User talk:Jakew/Archive 6

see my contribs for news update
see my contribs for news update&bull; Ling.Nut 22:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Jakew (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Collaborator's Barnstar

 * Why, thank you, Coppertwig. That's very nice of you, and much appreciated. [[Image:Smile.png]]
 * P.S. What does "aneologic" mean? Jakew (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By "aneologic" I mean unable to coin new words. I somehow got into the practice of coining a word every time I award a barnstar. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, now you've explained it's obvious: a-neologic. :-) Jakew (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard thread
I started this thread about the genital integrity redirect, but forgot to let you know about it. Not sure that's the best place for it as it is slightly complex (and may not be a POV issue at all) but it seemed like a place to start. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Vandalism
FIRST WARNING: If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies, you may be blocked from editing. Historys Docs (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you are sincere, you appear to be unaware of the definition of vandalism. I suggest you familiarise yourself with that definition before posting any further "warnings". Jakew (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit vandalism occurs when the reader who deletes an edit has not properly read or looked into the link that supports the assertion of fact. Historys Docs (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't the definition, as you would know if you read the link I supplied above. Jakew (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Vandalism: Willful damage or destruction, often of shared property en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vandalism Historys Docs (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, that isn't Wikipedia's definition, which (to give you the link again) is here. Second, removing inappropriate material is neither damage nor destruction.  Put another way, that's not the right definition, and it doesn't apply anyway. Jakew (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's edit vandalism all right. Do I doubt your state of mind -- your sincerity? I get your (ilks') problem -- they seem to consider themselves an expert on deceptive edits, judging by their profile description (unless they've deleted them). "Education will win over Ignorance." That historical fact rips the guts out of uneducated readers. In the meantime, a manipulative use of Wikipedia guidelines is a cunning accomplishment, whoever does it ... I'm sure you agree! Historys Docs (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had the slightest idea what you were talking about, I might know whether I agree or disagree. Unfortunately, as things stand, I'm just baffled. Jakew (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute in Mary Kay Letourneau
I have stated your actions on that page are incivil. Not only incivil, but a waste of editors' time, which is notable considering I claim you essentially followed me there from our disputes on circumcision, like Avraham (Avi) did before you -- both of you having zero edits to this article prior to my editing it. Jake, at least two editors there are clearly editing the lead in support of a fringe POV, refusing wording I suggest that you yourself seem to abide by. When they refuse, you join in their defense, arguing the same consensus exists in favour of the change, instead of attempting to convince them of its neutrality? You don't try to convince them one iota? It doesn't seem like your usual, civil demeanor Jake. Please stop. Blackworm (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to conduct a content dispute with you here, Blackworm. Jakew (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:HARASS. Blackworm (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Circumcision
Assuming that comment was directed at me, that's fine, I have other things to do, so you're on your own with this one. Good luck. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I came to that page originally probably because there was something in ANI about an edit war. I should have taken it off my watch list when it looked like it was settled. But it's never settled. The POV-pushers will always try some new way to wedge their views in. So now it is off my watch list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right: it is never settled. I'm sorry if I was rude to you, I was just trying to avoid the kind of blazing row that I've seen in the past.  Your input has been appreciated, and I'll look forward to seeing you elsewhere on WP. Jakew (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau
