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]]

Request Information

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.

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

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.

What would you like to change about that?

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.

Mediator response

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)[reply]

Thank you for reviwing the problem. But if mutilation is too emotive a word for male genital cutting wouldn't it be also too emotive a word for female genital cutting? If so, then female genital mutilation shouldn't redirect to female genital cutting because female genital cutting also vital part of some cultures. Although those cultures aren't so widespread as Jewish culture this should not be an argument, because it would be Jewish POV-pushing. --antiXt 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FGM in wikipedia only has one target, and that is FGC, especiually as FC is ubiquotously considered synonymous with FGC. MGC, however, can mean MC, which is not considered MGM, outside of the small (as relates in size to medical organizations and organized religions) fringe group of gential integritists. Thus there is a fundemental difference between the male and female versions, and I believe your argument is incorrect and inapplicable. Thanks. -- Avi 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be futile to remove pro-circ POV from circumcision article and related. I give up. END :( --193.198.16.211 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My point is in reference to the various wikipedia articles. Anything further is likely original synthesis. -- Avi 04:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pointless quibble. If my comments or my position qualify as OR, then so do yours. From the FGC article: "Clitoridectomy involves the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood, termed "hoodectomy", with or without excision of the clitoris" The 'hoodectomy' WITHOUT messing with the clitoris is what I am talking about. This is pretty much equivalent to male circumcision, and it's pretty much ridiculous to imply that one is mutilation and the other is "fundementally different." If you disagree with this statement then explain your reasoning--you can't just scream "WP:OR! WP:OR! WP:OR!" every time someone disagrees with your own *uncited* opinion. If I really, really felt like it I could track down a source that says the hood and foreskin are analogous, but I'm not going to. If you're that ignorant of anatomy, you can research it yourself. This is not the article itself and WP:OR doesn't apply to talk or mediation pages. Sorry for the tone, but I am REALLY sick of this pointless, evasive "OMG ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!1" drivel that seems to have sprung up everywhere. --Lode Runner 05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What we are discussing, however, is whether circumcsion is a valid redirect from male genital mutilation...

This was not the only option that was mentioned. Just to be clear, I am arguing that "male genital mutilation" be redirected to "male genital cutting", just as "female genital mutilation" redirects to "female genital cutting." It wouldn't be appropriate for MGM to redirect directly to circumcision. MGM should redirect in exactly the same manner as FGM does--to the appropriate "cutting" page, which further clarifies the different types of modifications performed.

...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.

I don't know how you can claim, with a straight face, that this isn't OR (you're actually speaking for the "majority of the corpus of medical, religious, and lay knowledge", are you? Without citation?) but my argument (which is trivially cited, if I cared enough to do so, BUT I DON'T BECAUSE THIS IS A MEDIATION PAGE ABOUT A POSSIBLE *REDIRECTION* CHANGE, SO YOU CAN KINDLY STOP BEING SUCH A NAZI ABOUT IT) is. I think that the "majority of the corpus of medical, religious, and lay knowledge" wouldn't have a problem identifying male genital mutilation with male genital cutting any more than they'd have a problem with identifying female genital mutilation with female genital cutting. I think that OR is completely inapplicable to a redirection change, doubly inapplicable to merely *talking* about one, and completely hypocritical of you since you are claiming, without citation, to represent the entire body of knowledge on the subject.

OR-related rants aside, do you or do you not have a problem with redirecting MGM to male genital cutting? The other acceptable option I see is redirecting FGM to the same gender-neutral page that MGM currently redirects to. Having MGM redirect to the gender-neutral page and FGM redirect to the cutting page doesn't make any sense and is potentially POV. --Lode Runner 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lode Runner, you might find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators. WP:CIVIL might also be beneficial. Jakew 10:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looks like they both (MGM and FGM) redirect to Genital Modification and Mutilation now. Does anyone seriously have a problem with this redirection? The aforemention page lists a bunch of modifications for both sexes, some *relatively* benign (clitoridotomy--the "hoodectomy-only" type, circumcision) and some horrific (castration, clitoridectomy.) I've gone over the talk pages, and I don't see anyone arguing that circumcision is OK but hoodectomy isn't (admittedly, Avi might believe this but he's being extremely unclear), or that clitoridectomy is OK but penectomy isn't. The dispute is a matter of unequality between the treatment of both sexes, not whether a given genital modification practice is moral or not, and I don't see how redirection to a unisex, unbiased article is in any way POV. --Lode Runner 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Cabal that dominates the Circumcision topic ignores and tries to suppress frenectomy that is frequently required to complete a circumcision surgery. Loss of the frenulum is mutilation. It's not what parents expect, it causes severe loss of sexual sensation, and it promotes the development of meatal stenosis. Frenectomy is performed in ~25% of all neonatal circumcisions. It is associated with anesthesia "breakthrough" ... it's that painful. Frenectomy is genital mutilation, and circumcisions are the only indication for frenectomy. There is no potential medical preventative benefits to frenectomy.

Note, the Cabal denies (reverts away) the reader information on frenectomy in the Circumcision topic.

Is there any way that mediation can be escalated to arbitration? There will be no honest Circumcision topic without neutral (and strong) participation. Maybe the whole Topic should be deleted from Wiki ... it's a disgrace for Wiki.TipPt 23:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Contacting the participating parties to see if they are interested in continuing this. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]