Talk:Female circumcision

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Female genital mutilation
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Female genital mutilation

Redirecting issues[edit]

Agree with Johnuniq. Discussion should taken place here as this is the page in question. Have moved the information here:Muffizainu (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. The page "Female Circumcision" redirects to the FGM page. The problem with this redirecting is that it equates Female Circumcision = FGM. This is incorrect. Female Circumcision is a name given to a procedure/practice, and FGM is an umbrella term by the WHO, given for many (about 6) different procedure/practice from which female circumcision is one of them. Just like piercing is also a practice that comes under the FGM umbrella term. Therefore, Female Circumsiion ⊆ FGM (FC is a subset of FGM), not Female Circumcision = FGM.

2. This is further established by the WHO themselves who refer to Type 1a as female "circumcision" on page 2 of . Reference: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/management-health-complications-fgm/en/ WHO guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation 3. Therefore, in order to be clear, I propose having a short description of "female circumcision", describing Type 1a clitoral hood procedure as per the WHO document. And then mention that the WHO considers this FGM. Below this, have a "see more" tab below it then linking it to the FGM page.

Muffizainu (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is based on an assumption that there is a clear and universal definition of each term. That is not correct. Some people think FGM is fine while others think otherwise, and different groups of people use words to mean what they want them to mean. An encyclopedia has to cover the general topic, based on the most reliable sources. Having another article would be a WP:POVFORK. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When WHO refer some type with special designation then that should be treated as clear definition when WHO guidelines are treated as Bible for this major issue affecting children worldwide. The term need to be specifically clarified before redirected to general term.

FGM is referred in this article as "Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision". When there is no 'clear and universal definition of each term', how come they equated in one go without giving any clarifications. -Md iet (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JohnuniqWhat exactly is your argument here? The FGM article uses a the term "FGM", solely because it was coined by the WHO. And here, i'm providing a citation that the WHO themselves called Type 1a "female circumcision". So what more information do you need? If it wasn't for the WHO, you wouldn't have the term "FGM".

If you're looking for more sources, look no further that the Britanica Dictionary. It calls the Islamic practice of Type 1a "FEMALE CIRCUMCISION" https://www.britannica.com/topic/khafd https://www.britannica.com/topic/khitan-Islam So, you have the WHO and a Dictionary statement. Hence, what I propose is not to do a blanket re-directing. First clarify the term "Female Circumcision" according to the WHO guidelines and dictionary. They say that the WHO considers it amoungst one of the practices of FGM, and then have a "See more" tag to the FGM page. Muffizainu (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]