I appreciate your continued efforts to uphold neutrality and encyclopedic tone on this article. In my opinion a single editor has ignored consensus and created a battleground atmosphere. If you are interested in addressing that issue or need additional input in some aspect of the article, please let me know. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You may wish to look at the discussion I started in regard to Dan's editing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jakew (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had my suspicions, and that's why I notified you. I have asked that he be indef'd and his user page totally cleared. This is intolerable behavior for a wikipedia editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. He has made some useful edits (though they invariably require editing to enforce appropriate policies), but I wholly agree that personal attacks of this nature are unacceptable.  I would personally prefer that he deleted the attacks himself, but I'll watch with interest to see what unfolds. Jakew (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one time where it's a good thing I'm not an admin, or I would have done it myself (which wouldn't have been appropriate, as I've probably engaged him in debate on the matter). It's one thing to argue for a viewpoint. Trying to impeach another editor's integrity, solely on the basis of his viewpoint, is way over the line. It's McCarthyism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's incredibly common, though (particularly, I'm tempted to suggest, by those who lack actual arguments). Allude to dark, sinister motives on the part of those with whom you disagree, and you can avoid having to address what they actually say.  I've seen it a lot in the circumcision debate &mdash; the label "circumfetishist" seems to be a favourite of the more strident anti-circumcision activists (amazingly, I have often seen a peer-reviewed study dismissed with nothing more than "so-and-so is a circumfetishist").  I assume that the technique must work, to some extent, otherwise nobody would use it, but it seems more than a little pathetic.  Jakew (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't claim any expertise on the subject, but it seems to me like the circumcision opponents have turned this into a war where there's no real enemy. There's no circumcision "cabal" - it's just done routinely in hospitals (or at least it used to be) for various health reasons. These guys strike me as being basically obsessed with their genitals, among other things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But, of course, that's precisely what a cabalist would say. [[File:Face-devil-grin.svg]] Jakew (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Done
Revdeld as requested. However, do you really think it's appropriate of you to be editing articles about circumcision considering the website you run and the strong views you hold? Try editing some other topics in future please, lay off anything you have a COI with :-) Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you're aware, I've spent the previous two hours looking into your edits because of a concern that the Twitter account might actually belong to you - thank goodness it doesn't. You might want to report it to Twitter as an abusive impersonation account. I checked over the related discussions, including the one you link me to, but it seems that there was never a conclusion reached. You may only be interested in advocating circumcision, but what I'm asking is that you 'diversify your portfolio', lest people see you as a single-purpose account and act accordingly! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't say that Jakew is "advocating circumcision". To my knowledge, that is not how he describes what he does and is not what he seems to me to do.  Per WP:BLP, please have several reliable sources to back up such an assertion.
 * Please read the WP:COI guideline. It doesn't say that someone like Jakew has a COI with respect to circumcision articles, and even if someone does have a COI, the COI guideline still allows them to edit such articles (being careful in certain ways), so your request for Jakew not to edit such articles is two steps removed from what the guideline says and is off-base.    There was previously a discussion about whether Jakew had a COI and it was stated that having a POV is not the same thing as having a COI.  Experts are allowed (and hopefully encouraged!) to edit articles on the topics they're expert in!!  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jake, reverts on Circumcision
Hi a friend of mine contacted me regarding your revert history on the Circumcision article, I looked into it and see quite a bit of reverting going on but not much editing, can you tell me whats going on with the article to require so much reverts?

