User talk:Phyesalis/Mediation request

Working draft
Note: This is only a draft, and some people may have edited statements of other peoples' beliefs and they may not yet have been approved/confirmed by the people to whom the beliefs are attributed here. The current version is OK by me. (Long or short form.) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Phyesalis wants to include certain material in the articles, including:
 * "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" or "Various reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents" or a similar statement (RR) not including the current wording that substitutes "established" with "claimed";
 * A paragraph about men, health and behavior (2nd paragraph of this edit) (RR)
 * "FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice." (FGC)


 * Phyesalis' side:
 * Phyesalis argues that it is a fact that Reproductive Rights (RR) are Human rights (HR) as established by international human rights documents like the UN's Proclamation of Teheran, CEDAW, International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform (as sourced by Rebecca Cook, Charlotte Bunch, Freedman and Isaacs, and Amnesty International. If this is a fact, it requires little in the way of additional documentation. She has provided reliable sources and believes that the sources support and verify the material and that the material satisfies all relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Phyesalis objects to prose attribution such as "Reproductive rights are considered by Amnesty International to be human rights." because such a prose attribution gives the impression that the statement is opinion and not fact.
 * Phyesalis believes that the primary, non-ethnocentric focus of the article is reproductive rights in the international human rights context, and that all sources used must be international in scope or be contextualized in a specific country sub-section.
 * Phyesalis believes that the pro-life view is not represented by any sourced content in the article (WP:R, WP:V, or otherwise) therefore treatment of the pro-life position, given the level of documentation required by Coppertwig and Blackworm, is a violation of WP:Lead by presenting unique content in the lead not found elsewhere in the body of the article.
 * Phyesalis believes that the Pro-life POV is a minority view in international human rights discourses, that it should be included, and be weighted accordingly. She argues that the abortion debate is a small part of int'l RR and should not be allowed to skew the overall focus of international sections.
 * Phyesalis believes that when a person repeatedly reverts based on WP:NPOV and asks for additional documentation over an argued fact they should respond in kind and provide some sources to support their allegation, when the person accused of POV violations provides reliable documentation to support their position.


 * Blackworm's and Coppertwig's side:
 * Blackworm and Coppertwig dispute the material and are not convinced that it's supported by the sources given or that it's possible to find sources supporting it.
 * Blackworm and Coppertwig believe that it's important to delete as quickly as possible material that's (apparently) unverified and unverifiable, so as to avoid misleading readers. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. " and "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons." (Both from WP:V.)  Blackworm and Coppertwig believe that if only some, but not the vast majority, of people looking at the source consider it to support the material, then the material can be treated as unsourced.
 * Blackworm and Coppertwig believe that some of the material Phyesalis wishes to include violates WP:NPOV.
 * Blackworm and Coppertwig believe that when material is disputed, often a good solution is to present the material with a prose attribution, closely following the wording of the original source.
 * For some of the material, Coppertwig doesn't remember seeing sources that would allow it to be included even with a prose attribution.
 * Coppertwig and Blackworm don't understand what Phyesalis means by a "fact" about reproductive rights (e.g. whether the UN has the power to create human rights or to discover what they are). Coppertwig and Blackworm believe that human rights are something that cannot be created or even discovered for certainty by human beings, and that any statement about them is therefore (as Coppertwig and Blackworm see it) necessarily an opinion.
 * Coppertwig and Blackworm believe that all statements must be written so that practically all people, including people with pro-life views, people with pro-property rights views etc. can compare them with the sources and agree that they're verifiable facts; and that this is required by WP:V.
 * Coppertwig and Blackworm believe that the person wanting to add disputed material has a responsibility to provide reliable sources.  Blackworm and Coppertwig believe that an editor opposing material on the grounds that the cited source does not support the article material (i.e., on WP:NOR grounds) is not generally required to cite sources.
 * Coppertwig believes that pro-life sources have already been provided, that it's well-established that there are people with pro-life views, and that therefore any presentation of material must be done in a neutral manner that does not directly contradict those views or any other commonly held views. Coppertwig believes that placing a restriction that all sources must be international is unprecedented and unwarranted for this article.
 * Coppertwig believes that all statements must be completely verifiable, and that the tiny minority clause in WP:NPOV is only talking about which statements to include and which to leave out; that it does not have the effect of allowing the statements which are merely mostly true.
 * Coppertwig does not agree with the statement "If this is a fact, it requires little in the way of additional documentation" in point 1 in Phyesalis' section. Coppertwig doesn't know what is meant by the word "treatment" in point 4 in Phyesalis' section.  Coppertwig doesn't agree with the statement "...such a prose attribution gives the impression that the statement is opinion and not fact." in Phyesalis' section.


