Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reproductive rights

Reproductive rights edit

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

One party hasn't edited Wikipedia in some time, no prejudice against quickly re-opening if the party returns.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 03:10, February 4 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Articles involved edit

Reproductive rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Female genital cutting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted edit

Article and user talk page discussions
Third opinion by User:Pigman, leading to an AN discussion, ending in a recommendation for mediation

Issues to be mediated edit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

Are reproductive rights a sub-set of human rights and can WP assert that they are (as in the case of the main article Human rights#Concepts_in_human_rights)?
Is the statement "Various reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents" a fact or an opinion? If a fact, do inline citations from two peer-reviewed sources and Amnesty International satisfy WP:V?
Is this material, removed from the article, regarding men's reproductive heath and the transmission of STIs sexist? If so, does it merit exclusion?
Female genital cutting is titled so by a straw poll consensus. Should the body of the article reflect this usage or should it use any combination of female genital cutting, female genital mutilation, and female circumcision interchangeably?
The article states/stated that "FGC transcends religion as a primarily cultural practice". Both Muslims and Christians practice FGC, yet there is a POV that Muslim FGC is a religious practice while Christian FGC is not (a cultural practice by default). A number of reliable sources state that FGC is a cultural practice as it predates either religion, and that there is no unequivocal link between religion and prevalence. Given these points, is the statement (above) NPOV?

Additional issues to be mediated edit

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

Agree. Phyesalis (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Blackworm (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.

Accept

For the Mediation Committee, -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening. Shell ^babelfish 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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