User talk:Markanegara

Aisha
Please stop adding that text to the article. I've reverted it again because it doesn't follow our policy on reliable sources. Please read the policy before you attempt to readd the text. Also, be aware of the policy on original research. Just because you believe something to be true based on your reading of sources like the Quran does not mean that it should be included in Wikipedia. Thanks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FGM
Hey, I checked your edit again and realized those were two different things, sorry about offering that as an explanation for my revert. The more important issue is that the prior wording most clearly explains the classification provided by the World Health Organization which that section of the article is trying to convey. Vietminh (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Response per my talk page
I understand that the procedures are different, and I can assure you that neither I nor SlimVirgin are attempting to censor Wikipedia in any way. Wikipedia is not merely a repository for every single piece of information in existence, this information must be structured, provided with context, and properly cited in a way that is clearly worded. Above, HelloAnnyong has provided you with two important policies in this regard, Reliable Sources and original research, before you continue contributing to Wikipedia it would be beneficial to familiarize yourself with the requirements as listed on these pages. The purpose of the sentence you changed is to convey specifically what the World Health Organization classifies as Type 1 FGM, and only that. As for your opinion, you are entitled to have that of course, but Wikipedia does not include information based on the personal assessments of its editors, the WHO is possibly the most authoritative source cited on the FGM page, and it is not for you or I to decide whether the WHO made an error or not. It is our job to reflect the positions that the WHO has put forth. As for clitoridotomy being considered plastic surgery, that is an even better reason not to include it on the FGM page, the page specifically says "The term FGM is not applied to medical or elective procedures such as labiaplasty and vaginoplasty, or those used in sex reassignment surgery." (as per the WHO). Vietminh (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also reverted your changes to the Clitoridotomy page, the stub article you created copies content verbatim from the sources you cited, which is WP:PLAGIARISM. Additionally, none of the sources you cited are particularly authoritative. One is a web page that looks to have not been significantly updated in the last decade, another is a blog which demonstrates its confusion on the subject with the following statement: "While FGM is oppressive in nature, female circumcision (a form of FGC) is liberating.". Lastly, the gynecologists.uk source is one of those e-health websites that represent themselves as authorities on medical practices but are not actually a good place to get information on medical procedures. Also when detailing your edits it is best not to tell other users to "pls read a medical dictionary", it is not another editor's job to find sources which support your edits, it is your job to backup your edits with authoritative sources which support the text you put in place. It is also never a good idea to copy and paste text from other sources. Please again, it would be helpful to read Reliable Sources, original research, and WP:COPYPASTE before you continued to edit. If you follow the guidelines listed on these pages you will have a much better experience editing Wikipedia as you will not have to deal with other editors constantly reverting your edits. Regards. Vietminh (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)