22 July 2011 UTC I have requested the move based on Wikipedia policy and not google results which I have already indicated I lend no special weight to But now I ll give you an example of why you shouldn t lend weight to them either I will also tell you why the results you have aren t at all reliable Using the search term female genital cutting does not tell us the context of the result google finds I ll give you an excellent example of this I googled female genital cutting from 2010 to 2010 link here I draw your attention to the 3rd result from the top that is the 3rd most relevant result that google could find across that entire year for that term the title of this article is Sexual function in women with female genital mutilation Given that the title of this article clearly favours the term FGM I opened the pdf that google links to in order to find how exactly the term female genital cutting was used in the article This is the text I found on page 2 of that article Worldwide it is estimated that 100 to 140 million girls and women have undergone some form of FGM and each year 2 million girls are thought to be at risk 1 The World Health Organization WHO classification is superior to terms used by the public or even some scholarly reviewed publications The latter terms include female genital cutting female circumcision female Sunna circumcision and Pharaonic circumcision If the 3rd result on the first page of google scholar search is already a result which is refuting the use of the term FGC then I submit to you that you can t rely on google scholar results or ratios of results as a method of determining whether FGC is replacing or augmenting the term FGM Also note that the 4th result also uses FGM in the title and that the 6th result is another which is refuting the use of the term If stats are what matter then I ll put that into numbers 33 of the top results for the term female genital cutting for the year 2010 are refuting the use of the term female genital cutting 20 52