Jump to content

Talk:Female genital mutilation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Scientus (talk | contribs)
Scientus (talk | contribs)
Line 88: Line 88:
:*'''Female genital mutilation''' ('''FGM'''), also known as '''female genital cutting''' and '''female circumcision''' (for [[Female_genital_mutilation#WHO_Types_I.E2.80.93II|type Ia]]), is the ritual removal of some or all of the [[external female genitalia]].
:*'''Female genital mutilation''' ('''FGM'''), also known as '''female genital cutting''' and '''female circumcision''' (for [[Female_genital_mutilation#WHO_Types_I.E2.80.93II|type Ia]]), is the ritual removal of some or all of the [[external female genitalia]].
:I think the information is totally [[WP:UNDUE]] anywhere in the article. The text appears to assert that the term "female circumcision" is only used for type 1a, and the explanation above is that "circumcision" has a proper meaning that only applies to 1a. However, that misses the point that people can and do use words to mean what they want—a highly reliable source would be needed to assert that "female circumcision" has been used to only refer to type 1a. It's very unlikely that such a source would exist since, as Doc James notes, the term is used more widely. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
:I think the information is totally [[WP:UNDUE]] anywhere in the article. The text appears to assert that the term "female circumcision" is only used for type 1a, and the explanation above is that "circumcision" has a proper meaning that only applies to 1a. However, that misses the point that people can and do use words to mean what they want—a highly reliable source would be needed to assert that "female circumcision" has been used to only refer to type 1a. It's very unlikely that such a source would exist since, as Doc James notes, the term is used more widely. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
::You think it is Undue specificity to discuss etymology of the main topic of the article? I think mentioning what the Latin word means, and that in the male circumcision instance the Hebrew word that it is translated from is relevant due to that being the origin or the practice (although that doesn't currently appear in the male circumcision article...).[[User:Scientus|Scientus]] ([[User talk:Scientus|talk]]) 08:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
::You think it is Undue specificity to discuss etymology of the main topic of the article? I think mentioning what the Latin word means, and that in the male circumcision instance the Hebrew word that it is translated from is relevant due to that being the origin or the practice (although that doesn't currently appear in the male circumcision article...).
::There is no such things as type Ib or III circumcision, even if the term was used this way, because there is no ''circum''ferance being cut around in those cases. ''What'' is being cut around could be construed as the vagina or clitoris (type Ia or type II) but the others are clearly ''not'' circumcision, even if the practitioners of this surgery consider it a form of covenant or ''bris''.[[User:Scientus|Scientus]] ([[User talk:Scientus|talk]]) 08:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:53, 12 July 2015

Featured articleFemale genital mutilation is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 19, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
September 6, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
October 8, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
November 18, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


Circumcision in reference to type Ia

I think a comment should be put that circumcision refers to UN type Ia. I know that historically "female circumcision" has been used for all FGM, but the reason is that circumcision in Latin means "to cut around", while applying the term to all forms of FGM seems more in line local customs seeing the practice as similar to the Hebrew word that gets translated to circumcision, which literally means covenant (see Abraham). Using it for type Ia would be using the Latin correctly, rather than taking the biblical translation out of context.Scientus (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sorts of details can go in the body. They do not belong in the lead. Many people still use female circumcision to mean all types. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit in question changed the first of the following (first sentence in article) to the second:
  • Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia.
  • Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision (for type Ia), is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia.
I think the information is totally WP:UNDUE anywhere in the article. The text appears to assert that the term "female circumcision" is only used for type 1a, and the explanation above is that "circumcision" has a proper meaning that only applies to 1a. However, that misses the point that people can and do use words to mean what they want—a highly reliable source would be needed to assert that "female circumcision" has been used to only refer to type 1a. It's very unlikely that such a source would exist since, as Doc James notes, the term is used more widely. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You think it is Undue specificity to discuss etymology of the main topic of the article? I think mentioning what the Latin word means, and that in the male circumcision instance the Hebrew word that it is translated from is relevant due to that being the origin or the practice (although that doesn't currently appear in the male circumcision article...).
There is no such things as type Ib or III circumcision, even if the term was used this way, because there is no circumferance being cut around in those cases. What is being cut around could be construed as the vagina or clitoris (type Ia or type II) but the others are clearly not circumcision, even if the practitioners of this surgery consider it a form of covenant or bris.Scientus (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]