 * Blackworm wants to include:
 * [Two sentences] about NCM, a self-described "reproductive rights" advocacy group, and a court case involving them which they refer to as "Roe vs. Wade For Men."


 * Phyesalis believes:
 * that the paragraph is not relevant to RR because RR is about sexual and reproductive health as established by various RR and HR institutions, like the UN and numerous NGO's.
 * that the paragraph is not relevant in sections of international scope because it's a fringe position in the U.S. This gives the info skewed weight.


 * Blackworm believes:
 * that RR (reproductive rights) is about reproductive rights, not focussing exclusively on reproductive health, and that the material is relevant. (CT agrees)
 * that there is no requirement that only international sources be used in this article. (CT agrees)
 * that the paragraph does not belong in a separate U.S. section.


 * Coppertwig believes:
 * that the source already provided includes material expressing an opposing point of view, and that that also needs to be represented for WP:NPOV. Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Blackworm does not oppose the idea, but believes that finding a source opposing the view is not a necessary prerequisite for the inclusion of the view.


 * Things we might all agree on: (put your initials after statements you agree with):
 * The lead section of Reproductive rights should give information abour the position of the UN (and/or extensions of the UN) with regard to reproductive rights. (CT) (Blackworm does not oppose nor require inclusion of the UN's position in the lead.)

Comments on changes
I've altered some things including the bit about my position on "international scope". I've never stated that I was opposed to relevant country-specific content. Blackworm, would you consider deleting that last bit in your section? I don't think it's an issue. Still working and adding diffs. Phyesalis (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great to see some additions being made. I suggest changing "If this is a fact, it requires little in the way of additional documentation." to "Phyesalis believes that if this is a fact, then it requires little in the way of additional documentation."
 * Phyesalis, would you please clarify the meaning of the word "treatment" as I asked here (near the bottom of the diff, starting at "Phyesalis, you talked about whether...").
 * I can't find the quote from 3RR. Maybe it's from an earlier version of the policy or from a different page.  --Coppertwig (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see Coppertwig and Blackworm section out their statements, it seems as if you each have different points. Also, Coppertwig, you've weighed in on the men's health material, but you make no comment on it in this draft - does this mean you have no opinion or that you've changed it? Also, you allege that you don't remember certain material being sourced, would you mind providing quotes and diffs? And to get an idea of what I mean by "treatment", I think it's best explained by WP:Lead, particularly:
 * "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text."
 * My argument is this - you both challenge the NPOV of these facts, yet you do not provide "firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary" to back up your reverts and allegations of NPOV, only "mere disagreement" (per "reverting"). Now, I do not object to material which would establish your POV in the body of the article and indeed, having invited both of you to provide material to that effect. However, inclusion of this material would not skew the weight of the fact that various reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents.
 * Your argument that you do not believe these things (human rights) can be established as facts does not subvert WP policy, particularly WP:R and WP:V. If you want to find R & V material which expresses this POV, I invite you to include it, it would be a good addition that would help us address some of these issues. But again, inclusion does not mean that your POV makes what are otherwise considered to be facts into opinions. I hope that's not too offensive, I don't know how else to frame it. Phyesalis (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re diffs and quotes: I think the simplest way is to present this one diff, which is where I wrote the first draft of this page on Blackworm's talk page, and quote from it versions of two items which I don't remember seeing sources that would, in my opinion, support them being presented even with prose attribution:  the statements are
 * "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" or "Various reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents" or a similar statement
 * and
 * ''"FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice."'
 * --Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the quote from Help:Editing Help:Reverting: It's a very nice sentiment, and I wouldn't want to change the way it's worded there, but it's a copy of a Help page at Meta, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and what it describes is not the way Wikipedia actually works.  People revert things.  Here's an example of you reverting something:  at Genital modification and mutilation with this explanation; it doesn't look like substantive, objective proof to me.  That's the kind of edit people frequently do.  I consider it quite normal. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's Help:Reverting, not Help:editing. As for your choice of my reverts, I would say that you have taken the example completely out of context. I was doing so in response to another editor's issues and the removal was never contested. The "See also" issues are not source issues. I don't see the relevance of your example. Phyesalis (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a quote from the Times article, which is already a footnote in the men's issues paragraph, which provides a balancing point of view on that issue and could perhaps be used in the article: "Franz says that she is, of course, in favor of both parents' taking responsibility for a child, an impulse that she says legal abortion has undermined. One obvious problem, if men can sever their financial ties to unwanted children, is what becomes of that child, particularly as states cut back on health care and social services." (Wanda Franz, president of National Right to Life, quoted here.)