Thanks. Your Wikipedia Patroller --Alin0Steglinski (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverts are just another kind of edit. Sometimes they're the most appropriate kind, such as when a change does not and cannot easily be made to comply with Wikipedia policy.  Generally (except in really obvious cases) you'll find an accompanying discussion on the talk page.  You might find it helpful to read WP:BRD, which discusses the bold-revert-discuss method of collaborative editing. Jakew (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Alin0Steglinski. The Circumcision article is I think one of the top 50 most frequently-viewed pages on Wikipedia, and has been edited extensively.  It also has the "controversial" template on its talk page.   When pages have been edited that much, and are on controversial topics which are often edited by new or relatively new editors, it often happens that a large proportion of the edits need to be reverted.  A similar situation may occur on the pages about candidates in major elections, major current events, or whatever pages happen to be the featured article for that day.  The circumcision page is already the product of extensive discussion, collaboration and consensus-building, so any changes often require more discussion and consensus-building before they can be implemented.  When Jakew or anyone else reverts edits, the editor who had done the edit or anyone else is welcome to discuss it on the talk page and perhaps arrive at a consensus to put the edit back in or to form some other version that meets the concerns of both sides.  Jakew is very familiar with WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies, and has participated in many lengthy discussions about the content of the circumcision page.  When he reverts an edit, it's usually something that someone else would have reverted anyway if they'd had the time to examine it; it's often best to just revert these immediately and I'm glad Jakew has the time to do so.  He also often comments on an edit and waits for discussion before modifying or reverting it. As Jakew said, reverting is a form of editing;  it's one of the techniques that allows Wikipedia articles to be of such high quality. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Earth radius reference
Hi, Jakew. I'm not really "back"; I'm taking frequent long wikibreaks. However, I'd appreciate some help from you in figuring out the date of a reference. See Earth radius and Talk:Earth radius. The reference is here http://www.springerlink.com/content/0bgccvjj5bedgdfu/about/ and it gives a "Springerlink Date" in the year 2000, but I wonder if that's the date it was put on the web rather than the date it was originally published. I'd like to know which year Volume 74 number 1 of the Journal of Geodesy was published. In the article itself, I've added it as a ref with year 2000, but there's another almost identical ref with year 1980 (taken from the title? which is "Geodetic Reference System 1980") and I'm not sure if that's the same publication or not. I tried clicking on "export citation" at Springerlink but it didn't seem to do anything. I'd like to get footnotes with references attached to some of the values for various flavours of earth radius, and this reference appears to be a definitive one for a number of useful values. Thanks in advance for your help. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's nice to see you "not really back", Coppertwig. :-)  I was able to persuade it to give me a BibTex citation, and you seem to be correct that it's dated from 2000.  (Springerlink's site isn't the most intuitive, is it?)  I've left a comment at the article.  Jakew (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Could I tempt you to be "not really back" slightly more often, I wonder?  It's such a pleasure to see you editing again... Jakew (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActuallyRationalThinker (talk • contribs)
 * Hmm, presumably this is intended as a response to this identical message left on your talk page. Generally speaking, one uses the uw-3rr template to a) ensure that the user is informed about the three revert rule, b) to discourage attempts to try to force through changes by repeated reverts, and c) to try to persuade them to use article talk pages to achieve consensus instead.  Regarding the first point, I'm sure you're aware that you've now made three reverts in the last 24 hours.  Regarding the latter two points, I'd like to draw your attention, once again, to the Talk:Circumcision page, where you'll find that a message has been waiting for discussion since before any of your reverts.  I'd also like to make you aware of the bold, revert, discuss method of collaborative editing; attempting to force through changes as you've been doing is closer to bold-revert-revert-revert, which is not constructive or helpful.  Once a change has been reverted it's much more sensible to discuss it on the talk page, to understand why it has been rejected and, perhaps, to attempt to find a satisfactory compromise. Jakew (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Further templating from deleted. Jakew (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

