User talk:Coppertwig/Archive 3

From Moonriddengirl
(From User talk:Moonriddengirl, 19:50 2 Dec 2007. The basic criterion in determining whether a text page is a candidate for CSD#G12 is that (a)it is copied from a website or other source that does not seem to be a copy of Wikipedia; (b) there is no non-infringing material on the page or in the history worthy saving; (c) the material was introduced all at once by one person, and (d) there is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use or free license. If it meets all of those criteria, then it's fair game for speedy. If it meets only some, it may require different handling. In those cases, it is certainly okay not to mark them for speedy, but to use (identifying the source). If you only suspect that an article is a copyright violation, it is handled differently, with the template  being placed on the talk page of the article (not on the article itself). To do that, you place  on the talk page, replacing http://en.wikipedia.org/fullurl with the url of the page you suspect is a copyvio. (That permanently links the version you believe is a copyvio in the template, in case the article is later edited.)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind words, and for trying to help out on my Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for gracing my talk page with your courteous reply. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot dude! I've been trying to figure out how to make my signature work for 4 days! -- 224jeff6   Talk  23:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (It works yay!)

Thanks.
Thanks for the kind note Coppertwig. I greatly appreciate your balanced approach to editing, and look to you as a model for expressing ideas succinctly and without fanning flames.

I enjoyed reading your latest comments on Talk:Reproductive_rights. It's not just that we seem to agree on an edit, but you raised points that did not occur to me regarding much bolder questions than simply, "is this Wikipedia policy." You seemed to base much of your discussion on an idea that Wikipedia should not tell people what to think. I feel that way. I believe that idea is a driving force behind many of my issues with the Circumcision article, especially the current problem that the article excludes discussion of female circumcision, contrary to the definition of the word. By accepting the view, implied in the organization of that page, that circumcision means something done to the penis, full stop, we are making Wikipedia claim that this is the view we should have. Wikipedia is in effect saying, "References to female circumcision are errant, biased, or those of a tiny minority." That assertion is verifiably untrue. The organization of the article, and its lead paragraph, expresses a view not demonstrated to be held by an overwhelming majority (required by WP:NPOV), rather than presenting and attributing that notable view (that may be called for). The situation parallels, in my opinion, the phrase in Reproductive rights that said "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights," which we both seem to agree is unacceptable without qualifiers. The articles can't begin with a POV and then claim to have any value.

Forgive what may sound like a rant, but really the point is to ask you your opinion on this. I don't believe you commented in detail in that particular discussion. Anyway, regardless of whether you choose to discuss this with me, I generally appreciate your contributions and look forward to working with you further to improve WP. Blackworm (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your compliments, and don't mind this message at all. I suppose I'm more open to (slightly or more than slightly) tangential discussions on user talk pages than on article talk pages.  By the way, I also type in two spaces after a period, though I don't think it makes any difference to how the displayed page looks.  Possibly one could argue that it assists in editing by helping one find the beginnings of sentences in the wikitext.  More later (I mean on your comment above, not necessarily on punctuation :-).  --Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say "Wikipedia should not tell people what to do". By its nature of providing information, Wikipedia is making suggestions as to what people might believe. I.e. after reading a Wikipedia article, people might believe that the statements they just read are true.  This should be taken with a grain of salt, since the statements may be unsourced, or mere vandalism, etc., but nevertheless as I see it that's the whole purpose of Wikipedia:  it's not just a game or a pastime, but something intended to be informative and useful.  So, in a sense it's telling people what to think, or at least making suggestions as to how they might think.  But only about fact-like statements.  Not about normative statements such as statements containing the word "should".


 * As I see it, words have multiple meanings. The meanings are like electron clouds.  That is, what is usually considered to be a single meaning is really, on close examination, a collection of meanings that are close to each other.  Therefore no word has truly only a single meaning.  Also, most words have several meanings that are quite distinct from each other.  For example, "several" can mean "divided; not a unit; more than one" (my definition) and can therefore be emphasizing the plurality or largeness of a (smallish) number, i.e. the fact that it's greater than one or two;  yet "several" can also be interpreted to mean practically the same as "few", which emphasises the smallness of the number, e.g. the fact that it's a lot less than a hundred.  So in a sense it can be seen as having two opposite meanings.  The meaning is usually clear from context.


 * Therefore, using a particular meaning of a word and making it clear from context that one is not using some other meaning of the same word is, in my opinion, a totally normal language activity and completely necessary in order to communicate at all.


 * As I see it, one very common meaning of "circumcision" is male circumcision, and another meaning is "male or female circumcision". Using the word according to one or the other of these definitions is, to me, normal use of language.  Wiktionary and at least one source at www.dictionary.com gives male circumcision as one of the definitions (e.g. by including "penis" or "male" as part of the definition).


 * Using one definition of a word and not another definition of the same word, to me, does not imply that the other definition is wrong or should not be used. To me, if an article makes a statement as a sentence, it's saying it, but if the article uses a word a certain way, that is not equivalent to stating or implying "this word should only be used this way".  It is also not equivalent to saying "This is the most common definition of this word". nor "people who use other definitions are in the (tiny) minority".  A rare definition can be used, for example, in a context that calls for it.  That in no way implies that it's anything other than a rare definition.  For example, using the word "snow" to mean WP:SNOW in no way implies that the word doesn't usually mean cold white stuff.  And on top of that, I don't think "male circumcision" is at all a rare definition of "circumcision":  I think it's a very common definition, possibly the most common definition.


 * I've been meaning to argue at Talk:Circumcision for inserting the word "male" at the very beginning, just before "circumcision" appears in bold type, to make "Male circumcision is ..." but haven't gotten around to it. I wonder whether that would help at least a tiny bit in addressing your concerns.  I guess what you want is to have one article, titled "circumcision", about both male and female circumcision.  I'm not keen on that.  For one thing, it would involve a lot of work and conflicts between editors etc. to work out the details.  That may not be a valid argument against it.  However, female circumcision is often called something else in the sources, e.g. "mutilation" or (more recently in vogue perhaps) "cutting".  So perhaps having one article like that would not be the best way to represent the sources.  Finally, for me and I think as for a lot of people, when I hear the word "circumcision" I think of male circumcision, just as when I hear "bird" I think first of a small, flying bird such as a starling, not an ostrich, penguin, wounded bird that can't fly, baby bird etc. even though those are also birds.  So the current arrangement (including the disambiguation/navigation line at the top of the article) looks good to me.


 * Try looking at it this way: if you ask, what's the best thing to put in the "circumcision" article? to you, the answer is both male and female (while to some of the rest of us, the answer is not so clear);  but if you ask, what is the best name for the article about female circumcision?  the consensus that was worked out, based on sources presumably, is to call it not "circumcision" but "female genital cutting" -- which is how we arrive at the current arrangement.  --Coppertwig (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I'd like to address your points.  I'll try to stay on topic and directly address your objections, and I understand that you may not have the time or desire to continue this discussion -- I won't take silence to imply agreement, nor insult.
 * I get the feeling you are arguing that there is a disagreement in lexicographical sources about the meaning of the word, "circumcision." I claim there is not.  All the sources you mention, and the five dictionaries I mention (including Webster's, American Heritage, and Oxford English Dictionary), give both "meanings" in the way you seem to see "meanings" -- that circumcision is something done to males and something done to females.  It pains me to hear you say "circumcision means male circumcision" -- you can't use the defined word in its own definition (without betraying POV, anyhow), and none of the sources do so.  There are actually three distinct approaches these sources present -- each numbered "definition" appearing under the singular "circumcision" entry has one of three properties: (1) it is defined as applying only to males (e.g. "cutting off the foreskin"), (2) it is defined as applying only to females (e.g. a cross-reference to "FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION" in Webster's, or Wiktionary's "excising tissue from the vulva"), and (3) that circumcision is something gender-neutral (e.g. "removal of the prepuce" or "removal of the foreskin in males and clitoris in females" (this property is shared by definition #1 of Websters and American Heritage dictionaries, and also WebMD and other non-lexicographical sources)).  Take the time, for each dictionary source and numbered entry within each source, to determine which of these three properties hold for each sub-definition.  At the end, how many will be in state (1)?  How many in (2), and how many in (3)?  What is the prominence of those entries with state (3)?  Note that state (3) does not deny states (1) or (2), in fact it is inclusive of those definitions.
 * You say, "using one definition of a word and not another definition of the same word, to me, does not imply that the other definition is wrong or should not be used." I agree with that, but the issue here isn't what word we're using in conversation.  We are presenting the definition of the word.  We can't pick one definition of the word and deny other perfectly valid definitions -- nor have we any reason to.  Can you defend that all lexicographical sources have a definition for "Circumcision" that includes practices done to females, but Wikipedia defines circumcision as something done only to males?  You seem to wish to address this by adding "male" in the first word of the article, but this is an unacceptable solution.  If the title of the article is "Circumcision" and not "Circumcision (male)" as I have proposed, then you have to define "circumcision," not "male circumcision" -- otherwise you leave the reader begging the question.  Wikipedia's naming conventions clearly state this: "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase [...]."  You say you want to insert "male" as the first word of the article, but why is this necessary if a broader definition of circumcision is widely acceptable and available?  Remember, there is no entry in a dictionary for "male circumcision" -- only "circumcision," defined as something done to males, females, or males and females.  No lexicographical source defines it ONLY as something done to males.  None.  Wikipedia, right now, does.
 * Arguments regarding the difficulty in getting certain other editors to agree with this change, or based on the idea that such a change would destabilize the article, or be too much work, will definitely fall on deaf ears in my case.
 * You also seem to discuss based on a kind of gut feeling that circumcision just means male circumcision. I admit I have that feeling too -- but it isn't hard for me to analyze why that is.  I grew up in a culture that circumcised a majority of all its newborn males, and absolutely none of its newborn females.  I suspect the same is true for you.  But look around you -- there are signs everywhere that this mindset concerning the word "circumcision" is strictly a Western phenomenon (and also more common among the young, under 30, who have been exposed to the UN/WHO's replacement of the word "circumcision" with the terms "FGM" and "FGC," for documented, specific advocacy purposes to which they freely admit).  In my mind, the issue is similar to "breast cancer" -- the "breast cancer" ribbon is pink because breast cancer usually happens, in its instances, to occur to females, and pink is associated with things female in Western culture.  When you think of breast cancer, you think of a woman.  This is entirely normal.  But it would not be acceptable to beging from that mindset and express it as justification for defining "breast cancer" as something happening in women.  That's not what breast cancer means, nor is it even true that all the instances of breast cancer occur in females.  That's why it's not done in the "breast cancer" article.
 * Another example is the word "suffrage." Think what "suffrage" means.  Now think about what suffrage meant to the average Western male 150 years ago.  Had Wikipedia existed back then, and you had existed back then, would you have been okay with Wikipedia saying, "Suffrage.  This article describes male suffrage.  For female "suffrage," see Suffragette.  Suffrage (from the Latin suffragium, meaning "vote") is the civil right of men to vote, or the exercise of that right."   Obviously POV, correct?  Obviously discarding the meaning of the word to adhere to a specific POV?  Well, that's how I feel about the "circumcision" article in its current form.
 * I hope the above hasn't seemed too adversarial, and I thank you for reading my comments. I look forward to your response, should you choose to do so.  Blackworm (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing -- I neglected to respond to your last paragraph. I think the article "Circumcision" should properly define circumcision, reflecting the lexicographical and other sources and noting any reliable sources indicating published opinion of apparent disagreement therein.  Then, it should briefly describe the context surrounding the male and female forms, as well as their prevalence.  I believe it would merit a brief mention of Circumcision (capitalized, referring to the Christian feast of the same name, something the current "circumcision" article fails to do at all).  It would merit a mention of Brit Milah, which to some is synonymous with circumcision.  I believe it should have sections for "Male circumcision" and "Female circumcision."  The former should have "Main article: Male circumcision" which would link to the current article entitled "circumcision," which would be renamed to "circumcision (male)."  The female circumcision section would not have a similar link, because there is no main article on female circumcision.  The text of the section could say, "Circumcision, in its application to females, is sometimes defined as, or alternately viewed as a subset of, female genital cutting."  I believe the female circumcision section to would need to contain a brief statement contrasting circumcision of females to the UN/WHO-invented terms "female genital mutilation" and "female genital cutting," since the terms are verifiably not synonymous.  All of this assumes, of course, that it could be written verifiably, backed by reliable sources, with views attributed to sources, and with a neutral point of view.  I think it could be a new summary style article, less than 500 words long.  As a start, however, it could be a simple disambiguation page, with links to "Circumcision (male)," "female genital cutting," "Brit Milah," and possibly also "Circumcision of Christ."


