The article
Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy was
nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 1 November 2022 with a consensus to
merge the content into
Circumcision controversies. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{
afd-merged-from}}. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Circumcision controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was 'no consensus'. |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was 'no consensus to delete'. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was Talk:Circumcision advocacy before a text-merge on 30 June 2009. |
The contents of the Circumcision controversy in early Christianity page were merged into Circumcision controversies. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There is a large and comprehensive section on the "anti-circumcision" movement which includes a statement that seems to be written from one the point of view of the organisation linked to.
I would be interested to know if there are any organisations currently advocating circumcision on medical grounds as opposed to purely religious ones. Given that in the US and Africa, which do not have universal health services, circumcision has historically been promoted for its claimed health benefits.
If any organisations advancing the above position (from a non religious perspective) do exist, they should be added to the article. 86.185.84.71 ( talk) 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I propose merging circumcision controversies into views on circumcision per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The first is essentially a subset topic of the second.
Much of the present article simply repeats (often verbatim) material on related articles. KlayCax ( talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that this article has a different scope than the views on circumcision article. In fact this article focuses controversies and pro and anti movements. The historical/regional stuff can included in the "views on circumcision" but the controversial stuff retained in this article. 47.179.9.162 ( talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I attempted to add context to the section discussing the controversy surrounding the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2012 policy statement by stating that the AAP had allowed its policy to automatically expire. I cited the policy page hosted by the AAP, which explicitly states that the policy "automatically expired" and further explains at the end of the document that all AAP policies automatically expire after five years if not revised or reaffirmed.
After my first edit was reverted, with the explanation that my edit violated Wikipedia's "no original research" policy, I attempted to correct my original edit to state only what was explicitly written by the AAP, itself. However, a second user reverted that edit with no further explanation.
If someone could explain how I can include the fact that the 2012 policy statement expired (again, something the AAP itself has explicitly stated on its own policy page and is not a disputed fact) without having my edit reverted, it would be most appreciated. DoItFastDoItUrgent ( talk) 11:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the science is now so settled AAP don't bother with policies on this topic?This wouldn't make sense for any other medical intervention unless the science was settled against it, so I presume that's what you mean here? ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
has a population-wide rationale in HIV-dense populations" - Per the New York Times, it seems to quite a bit more complicated then that.
You have no idea what the circumcision chapter of that textbook contains← Well, I have some idea because the extract tantalisingly says "In the past 20 years, even the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has changed its official position on the medical...". A reputably-published academic textbook is a quality source, and suitable for use on Wikipedia. Maybe a trip to the library is in order!? Bon courage ( talk) 08:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The article
Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy was
nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 1 November 2022 with a consensus to
merge the content into
Circumcision controversies. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{
afd-merged-from}}. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Circumcision controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was 'no consensus'. |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was 'no consensus to delete'. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was Talk:Circumcision advocacy before a text-merge on 30 June 2009. |
The contents of the Circumcision controversy in early Christianity page were merged into Circumcision controversies. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There is a large and comprehensive section on the "anti-circumcision" movement which includes a statement that seems to be written from one the point of view of the organisation linked to.
I would be interested to know if there are any organisations currently advocating circumcision on medical grounds as opposed to purely religious ones. Given that in the US and Africa, which do not have universal health services, circumcision has historically been promoted for its claimed health benefits.
If any organisations advancing the above position (from a non religious perspective) do exist, they should be added to the article. 86.185.84.71 ( talk) 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I propose merging circumcision controversies into views on circumcision per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The first is essentially a subset topic of the second.
Much of the present article simply repeats (often verbatim) material on related articles. KlayCax ( talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that this article has a different scope than the views on circumcision article. In fact this article focuses controversies and pro and anti movements. The historical/regional stuff can included in the "views on circumcision" but the controversial stuff retained in this article. 47.179.9.162 ( talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I attempted to add context to the section discussing the controversy surrounding the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2012 policy statement by stating that the AAP had allowed its policy to automatically expire. I cited the policy page hosted by the AAP, which explicitly states that the policy "automatically expired" and further explains at the end of the document that all AAP policies automatically expire after five years if not revised or reaffirmed.
After my first edit was reverted, with the explanation that my edit violated Wikipedia's "no original research" policy, I attempted to correct my original edit to state only what was explicitly written by the AAP, itself. However, a second user reverted that edit with no further explanation.
If someone could explain how I can include the fact that the 2012 policy statement expired (again, something the AAP itself has explicitly stated on its own policy page and is not a disputed fact) without having my edit reverted, it would be most appreciated. DoItFastDoItUrgent ( talk) 11:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the science is now so settled AAP don't bother with policies on this topic?This wouldn't make sense for any other medical intervention unless the science was settled against it, so I presume that's what you mean here? ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
has a population-wide rationale in HIV-dense populations" - Per the New York Times, it seems to quite a bit more complicated then that.
You have no idea what the circumcision chapter of that textbook contains← Well, I have some idea because the extract tantalisingly says "In the past 20 years, even the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has changed its official position on the medical...". A reputably-published academic textbook is a quality source, and suitable for use on Wikipedia. Maybe a trip to the library is in order!? Bon courage ( talk) 08:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)