CDC Researcher
You mistate discussion, which sounds fully (comments within) rigged anyway. Important, quality (source), specific numbers, from a professional presentation, carried in mainstream media, needs to be included. It's offically confirmed that the rate continues to drop rapidly. It doesn't have to be a new paragraph in the later section.Horngren (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think my summary was accurate: there was no consensus in that discussion to include this material. I'm not going to debate the subject with you here, as it's not an appropriate place to discuss article content.  If you want to discuss the subject, please create a new section at Talk:Circumcision. Jakew (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Look again for quality of argument in addition to the gist of discussion. Wiki guidelines require inclusion, unless there is strong specific objection, which there was not.Horngren (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguments against inclusion were generally of higher quality, citing WP guidelines, etc. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same pages? Hard to understand your position unless there's another.Horngren (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Prevalence of Circumcision
You are misrepresenting the source.

"According to the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), 65% of newborns were circumcised in 1999, and the overall proportion of newborns circumcised was stable from 1979 through 1999."--72.153.93.197 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've fixed it. Jakew (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Can you explain exactly how I am "misrepresenting the source?" My source is the The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, medical body of the Province of British Columbia.--Sunfox1 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source you cited didn't make the points attributed to it. Jakew (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the direct quote from the source: "Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non‐therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention." Again, I do not see how I "misrepresented" the source (https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf). Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunfox1 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't make the other claims: that it "adversely affects penile function and sexual pleasure", "is justified only by medical myths", "is extremely painful", and "is a violation of human rights". It is therefore a misrepresentation of the source to cite it as evidence of them. Jakew (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Robin Weiss
Hi. Why not move this to mainspace? --Lambiam 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be perfectly honest: I wrote most of the article and then totally forgot about it! Anyway, good idea.  I've moved it. Jakew (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of Automated Replies
Hey Jakew, This is a friendly notification to inform you that automated notices are submitted to reported users on the WP:AN/EW noticeboard by User:NekoBot periodically during reviews of the page content to save editors from having to post their own notices and directly link to the report in question. Please see Bots/Requests_for_approval/NekoBot and User:NekoBot for more information. + Crashdoom  Talk // NekoBot OP 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the lead in Acorn Archimedes
for this edit. I don't know what I was thinking when I did this to the 18 MIPS (although the 4 MIPS was OK). --Trevj (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, in my less pedantic moments, I've been known to refer to a MIP myself. It's such a common mistake that I can't help but wonder if it will become accepted usage (perhaps via a backronym of some kind).
 * I wonder if you could help with something. At the ARM architecture page the Acorn Archimedes is listed as an example usage of the ARM250.  My recollection is that only the A3010 used the ARM250, and I can't remember if the A3010 was officially an Archimedes or not.  My gut feeling is that it wasn't.  (My recollection is that Acorn stopped using the Archimedes brand at around the time that the A5000 was launched.  I seem to recall that the A3000 might've been an exception, but that may have just been the iconic red function keys interfering with my memory.)  Do you happen to know? Jakew (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right about the backronym! Anyway, as for the A3010 - I think you're right about that too. I'm not an expert on this though, graduating directly from a Beeb to a RiscPC without using any Acorn models in between. The link in the table is probably because there's currently no separate article for Acorn A3010. It might help to include the ARM cores at Acorn Archimedes (currently some are listed in the Notes column). I suppose the table currently at ARM architecture could link to A3010 for the ARM250. And, regarding the ARM250, I'll probably follow up this 'claimed first' here on Wikipedia some time. --Trevj (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jakew is pro-circumcision, in my opinion.
I believe that Jakew is pro-circumcision. I edited a few pages, replacing "uncircumcised" with "intact", and he quickly reverts the page. The correct word for a penis that has not been circumcised is "intact" - not uncircumcised. Men who were never circumcised are not "uncircumcised" any more than women who never had a mastectomy are "unmastectomized." I don't have a problem if you are pro-circumcision, but we need to use correct terminology here at Wikipedia. Once again, the correct word for a penis that has NOT been circumcised is "intact." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingrivera (talk • contribs)


 * I'm afraid you're incorrect, Kingrivera: the word defined as "not circumcised" is "uncircumcised"; see a dictionary entry. "Intact" has a broader meaning; it means "not altered, broken, or impaired; remaining uninjured, sound, or whole; untouched; unblemished" (see here).  So, for example, if a penis has been tattooed but has a foreskin, it is uncircumcised, but isn't intact.  So "intact" is actually insufficiently precise to describe a penis that has not been circumcised.  Moreover, there are other problems: first that "intact" has non-neutral senses such as "not impaired, injured, or blemished" that should be avoided in a NPOV encyclopaedia, as Wikipedia cannot take a stance on whether circumcision does such a thing.  Finally, the adjective "intact" is rarely used in scholarly sources to describe a penis that hasn't been circumcised; the term "uncircumcised" is far more common.  Jakew (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---> Most women are never circumcised. Are they also "uncircumcised" by your definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingrivera (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a legitimate use of English, though personally I would prefer to describe them as "women who have not undergone female genital cutting". Jakew (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---> So you would prefer to describe intact women as "women who have not undergone female genital cutting", while describing intact men as "uncircumcised"? Seriously, that's sexist. Others who call intact men "uncircumcised" but do not use this word for females are also sexist.