 * Your appeal to the apparent consensus regarding the naming of the female circumcision article is, in my opinion, missing the point that female genital cutting encompasses practices outside female circumcision, i.e., it is a superset of female circumcision. The correct name for a hypothetical female circumcision article, if one is indeed necessary because the content under "circumcision" would be too large, is "Female circumcision" or "Circumcision (female)."  Female genital cutting, whether you accept the UN/WHO's definition or simply regard it as a simple English phrase to be interpreted as such, includes practices which are not circumcision.  (That is why the current female genital cutting article also displays non-neutral POV in its first sentence, in my opinion.)  I hope this answers your question.  Blackworm (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * I don't have time for a full reply right now but hope to later. A few things.  I think it would be fine to change the name of the article to "Circumcision (male)" and make Circumcision a redirect to it.  I don't think a separate article at Circumcision is warranted.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  The organization of material into articles doesn't have to follow the way meanings are  grouped into words lexicographically.  The separate article you propose would have only two major sections -- not enough to justify another whole article which could become a POV fork and which would not be of good service to the reader in my opinion.  The reader's experience, searching re (male) circumcision, would be of reading one article about circumcision and then, confusingly, finding another article also about (male) circumcision and repetitively reading much of the same introductory material.  The feast of Circumcision seems to me to already be linked from the Circumcision article, with a link called "Circumcision of Christ".
 * Your comment above appears to me to be misquoting me where it says "It pains me to hear you say "circumcision means male circumcision" ". I didn't say those words and didn't mean them, and your message seems to be saying that I did.  I would appreciate it ifyou would strike through that part of your comment.  (Let's just say that this sort of thing that I see as misquoting bothers me maybe about as much as definitions that contain the word they're defining bother you.  Usually those sorts of definitions bother me too but I see this as one of the valid exceptions.  I'm pretty sure I've seen it done, validly in my opinion, in dictionaries.)  I still intend to reply to what you're saying, when I have time.
 * I think we agree that the dictionaries are rather similar to each other and that many (or most or all) of them list a meaning referring to males only as one of several definitions, also listing other definitions that refer to females or to both male and female. My point is that if a meaning is listed as one of the definitions, then it's not wrong to use the word according to that meaning (except in the first sentence of the article, which acts as a definition).
 * Your proposal to insert "(male)" into the article title seems to me to be supported by policy, which says that article titles should be precise. I can see, however, that an argument (which I don't necessarily agree with, but may not strongly disagree with either) can be made that the current article title is also allowed and possibly even an argument that it's preferred, depending on usage statistics (e.g. "Plato" as a simple article title, even though there may be other articles about other things by that name, e.g. films or whatever.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that it's not true that "References to female circumcision are errant, biased, or those of a tiny minority". However, I don't see making use of a word according to one of its dictionary definitions as being equivalent to making such a statement.  As I see it, the only problem is the first sentence, which can be interpreted as saying something about the word "circumcision" rather than only using the word.
 * By the way, I like getting talk page messages and am enjoying this exchange so don't worry.
 * You said, "I get the feeling you are arguing that there is a disagreement in lexicographical sources about the meaning of the word, "circumcision."". No, that's not what I'm arguing.  The various dictionaries seem to generally give similar sets of definitions.  What I'm arguing is that there exists at least one dictionary definition (i.e. one of several definitions given by the same dictionary, in at least one dictionary) that refers specifically to male (insert appropriate phrase here to avoid circular definition :-).  I further argue that if one of the definitions in a dictionary is a certain meaning, then it's OK to use the word to express that meaning.
 * You said, you can't use the defined word in its own definition (without betraying POV, anyhow), and none of the sources do so. This reply of mine is getting further removed from the discussion, but here goes. Usually it really bugs me when people use the defined word in the definition.  E.g. someone used the word "messaging" and my reply showed that I was understanding it wrong.  They said something like, "No, that's not what we mean.  We're talking about messaging."  I asked what they meant by messaging and they said something like, "it's the ... messaging." (with a hand gesture indicating emphasis.)  The reason that's inappropriate is that it fails to communicate (fails to get the message across?!)  Usually, the word being defined should not be used in the definition because it leaves the reader still wondering what the word means.  E.g. if someone were to say "A bloog is a small, useful bloog." Well, what the xxx is a bloog?
 * However, there are cases where it is appropriate to use the word in its definition. I'll invent an example.  A dictionary might say, "Baseball: 1. A game, popular in North America, which uses a ball, bat and four bases.  2. The ball used in a game of baseball, which is small, round, and covered in sewn leather."
 * In the present instance, I'm talking to you and you already know what circumcision is, so I don't have to necessarily define the word from first principles every time. There may be things that need to be said about the details of the definition, but I can mention only those details (e.g. whether it's about males or both males and females autcetera) that I'm interested in talking about and not have to describe other details that you already know.
 * I don't understand why you say "without betraying POV". Maybe you mean that by using the word in its definition in the way I did, I'm admitting that the word can also be used to mean (insert appropriate phrase here to avoid circular definition) more generally, i.e. both male and female (insert appropriate phrase).  I am admitting that.  It's what the dictionaries show, so it seems to me to be verifiable fact, not a POV (and anyway, there's nothing wrong with having a POV IMO.)
 * You said, We are presenting the definition of the word. I think we're doing that, if at all, only in the first sentence, so only that sentence needs to be changed, by inserting "Male". Ah.  As I see it, we're presenting a definition of the word, i.e. the definition intended by the usage in the article title -- not the only definition of the word, and not a list of all definitions of the word.  For that, see Wiktionary.
 * If the title of the article is "Circumcision" and not "Circumcision (male)" as I have proposed, then you have to define "circumcision," not "male circumcision" -- otherwise you leave the reader begging the question. I don't agree.  What question is the reader begging?  If the reader wants a definition of a word, the reader should consult Wiktionary.  The first sentence of a Wikipedia article is usually a definition or something similar to a definition, but it doesn't have to be a definition.  All it has to do is make it very clear what the article is about.
 * For example, an article titled "N" might begin, "In chemistry, N is the symbol for the element nitrogen." and then go on to talk all about nitrogen and say nothing at all about the 14th letter of the alphabet or the set of natural numbers or any other perfectly good definitions of "N", except in a navigation line at the top of the article directing the reader to a disambiguation page. Wikipedia first sentences often include a phrase such as "In chemistry, ..."  In effect, this tells the reader which of several definitions of N is being implied by the article title.  Once you read "In chemistry, ...", you can look again at the article title and now understand it as being used to mean "nitrogen" and only "nitrogen" in this context, although the letter can mean other things when it's used elsewhere.  To me, inserting "male" at the beginning of the sentence is very similar to saying "In chemistry...".  Perhaps you would find it more acceptable if the word "male" is in parentheses.  The function is to tell the reader which dictionary definition of "circumcision" is intended by the title of the article.
 * You quoted Naming conventions (precision) as saying "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase [...]." Excellent point.  That looks like a compelling argument to me.  It also says "Name your pages precisely," although Jakew will point out that this is said under the heading "Philosophy" and therefore applies only to Philosophy articles.  It also says, "Use Streets of London (song) and Streets Of London (computer game) instead of Streets Of London and Streets of London. "  It does not say, "figure out which is more commonly mentioned, the song or the computer game, and name that page Streets of London and the other page Streets Of London (computer game)".
 * On the other hand, contrary to the above example, Disambiguation says:


 * "For example, the article about Alexander the Great contains a disambiguation link to the 1956 film Alexander the Great:




 * In other words, since "Alexander the Great" the vast majority of the time refers to the man, not the film, the page about the man does not need a disambiguating phrase in parentheses in the article title. Demonstrating a lot of discussion about the film would not necessarily disprove that the vast majority of the time, people still mean the man.  The question is:  when people say "circumcision", do they mean male (insert phrase) often enough (e.g. vast majority of the time, or perhaps something definitely more than mere majority but not necessarily quite as much as vast majority) that the article title is justified in having only the unadorned word.  I feel that in the case of this word, it's a grey area and/or I don't know enough about statistics of how the word is usually used in order to be able to answer that.  (I also don't know exactly what Wikipedia's threshold is that would have to be used to decide one way or the other.)


