Talk:Circumcision controversies

{{Discussion top|result=To not merge; difference in scope between the two articles; some WP:OWNership claims. Klbrain (talk) 00:27, 30 December 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 looked at the history of the merge attempt and though you claimed you were merging, you merely deleted the article outright. None of the material was transferred to views on circumcision article by you. This is the wrong way to approach merging requests. Plus this article was here since 2004 and the views on circumcision was barely created by you last year. You cannot call this a redundant article since this one was an original article here. If anything the article you made last year article is the one that is actually redundant.

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 fully concur with IP. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

:Historians of the project might be interested in comparing this discussion with that at Talk:Circumcision and law#Article should be merged per WP: REDUNDANTFORK. Klbrain (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

:Reassess the article class. Article fails more than one point of the B-class criteria, #1, #2, and possibly arguably #4.

:The article is in the following categories including "Articles with multiple maintenance issues":

• Articles with unsourced statements from December 2015
• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from January 2019
• Articles with unsourced statements from December 2020
• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from February 2021
• Articles with unsourced statements from February 2021
• Articles lacking reliable references from April 2021
• Accuracy disputes from October 2022
• Articles lacking reliable references from October 2022. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{See| Wikipedia: External links}}

:Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, was expanded to 12 entries, organized into two subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number, and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a fourth. Consensus needs to determine this. Those links considered reliable should be included as references or general references.

:However, none is needed for article promotion.

:Some links may be included in WP:OFFICIAL, WP:ELNO, or What Wikipedia is not (policy) such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:NOTGUIDE.

• WP:ELDEAD may apply.
• In some cases ELCITE applies: {{tq|Do not use {{tl|cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section}}. Others, listed below:
• ELpoints #3) states: {{tq|Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.}}
• LINKFARM states: {{tq|There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.}}
• ELMIN: {{tq|Minimize the number of links}}.

:The External links guideline This page in a nutshell''': {{tq|External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.}}

:Second paragraph, {{tq|acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.}}

• Please also note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: {{tq|Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them}}. Please do not add back more links without consensus. The addition of multiple "official" links, especially when relevancy is not clear, is unnecessary.

:Moved links:

• Intact America's [http://www.intactamerica.org official website]
• Genital Autonomy America's [http://gaamerica.org official website]
• [https://childrightsnurses.org/ Nurses for the Rights of the Child]
• [https://www.arclaw.org/ Attorneys for the Rights of the Child]
• [https://circumcision.org/ Circumcision Resource Center]
• G [https://www.galdef.org/ enital Autonomy Legal Defense and Education Fund (GALDEF)]
• Intaction's [https://intaction.org/ official website]
• [https://cockfight.org/ Cockfight]
• [https://www.yourwholebaby.org/ Your Whole Baby] -- Otr500 (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)