Talk:Circumcision controversies
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | The articleWorldwide Day of Genital Autonomy wasnominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed on1 November 2022 with a consensus tomerge the content intoCircumcision 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 thetalk page for discussing improvements to theCircumcision controversies article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines ·PubMed ·Cochrane ·DOAJ ·Gale ·OpenMD ·ScienceDirect ·Springer ·Trip ·Wiley ·TWL |
 | This article was previously nominated fordeletion. The result of the discussion was 'no consensus'. |
| This article was previously nominated fordeletion. The result of the discussion was 'no consensus to delete'. |
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This page wasTalk:Circumcision advocacy before a text-merge on 30 June 2009. |
| The content ofCircumcision controversy in early Christianity wasmerged intoCircumcision controversies. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page. |
Archives |
| Index1,2,3,4 |
This page has archives. Sections older than45 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3. |
I propose mergingcircumcision controversies intoviews on circumcision perWP: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do not use{{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. Others, listed below:
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.
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.
Minimize the number of links.
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.
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.
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.
.svg)
.svg)