 * You said, "You say you want to insert "male" as the first word of the article, but why is this necessary if a broader definition of circumcision is widely acceptable and available?" In order to clarify what the article is about. However, in light of the guideline you quoted, the article title should also have "(male)".
 * You said, "No lexicographical source defines it ONLY as something done to males." That may be.  On the other hand, at least one, and I think several or possibly all, dictionaries define it as something only done to males.  In other words, that is not the only definition they list for it, but that (something done only to males) is one of the definitions they list for it.
 * You said, "You also seem to discuss based on a kind of gut feeling that circumcision just means male circumcision." No, I don't believe that and I don't have that gut feeling.  There's a subtle difference.  "Circumcision" often means just male (insert phrase), but it doesn't "just mean" (i.e. only ever mean) male (insert phrase).  When I think of a small black able-to-fly bird such as a starling in response to hearing the word "bird", I'm not expressing a gut feeling that ostriches are not birds -- I'm merely not thinking about ostriches right then, which is not at all the same thing.
 * You said, "But look around you -- there are signs everywhere that this mindset concerning the word "circumcision" is strictly a Western phenomenon..." Well, isn't the English language largely a Western phenomenon?
 * You give a good example re breast cancer and a very thought-provoking example re suffrage. I'll have to think about how to reply to that one.
 * What are the justifications for having a page named Circumcision as you describe (which links to Circumcision (male)), as opposed to simply having Circumcision being a redirect?
 * Re female genital cutting being a superset of female circumcision: I believe the phrase "female circumcision" is sometimes or often used to encompass all the practices covered in the FGC article.  I'm not convinced that a separate article is warranted on only female circumcision, more strictly defined, and excluding coverage of other FGC.  What are the reasons you support such an organization of the material?


 * First, thanks again for your response. I too am enjoying this discussion.


 * I apologize profusely for appearing to misquote you, and I have gladly struck those comments out.  I think what I meant to say is what your words felt like to me, which I agree is not an excuse for using quotes and certainly not implying that you used a circular definition.


 * I want to absorb all this, and properly respond too. Unfortunately time will be at a premium for the next couple days.  I'm glad you seem to enjoy my examples, especially.  I want to respond in more detail, but I'll leave you with a prime example of an article that currently deals with a very similar conundrum properly, in my opinion: Castration.  Now, obviously I'm not making any comparisons of circumcision and castration -- my point here is to show how a word with a similar structure of meanings given under each dictionary's definition, that is, one which applies to males (the overwhelmingly used form, in common usage), and one which applies to females.  Look at the dictionaries -- the structure is the same.  It is either defined neutrally, inclusively, or individually for males and females, with the male meaning being primary.  Arguably, the case for the "primary meaning" (using Jakew's terminology here) being that of male castration is much stronger in those lexicographic sources, at least by the set of criteria I present above: the (exclusively) male definition is normally given as meaning (1) -- if you remember, I argue that the prominence of this exclusive meaning is less so for male circumcision.  Now, given this context, does the "castration" page have a disambiguation page?  Does it have a hatnote separating "female castration" out, since it's a separate meaning not widely used when someone is looking for "castration?"  No.  The article begins, "Castration (also referred as: gelding, neutering, orchiectomy, orchidectomy, and oophorectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testes or a female loses the functions of the ovaries."  Beautiful.  It succinctly, and more importantly, generally defines the term.  Per WP:LEAD, the lead must primarily establish context.  What establishes context more?  A more general definition, perhaps further qualified by caveats about common usage?  Or a narrow definition, with a hatnote serving as a disclaimer, which excludes all subsequent discussion of another perfectly valid meaning of the word?


 * I simply cannot see the justification for the latter, should someone attempt to do so based on some of the arguments you present. Notably, I don't think the user experience comes into play to this level in an encyclopedia.  Is Wikipedia a scholarly reference, or primarily entertainment?  Expressed differently, are we primarily presenting what is verifiably true, or what people are looking to read about when they search?  Perhaps this is an individual decision for Wikipedia editors, but in my opinion falls squarely on verifiability (and thus, Wikipedia's version of "truth") never being sacrificed to expediency -- the latter seeming to form part of your opposition (and, I note, both Avi and Jakew's).


 * I leave you with that, for tonight. You have given me much to think about, and I too wish to respond further.  Thanks again, I really feel fortunate to discuss this with you. Blackworm (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for striking out that phrase. How refreshing to be dealing with encyclopedists, who understand and care about things like proper quoting!  I'm sorry if I overdid the "insert phrase here" bit.  Maybe I was trying to be a little humourous, but not in order to bother you.  Actually, I was trying to communicate and (hey, it's practically the middle of the night for you too) was too tired to think of what to write if not "circumcision" in those spots. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, verifiability is not to be sacrificed to expediency. And I already more-or-less acknowledged that an argument about it being hard work to change the article doesn't have much validity on Wikipedia.  Nevertheless, the thing to aim for is being both verifiable, and of good service to the reader:  helping the reader find that verifiable information in a few seconds with a few clicks of the mouse.


 * You seem to think that the structure and organization of Wikipedia articles should be based on the structure of dictionary definitions of words. I don't agree.  I think the subject matter of articles is to be based on the structure of the factual material that is to be presented.  If facts are similar or related in some way, they're collected into a single article.  If the article is too big, it's split.  If it's too small, it's merged with other articles.  There may be different valid ways to organize the material, but the best ways will tend to maximize how closely related things in the same article are to each other.  (Wait, that's not the only criterion, if you consider summary style:  summary articles can contain collections of things not quite as closely related.)  Anyway, as I see it, decisions are made about what groups of material are to go in which articles, and subsequently, a name is chosen for each article which best reflects the subject matter that is in it.  As I see it, one doesn't choose a name based on the dictionary and then afterwards find material that best represents that name.  It might look like it, because usually the proposal of what to put in a page is done mainly by suggesting a name for the page.  To me, though, that suggestion is for the purpose of implying what material is to go in it.   Often, along with a suggestion for a name comes other information as well, also suggesting what will go in the page.  Suggesting "Let's have a page named X" does not mean "Let's have a page that explores all the definitions of the word 'X'".  It means "Let's have a page that covers the subject matter that I mean by the word 'X' right now."


 * The exception is disambiguation pages. They work as you seem to be suggesting, covering all the dictionary definitions of a word, or at least all of them that refer to notable subject matter deserving articles.  However, by convention they don't also contain paragraphs of content. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re the suffrage example, here are some other examples that may seem to counter it. What do you think of the following:
 * A page named "Military training" with a hatnote "This page is about training of human soldiers. For training of other species for military purposes, see 'Animal training#Military applications'"
 * A page named "Bed" with a hatnote "This page is about the piece of furniture. For the book by the same title, see 'Bed (book)'".
 * A page named "Pregnancy" with a hatnote "This page is about the state of internally carrying a baby. For ways in general of becoming a parent, see 'Becoming a parent'".
 * The suffrage example would obviously be inappropriate, but a similar pattern doesn't necessarily apply to other articles. Maybe it's partly because of the heavily-laden meaning of the word "right".
 * Can you explain in more detail how what the circumcision article says sounds to you like the suffrage example? --Coppertwig (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It limits the meaning (and therefore, subsequent discussion) to the de facto meaning rather than the de jure meaning. Blackworm (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One could suggest your "military training" example does the same thing (i.e. de facto vs. de jure). If evidence can be found that training of other species for military purposes is significantly referred to as "military training," then a discussion of that specific subject merits inclusion in the "military training" article.  I believe that such a standard has been met in referring to circumcision as gender inclusive.
 * I doubt many would claim there is anything but a tenuous link between the concept of a bed, and the concept of a book with the title, "Bed." Perhaps some believe the same is true of "circumcision," and anything done to any female genitals.  What is just as relevant, if not more so, is that there is widespread acceptance, if not a clear consensus, that it is not incorrect to refer to certain things done to female genitals as circumcision.  If recent trends in usage prove to continue, possibly reinforced by a combination of the introduction of new terms, and the promotion of certain taboos on usage of the older terms, this acceptance may decline, and the issue revisited.  For the moment, both these views are notable, and the article must not completely shut out the presentation of one view (claims of the hatnote serving as a presentation of that view notwithstanding).  The current organization appears to me to lend undue weight to one view (100%: circumcision means "removing [...] foreskin") over another (0%: circumcision means "the act of circumcising, i.e., removing [...] foreskin [...] or [...] clitoris").  The latter view (zero percent weight) seems to be shared by Webster's, American Heritage, and Oxford English Dictionary.  These sources are leading authorities on the meanings of English words.  Our weighing of them is plain wrong.
 * Re: "Pregnancy:" If you're referring to the recent trend of some people saying "we're pregnant," I don't really think such colloquial usage merits mention. It's not even "recent scholarship" (treated carefully by Wikipedia), it's "recent usage."  The usage may indeed merit inclusion in the "Pregnancy" article, if others have noted it.  The example seems to suffer the same problems as Jakew's "male menopause" example, which I also reject as not analogous; I am not convinced by claims that it is as well supported that "male menopause" is a scholarly term, and have not been shown that the subject is discussed in the context of female menopause, and compared and contrasted with female menopause in peer-reviewed sources.  (Sorry if that appears like a straw man .)
 * I should mention that I don't necessarily believe the meaning of "circumcision" currently expressed in the article, and in my suffrage example, is a de facto meaning. I'm suggesting it is at best a de facto meaning for some.  Blackworm (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please address the point that I tried to raise earlier, that it seems to me that you think the organization of material into Wikipedia articles should be determined by the organization of meanings into words, as recorded in dictionaries.
 * I don't agree with that approach at all. To me, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to express the word which appears in its title, nor to define the word (though that is generally also done briefly).  Rather, the purpose of a Wikipedia article, in my opinion, is to present a collection of facts which intuitively appear to be so closely related to each other that they can be considered to be part of the same topic, regardless of whether the language contains a word or phrase that neatly focusses on that topic.
 * Here's another example. Suppose there's an article called "chair" about the piece of furniture, and another article called "chairperson" about presiding over meetings, and suppose the editors of the "chairperson" article discover that the word "chairperson" is not used all that often, but that the person presiding over a meeting is usually referred to as the "chair", and that that use of "chair" is very common and notable, perhaps more common in publications such as newspapers than references to the piece of furniture.  Suppose they propose to rename their article to "chair".  Suppose, on discovering that there is already an article "chair", some of them argue that ther e should be one article, called "chair", which discusses both the piece of furniture (in one section of the article) and the role of presiding over meetings, in another part of the article.  I would argue against such a combined article on the grounds that the two topics are not closely related.  There seems to be an etymological connection between the two.  But I see them as two different topics, that don't belong in the same article.  (Male and female circumcision are more closely related than chair and chair.)  Now, suppose someone argues that "chair" frequently and notably means the person presiding over a meeting, so shunting that material off to a page with any other name (e.g. {chair (meetings)) would be an unacceptable POV statement that the word "chair" doesn't mean the person presiding over a meeting.
 * Just because a coherently defined topic exists doesn't necessarily mean Wikipedia should have an article on it. Other possibilities are:  Covering the topic in part of an article which also includes other related material which is not part of that topic;  covering the topic in a collection of articles which each cover subtopics of that topic;  covering the topic in several parts of several different articles, etc.  Perhaps just not covering the material is acceptable (I'm not sure).   Also, if there are words or phrases which are synonyms or near-synonyms or which refer to overlapping topics, it's not necessary to have a page titled with each word or phrase.
 * To me, the organization of Wikipedia pages is based on the web of interrelatedness of the material which is to be divided into pages. It's not about the interrelatedness of the dictionary meanings of the words used in the titles.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting.) I agree with most of what you say. I'm not suggesting that the organization of Wikipedia should follow a dictionary without exception. I think that the source of our disagreement stems from our apparently different opinion of whether an article containing information on both male and female circumcision would or would not be "a collection of facts which intuitively appear to be so closely related to each other that they can be considered to be part of the same topic." I'm using dictionaries as sources for evidence that many people share my view on this, possibly even a majority. The dictionaries strongly suggest that historically, indeed that has been the case (the "many," not necessarily the "majority").