 * The purpose of the example revert I showed is to demonstrate that it's not normal Wikipedia practice to refrain from reverting whenever one lacks "firm, substantive, and objective proof". I believe it's an example of a revert you did without such proof, and that such reverts are frequently and normally carried out by Wikipedians in general including yourself.


 * Here at Wikipedia we have to figure out how to get along with people with diverse points of view (POV's): not only diverse POV's about the subject matter of the articles, but also diverse POV's about editing practices and how Wikipedia is supposed to work.  While some things are widely agreed on and clearly laid out in policies, many other things are not.  Various percentages of Wikipedians support various practices.  Practices can differ from page to page, too:  for example, the Talk:Circumcision talk page has a template at the top saying "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."  Although there is currently no such template at the top of Talk:AIDS, that is very much the practice there:  someone tried to go against that and had an edit summary of "YOU take it to talk page. Explain your removal ! In addition, TED talk is NOT a AIDS reappraisal link!)" but did not succeed in adding their material to the article.  New material on that page is frequently deleted with no other explanation than "get consensus on talk first". --Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph you quoted talks about what does or doesn't belong in the lead, but it doesn't say anything about what you mean by "treat". Let me try asking this way:  Would you consider the following sentence to contain a "treatment" of pro-life views?  "Reproductive rights are considered by Amnesty International to be human rights." --Coppertwig (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you saying this, Phyesalis: "But again, inclusion does not mean that your POV makes what are otherwise considered to be facts into opinions." because with the phrase "otherwise considered to be facts" I feel that you're acknowledging that my/our point of view is different, and it allows me to breathe a sigh of relief. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I try to do the same for you. If you've expressed an opinion and I say something that contradicts it, I try to insert "in my opinion" or something if I'm addressing you, to acknowledge that I realize you disagree.  For example, if you've said that a particular sentence does not violate WP:NPOV, then rather than saying "the sentence which violates NPOV" I would try to remember to say "the sentence which, in my opinion, violates NPOV", or equivalent in different words.  If I forget to do this, please feel free to remind me.  That can also be a way of discovering misunderstandings. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig, I acknowledge that our points of view are different. Thank you for the conciliatory tone. I'm not seeing how your quote from the Time article addresses the broad international topic of reproductive rights (What does this say about maternal mortality, STIs, sex ed, or rape, for example?). It only addresses legal abortion in the U.S. (seeing as it's the National Right to Life). I still think it would be fine under a U.S. abortion sub-topic about legal abortion but not appropriate for the international section. That's my offered compromise.


 * As for the Amnesty International/Human rights phrasing issue, I see the phrasing as POV-pushing, essentially saying, even though the UN has ratified a number of reproductive rights as human rights (and vice versa that a number of pre-existing human rights have been re-articulated as reproductive rights) and numerous international human rights conferences have made Declarations regarding reproductive rights as human rights and been repeatedly adopted by well over 150 nations, WP is going to cherry-pick and skew the weight of this fact by presenting it as the opinion of a single human rights NGO.


 * Same thing for replacing "established" with "claimed". The UN is the gold standard on the international human rights community. If it has ratified RR as HR, then WP can say that various RR have been established as HR in international human rights documents. I have already offered the "established" wording to the objection to "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights relating to sexual and reproductive health" (which I still find to be the more accurate lead).


