using a word in a different way from other sources. What we must do instead is to cite a source that specifically comments on the usage. The situation is, of course, different elsewhere, and nothing stops you from creating your own website in which you can freely analyse the WHO's usage of words. Jakew (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from creating your own website criticizing Wikipedia, after I make my edit. Blackworm (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In medical dictionaries, the word ‘clitoridectomy’ is defined as “excision of the clitoris”, or “removal of the clitoris”. In a medical perspective, there is no reason to include ‘only damage to the prepuce’ in the category ‘clitoridectomy’. The reason that there are no references discussing the new WHO typology yet is that it is so new… Medical researchers simply follow the WHO. I checked some of the recent texts in PubMed, key word ‘clitoridectomy’, and all of them cite the (former) WHO typology. (For instance, Bikoo M. 2007, Monjol et al. 2007, Catania et al. 2007.) Even if they use the term ‘clitoridectomy’, they do not explicitly define it, but refer to the WHO classification.

The updated typology has taken into consideration recent research discussion on the flaws of the former typology (for instance the fact that so many women who are circumcised according to type III have their clitoris intact, see above). Anyway, the WHO has revised the typology and as a matter of fact there IS a discrepancy between the new typology and a) what is said about clitoridectomies in medical dictionaries; and b) what is said by medical researchers in their articles (since they cite the former typology). Probably there will soon be medical sources that cite the new typology; in whatever time it takes for a medical article to go through the process of being in press. But until then – there IS a gap. Is it really WP:OR to state that? Hssajo (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is very poorly presented

Anyone navigating here for information on the subject has to wade through multiple paragraphs about politics and semantics. Even the thesis is unclear. The first section is about terminology! 71.131.176.75 (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the reasoning for putting the terminology section near the top is that there's confusion and controversy over what this practice should be called. However, please feel free to suggest how the article can be improved or restructured. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)