We appear to be editing simultaneously, so I should note that this comment, and your latest, above, were written after my comment after the second "arbitrary section break" (I loved that!) below. Blackworm (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Another arbitrary section break
Forgive me if I'm inundating your talk page with messages, but I truly am moved by the directions this discussion has taken us. I was wondering if you'd agree that it seems like a fundamental difference in our approach is the weighing of a commonly used meaning of a word versus the strictest/most liberal possible reasonable meaning(s) of that word. I say "strictest/most liberal" even though it sounds contradictory, because what I'm talking about is either extreme, versus the current, apparent, socially acceptable, claimed-as-majority view, or "mainstream" view as some like to put it.

Here is a suggestion I would have a much harder time arguing against, if I were to take the steadfast view that all viewpoints need be represented. The word "pedophile." The word has clear, widespread connotations of sexual desire for children, and I'm prepared to assert that most if not all English speakers use the word specifically to mean this. But looking at the Greek root of the word, we find "pedo-" (child) and "phile," from "philos" (friend). One interpretation of this is simply "a friend of children," a phrase which has no English word associated with it. I am hard pressed to argue that the interpretation is entirely unreasonable; but I do believe it reasonable to exclude the viewpoint based on the prevalence of that usage. I would agree that it would be unreasonable to base the "pedophile" article on that meaning, and possibly would also be unreasonable to even mention it; it is used by a tiny minority in that way (if anyone). I don't believe the same is true of "circumcision" used to describe female circumcision, based not only on things like Google Scholar searches, but also on my experience simply talking to other people around me, and coming into contact with that usage routinely, from multiple sources, and from an early age.

Incidentally, I find it quite notable (Avi's word: curious) that the Latin root of "circumcision" got deleted from the article. (It is now in a restored state, and if I remember correctly, it seems to vacillate.) Rhetorically (or not, as you wish), would you say that its presence may reasonably appear to some to diminish the credibility of the (IMO, narrowed) definition treated in the article?

I posit that many people who wince when the phrase "female circumcision" is uttered or written probably didn't come into contact with that usage of "circumcision" until late adolescence or adulthood, when they first heard of the practice done to females. It's also likely their first reaction to the subject was extremely negative (another reason for wincing, or something seeming "wrong"). They may have learned that circumcision means something done to males, and only males. As I'm fond of saying, non-neutral POV smells no matter where it comes from, including the heart, and gut. (I'm not implying you are part of this group.)

That said, it's nearing the end of a long year, and in this time of retrospect I give myself a grade of "D minus" (Charles M. Schulz, RIP) for my "work" in Wikipedia. I am the first to admit that in order for this system to work at its best, I need to make every effort to perish all thoughts that other editors are stubborn or unreasonable merely because they remain unconvinced, or incorrigibly biased and therefore irrelevant merely because they appear to be arguing from a point of view. I have fallen short of these ideals, often, while improperly accusing others of falling short of them; others who, in a fair assessment, may not have fallen short of those ideals nearly as often. You have singlehandedly restored much of my faith in the amazing things that can be accomplished when editors discuss respectfully, boldly, cordially, precisely, openly, honestly, and leaving any agenda behind. Thank you for that. If I believed in barnstars, you'd get a big one from me.

I feel almost like it would be impolite not to address many of the interesting points you have raised. I'm guessing you may feel the same, but as you seem to suggest, we shouldn't worry. I will attempt to take a course of pondering, rereading, and replying at whatever pace I am comfortable with at the time (including snails, like, really slow snails), and invite you to do the same. :) Blackworm (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. What a fantastic compliment.  I'm thrilled.  But of course I'm too modest to let it go to my head.  Just kidding.  Actually, I will now promote myself three levels higher than where I already was in the hierarchy of insufferable know-it-all-itude.  Just kidding.


 * Actually, there's no way I could possibly have done all that single-handedly. Surely other editors have been involved, and I've been impressed lately by the good nature of everyone I've been interacting with.  People are listening to others, trying to see others' point of view, shifting their perspective, apologizing for things etc.  People keep surprising me by shifting from a more confrontational position to a more accomodating one, and I'm making the same shifts, coming to the realization that I was being more confrontational than I thought, etc.  Is it Wikipedia that's so wonderful, somehow encouraging people to bring out their better sides, or is it human nature that's just like that a lot of the time, or is it the hard work of internal reflection carried out by the particular people I'm interacting with?  Probably all three.


 * I think you can give yourself an A on the final exam. Your message above shows a willingness to look at yourself from a different perspective, in a deep way.  That takes humility and detachment.  It's you who have done the hard work here.  "O wad some power the giftie gie us/To see oursel's as others see us. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, now that we have that out of the way, we can now have a real knock-down argument. :-)  No, you haven't been putting too many messages on my talk page.  I like getting talk page messages.  I like it so much that I've been sending messages to myself;  but it doesn't bring up that nifty orange banner, so I think I'll move those activities to a sandbox so I don't make it so hard on people like you who might be watching my talk page.
 * You said, "I was wondering if you'd agree that it seems like a fundamental difference in our approach is the weighing of a commonly used meaning of a word versus the strictest/most liberal possible reasonable meaning(s) of that word." No, I wouldn't agree with that.  I would say that the difference in our approaches is that you're weighing the meanings of the words used in article titles, while I'm not weighing the meanings of words -- at least, not as a means of deciding which material should be grouped together into an article.  For that, I weigh the interrelatedness of the material itself, regardless of what the definitions (any definitions) of the words in the article title are.  Actually, I suppose language comes into it a bit too, but only slightly compared to how it does in your approach.
 * I like keeping the Latin derivation of the word "circumcision" in the article. This is one place where I do follow your dictionary-like approach to some extent, just for a few words of the article.  It's an exception.
 * You said, "Rhetorically (or not, as you wish), would you say that its presence may reasonably appear to some to diminish the credibility of the (IMO, narrowed) definition treated in the article?" No, I wouldn't say that.  I think I don't understand what you mean at all here.  To me, a definition cannot be credible or incredible.  Only an assertion can be credible or incredible.  A definition is not an assertion.  To repeat a point, I see the purpose of Wikipedia articles as being to provide assertions, not definitions (except for those few words near the beginning of the article). --Coppertwig (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you agree with this statement: "Blackworm believes that to have an article titled 'circumcision' which covers only male circumcision is tantamount to asserting that the word 'circumcision' is never used, or should never be used, to refer to female circumcision, while Coppertwig believes that applying a certain article title to an article with certain content is merely using the words in the article title to communicate, not making any statement about those words or their definitions." --Coppertwig (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace "asserting" with "implying," and "never [(be) used]" with "almost never [...]," and I would agree with your statement of my belief. I don't think the statement of your belief contradicts the statement of mine.  I don't agree that a definition is not an assertion.  I view a definition as a narrowing of valid possibilities of meaning.  How much we narrow those possibilities of meaning is a normative statement.  It's conforming to a norm; in this case a narrower norm than is reasonable, because it seems to exclude significant viewpoints.  Excluding these viewpoints a priori leads to a basis for excluding information based on these viewpoints anywhere in the article, including any information comparing or contrasting male and female circumcision.  (Take, for example, the Benatar statement recently deleted from the FGC article.)  It appears such information is often verboten both in the circumcision article, and in the female genital cutting article, on the grounds that "this article is about 'X' circumcision, not 'Y' circumcision."  It begs the question, where is the general article on circumcision?  Where else would such information go?  At the moment, the answer I'm hearing seems to be, "outside Wikipedia," or at least "outside any mainstream articles."  I'm not really interested in what I see as POV-fork articles.  Wikipedia is not a battleground for ideas, with those in power (in this case, a community) whisking some far away while keeping others in the spotlight.
 * By the way, I read Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. I get the impression policy is stating that Wikipedia is more than a dictionary.  Wikipedia presents what a thing is.  If the WP community is happy saying, or appearing to say, "circumcision is male circumcision," then I guess that's what it is to Wikipedia.  It's a position.  It will be evaluated as such, and unfortunately leaves itself open to be criticized as such. Blackworm (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not agree to having a Wikipedia article state, "circumcision is male circumcision," because that's a POV statement that excludes female circumcision, failing to reflect that in the literature, the word "circumcision" is often used to mean female circumcision. It fails WP:NPOV.
 * Would you agree to the following as a statement of our positions: "Blackworm believes that to have an article titled 'circumcision' which covers only male circumcision is tantamount to implying that the word 'circumcision' is almost never used, or should not be used, to refer to female circumcision, while Coppertwig believes that applying a certain article title to an article with certain content is merely using the words in the article title to communicate, not making any statement or implication about those words or their definitions."  Do you think the two positions as stated here contradict each other?
 * You said, "I view a definition as a narrowing of valid possibilities of meaning." There's something I really don't follow in your position.  A dictionary will list more than one definition of the same word.  You seem to be saying that all the definitions have to be used at the same time.  It's like telling someone they shouldn't say "here, you can sit in this chair if you like," on the grounds that using "chair" to mean the piece of furniture is implying that "chair" isn't the appropriate word for the person presiding over a meeting.
 * Also, you say you think Wikipedia is supposed to tell what a thing is; but your arguments seem to be directed not towards having the article tell what a thing is, but having it tell what all the meanings of a word are.  In other words, the impression I get from the other things you said is that you think the article should be focussed around a word, not around a thing.
 * To me, adding one more definition to a list of definitions in a dictionary broadens, not narrows, the scope of things the word can refer to.
 * Re the Benatar information: I deleted that, but not because it's about both male and female circumcision.  If you can come up a useful/interesting/informative statement that's an accurate summary of part of the Benatar article, perhaps I can help fit it into one of the articles somewhere, other editors willing.  I see no reason why one or the other article can't mention circumcision of the other gender.  My reason for deleting the reference was that it didn't accurately reflect what the source says, in my opinion, and I didn't see (at that time) a way of editing it that would be useful and true to the source.  Note that I'm unlikely to consider any statement using the word "analogous" to be an accurate reflection of the quoted part of the Benatar reference. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only say I agree with your presentation of my position, and yours does seem to be different, and I see some overlap between our positions. Things are implied by organization and definitions.  Here is an example.  Let's suppose we did change the title of the article to "Circumcision (male)," and made "Circumcision" a redirect.  What does this "say" to the reader who types in "Circumcision," without needing to say it explicitly?  Why do we need to "say" that, when sources differ as to the implied statement?