 * Also, if I remove something from my section, I'd appreciate it if it remained removed. Phyesalis (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I put back in something you wanted removed, whether by accident or in an attempt to improve the overall document; although I looked through the page history of this page and didn't find where anything like that had happened.
 * I think we agree on a lot of things, actually. I think the lead section should definitely present the UN stance on reproductive rights.  The UN is much more authoritative on that than AI, though AI is probably also be notable enough to appear briefly in the lead IMO, with less emphasis on it than on the UN.
 * I only put the sentence about AI in the lead as a temporary measure until we could work out wording about the UN. I think if it only mentions AI and not the UN it's rather unbalanced and missing important information;  although to me, that's better than including what seem to me to be unverifiable statements. There's been little progress on developing wording about the UN because I've been waiting for you to tell me which passage(s) in the source(s) you're basing your statements on.
 * The point of the quote from the Times article is that if the paragraph Blackworm wants to put in is included, then for NPOV an alternative viewpoint on that same specific topic is also needed, in my opinion. The quote is from the same article as the material Blackworm put in.  It's not about abortion.  It's about financial responsibility of men with regards to babies they didn't want to have.  It's an interesting development which may end up influencing how other countries deal with the same question.  People watch things like this and countries do often copy each other;  people argue, they have that right, so why shouldn't we have it here too?  Also, in the process of debating the court case, fine points of the issue are brought out -- points which are interesting and important because most of the problems are universal, even if other countries choose a different final answer.  I suppose maybe I have no particular opinion at this time about which section it should go in or whether there should be an international section and a U.S. section.
 * Your comments on the AI/human rights phrasing issue are interesting and may have helped move us a small step forward with regards to that wording. However, they tell me little or nothing about what you mean by the word "treatment".  I believe it's important that each of the three of us understand what the statements in this mediation request mean, and hopefully that we all understand the same meanings.  You say in point 4, "treatment of the pro-life position ... is a violation of WP:Lead" and I don't know what "treatment" means here.  I need you to explain what "treatment" means, or else rephrase point 4.  However, if you just replace "treatment" by another word, such as "consider", the same problem will remain -- I'll need that word explained in that context.  I think the whole sentence needs to be made more concrete.
 * Re violating WP:LEAD: a simple solution is to add material to the article that corresponds to what's in the lead.  Someone, perhaps Calil, suggested writing the rest of the article first and then writing the lead;  maybe that's a good idea. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Key question for Phyesalis: Which passages in which reliable sources do you believe support the following statements?
 * "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" or "Various reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents", and
 * "FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice."
 * --Coppertwig (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think I have a better question in response to RR as HR - since you haven't read the articles, what good faith reason do you have to think they don't? (I'm afraid your argument that asserting facts of establishment are like asserting which flavor of ice cream is the best isn't really a peg on which I can let you hang your hat). Also, given that the article, Reproductive rights, is a high-importance article in Wikiproject Human rights, its own Human rights sub-category, part of the human rights template, and asserted as such in Human rights (and has been vetted as "very well sourced" over there by 2 different project editors) what evidence have you provided to suggest they aren't? Like I said, this is a basic fact that hardly even requires documentation - but the AI statement that they have been established in international HR documents more than suffices. (This is where I start to get cranky.)


 * As for FGC, why is it that when Christians practice it all over Africa, and Christians have practiced it in the US, we don't say it's a Christian religious practice? Well, because (in my mind) it is primarily generated from a geo-political sub-culture that transcends religion. Transcend: To pass beyond, or to be greater than (I'm not using it as the tertiary def of "to exist independently of"). Now with Islam - there is a hell of a fine line between cultural law and religious law. Even though one Islamic sub-culture practices FGC as obligatory, that doesn't make it a global Islamic religious practice. But I think I've found an analogy that might help us see eye to eye: What if we had an article which asserted that snake charming and speaking in tongues were general obligatory Christian religious practices? Or that that Confirmation and confession were general obligatory Christian religious practices? --Phyesalis (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though I originally wrote the draft mediation request as a rather long document, I think that it's too long: I think that probably if we put in that long a mediation request that the mediators will reject the request as being too complicated. I suggest putting in a much shorter version in the request, but keeping the longer version to refer to also. However, if one of you prefers to put in the longer version as the mediation request, that's OK with me too (after Blackworm finishes going over it).

