Talk:Circumcision and law
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Circumcision and law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Map[edit]
The current prevalence map we're using doesn't appear to be based on a reliable source. Shouldn't we just use the map from the main Circumcision page? Prcc27 (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Guarapiranga (talk)
This article is about the law, not opinions[edit]
Looking through this article, almost no sections starts by saying what the law is. Instead, they states what the opinion of some professional doctors association think of circumcision. While this is relevant to include, it should not be the first this to say. We should always start by saying what the law is. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Article should be merged per WP: REDUNDANTFORK[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- To not merge; difference in scope between the two articles; some WP:OWNership claims. Klbrain (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I propose merging this article into circumcision, history of circumcision, and views on circumcision per WP:REDUNDANTFORK.
The present article simply repeats (often verbatim) material on related articles or goes into WP: Trivia cases that didn't amount to any substantive change in law. KlayCax (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I looked at the history of the merge attempt on this article too and though you claimed you were merging, you merely deleted this article outright. None of the material was transferred to the circumcision or history of circumcision or views on circumcision article by you. This is the wrong way to approach merging requests.
Plus this article was here since 2002 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 articles you mentioned above. In fact this article focuses on legal matters than just moral or religious or cultural matters. Should be kept separate. Otherwise you will get even bigger circumcision articles.47.179.9.162 (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I fully concur with IP. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)