 * Re: The "chair" example: I'm not suggesting words cannot mean more than one thing. I'm suggesting that many meanings may be valid, and it is non-NPOV to imply otherwise in this case; by content or organization.  I don't believe in categorizing things by their gender where gender-inclusive definitions exist and are prominent; or at the very least, there must be a gender-inclusive treatment of a topic if that gender-inclusive treatment is demonstrated by reliable sources.  Can you think of an example of any WP article which has a title, "X (male)" or "X (female)" where there isn't already at least a summary "X" article, or a disambiguation page?  Is circumcision an absolutely unique case?


 * You say, "adding one more definition to a list of definitions in a dictionary broadens, not narrows, the scope of things the word can refer to." I completely agree.


 * I'm not saying "all the definitions have to be used at the same time," I'm saying "all the definitions need to be weighed by WP." Obviously the a word will be used with different meanings in the context of a conversation, but here we are establishing context for a topic.  The "chair" article may begin, "this article is about the piece of furniture," which is perfectly fine context.  But if someone added, "for a wheelchair, see Wheelchair" and began the article, "A chair is a piece of furniture, not used for mobility, that [...]," that would raise the eyebrows of some people because to them, a wheelchair is a chair.  The example is perhaps weak because there are many types of chairs, not just two, three, or four, but the chair article properly deals with all pieces of furniture that are chairs.


 * If I suggested that "Circumcision" redirect to "Brit Milah," because it is a valid meaning of "circumcision," would that be acceptable to you? I don't believe that "using the words in the article title to communicate" is a goal of Wikipedia, but there are some forms of communication that could be reasonably taken to imply "correct" meaning, and they are to be avoided in my opinion.  A prominent meaning isn't the only prominent meaning.  Note that the Brit Milah example is not perfect, because Brit Milah is treated at length in the main circumcision article, despite it meaning more than "the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis." (From circumcision.) Should we rename the article, "Circumcision (procedure)" and relegate all discussion of Brit Milah to the hatnote?  I'm really grasping to understand why your argument could not be used to do just that.


 * My arguments are directed at "having the article tell what a thing is" according to all notable views. For many, circumcision is not (only) male .  I have few issues with an article titled similarly to "male circumcision" describing only male circumcision, but I don't see the justification for an article entitled "circumcision" describing only male circumcision, in light of prominent views that other things are also circumcision.  I definitely think changing the title and adding a redirect is an improvement, and I would be willing to step back and observe what happens in that case, but I don't think it would stick simply because of the begging the question issue.  The answer, in my opinion, is at the very least a disambiguation page; a solution not viewed as Earth-shattering anywhere else that I can see, and yet seemingly roundly opposed in this case.


 * I understand that you deleted the Benatar statement for unrelated reasons. I only bring it up because that kind of statement (if not that actual statement) has been attacked on precisely the grounds that it is not "directly related" to circumcision, nor female genital cutting, which are the only two likely candidates I can see for the statement.  I do think it's notable that these concepts are being compared in sources, and the current organization forces their exclusion.  Where would this specific statement go (my proposal of "a useful/interesting/informative statement that's an accurate summary of part of the Benatar article"):  Benatar et al. claim that clitoridectomy is "very harmful," and claim that this harm "separates female genital excision from male circumcision."  Note that Benatar said this in an article primarily about male circumcision; the article has "male circumcision" in the title.  Why are they comparing female genital excision and male circumcision?  Would one be able to currently answer that by seeking information in Wikipedia?


 * Again, I present all this in the spirit of humility and respect. I don't "need" this changed, despite my devoting large amounts of time to discussing it.  I do think it makes WP look bad, but then, maybe many people take a dim view of WP, and maybe we can abide by that. Blackworm (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, the ref I just added to Female genital cutting (Rebecca Cook, currently the first footnote in the article) contains in the quote I put in the footnote, "... not at all analogous to male circumcision,...". Since this contains the word "analogous" (a word which was in the Wikipedian interpretation of Benatar which I deleted) you might want to use this in the article somehow.  I didn't really use that part of the quote.  --Coppertwig (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to self
Perhaps need to revert this edit which was apparently the one that messed up the ref list (july 20; Female genital cutting) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.

Source re breastfeeding, including plugged ducts: Another bf ref:

RFA
I just mean that editing one page too much, you might not be able to catch something on another page. That's all. Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

 *  jj137  ♠ 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

response to your comment on my talk page
Instinct also helps me go after speediable articles. I very often come across new articles which may have useful content, but that is covered within existing articles and redirecting just doesn't seem to be an option. I have found that only serious editors will confront me, and I heartily welcome that. I like to be told that I'm wrong! I also like the interaction. If you look at my contributions (specifically, the user talk pages wherein I posted a speedy notice similar), check out how many editors bothered to continue editing, or even take the time to respond to me. The reality I seem to encounter is, that many articles simply don't belong, and editors don't get the concenpt of an encyclopedia, or want to take the time. I guess this makes me more of a deletionist than an inclusionist, but don't try to fit me in a slot just yet! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The percentage of new editors who continue editing may be small, but it's those few who do who are of key importance: they are the source of new editors for Wikipedia.  That's why it's important to be nice to them.  What if in a few cases, the reason they go away and don't reply or continue editing is that they're discouraged or intimidated by the speedy deletion of their article (or imminent threat thereof)? Then the fact that they don't continue editing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You can point to any number of new editors who go away even if their articles are not deleted or bothered in any way, but that in no way negates that fact that a few of us actually do continue editing.  Early in my own Wikipedian career I created one or two articles that were deleted a few weeks later.  If they had been deleted almost immediately, would I have found editing Wikipedia to be an enjoyable, rewarding, welcoming place and would I have stayed around?  I really don't know.


 * When you say you use intuition to go after speediable articles, I hope you mean that after using intuition to find them, you check whether they meet the speedy deletion criteria before you add a speedy tag. If in doubt, don't add the tag.  Remember there are other deletion methods (e.g. prod and AfD).  If an article is not actually harmful -- i.e. just empty or non-notable, not an attack page or copyvio or something -- there's no harm leaving it around for a few days.  In fact, your argument that the editor rarely returns to their article is an argument to use prod rather than speedy:  if they're not coming back, prod would work just as well -- the article would simply get deleted a week later.  But if you do that a large number of times, then one of those times it may just be a new editor who, at first uncertain whether they can, should or want to edit Wikipedia, finds their initial efforts rewarding and becomes an active editor -- or is incensed or scared off by a too-fast speedy-delete of their article and never comes back.


 * See if you can change your editing behaviour to maximize the number of new editors who do reply to you or who do continue editing. Even if it's a small number, can you double it?  Whether someone is a serious editor or not is not yet determined when the person is making their first few edits.  --Coppertwig (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Need to merge Benignus
Note to self: proposed merge of Benignus of Armagh and Saint Benan on Dec. 25. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR
Note to self: Interesting comment re NOR.  Original research being allowed in some form). Driving down a highway. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin
Thanks for your message and support. Don't forget to vote next time :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
  

Dear, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. &mdash; E  talk 12:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology and praise
And I don't mind it when you fix my links, I appreciate it. Thank you for your efforts to keep Blackworm and I focused on content through positive reinforcement. This has been a useful lesson. Although I disagree with you on your disputation of the facticity of reproductive rights as human rights, I think you'll find that I'm more than reasonable when it comes to the issue of abortion as a human right. Perhaps we could work together in developing a neutral section dealing with this sub-topic? This would justify mentioning abortion in the lead (as is, we have a lot of orphaned content in there) and would help determine what language would be appropriate.

Does this mean we're making forward movement on the lead? Because if so, I'm overjoyed. I would enjoy the opportunity to collaborate in a way that added constructive content to the article. Phyesalis (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we've made definite progress. I had been getting the feeling for some time that you opposed certain proposed versions of the page, but nothing had been stated explicitly.  Now you've provided an argument against "option 2" (see Talk:Reproductive rights).  The discussion can therefore take a step forward, with counterarguments etc.
 * I might or might not be interested in getting involved in writing anything about abortion. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent rename of Circumcision in the Bible
I think it's a mistake. Take a look at what links to Circumcision in the Bible, it's almost always discussion of the Bible, hence the obvious and well defined title. If you wish to create a new article called Circumcision in cultures and religions, you should do so, and that new article could reference Circumcision in the Bible. Circumcision in the Bible as an article is already big enough, no need to broaden its scope. Further discussion should probably be on the talk page. 64.149.83.66 (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being so tardy
Thanks for your note: the first time I saw it I forgot to make the move, and the next time I remembered it. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

*waves*
Hey Coppertwig! It's me, Pyth. How're you doing? Pythian Habenero (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hiya, Pyth!