If we do a much shorter version, the following can be the entirety of my part:

Phyesalis' position
This dispute arose after Coppertwig and Blackworm followed me from Female genital cutting to Reproductive rights. I had already been editing the article when they came along and disputed material that was well-cited (and previously unchallenged by members of the Abortion project, User:Andrew c and User:Severa). Arguing from the POV that things like reproductive rights (RR) aren't human rights (HR) and can't ever be proven to be established as human rights, Blackworm and Coppertwig seem to ignore WP policies of reliability, verifiability and good faith. They are unwilling to acknowledge the basic fact that RR have been established as HR in international contexts (including ratification by the General Assmebly of the UN), in light of the fact that RR are documented as HR in the main article, Human rights, part of Portal:Human rights, are a sub-category of the WikiProject Human rights, and that the majority of the RR article, itself, discusses the establishment of RR in various international human rights documents, Platforms and Declarations. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC), updated --Phyesalis (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig's position
Coppertwig believes that it's the role of the UN to make declarations about human rights, and that it's Wikipedia's role to report on those declarations, but that it is not the role of Wikipedia to make declarations of human rights.

Blackworm's position
This dispute involves a multitude of disputed edits, all made by or opposed by Phyesalis. I believe my positions on these edits, positions mostly if not entirely shared with Coppertwig and opposed only by Phyesalis, reflect a much better understanding of Wikipedia policy; and their implementation ultimately improves the articles. Blackworm (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

End of short version. More comments
Phyesalis, although you haven't answered my question, I'll answer your question. I don't understand why you don't answer my question. You asked, "since you haven't read the articles, what good faith reason do you have to think they don't? " The reason is that I believe that the statements (about reproductive rights being a subset of human rights) are things that can't be proven by human beings, therefore whatever an article says, I believe that it doesn't prove those things. You would get a similar answer if you told someone that you had an article that contains proof that God exists, or proof that God doesn't exist. You asked: "what evidence have you provided to suggest they aren't?"  I haven't.  I don't expect to convince you that reproductive rights are not a subset of human rights -- just as I don't expect to convince anyone that God does or does not exist. I think what we need to do here is figure out how to get along, collaborate and compromise in spite of having different worldviews, rather than try to change each others' worldviews. Therefore I'm not presenting evidence to support my beliefs; and I don't have to, since I don't plan to try to put statements of my beliefs into the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. Blackworm (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, Phyesalis. I didn't read the last half-sentence of your paragraph carefully the first time. I just noticed your edit summary, where you indicate that you did answer my question, so I looked again more carefully. I think this is your answer to my question: "...but the AI statement that they have been established in international HR documents more than suffices."  Would you please expand on that answer? I think you might mean this source, but I used a search function and didn't find the word "established" anywhere in it. Would you please be more specific about what statement in what source you're referring to? Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Phyesalis, you might want to consider placing on this page, which I believe would prevent Sinebot from automatically signing unsigned edits. See Template:Bots. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phyesalis, I think the first two paragraphs of this section of this how-to guide are relevant in our dispute. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note in response to Phyesalis' short version: I have never argued that reproductive rights are not human rights, and I don't remember Blackworm arguing that either. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course not; however, I don't believe it appropriate for you to be assisting Phyesalis with the formulation of Phyesalis' position by pointing out clear incivility and irrelevance. Let the mediator assess whether we are "arguing from a POV" or not, as well as the merit of Phyesalis' other claims and positions.  Since Phyesalis has insisted on formal dispute resolution, any further discussion about article content should take place in that context.  Our positions are stated.  Let's move on to mediation now.  Blackworm (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Blackworm, I'd forgotten that you'd said this, so I'm just replying now. I see no good reason to refrain from discussing article content and decline your request in this regard.  Phyesalis has asked me not to edit the two articles and their talk pages, and at least up until this point in time I have not.  I believe that refraining from editing articles during a mediation process is a usual procedure and helps to reduce conflict.  I see no advantage, however, in refraining from discussing article content in other fora;  in fact, it seems advantageous to discuss it, possibly leading to progress which could cover all or part of the work that would otherwise have to be done within the mediation process. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please submit mediation request ASAP
Phyesalis, in light of your recent edits, it seems our mediation request is ready for submission. I ask that you please submit this request as soon as possible, so that we may resolve these conflicts and move forward in editing these articles. Blackworm (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not. Please be patient. I thought Coppertwig and I were moving forward with the FGC issue and frankly, I'm really just concerned with RR. I'm going over the helpful link that Coppertwig posted and plan on revising my statement accordingly. Thank you. --Phyesalis (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, remember that you are initiating this mediation, and that many of your contested edits were made many weeks ago and remain in the articles. I am willing to move forward with mediation, but I am not willing to sit in limbo as this situation continues.  Delay may be interpreted as resisting mediation.  I'm confused by your stating "I'm really just concerned with RR."   If that is the case please remove all FGC-related points from this mediation request draft.  Blackworm (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After researching the procedure our draft should look like this:


