Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Male genital mutilation |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Comment | Delisted due to inactivity. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Male genital mutilation]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Male genital mutilation]]
Looking for someone to determine whether this should be an short article, or should it redirect and if it should redirect, where should it redirect.
Jakew and Avraham seems to be strongly against non redirection to Genital modification and mutilation and keep on reverting every edit which change redirection to any other article, claiming to be violation of WP:NPOV. However, 193.198.16.211 claims that it should redirect to male genital cutting or to circumcision, because in female genital mutilation redirects to female genital cutting. So either should both female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation redirect to female genital cutting and male genital cutting respectively or none of them should because only one such redirect would be sexistic.
Both sides should be satisfied as much and as equal as possible while not violating policies. It should be decided whether redirection to male genital cutting or circumcision is violation of WP:NPOV by some neutral mediators.
While some may view genital cutting as mutilation, it may be an integral part of a persons culture. For example, some people see routine infant circumcision as 'mutilation' and a violation of a childs human rights. However, it is a vital part of Jewish culture. I would suggest that mutilation is too emotive a word, and the article should therefore be under Genital cutting as it is a more factual word, as the practice is undisputedly 'cutting'. Whether or not one agrees with the practice, one must take an objective view. Gintyfrench 05:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read the articles in question, but I do not need to in order to refute your claims. Female genital cutting and female circumcision do not have a standard agreed-upon definition. The dreaded FGM from Africa and the Middle East actually isn't standardized--depending on the region, it can be anything from a pin prick near the clitoris (which is much less than what male circumcision entails) to total clitoral removal and infibulation. Removal of the clitoral hood is the closest equivalent to male circumcision and it is sometimes practiced as (and is termed) "female circumcision"... it certainly isn't any more "barbaric" than male circumcision. If removal of only the clitoral hood is "mutilation", than so too must be the removal of the male foreskin (actually, I would argue that male circumcision is even worse because at least the clitoris has some protection via the labia majora, whereas the exposed glans penis has no such protection and is forced to use keratin deposits to protect itself from chafing.) There is no "fundemental" difference between snipping off pieces of the male anatomy and snipping off pieces of the female anatomy--only when you start using obviously unfair comparisons (e.g. clitoral removal vs. foreskin removal) does it seem that way. --Lode Runner 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for all of us, "being sick" of a policy does not make it disappear. My opinion as to the relative similarities and differences between female genital mutilation and circumcision are as irrelevant as yours. What we are discussing, however, is whether circumcsion is a valid redirect from male genital mutilation, and as the majority of the corpus of medical, religious, and lay knowledge for the past few millenia is that it is not, and it is only, at current, a fringe element that tries to link the two, it is improper for wikipedia per WP:NPOV#undue weight. If in the future the bulk of medical, religious, and lay knowledge swings the other way, so must wikipedia. But that is not the situation currently, regardless of any one of us being "ill" over either the articles or the policies. If you cannot stand wiki policy, there is a huge internet out there in which you can post your beliefs and opinions to your hearts content. Wikipedia, however, is not the place for that. -- Avi 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You and he might find WP:DICK useful, especially the lines: Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Being a rules lawyer and ignoring the content my posts (and in fact telling me that I should leave wikipedia entirely) is selfish and counterproductive.
And yes, I am completely fed up with people ignoring my posts and instead giving me lectures about what wikipedia is and isn't. My points are valid, my arguments are valid, and these thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks are completely pointless. I admit I have perhaps somewhat unfairly vented my frustration here, but I don't think that this sort of sniveling, rules-lawyering, self-serving behavior is tolerable anymore (and I have taken up the matter in general on the WP:OR talk page.) The time you and he spend chastizing me for not obeying *your* narrow interpretation of wikipedia policy--there's nothing to say that mediators can't point out misapprehensions/incorrect statements, which is what I originally did, and WP:OR does not state that every comment on a talk or mediation page must be sourced (WP:OR doesn't claim that citation is necessary for page redirects, either)--could be better spent discussing the points I bring up. Regardless of whatever subtle rules he thinks I violated, regardless of whether or not you like my tone of voice or performance as a mediator, my point stands, is highly relevant and is easily verifiable. His point (which may or may not contradict my point, as he hasn't bothered to explain it yet) is based on his own, personal, uncited/unsourced knowledge of the entirety of "medical, religious, and lay knowledge." He has so far refused to address my points entirely and has presented his aforementioned uncited knowledge as all-encompassing and infallible, told me I'm violating wikipedia policy, and told me that it's a huge internet out there and I should feel free to go elsewhere. My... slightly annoyed tone (I will try to keep it confined to my complaints at WP:OR from now on, as long as you're willing to let it drop here) aside, tell me, who here is being unreasonable? Who here is being completely unproductive? --Lode Runner 10:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This may take for years. Currently FGM is redirecting to the FGC, but MGM is redirecting to the Genital Modification and Mutilation and gender-biasing POV-pushers are not giving up. --193.198.16.211 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Contacting the participating parties to see if they are interested in continuing this. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm delisting this case due to a lack of interest from all the previously involved parties. Should there be a change of mind and all parties decide they want to give it another shot I'll open it back up, but at this point it looks as if the case is inactive. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)