---> The word "intact" is increasingly being used to describe a penis that has an intact foreskin. Most people around the world believe that a normal penis with an intact foreskin is "not altered, broken, or impaired; remaining uninjured, sound, or whole; untouched; unblemished." The large majority (currently about 90%) of men in the world are intact. -Kingrivera


 * It's not sexism; it's just recognition of the fact that different procedures are given different names. The term "circumcision" is rather controversial when applied to female genital cutting, and for that reason I generally avoid it.  Consequently I avoid derivative terms such as "uncircumcised". Jakew (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To say "I am uncut" instead of "I am intact" is like saying "I am unsick" rather than "I am healthy". -- Stormwatch (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But, as I've pointed out above, the two do not have opposite meanings. Jakew (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting Kingrivera's latest vandalism of my user page. I do believe it's time to go to WP:ANI with this problematic single-issue editor's behaviour, don't you? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I'm not sure if it's urgent &mdash; he seems to have stopped editing at least for now.  I'll certainly support an AN/I report if you do that. Jakew (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll be keeping an eye on 'im. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as you've probably seen, he's acquired a 48-hour block, and his response doesn't give me a lot of confidence that his behaviour will improve. But I've been wrong before... Jakew (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My talk page
Don't post erroneous warnings on my talk page please, I notified everyone who took part on the RM of the ongoing debate which they might find interesting. I can't help that they all disagree with your point of view. The only person I did not notify was born2cycle bc I know he is focused on titles alone. Vietminh (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The warning was entirely appropriate, especially so given your belief that they would disagree with me. Unfortunately the act of canvassing makes it even more difficult to assess true consensus. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I notified everyone who commented on the RM regardless of their opinion. As you pointed out some of them only commented on the common name aspect of my RM so their opinion on this issue is up in the air at the moment (at least according to your logic of them being separate issues). The consensus is already there and they've already put their opinion forward before I said anything to them, I just asked them to remind you of it, so I have not done anything inappropriate. You are too close to this issue as your user page clearly shows, I wish as in the RM that you could recognize and accept the consensus. Good Day.Vietminh (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point, though, isn't what I believe; it's what you believe. You believe that these people oppose the use of FGM; therefore asking them to participate in a debate was a particularly egregious example of canvassing because the intent was to stack the vote. Don't do it again. Jakew (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For one, don't threaten me. For two, I only notified them of an ongoing discussion to which their opinion was already decided and posted on the talk page, so I wasn't influencing them (which is half the intent of canvassing), the other half notifying them, I did do. But there's nothing wrong with that. "I believe" the consensus has already been established and the "vote" has already taken place, so there is no "vote" to stack, nor is there any vote anyway because we decide thing on consensus not votes. However given that you saw an issue with what I said I amended the comments I posted to use the most neutral terms humanly possible. Vietminh (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right: "stack the vote" was a poorly chosen phrase. I appreciate you making the effort to make your messages more neutral.  I wish it hadn't happened, as it makes consensus even more of a mess than it already is, but what's done is done. Jakew (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I decided to do a little more reading up on NPOV and I found this: In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming). This is almost identical to POVTITLE and I noticed that your interpretation of NPOV has conspicuously made no mention of this at all. I'm starting a new section on NPOV and naming where I will delineate why FGC isn't the neutral term and why FGM satisfied NPOV. So thank you, you made me educate myself a little more and also made me realize that you are not approaching this topic neutrally at all. Vietminh (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