 * Per bot format


 * Involved


 * Previous steps
 * Article and talk page discussion
 * Third opinion by User:Pigman, leading to an AN discussion, ending in a recommendation for mediation

-Phyesalis (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Issues to mediated
 * Are reproductive rights a sub-set of human rights and can WP assert that they are (as in the case of the main article Human rights)?
 * Is the statement "Various reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents" a fact or an opinion? If a fact, do inline citations from two peer-reviewed dources and Amnesty International satisfy WP:V?
 * Is the material Coppertwig and Blackworm removed from the article regarding men's reproductive heath and the transmission of STIs sexist? If so, does it merit exclusion?
 * Female genital cutting is titled so by community consensus. Should the body of the article reflect this usage or should it use any combination of female genital cutting, female genital mutilation, and female circumcision interchangeably?
 * The article states/stated that "FGC transcends religion as a primarily cultural practice". Both Muslims and Christians practice FGC, yet there is a POV that Muslim FGC is a religious practice while Christian FGC is not (a cultural practice by default). A number of reliable sources state that FGC is a cultural practice as it predates either religion, and that there is no unequivocal link between religion and prevalence. Given these points, is the statement (above) NPOV?

That looks good to me. The usernames in the list should probably be wikilinked or e.g. "" or something. Just to clarify, it's my understanding that "inline citation" usually means a superscript leading to a footnote, and is different from a prose attribution which would mean including words in the article like "Amnesty International says...". --Coppertwig (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, we're both using the same def for "inline citation" per WP policy. If it is a fact, prose attribution is unnecessary, per policy. I guess we're just waiting on Blackworm.
 * BTW, Coppertwig, thank you for taking the time to correct my misconception about your POV. I, of course, disagree with the notion that your efforts are unproductive - I commend you for going above and beyond to establish that you are engaging in good faith to bring about a resolution. Thank you, much appreciated. Your comments have been helpful in this process. -Phyesalis (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The AN notification was an AN notification, not an AN/I notification. Also, as the topic of the AN thread was my alleged "tendentiousness," rather than any of the article content, its presence in this mediation request is inappropriate.  Nowhere in that discussion are any of the issues under mediation addressed or commented upon.  I also would change the last sentence from regarding men's reproductive heath and the transmission of STIs to regarding men's responsibility to protect women from STIs.  Nowhere in that paragraph in men's health in any way considered; the focus is only on changing men's behaviour to the benefit of women.  Blackworm (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The AN was the product of the third opinion and the thing that got us to mediation - it is appropriate. Also, in an ironic twist, your statement seems sexist to me, since you seem to be asserting that men don't care about how their health may affect their partners' and children's health (hence the reproductive health issues). I disagree. That's why we're going to mediation. -Phyesalis (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We are not at mediation yet. If you wish to make my alleged "tendentiousness" a subject of mediation, it should be explicit in the issues to be mediated.  The AN post was not in any way a "previous step" undertaken to resolve this dispute, especially as the step was taken by someone not named as a party in this mediation.  Further, I completely fail to see how my statements regarding the disputed edit could possibly be reasonably seen as a generalization about men, especially given that I have made clear I would say the same thing if the claims in the edit were made about women.
 * What you seem to miss is that I only care about article content -- I don't care what you think about my behaviour, or what the non-neutral editors you have enlisted, Pigman and Cailil, think of it. If behaviour is to be an issue, I will make the behaviour of all three of you part of the issue.  All of the "behaviour"-related disputes stem from disagreements over article content, where I believe Coppertwig and I are firmly in the right in every instance.  Let's resolve that, and then if you insist on making my behaviour an issue, you can do it in another iteration of formal dispute resolution.  Blackworm (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, mediation is not about user behavior - it is only for content disputes. You and I disagree about the AN inclusion - I've looked over some mediation requests and a number of them have AN refs. I guess you can choose to not agree. -Phyesalis (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If mediation is not about user behaviour, then what do you disagree about?! I never said AN threads in general have no place in mediation.  Do you disagree that the AN thread you refer to has nothing to do with the article content disputes we have?  