Talk:Circumcisionists

Concerning the redirect
I'm OK with redirecting this to circumcision advocacy. Let the pro-mutilation folks win this round. Although there are nuances and not every circumcising culture or practitioner by necessity advocates it, one could argue for this one. However, the title should properly be Circumcisionism (too hard to say I'm afraid). DanP 01:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One more time, please discuss this. I am reverting just on principle. The pro-mutilation folks will make this article a duck in a barrel. Not just because of POV, but structural issues and overlap with other articles. There are many suggestions that might make this article viable, but not if it's undisciplined and single-sided. DanP 19:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your general point, if not the specifics, Dan. It is madness to have two articles on the same topic. It's worth noting that the non-redirect version of this article begins by defining a "circumcisionist" (is that in the dictionary?) as an advocate of circumcision. A redirect is the most appropriate solution, though of course I see problem with incorporating some of the material in the circumcision advocacy article. - Jakew 01:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)