FGM/C
I've offered to stipulate to the use of this term with some conditions. I would welcome your input on whether these conditions are acceptable to you and hope that these conditions can be the basis for either a consensus or for further negotiation on compromises. I do not wish to continue any longer with endless interpretations of NPOV, it's clear that we are not going to agree on that issue. Vietminh (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think we need to negotiate a little, but it looks as though we can agree on a number of points, and hopefully we can find agreement fairly soon. Jakew (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

reply?
Perhaps you missed my reply and questions at 8:57 at Talk:Female_genital_mutilation? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had missed it, yes. Thank you for reminding me.  I'll respond shortly. Jakew (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

draft compromise
I've been busy the last couple of days and am just off to bed now. Once I'm up I'll leave a copy of the draft compromise here (so as not to confuse anyone on the talk page), and we can proceed from there. Vietminh (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds great! Jakew (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Draft Compromise follows:

After much discussion Jakew and I have ironed out a compromise which we believe will satisfy the competing demands and interpretations of policy which have been offered in the previous weeks. I will list these compromises below in hopes that all of the editors (on both sides of the issue) will agree to them and we can establish a consensus.
 * 1) We use the term FGM/C in the article and on summary pages which link to this article (except where a source specifically uses either FGM or FGC, and we are able to quote or otherwise directly attribute the usage of the term to the source).
 * 2) We do not use the words "mutilation" or "cutting" by themselves in the article or on summary pages that link to it.
 * 3) All other pages which link to this article, link to the page Female genital mutilation and not Female genital cutting or Female Circumcision or Female genital mutilation/cutting. They should, in general, not use "piping"; the link text should be the same as the target page name.
 * 4) At the end of the opening paragraph in the Varying terminology section, we add a sentence that explains why this article uses the term FGM/C (note: the sentence must comply with WP:SELFREF).
 * 4) We all agree not to nominate the article for re-naming for a period of 1 year (Jakew has offered to do this to assuage my concern that the terminology changes will be used as a basis for re-naming the article, I think it is a good idea if all of us here agree to this).
 * 5) If new editors inquire as to why the article title and the terminology used in the article differ, or if other editors outsidwe explain this compromise to them and why it was done.

Lastly, Jakew and I have also agreed in principle that over the long term we should work to reduce the use of the acronyms or terms FGM, FGC, or FGM/C in the article all together. It is our belief that this would go a long way towards resolving the different interpretations of NPOV that we all have. This isn't part of the agreement listed above but it is something worth considering in the context of the agreement being made.

What do you think? If you think anything needs re-worded go ahead and make the changes and post it on my talk page and I'll have a look see. Otherwise, just leave a message for me on my talk page and let me know that this is all good and I'll post it in a new section. Vietminh (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, this looks pretty good to me. I've made a few relatively minor changes in this edit; I trust these will be acceptable.
 * Do we need to discuss what we'll do if someone else nominates the article for renaming? Would you regard it as consistent with this agreement if I supported such a nomination &mdash; that is, is not nominating sufficient?  What if I didn't !vote, but instead commented in support?  Or would you expect me to abstain (if so, it seems reasonable to expect you not to oppose).  I don't think we need to discuss this now &mdash; the only reason why I'm raising it is that I want to be clear about our expectations. Jakew (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of an RM request, the key part of the agreement for me is point #5 (re-worded below), I don't think that its fair of me to request that you vote against a move you might otherwise support, but my hope is that by explaining the consensus we have achieved to other editors that we might avoid a potentially divisive RM that would bring all of these issues back to the fore. So my thinking is this, someone would likely inquire on the talk page (or be active on it) before an RM occurs and we could inform them as per point #5. If they didn't inquire first and initiated an RM we could direct them toward the previous agreement we made and explain why we made it before we started voting (this could be accomplished through commenting on the RM). If they still wished to do an RM then we would all be free to vote as we wished. That said, I hope for both our sakes that this doesn't come up, but in the end I think if we both act in good faith then we'll be able to address it if it arises. You are doubtlessly more experienced with these things than I am, so if you think that an RM is likely to occur again soon then we could work refine this agreement more, it just seems to me that all we can do is explain to someone why it is as it is and hope they choose not to rock the boat.