Blackworm (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm open to a variety of possibilities re mentioning or not mentioning the AN thingy. Here's a suggestion in an attempt to be helpful:  the second and third "steps" could be combined into one like "# Third opinion by User:Cailil and User:Pigman, which led to an AN discussion ending in recommendation for mediation". --Coppertwig (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It has something to do with mediation because it is the defining step that got us to mediation. I reworded it to join the two, per Coppertwig's suggestion. Please note, I did take care not to word it as "The tendentiousness of Blackworm". If there are no other issues, I'll submit the request. Thank you for your contributions and patience. -Phyesalis (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the discussions with Cailil and Pigman did not lead to the AN thread. The AN thread is irrelevant and serves no purpose in this dispute other than to inject bias against me.  If it is included in the mediation or mentioned in any way, I will insist that both Pigman and Cailil be brought into this mediation, and I also include points regarding their association with you, their behaviour and yours.  Blackworm (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they did - maybe you might want to go back and read it. As a result of my request for a third opinion, Pigman posted at AN and multiple admins suggested we go for mediation - this is all relevant as one of the previous steps leading to mediation. I'm not going back and forth over this 100 times. I've removed Cailil as a compromise. If you would like to ask Cailil and Pigman to join the mediation, please go ahead. If they'd care to note their willingness to participate here, I'll gladly add them to the request. But I won't view their declination (or failure to respond) as an obstruction. --Phyesalis (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Added FGC issues. Thoughts? -Phyesalis (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is hilarious. First you post If there are no other issues, I'll  submit the request then you go and add two more points?
 * You write: Female genital cutting is titled so by community consensus (and backed up by sources stating the community perception that "female circumcision" is an inappropriate euphemism).  You are arguing the point rather than presenting the dispute.  Present the dispute first, then you can argue your point to the mediator.  Remove the parenthetical remark.
 * You write: The article states/stated that "FGC transcends religion as a primarily cultural practice". You have misquoted yourself.  Quote carefully.  You are confusing "prevalence" with "incidence."  Also, you are again arguing your point instead of neutrally presenting the dispute.  Unacceptable.  But you know what?  Whatever.  I'm sure any mediator with half a brain will see these errors -- send the request whenever you want.  Blackworm (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another suggestion in an attempt to be helpful. Whether the AN discussion is mentioned as part of the second "step" or as a third step, only a part of the AN discussion can be referred to, e.g. "discussion as part of an AN thread, leading to recommendation for mediation" or "discussion which began in the middle of an AN thread, leading to recommendation for mediation".  Or better, "a suggestion of mediation".  My reading of the AN thread is that one user (Calil) suggested (but did not necessarily recommend) mediation, and another user (MastCell) answered a question about how to go about it if we want to do it.  This doesn't seem to be a very important point, though, so I'll let it say "recommendations" if you prefer.
 * I don't remember previously discussing the terminology (using "FGC" or other terms for it within the article). This is probably not a good time to  begin new disputes. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Copppertwig, I understand but this is a part of the FGC dispute. At first, I just wanted to deal with RR, but we've invested a lot of time in this and I'd like to see all the issues resolved - I really don't want to go through this process again. Term choice was an issue from the beginning and should be addressed (please note that you wrote the previous framing of FGC issues, not I). I've managed to present it rather neutrally and should be a pretty easy issue to address. But thank you for continuing in a non-combative manner. -Phyesalis (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I really can't believe you would repeat the embarrassing phrase "no unequivocal link between religion and prevalence" even after its nonsensical nature has been thoroughly explained to you -- but hey, have at it, send the request... Do it. Blackworm (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to indicate agreement or disagreement with the statement "Female genital cutting is titled so by community consensus" and am not sure whether by "community" you mean the Wikipedian community, but I'm not opposed to your including this statement in the mediation request if you wish. The mediation request (either the long version, short version or "ASAP" version above) is OK with me and you can go ahead and submit it. Thanks for collaborating on it. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But it says so in Human rights !!!
The mediation request says: Are reproductive rights a sub-set of human rights and can WP assert that they are (as in the case of the main article Human rights#Concepts_in_human_rights)?

It seems disingenuous to point to Human rights to imply community consensus on this issue, when Phyesalis was the one to add the entire section to the article, in this edit, along with the disputed language... Blackworm (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You've agreed to the statement, that language has been in there for some time. Let's just keep it on the mediation talk page. OK? I'm just keeping this for reference purposes now. I'll delete it when mediation is over. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)