Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision advocacy (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. There seems to be some support for a merge with either Circumcision or Opposition to circumcision, so please take that discussion to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision advocacy

This seems to be a WP:POVFORK of circumcision. I can't construe any way that circumcision advocacy could be notable as a standalone concept, since there is not a notable movement that I can find. The main coverage of circumcision advocacy seems to center around AIDS prevention, which is probably better treated as a section in circumcision (and largely, already is). Gigs (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snip it off Nothing to merge, this is a definite POV fork. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give it the chop - yup, forkery. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few reliable secondary sources discuss 'circumcision advocacy'. This makes it difficult to establish notability, and also makes it difficult to write a meaningful article without resorting to original research. Edited to add: if deletion fails, I would support a merge & rename as outlined by Drawn Some below. A wider, more neutral scope would likely make sourcing easier, and would help to avoid the tendency towards one-sided histories of circumcision that affects both articles. Jakew (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Opposition to circumcision. The debate is real on both sides and deserves an article. As with many debates sources are hard to come by but both pages seem to have reasonable sources regarding the different POV's. BTW, Scjessey, if we define this as WP:POVFORK we probably should do so for Opposition to circumcision as well.Joe407 (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Neutral I disagree with what you say that there was/is no advocacy. You obviously know nothing about this subject as throughout history there have been advocates of circumcision. There were notable advocates in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The works of these advocates go some way to explaining why the USA is the only country in the industrialised world to still practice male circumcision to any great extent. There are still advocates of circumcision today. Jake Waskett above is a notable example. I don't think merging with opposition to circumcision is a good idea - opposition to circumcision is worthy of its own article. Tremello22 (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said there was no advocacy, only that there is no notable organized movement. Gigs (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case there are grounds for inclusion of an "opposition to circumcision" section in the main circumcision article. No circumcision advocacy section would be required to balance it (as Jakew insists on balance with these things). Jakew would you agree to this? Although there may not be a movement akin to the opposition groups - one of the main parts of the history of circumcision is the role of circumcision advocates. See this site:http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/ I wonder where you would write about that if there wasn't a specific article for it. One solution would be to create a separate article - "Medicalisation of circumcision: 1850 to present day." as an offshoot of this article: History of male circumcision. Clearly there is currently no adequate explanation as to how non-religious circumcision came to be so popular in the USA across the circumcision-related articles. Tremello22 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Circumcision advocacy is real and an article about it would be an advantage. Finding out about the advocates of circumcision is just as legitimate as finding out about its opponents. The article in its present form is a pale reflection of what it was in 2005 and it certainly needs a lot of work, but that does not mean it should be deleted. When advocates of circumcision oppose an article it should ring warning bells that the opposition to this article may be ideologically driven. Michael Glass (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Opposition to circumcision and Rename Circumcision controversy. Then we can all go pop corn. Clearly these are POV forks but the main article Circumcision is cumbersome. Drawn Some (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Second this motion. I will admit to not understanding why we then pop corn. Perhaps corn popping can be nominated as the official way to signify the end of a WP debate. ;) Joe407 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, see here for an explanation. Drawn Some (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A merge should be out of the question in my view. Opposition to circumcision is worthy of its own article. As has already been highlighted, there is a significant opposition movement. However, there doesn't seem to be a current strong advocacy movement. It is also different from the general debate over circumcision. The Opposition to circumcision article is generally about the actual groups that are opposed to circumcision (NOCIRC, doctors opposing circumcision, the genital integrity movement, the marches they go on, etc). It isn't really about the debate per se. As I have said above, a separate article on non-religious circumcision: Medicalisation of circumcision:1850 to present day would include information about circumcision advocacy and how that led to the USA adopting it. A lot of the history section of this article could go there. We would still retain the opposition to circumcision article however as it would not be about the debate - more about the organisations themselves and their activities. So I am still on the fence. What I am sure of though is that merging would be a mistake. One of the problems is that the main article: circumcision, is guarded by a pro-circ zealot (jakew) who tries to play down the fact there is opposition to circumcision on the main page. I propose that there should be a separate section on the main page highlighting the fact that there is opposition to the procedure. We should also trim down the medical aspects section. This section is 3 times as long as the other sections for the sole purpose of highlighting the medical benefits of circumcision. Let us remind ourselves that no medical organisation recommends it. Also remember that only 1/3 of the world's males are circumcised; 2/3 of those circumcised are Muslim and done for non-medical (religious) reasons. So why is there such weight given to the medical aspects section? It seems like it could be named: Circumcision prevents the following diseases...? What about putting circumcision in its social and historical context? It seems to me that Jakew has created the impression that the case for circumcision is stronger than it is. If there wasn't such a pro-circ bias on the main page - there would be less problems all around. Tremello22 (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your concerns about User:jakew strongly indicate that Opposition to circumcision is a povfork as well. We don't create new articles just because reaching consensus on a controversial topic is proving difficult. Renaming the opposition article to an NPOV title seems like a good idea to me. Consider this, if there were a single "Circumcision controversy" article, which was dominated by opposition material (as it should be, since that organized movement has a vastly larger following than the scattered pro-circ advocates) then people will be able to more clearly see where the current thinking is at. Gigs (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Opposition to circumcision and Rename to Circumcision controversy. I am unaware of any organized notable circumcision advocacy movement similar to the genital-integrity anti-circumcision movement. The controversy exists, let's put them all into their own article and then go get that popcorn (air or oil popped?) -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge If there is an Opposition then there is an Advocacy. If we cannot keep one, then both need to be deleted and incorporated back into the main article they were forked from or merged into a very real circumcision controversy article. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I agree with that logic. Should we have an article on Rape advocacy if we have one on Rape prevention? There surely are a handful of advocates for the former. Gigs (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely. If you have notable sources for Rape advocacy feel free to create the page. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge, or Redirect. This seems to be a case where the information can go somewhere, but a separate article is not merited.Tyrenon (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone actually envisioned what would make up this new page? Let us look at the opposition page as it currently stands: Opposition to circumcision. As you can see it lists the history of opposition not just present opposition - so firstly, opposition among Greeks, Romans, Christians. Then there is opposition to the medicalisation of circumcision in English speaking countries from late 1800's onwards. Then there is a section on the genital integrity/anti-circumcision movement; this section talks about NOCIRC mainly and the various meetings. So, what are we saying - that we would keep the opposition page as it is but just add a few sentences to the medicalisation of circumcision section: "Late 19th Century to Present" to include early advocates of non-religious circumcision such as Hutchinson and Remondino and Sayre Where would info about current advocates such as User:jakew (Jake Waskett) and his friend Brian Morris, Edgar Schoen and the other people who wrote this letter: Medicaid coverage of circumcision:a health parity right of the poor, AJPH,2009. Would we create a separate section for that after the 'Modern movements: Intactivism and Genital Integrity' section? Presumably Jakew and his friend Avi would like their circumcision promotion to be under wraps. Are they hoping there wouldn't be a separate section for modern advocates? What have they to hide? I agree with the fork issue - it seems that certain editors' (user:Jakew, user:Avi and user:Jayjg - and sometimes user:coppertwig) may prove problematic in getting a fair hearing for the opposition on the main circumcision page. Tremello22 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as opposition has a "history of" section the advocacy can have "history of". It may include a list of religious groups and rationals as well as popular views / myths of different eras. The opposition section should be divided into a chunk about the rationals against circumcision and a chunk about the anti-circumcision groups as they are not synonymous. 87.69.153.62 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't that info be redundant seen as though it is largely mentioned in history of male circumcision and religious male circumcision? Personally I think the history of circumcision page should be span off into 3 different articles Religious male circumcision, "medicalisation of circumcision:1850 to present day" or alternative title "Non-religious male circumcision: 1850 to present day" and finally one about "African/tribal/initiation circumcision". A summary of these sections could be harmonised into the main circumcision page (see harmonization notice there). Then we would reserve the circumcision controversy page for the modern controversy. This page would mainly include the Modern movements: Intactivism and Genital Integrity section from opposition to circumcision. This would leave a fairly short article however. So the best thing to do would be to fit the circumcision controversy into the main circumcision page. Tremello22 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge I have serious NPOV qualms about the article. I am troubled by the very nature of an article on "advocacy;" I think the topic itself is a POV. I know that people who have contributed to the article have tried very hard to conform to our NPOV policies, I am not accusing anyone of deliberate policy violation. But all the things that are good about the article, that address multiple points of view and place them within a larger NPOV context — in short, material I think has value — goes so far beyond the specific topic of advocacy, that I think it should all just go in one article on "circumcision." In short, if it can be merged with the Circumcision article and NPOV'd, that would be fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POVforkage with little redeeming content. Would not support a merge. JFW | T@lk 22:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Drawn Some - the controversy exists, and Wikipedia should cover it. It would appear there is too much information for the main article, so a neutral Circumcision controversy or similarly titled article covering both sides of the controversy is the way forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge carefully. As Slrubenstein says, it should all go into one article on circumcision. (Definition.) Unfortunately, the apparent default consensus at that article keeps the controversy minimized in favour of a medicalized (and thus favourable) presentation of male circumcision. That desire apparently spills over as far as this article and many other related articles, thus the reliable material in some of these articles often goes missing, with dubious explanations. There is an argument for keeping the two articles Circumcision advocacy and Opposition to circumcision, in that some editors believe that a concept should be expressed in a form more or less acceptable to its adherents, and that separate articles may facilitate that. I'm not sure if that idea has traction. Perhaps it would be better to merge the articles so as not to scatter discussion of the controversy -- but such a merging must not be viewed as a rejection of this entire concept as OR (as was seemingly the motivation behind the first AfD attempt), nor should it be viewed as a way to ghettoize the controversy into one tiny article. If the articles are kept apart, perhaps this one should be renamed "Support for circumcision of male minors," which is as neutral a title as Opposition to circumcision is now, and further narrows the topic to where the actual controversy under discussion lies. Blackworm (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one controversy article. Having all the pros in one article and all the cons in another is not a good idea. - Richfife (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with issues on what content goes in. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' far too many citations needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.