 * reworded text for point #5:


 * 5) If editors outside this agreement inquire as to why the article title and the terminology used in the article differ, or if editors outside this agreement nominate the article for a move, we explain this compromise to them and why it was done. Vietminh (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fair. Since the above is written from your perspective, I guess you'd better be the one to post it on talk:FGM. [[Image:Smile.png]] Jakew (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I posted it, now all we have to do is message all the involved editors and let them know. I'll do that now, the text I'll put on their talk pages is "After much discussion Jakew and I have ironed out a compromise which we believe will satisfy the competing demands and interpretations of policy which have been offered in the discussion on terminology. We would welcome your input on this compromise". If you can double check who all commented on the terminology and compare it to the people I sent the message out to (via my contribs) that would be good (just to be sure I didn't miss anyone). Vietminh (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey
I'm sorry I did that, I can recognize how it looks improper. Quadell has said he doesn't mind if we remove the entire discussion once its been resolved. Do you want me to revert my changes or leave the statement as it is. I am eager to resolve this because I don't want people coming to the page and seeing this "debate over the debate", it detracts from the actual debate we should be having. Vietminh (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll reply at your talk. Jakew (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

FGM talk page
I'm reading what Johnuniq just posted at 00:15, 17 August 2011, I think we actually have a chance here to move forward on this issue. He is essentially advocating that we follow the WP guidelines on article editing and just use more natural wording. I think that would satisfy the competing demands that we all have. We re-word the article to remove the bulk of the acronyms, that will reduce the NPOV concerns to a manageable level. Once that's done we can give proper weight to the sources (as we should be doing anyway) and use FGC where the source calls it that, and FGM where it does. We would thus informally be accomplishing what you proposed in your last compromise. There will naturally be debates over weight on this, there's never not going to be debates over something. But I think this represents our best chance at putting this long debate to rest. If you agree I would be willing to help facilitate such an outcome. As additional food for thought: I don't think FGM/C is going to achieve consensus, I found the statement you made a while ago saying that FGM/C is the only one of the terms which doesn't require us to make a judgment on which term is more neutral a compelling one (I think it was you who said this). That was part of the reason why I was in favour of our compromise. But Born2cycle and one of the editors from the RfC make a good point. Although it may be the most neutral term it is the least used and if Wikipedia were to use it, it could be seen as advocating for expanding its use (and thus getting involved in the debate). Anyways, if Johnuniq is on-board with the idea of reducing the use of FGM in the article I think we should take that opportunity to move forward on this, because it seems to be the only issue we can all agree on. That and this RfC is only going to reproduce the split we are in right now. Vietminh (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does seem to have come around to reducing the usage in the article (which is something, I suppose), but I think even the most militant "it must be condemned as mutilation" proponent would have a tough time arguing against replacing many instances of its usage with terms such as "it", "the practice", etc. Repetition of a phrase or acronym (especially the title) is just poor writing.  I'm fairly confident that we can get consensus on that much.  As for mixing the terms, I'm not so confident.  There seems to be some opposition to that among the outside editors who've commented so far.  Having said that I wouldn't expect opposition to usage with attribution, so we might be able to deal with some cases that way.
 * I don't find the "advocating for expanding its use" argument persuasive. By the same logic, using an impartial tone could be taken as advocating against strong language, citing sources as an advocate against anecdote, etc.  That doesn't seem very rational to me.  Neutrality is what we do.  It's basically the only original thing that we permit ourselves to do, and it's by far the most important part of the project (IMNSHO).  I mean no disrespect to those making the argument you outline, but it has a feel of a rationalisation about it, as though it's a superficial justification for an underlying reluctance to waver from labelling it as FGM or something.  Maybe I'm wrong on that.