 * That was funny when you said "reverting all his changes".


 * Look at what I wrote at Talk:List of oxymora. (My ulterior motive in posting this here is to preserve my words in case List of oxymora gets deleted.)  See how many oxymora (or things that refer to or are kinda like oxymora in one way or another) you can find in it -- especially the last sentence.  (AfD means "articles for deletion"):


 * == OK, I won't AfD it in the current instant, but ... ==


 * This page is seriously funny. It's downright uplifting. Making this page encyclopedic could be a contradiction in terms, however.  Whether something is or is not an oxymoron is merely subjective fact.  Different people will interpret the same words differently.  I see the page hasn't taken a single step yet towards its presumed eventual fully-sourced destination.  Is it perhaps an impossible possibility to verify that something is an oxymoron?  (A citation could establish that in the opinion of the author of the source it's a true oxymoron, but can it establish it objectively as a criterion for inclusion in this list?)  Dividing it into separate appendices requires even more exact citation information, to firmly suggest that a phrase belongs in one section or another.  Otherwise Wikipedia is in effect stating unuttered claims here.  Besides, it thoroughly fails to list "preschool" in any of its sections. :-(


 * I put up an AfD tag but then noticed the article had previously overcome undergoing AfD and been kept, so I self-reverted the tag off again. However, at some point in what is presently the future I might put it on again.


 * I see the page has been cited as unreferenced since November 2007. In the near future I may come around, look through and delete a lot of the unsourced oxymora (Maybe just the ones I would agree to be disputable.)  Later I might see what happens if the whole page is run through AfD again with a differently worded nomination reason -- with passionate regret, because it's a fun page.  Is there a respectable jokipedia or someplace it could be transwikied to? Alternatively, we could change Wikipedia's immutable policies to allow this sort of page, but that would open a huge can of worms, so I would propose against that suggestion.


 * Meanwhile, all those who favour equitability for this page can head towards sources to assist in preventing its possibly very real extinction


 * --Coppertwig (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Goodness, that's impressive. Also: thank you! --Pythian Habenero (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some time later, I add: in case you want to know what LiveJournal is, voila! (and forget to sign it, because I'm a dork) Pythian Habenero (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

*waves back*
Thank you very much for being impressed, and I'm impressed, though not surprised, that you're impressed, because I think many people would fail to see some of the grasping-at-straws attempts at oxymora I included. Also: You're very welcome, and not a dork IMO, however many posts you forget to sign.

I see there's a discussion about deleting List of sites running the LiveJournal engine. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So there is. I was pondering contributing my voice to either side, but the only reason I'd want to keep it would be because I'd find it personally useful, and I don't at the moment. If that makes sense, which it might not. --Pythian Habenero (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Subsequently: Aha, and it would appear it's gone off without my input. *shrug* --Pythian Habenero (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A tardy thank you
Coppertwig, I sincerely apologize if my comment (last in archive 2) about your relationship to Circumcision and RR implied, or caused to you to infer, that I was casting aspersions on your general credibility. From all that I can tell, you are a valuable member of the project. I have no knowledge of your work on Circumcision but your efforts to keep the talk page calm and to provide an alternate source and wording on the "analogous" issue at RR have certainly been contributions to be proud of. Also, the time and goodwill that you have put into our user talk page discussions, particularly your lovely comments on my talk page, deserve more credit. Thank you.

I declined your offer to coach me through the conflict with Blackworm for the fact that I would be uncomfortable being coached by someone with your opposing perspectives (inferred from our interactions), who also happened to have the history that you and Blackworm have, and happened to be currently editing the pages in question, purely for the possibility of a general conflict of interest, neither an implied, nor an established one. Again, I'm sorry if my comment caused you offense. Perhaps you would reconsider my offer to help me build a neutral section on other perspectives on Reproductive rights? Not that you've actually turned me down, but I don't remember your response and there's been little in the way of reliable development. I would love to be able to move this forward. Phyesalis (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I accept your apology and appreciate the clarification, and it's very kind of you to speak so positively of my efforts.
 * I might or might not help write other sections of the article. It might depend on how much time I have, what else I'm doing, and whether inspiration strikes me. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood. With the recent holidays and other events, when I saw your edit to the "analogous" quote, I thought, "That's a great solution." I have been remiss in my commitment to harmonious collaboration by not crediting you earlier. Thank you for the gracious acceptance of my apology. Phyesalis (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think you mean this edit. I'd forgotten that I'd added a reference and didn't know what you were talking about at first -- I had to search around to find what you meant.  It was one of a few references I'd found via a "Google books" search while trying to fill out the article on the Inter-African Committee.  Thanks for the compliment.  --Coppertwig (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wanted to let you know that I've responded to the AN regarding your comment. I also want you to know that I had (no) [-P] intention to involve you in this particular issue. But since you've joined the discussion, I hope you will consider Cailil's suggestion of formal mediation. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Back again. Hope you don't mind, but while I'm disengaging from the articles involved with the dispute, I'd like to comment on your proposal at RR here. First, I appreciate your efforts to find a compromise. The problem is that your statement sidelines the fact that the UN considers various RR as human rights, in fact doesn't mention it at all. I see this to be a big problem with the proposal. Second, I was wondering if you might consider stepping back from the articles as well, until the dispute is resolved, maybe even pass the suggestion along to Blackworm? I'd take this as an act of good faith toward equitably resolving the issues. Phyesalis (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You say "the fact that the UN considers various RR as human rights". I haven't seen a reliable source that supports this statement, as far as I can see, therefore I don't know whether the UN considers various RR as human rights or not.  Remember that if you want to insert disputed material into the article, the onus is on you to find a reliable source that supports it.  I encourage you again to specify a particular passage in a particular reliable source which supports this statement.  I might also do more searching through the sources myself in hopes of finding something along those lines.
 * At the moment I don't see any reason for me to step back from the articles. If you  explain what the problematic dispute is and why you consider it necessary for yourself to step back from the articles, I might consider it.
 * I'm willing to help you word a message to Blackworm, but I think it's best if you deliver the message yourself. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (You would also have to specify which articles you're asking me to step back from.) --Coppertwig (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that you do not recognize CEDAW, Beijing and Cairo as extensions of the UN, and the fact that various RR have been ratified by the UN, is one of the major issues we have in our dispute. In particular, I'd like to ask you to stop editing RR and FGC until we can resolve the issues between you, Blackworm, and myself. The reason I'm asking you to step away from the articles is that a) you are a partial reason why I am not editing those two pages during this dispute and b) you keep editing parts of articles that are disputed in a manner which advances your POV, despite the fact that I have stepped away in a GF attempt to reduce the tension and resolve the dispute. Stepping back would go a long way toward your credibility in wanting to achieve an equitable resolution in this matter (in my eyes).
 * Thank you for agreeing to pass this along to Blackworm. I recognize that you are under no obligation to do so, and I appreciate it. Blackworm and I have agreed to mediation, are you in? Phyesalis (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)There seems to be some misunderstanding. I haven't agreed to pass anything along to Blackworm. What I meant was that I'm offering to work with you, suggesting what words to use, and then you can send the resulting message to Blackworm yourself (or possibly get someone else to deliver it).

I don't remember being asked whether I recognize CEDAW, Beijing or Cairo to be extensions of the UN. The CEDAW page says "The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is an international convention adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly." so that's very clear: CEDAW is part of the UN. I agree with you on that. Beijing and Cairo are cities, but I think you mean either the conferences, or declarations made at the conferences, mentioned here: (Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing): "...has gained momentum through recent United Nations (UN) conferences, particularly the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo, and the 1995 Fourth World Conference no Women, held in Beijing." This quote calls them UN conferences, so I assume they're extensions of the UN. So we agree on that, too.

You say "the fact that various RR have been ratified by the UN". Repeating this again without providing any arguments or pointing to any specific passages in reliable sources does nothing to convince me of this. If you have convincing arguments (or any arguments) in favour of this statement, please tell me what they are. It seems to me that it may be possible to easily convince me of this by showing me the right quote. Note that I'm under the impression that the word "ratified" has a specific technical meaning in international affairs; but I don't think I've seen verification of a softer version of the statement either.

I'm not aware of any issues between you and me except some differences of opinion, plus vague allegations at WP:AN which you said you would overlook. Differences of opinion are normal and should not impede working together on finding a version of the article that satisfies both of us, or if that is not possible, then a compromise. We need to work at eliminating misunderstandings, such as the misunderstanding that you apparently thought I was refusing to recognize certain conferences as extensions of the UN. (Possibly I did at some time in the past -- I don't remember -- but you could have simply showed me those quotes I just looked up if you wanted to persuade me.)

If there's some reason you don't want to retype quotes as I've done, you can refer to specific passages like this: "The last sentence of the first paragraph on page 1 of Advancing Reproductive Rights ..." (with a link to the page, or mentioning that it's the first footnote at RR, or etc.)

Vague allegations cannot be responded to properly, and anyway you said you were going to overlook them. In future, please either provide specific details of any allegations, or don't mention them at all. I would consider it an act of good faith if you would either strike out the words "in a few instances" and "tendentious edits/arguments" in this post or else provide on my talk page details of when you allege that I didn't work towards solutions or did do "tendentious edits/arguments"; however, I don't require or necessarily expect that you will do one of these things this time around. In future, though, I do expect you to raise issues with me directly on my talk page before mentioning them at WP:AN, and I do also expect you to either provide details of allegations, or else not mention them at all. I consider that just common courtesy.

Disagreeing with me about some article content issues doesn't seem like a good reason to stop editing an article, and it certainly doesn't seem like a good reason for me to stop editing. However, I might do so as part of the mediation process. What about posting to the article talk pages? What about discussing the articles in userspace, or editing drafts of the articles in userspace?

You say "you are a partial reason why I am not editing those two pages during this dispute." This provides almost no information. It's another vague allegation. Please either provide details (i.e. what specifically about my behaviour is bothering you?) or else retract your allegation.

