Talk:Female genital mutilation

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is there a reason why the general article for this is very unexplicit? I can understand squeamishness around terminology, but I think it is very important to make what is involved in FGM sufficiently clear for readers unfamiliar with the practice to understand the ocean of difference between FGM and male circumcision. In the very least, the article needs some hint of why the process is barbaric. If no one objects within the next twenty four hours, I'll try to edit it in to a form that does so better. TGeary 19:30, 14 November 2008 (EST)

See duplicate article Female Genital Mutilation, which is still a stub but slightly better treatment, or at least was, until some of our more squeamish editors bowdlerised it. Sideways 19:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Wow, thanks, that talk page is... interesting. I did not realize there was a duplicate article. I'll play around with the merge templates and see if I can suggest that one be merged here (since it looks like the standard practice in naming articles is not to capitalize every name.) In a day or so I'll start playing around with the article to try to make clear the barbaric nature of the act while trying to refrain from using words some people apparently (and slightly confusingly in this context) object to. TGeary 19:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I have merge tags placed on both now. Is there any way for someone who is not a sysop to carry out merges? There are 209 articles in the merge candidates category, it looks like something I could knock out a bunch of quickly if there is, since it's articles like Axis merging with Axis Powers. TGeary 19:57, 14 November 2008 (EST)