This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ethics of circumcision 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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iadao. Peer reviewers: Leah611, Beedizzle21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The article used the Australian flag, which is inappropriate, because the policy document refers to both Australia and New Zealand. I have no objection to using both flags, but using the Australian flag alone is not appropriate. As for the text, a direct quotation "generally considered an ethical procedure" is more accurate than a summary which stated that infant circumcision "is ethical."
I think that quoting from the policy is helpful in avoiding or minimising POV problems. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I propose merging this article 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) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @ Prcc27:. What part of the edit are you specifically objecting to?
I get that the lead shouldn't entirely be religious in nature. Yet it seems somewhat of an artificial divide to separate "religion" from "ethics" in general. Religions make ethical claims. Seeing as how a majority of the world's population follows religions that either see it as obligatory, recommended, or condemned, it seems inevitable that at least some mention is WP: DUE for the lead. No? KlayCax ( talk) 07:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost-ineffective and ethically-problematic intervention in developed countries, and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action? What is this sourced to? What is this based on? Is this referring to the Western World? Globally?
“You created ( views on circumcision) last year, this article was started in 2005. You can't call the original a redundant fork.”Prcc27 ( talk) 08:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
There is substantial disagreement amongst bioethicists, theologians, philosophers, and doctors over the practice of circumcision, with little in the way of a general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost-ineffective and ethically-problematic intervention in developed countries, and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action."based on?
Tagging the involved editors @ Prcc27:, @ Piccco:, and @ Bon courage: for this.
As mentioned a few months ago, the article has significant issues with neutrality/systematic bias, and nothing has changed.
The article dramatically overrepresents the viewpoint of white, secular, individualist-moralistic advocating Westerner living in Northern or Eastern Europe, and is clearly written to persuade the reader. KlayCax ( talk) 01:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
"inserting long anti-circumcision rants into articles". KlayCax ( talk) 18:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
All of these accounts are SPA/near-SPA for Australian psychologist Gregory John Boyle and related topics. What has called my attention to this set of socks is anti-circumcision advocacy; Boyle is an anti-circumcision advocate and very concerned with child abuse per Gregory_John_Boyle#Children.27s_rights. Also per this section of the Boyle article, an avid bag-piper, which explains some of the sock activity. These accounts also have the odd habit of creating a blank userpage (MFC728 (diff); DanceFreeRun diff); Beatrix12 (diff); CorrectReferences (diff); WritingRescue diff)) or some variation of "just here to help" (Piobair123 (diff); PetaFixer (diff))
If you look at some of the socked articles, you can see that they have had a massive effect; this is true of most articles they have worked on (yikes).. KlayCax ( talk) 18:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ethics of circumcision 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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iadao. Peer reviewers: Leah611, Beedizzle21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The article used the Australian flag, which is inappropriate, because the policy document refers to both Australia and New Zealand. I have no objection to using both flags, but using the Australian flag alone is not appropriate. As for the text, a direct quotation "generally considered an ethical procedure" is more accurate than a summary which stated that infant circumcision "is ethical."
I think that quoting from the policy is helpful in avoiding or minimising POV problems. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I propose merging this article 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) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @ Prcc27:. What part of the edit are you specifically objecting to?
I get that the lead shouldn't entirely be religious in nature. Yet it seems somewhat of an artificial divide to separate "religion" from "ethics" in general. Religions make ethical claims. Seeing as how a majority of the world's population follows religions that either see it as obligatory, recommended, or condemned, it seems inevitable that at least some mention is WP: DUE for the lead. No? KlayCax ( talk) 07:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost-ineffective and ethically-problematic intervention in developed countries, and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action? What is this sourced to? What is this based on? Is this referring to the Western World? Globally?
“You created ( views on circumcision) last year, this article was started in 2005. You can't call the original a redundant fork.”Prcc27 ( talk) 08:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
There is substantial disagreement amongst bioethicists, theologians, philosophers, and doctors over the practice of circumcision, with little in the way of a general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost-ineffective and ethically-problematic intervention in developed countries, and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action."based on?
Tagging the involved editors @ Prcc27:, @ Piccco:, and @ Bon courage: for this.
As mentioned a few months ago, the article has significant issues with neutrality/systematic bias, and nothing has changed.
The article dramatically overrepresents the viewpoint of white, secular, individualist-moralistic advocating Westerner living in Northern or Eastern Europe, and is clearly written to persuade the reader. KlayCax ( talk) 01:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
"inserting long anti-circumcision rants into articles". KlayCax ( talk) 18:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
All of these accounts are SPA/near-SPA for Australian psychologist Gregory John Boyle and related topics. What has called my attention to this set of socks is anti-circumcision advocacy; Boyle is an anti-circumcision advocate and very concerned with child abuse per Gregory_John_Boyle#Children.27s_rights. Also per this section of the Boyle article, an avid bag-piper, which explains some of the sock activity. These accounts also have the odd habit of creating a blank userpage (MFC728 (diff); DanceFreeRun diff); Beatrix12 (diff); CorrectReferences (diff); WritingRescue diff)) or some variation of "just here to help" (Piobair123 (diff); PetaFixer (diff))
If you look at some of the socked articles, you can see that they have had a massive effect; this is true of most articles they have worked on (yikes).. KlayCax ( talk) 18:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)