You say "you keep editing parts of articles that are disputed in a manner which advances your POV, despite the fact that I have stepped away in a GF attempt to reduce the tension and resolve the dispute." Actually, in the time after you asked me (today or yesterday) to step away from the articles, I have not edited the two articles in question at all. Before that, I understood that you were taking a break, but didn't see any need for anyone else to also take a break at the same time. Anyone can choose to take a break from editing an article for any of a variety of reasons. Normally, others continue editing. You're making it sound as if I did something wrong, when you hadn't even asked me to stop editing, and I would have been justified, I think, in refusing if you had asked. (One option you have in such situations is to request page protection.) Although I knew you were taking a break, I wasn't clear on exactly what the reasons for your break were:  I still don't.  Actually, I'm not even clear when you were or were not taking a break. It seems to me that we were having ongoing discussion between you and me at Talk:Reproductive rights recently, so that doesn't look like a break. I often wait 24 hours for a response before editing. Sometimes longer. Sometimes I edit without waiting; sometimes you also edit without waiting for a response. Please remember that if I edit in a way that displeases you, you can always invoke my "self-revert" userbox.

I'm sorry that after you inserted the word "various" in an attempt at compromise in response to my request, I didn't reply for a longish time. I had less online time than I expected for a few days, and my reply took a lot more thought than I expected; when I finally did reply it was rather long. Thank you for your patience in that situation. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I'm sorry, I misread your post. No problem on the Blackworm thing. You know, you're right. I have not discussed particular issues I have with you, with you. I did not post diffs at AN, because I truly had no intention of bringing you into it. (Also because it seemed more about how to handle the situation than trying to prove a particular case.) The fact that you make edits like this on RR advocacy, acknowledging in the edit summary: “I haven't read past the first page of two of the cites but I'm not convinced they support those statements.” There were three sources, two of which were lengthy peer-review articles by notable experts in their field. Cook is an international authority on the subject (at least according to the UN). This kind of edit makes me really have to re-evaluate your efforts to mediate the issues between Blackworm and myself (well, when you became an active editor of the pages with edits that predominantly supported B's POV in general, but that edit in particular). I can provide other examples, but I feel like that one is a good one. (Also the fact that you became an active editor in a dispute you were trying to informally mediate seems a good one too.)


 * Quite frankly, I would have no problem arguing for you to be excluded from the mediation if you would agree to stop editing RR and FGC until the end of the mediation. You yourself have acknowledged that you don't have a lot of time/inclination to work on the article to address the unexplicated POVs on the issues. Does this seem reasonable to you? I ask, not trying to strongarm you, but in an effort to reach a reasonable compromise outside of formal mediation. I would consider it an act of GF, nothing more (that is to say agreement by both parties does not constitute any accusation nor any admission or defense of an otherwise implied accusation). What do you think? Phyesalis (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain what it was about that edit that bothered you. I'm still waiting for you to provide quotes supporting your point.  I'm not convinced that such quotes exist in those articles.  The statements I added fact tags to seemed to be asserting that all reproductive rights advocates were doing those things.  That would require sources establishing that doing those things is part of the (well-established) definition of reproductive rights advocates.  I haven't seen any quotes presenting such a definition.


 * Actually, I was participating in discussion at Talk:Reproductive rights, and editing the article, before I began what I would consider informal mediation. Maybe I should have explained to you more clearly at the beginning what I was intending to do.  I greatly limited my participation in the discussion on the article talk page or editing the article(s) while I was carrying on a mediation-like discussion with you, but at no time did I intend to keep out of the discussion.  In fact, part of my motivation in starting the mediation-like activity in the first place was to get the user-behaviour stuff out of the way so that I could see the article-content discussion on the article talk page without other stuff getting in the way.  That seems to have been successful.  I avoided using the word "mediation" so as to avoid giving you the impression that I was intending to do anything special.  I interacted the way I normally interact:  editing, participating in discussion, and also encouraging people to get along when the opportunity to give such encouragement arises.  I started editing and discussing more when I had gotten the impression that our conversation was winding down, that you were less interested in it.  If I do something like that again, I'll try to remember to tell the person close to the beginning that I'm not planning to refrain from editing or discussing, and about having a history with other participants.  I wouldn't tell them right at the beginning, because at that point I wouldn't know that mediation-like activity was about to start happening.
 * Actually, I did say this: "OK, here's something to try: choose one to three edits you want to make to the article and show me where the discussion of them is or start a new discussion of them, and I'll (probably) get involved and hopefully help resolve the issue; but probably only if you stick to only article content discussion in that context." quite early on in our discussion, which indicated an interest on my part in getting involved in the discussion.   I thought you were trying to get more people involved in the discussion.
 * No thank you, I don't want to refrain from editing articles during the mediation without participating in the mediation. Anyway, that probably wouldn't help the situation.  We still have to form consensus at the articles afterwards, anyway.  Perhaps now that I've agreed to mediation, I'm looking forward to it and am not trying to get out of it.
 * If you don't clarify what you're asking me to refrain from editing, I'll assume you're asking me to refrain from editing Reproductive rights and Female genital cutting, but that you're not asking me to refrain from participating in discussion on the article talk pages of those articles, nor to refrain from discussion about the articles elsewhere or editing of drafts of the articles elsewhere. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the Reproductive Rights article already has this reference: "Reproductive rights embrace certain human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other relevant UN consensus documents. These rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health." from UNFPA Summary of the ICPD Programme for Action:   --Coppertwig (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reproductive rights should also have a link to this page: International Conference on Population and Development, which could be wikilinked to the word "Cairo" in the lead. Also a link to Fourth World Conference on Women from "Beijing" -- except it's already wikilinked later in the article.  I'm not sure if we have this document (the platform of action from Beijing) among the references already.  "The explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment;" --Coppertwig (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Thanks for the additional resources. I am familiar with them, but given the previous objections, I wasn't sure you'd have accepted them. I added the Beijing link (if I remember correctly) around the time I added the men's content. At the time, there wasn't any mention of Cairo or Beijing in the lead. Does this mean that you now agree that "Various reproductive rights have been established as human rights?" Because that would be great.

Taking a page from you on the ASB. Hope you don't mind. What bothered me about the edit (diff in previous post) was the apparent lack of good faith over some fairly basic facts. You did not read either of the articles in their entirety, and yet felt the need to surmise that the two fairly lengthy articles did not contain the information. To make that kind of edit summary, in conjunction with the cite tag seemed somewhat antagonistic considering that you were attempting to de-escalate a dispute that involved contentious editing of the same kind of behavior (although on a much larger scale). Perhaps a better way to help de-escalate would have been to discuss it on the talk, since all three of us were active in discussion. Seeing as how Blackworm's slapping cite tags on everything he disagreed with, despite the fact that it had citations was part of the issue to begin with, your continuation of the practice seemed intentionally antagonistic. Now from my perspective, it seems you have been content to allow Blackworm to act as a sort of stalking horse, allowing you to interject as the voice of reason, lending an air of legitimacy to an editor's tendentious methods while advancing the same POV.

I wrote that I was asking you to stop editing "RR and FGC". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Yes, I am asking you to stop editing Reproductive rights and Female genital cutting (main and talk) for the duration of the mediation. If you want to work on other mock-ups, I have no issue (why would I ask you to do that?). Do you find this request unreasonable? If so, would you mind explaining why?

Also, the issue of the material regarding men's health that you and BW have removed because you deem it sexist, would you mind pointing out the WP policy the covers sexist material? I am unaware of this policy, that cited material can be removed for perceived sexism. Also, could you explain how the material is sexist. I don't understand this at all. The source clearly states that men's sexual activity outside a committed relationship has general health repercussions due to the fact that the differences in reproductive systems make it much more likely that a man will transmit an STD to a woman than the other way around. I don't understand your opposition to this material. If I add that info in, it does not pass a commutation test - replacing men with women does not yield the same truth statement, it yields a false one.

In closing, I like your suggestion to work together on coming up with a mediation request. I think it will be helpful to have you as an involved party. Thank you. I'm going to post over at AN about our conversation and its outcome. Phyesalis (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly any time a heterosexual man is having sexual activity outside a committed relationship, a woman is also having sexual activity outside a committed relationship.  Do you agree or disagree?  Yes, or no?  There is the source of the commutation.  Implying men's activity somehow affects the transmission of disease more than women's is pure nonsense, proven by that very simple analysis.  Views expressing bigotry not attributed in prose to a specific group are not permitted in Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind that I corrected my original break, didn't mean to make this a separate section. I'll change it back if you like.
 * I didn't ask for page protection because I didn't want to stop others from editing the article, and I thought it would be more polite if I just asked the two of you to agree voluntarily. Page protection seemed a bit antagonistic without asking you first. Phyesalis (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict!) Actually, I wasn't aware of what it was about Blackworm's behaviour that was bothering you. Perhaps I ought to have asked you to define the problem more clearly;  but I didn't want to encourage you to again list things that Blackworm had done.  I jumped to the conclusion that what was needed was to establish better relations with Blackworm, and focussed on that in my advice to you.  I think that did help.  But, I failed to help clarify what the specific issues (or specific behaviours) were that were bothering you.  I wasn't aware that Blackworm's placing of fact tags on material that already had footnotes was one of the problems in your eyes.  You may have said so, but it may have been in a list of behaviours and I didn't pay attention to the details;  I only saw a list of behaviours, I didn't see analysis by you as to what you thought was wrong with the behaviours.  So, I didn't memorize any list of types of behaviours that you might seem to disapprove of:  it wasn't clear to me, from what you said, what they were.


 * Early on, I assumed that I would probably be on your side. Perhaps that's because I was basing my conclusions mainly on what you were saying.  I was surprised and somewhat embarassed, when I got more involved in editing the articles, to find that I was agreeing with Blackworm on a lot of article-content issues.  I was also somewhat surprised that article-content issues seemed to be the main problem.  I had thought that once people started to get along, the article-content issues would be resolved in the normal way, i.e. by discussing, trying to find mutually agreeable solutions or compromises, etc.


 * Now that you've explained things in your message above, it seems clear that you disapprove of the adding of tags to material that already has footnotes.  That seems to be a reasonable position, but I don't necessarily agree with it.  Perhaps a  template would be more appropriate in some situations.  What's your reason for disapproving of this way of using fact tags?  A footnote sometimes applies to a larger entity, such as a whole paragraph, a whole sentence or a few sentences, while the fact tag may be intended to apply to a smaller section of that, such as one sentence in the paragraph, or part of a sentence.  The footnote may still be valuable in supporting other material in the paragraph (etc.), but the fact tag means that the person putting it there thinks that the particular sentence (or part of a sentence) still requires verification.  Other people might disagree and argue that the footnote already supports that specific statement.  That's fine:  they can discuss it on the talk page, and if there's consensus to remove the fact tag it can be removed.  This seems to me to be a reasonable way to use fact tags.