 * I think it's a bit too early to say what will or won't gain consensus at this stage. We're getting some external input from other editors, who might well suggest some new compromises themselves, and if we all try to cooperate we should be able to find something that's at least tolerable to all involved. Jakew (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree its a bit early and we can wait longer if you wish, since you posted the RfC that's essentially your call. Snowded has weighed in again and said that he would not oppose replacing most of the instances of FGM per style guidelines, and would not have a problem with FGC being used per sources. Anthonyhcole from the RfC agrees with the term reduction, and Quadell's main concern seemed to be overuse of terminology. The only dissenting opinion on this is from Noleander, but his main concern seems to be about confusion between the terms. Such confusion could doubtlessly be resolved though sticking to direct attributions, and as I pointed out on the talk page, that's really a style consideration anyway.
 * I don't think the 'advocating for use argument' is simple reluctance to give up on FGM, especially given that its coming from an outside editor. In either event, it seems clear to me that FGM/C just isn't in the cards, and this reduction of acronyms seems to be something we can all agree on. Additionally, I think everyone will feel a lot less threatened by terminology compromises if there were a lot less terminology to begin with.Vietminh (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm a bit mystified by Snowded's comment. He says that a "source used for a comment [does he mean an ordinary source?  or a quotation?] uses cutting and its contactually [does he mean syntactically?] correct and complies with eight issues [what eight issues are these?]", it can be used.  I think a number of clarifications are needed there.  And what's troubling me is that the sourcing in the article is not very good, and an awful lot of claims are unsourced.  I'm sure we can rewrite a lot of these, but we're going to have to use some acronym or other in some places, and I think we need to agree on which.  That's what I was trying to get at when I proposed this compromise.
 * Snowded previously wrote: "Otherwise [if there's no source] wording should follow the name of the article, calculating ratios is without precident on wikipedia to my knowledge." We need to know whether he's willing to change his mind on that, because I don't find it acceptable as it uses the least neutral term exclusively in situations that can only be read as "Wikipedia's voice" and gives more weight to FGM than is present in the sources (which is inconsistent with the due weight NPOV justification offered for using FGM in the first place).  So from an NPOV perspective it's almost the worst possible approach.  I should point out that I'm not troubled about ratios as such; I just proposed that to directly and fairly tackle the due weight issue that you, Born, John, and possibly Snowded had argued for. I'm willing to agree to any fair approach to weighting usage of the terms, I just don't think that exclusive use of the least neutral term qualifies as such.
 * Longer term, dealing with some of the unsourced statements is of course a good idea for the sake of WP:V, but would also help to alleviate this problem.
 * I also think we need to think about how to mix the terms. I take your point that adjacent sentences should probably use the same terms, which suggests being consistent within each paragraph, but what if different sources within a paragraph (or sentence) use different terms?  I'm not expecting you to answer this, but I think it's something that needs to be discussed.  The way I saw it working was to have an FGM-FGM-FGM-FGC-... pattern running through the paragraphs in the article, deviating from this for quotes or attributed statements, of course &mdash; maybe not the most elegant solution, but it would work.
 * Anyway, I think it's too soon to give up on FGM/C just yet, but as long as we find a compromise then frankly I don't much care which compromise that is (I'm tired!). I absolutely agree with you that reducing the number of acronyms will help, and I don't think there's any reason why that can't take place while the RfC is in progress (especially as such reduction seems to be totally non-controversial). Jakew (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of this is well, which is why I am apt to cash in wherever consensus can be achieved. We can let the RfC run its course but I think from the reaction to the compromise, and the RfC so far, that FGM/C just isn't going to get the support required for use. There are lots of considerations here about weight and other guidelines, I just think the first step must be to put an end to this discussion and move on with editing the article. If the debate is focused on edits then we can move forward, if the debate is focused on blanket terminology then the gridlock will continue. Its probably not a good idea to start chopping terms out whilst its being discussed though, I think that could be taken wrong (believe me, I'm an expert on that ha ha ha). I also don't think we need to formally settle the terminology before we move on, FGM is used roughly 170 times (not counting the opening or the varying terminology paragraph) in the article. If there were say only 20 instances this whole thing would be a lot less heated. Vietminh (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw your post on the FGM talk page, "FGC, FGC/M, or a fair combination," Were u making the proposal for FGC/M or did you mean to say FGM/C? Vietminh (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, it was a mistake. Now fixed. Jakew (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)