 * In the particular situation of that edit, there had been a discussion between you and me in which I had indicated that I found the statements hard to believe and that it would require an "overwhelming majority of sources" to support such a hard-to-believe claim. Note that WP:V says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".  You replied that the overwhelming majority of sources did make that claim. You also replied you would work on adding "cited material", which I probably took to mean adding references to support the claim I was disputing, though now it seems you might not have meant that.  After this conversation, adding the fact tags (which I did several days later) seems very reasonable to me.  It wasn't intended to be antagonistic.  It was intended to indicate to readers that the material was (in my opinion at least) unverified.  I figured that when you added the additional sources, which I thought you were intending to add, you could remove the tags.


 * You said that the overwhelming majority of sources claim that advocates of reproductive rights work to protect women from gender discrimination, but I haven't seen a single source saying this. Again, this may be a difference of opinion as to who should do the homework.  Since you want to add disputed material, I expect you (as per WP:V) to provide sufficient supporting references to convince all (or almost all) reasonable people of the claim.  I also expect you to tell me which passages in the source support the claim, in your opinion, and I also think it would be reasonable for you to quote the passages on the talk page if you have access to the source but I don't.  But apparently you think the onus is on me to find sources that state the opposite of the material you want to add;  or to buy and read whole articles searching for the quote you've already seen, when you won't tell me what page it's on.  That's not my interpretation of WP:V.


 * There may have been a misunderstanding about whether sources are considered "reliable". The JSTOR articles look respectable to me.  When I asked for quotes from reliable sources, quotes from those same articles might have satisfied me just fine.  I didn't mean to imply that they aren't "reliable".  On the other hand, just because something is stated in a reliable source doesn't necessarily mean it's true.  Some statements require prose attribution.


 * It seems to me that I've asked you for quotes many times and as far as I remember you haven't provided any quotes in response. Not only that, but as far as I remember you haven't replied at all:  you haven't said that you're not going to provide quotes, or explained why you're not, or said that you might find some in the future, or in any way acknowledged my requests as far as I remember.  If you want to insert material into an article which other editors dispute, I think you need to make some effort to convince other editors why the material should be added.  I don't understand why you haven't replied to my requests for quotes.  I've explained why I haven't provided sources that you asked me to provide:  it's because I'm not (at the moment) trying to add any material that any other editors dispute, so there's no need for me to provide sources.  I can still look for sources, in a general desire to improve the article, but I don't have a responsibility to find any particular sources or any sources at all.


 * I don't understand part of your post above. I don't know what "ASB" stands for, and I'm not sure what you're implying with "stalking horse".  I began editing Female genital cutting as a result of seeing your post at User talk:Jayjg which seemed to be encouraging people to get involved in the debate there.  There was nothing sneaky involved.  If my opinion on some things happens to agree with Blackworm's, I can't help that.  I can't just purposely change my opinions to something else.


 * Re heterosexual relations: It seems to me that if male-to-female transmission is much more likely than female-to-male, then a male having one act of sex outside a committed relationship is less likely to pick up any disease than a female doing the same thing.  Subsequently, a couple having relations often would tend to have a higher rate of transmission between them due to the number of acts.  So by that logic, perhaps a female having an act of sex outside a committed relationship is more likely to pass disease to her regular partner than a man doing the same thing.  However, I don't think the article should say this.  WP:NPOV says "as much as possible, without bias," which precludes sexist statements (because sexist is a subset of biassed) and which also precludes selecting what to say in a way that implies biassed conclusions.  Besides, it would be OR unless a published source is found making the same argument. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As always, thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I don't have a lot of time right now to respond with reciprocal attention and detail and work on the request, perhaps we should table these issues and work on the request? Your sandbox or mine? Phyesalis (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's possible to do mediation if you're shunning one of the participants. Please clarify your intention to go through mediation (or not). --Coppertwig (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about how the section break is. I didn't even notice.


 * Sorry, I don't agree that "various reproductive rights have been established as human rights". Again, would you please provide the quote(s) that this is based on in your opinion?  Even if it's quotes that have just been mentioned, I need you to tell me which quote(s) it is.


 * I would appreciate it if you would either strike out the comment about "stalking horse" or clarify it, providing details if it's an accusation.


 * You said there was an "apparent lack of good faith". Now that I've explained what happened from my point of view, do you still see it that way?  --Coppertwig (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for defending the truth about my actions here ([diff]). I'll note, though, that I never explicitly asked Phyesalis to tell me how many editors Phyesalis contacted; I did ask Phyesalis to clarify Phyesalis' response to my suggestion to read WP:CANVAS, which seemingly implied Phyesalis only contacted two editors. Maybe this is nit-picking, but I would see a direct asking of the question of how many editors were contacted as stronger evidence of an accusation of violating CANVAS -- so I carefully avoided that. Thanks again. Blackworm (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: In case it's not clear, I am not calling for any amendments to your comments. Blackworm (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing archives
Thanks, I'll undelete them. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized you were watching my Talk: page quite closely, but thanks for stating it openly. I'm sure no harm was intended, and I didn't take offense. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose response
I've replied there. Regards, Rudget . 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied again. Hopefully, I've communicated better this time. Rudget . 15:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tea
I've invited you to WP:TEA. See January 2008. Thank you for your graceful acceptance of mediation. I'm sure your measured presence will have a calming effect on both of us. You have my esteem and appreciation. I'm sure your contributions over at the mediation request draft will be productive. Phyesalis (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail
You have e-mail, CT. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Change in RfA vote
Yes, I believe the protocol is to move your vote and discussion below to the Neutral section. -- Avi (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a Thank You
Thank you for proposing to merge This Page instead of removing it. Also, i'm sure that this part (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Code_of_Claw&oldid=183102775) was not copyright, becuase this was not removed yet. I have put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldkingtut5 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:re: I have read your message. I have listened to your comments, I do not want to start and edit war; i just want to state that you put something twice. Nothing offensive meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldkingtut5 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks. ∂☺1♂K∫ ₪&amp;+(_)+5 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tea
Thanks, Coppertwig, that was very thoughtful of you. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Jayjg. It's quite true.  --Coppertwig (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation help for Safavid art
Answers at Talk:Safavid art, and at Discuter:Art safavide. Friendly yours. Pentocelo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.15.92.33 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear PalestineRemembered, re this discussion, where someone asked you to avoid using the word "immigrants" in this context and you indicated difficulty in finding acceptable words to use and you said "I will often refer to supporters of Israel as "the immigrants" ". Here I would like to try to help everyone compromise and get along with each other, so I'd like to try to help find a word or phrase people can agree on, although perhaps it's not likely I can come up with anything that hasn't already been suggested and rejected for one reason or another. I understand your frustration -- you've got to be able to use a word to be able to express what you want to say. Now, maybe I ought to know this already, but I'd appreciate it if you'd gently explain to me why you wouldn't use the term "Israelis" in that context. (As a reminder, there are now also the phrases suggested by  Sm8900 (Steve): ("i would ask whether you could perhaps use a term such as "Israel supporters," "Israelis and their allies", or simply, "Members of Israeli society." it might even be fine to say "Israelis of a Zionist viewpoint," as using Zionist as an adjective is not really that bad.") --Coppertwig (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, it seems to me that I've already spent far too much time and effort answering questions and pussy-footing around what words I can use to describe quite easily understood concepts. I've mysteriously been included in the ArbCom on a massively problematical editor of a totally different persuasion. It could be time for the community to concentrate on real issues of editorial integrity. PRtalk 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the question I asked you: I'm not insisting on an answer.  I was trying to be helpful.  --Coppertwig (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your suggestion re template and mediation
It's just an idea I've been thinking about. Although I used the controversial template as an example, we should think about using the WikiProject tags instead. It would be easy to implement, but difficult to get admins and mediators to come on board because it would mean that they would actually have to do the work rather than camping on the noticeboard. But, I'm sure there are people who would watch the categories and help out, which is why I think it has a chance. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason Kane deletion
Thanks for looking into that. I've put up a much better page now. Hopefully it will be good enough to stick.

Thanks again Hortaculture (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Primes / rules / patterns / location
Sorry, but do you make any sense but a psedo-scientific survey that just stated incorrectly some mathematical results to conclude that he, the creator, discovered a new string theory? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the second line of the "article": "A Prime Number, if it is a Prime Number, has 1, 3, 7, 9 in its’ far right column." -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are some correct, simple facts about prime numbers on the page.  I've nominated it for deletion via prod.  Some of it may be nonsense, but much of it is certainly not nonsense.  Not appropriate for Wikipedia perhaps, but not nonsense.  "Nonsense" is not to be used as a basket category for everything you think shouldn't be in Wikipedia for one reason or another.
 * That statement you quote is a simple fact about prime numbers other than 2. "Mathematically incorrect" is not the same thing as "nonsense".  --Coppertwig (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Column in a number? He means digit I presume... and A prime number is always a primer number :) (Maybe similar to "A rose is a rose is a rose"?) Moreover, the last paragraph says everything: "I haven’t explored it, but there is a possibility that the study of digit strings which is equivalent to a f(x) function wave in mathematical terms when associated with numbers ( particles ) will give us a clue about chemical reactions / quantum world.". I admit that we may have a different definition for "nonsense". :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what definition you're using, but here's the one I'm using:

Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.'
 * --Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. We agree that this article has no place in Wikipedia. I'll keep this definition in mind. Friendly, -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry if I sounded a bit brusque.  I think it's important to use the gentlest possible deletion method.  Good contributors are lost to the project when they experience quick deletion of their articles.  I'm not sure if I would be here today if my first articles had been deleted within hours rather than weeks.  Friendly greetings -- isn't Wikipedia great? --Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Udo's Choice Food Pyramids
Hi Coppertwig. I noticed you are the creator of the above article. Just to let you know I have nominated it for deletion. You can participate in the deletion discussion here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Udo's Choice Food Pyramids
An editor has nominated Udo's Choice Food Pyramids, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Email
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied by email (if I've retyped your email address correctly). --Coppertwig (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)