Talk:Intactivist

I didn't know that there was no independent main article(s) for Intactivist or Genital Integrity - (covering opposition to FGM and male circumcision,) not just general Bodily Integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknikingman (talk • contribs) 09:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This article should not be merged with Genital Integrity. One is a cause/movement, the other is a term sometimes applied to a person advocating a particular position. "Intactivist" gets over 10,000 hits on google and it deserving of its own article. Johntex 03:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case it should be renamed "Genital integrity advocacy". &mdash;Ashley Y 03:19, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)


 * No it should not. "Genital integrity advocacy" would be the same as "Genital integirty".  Neither would be a term to apply to a person.  Regardless, intactivist is a commonly used term that is meritous of an article. Johntex 03:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, we should talk about the property rather than the people, hence "intactivism" rather than "intactivists", or "circumcision advocacy" rather than "circumcision advocates", or, indeed, "operating system advocacy" rather than "operating system advocates".


 * Secondly, "intactivism" is a jargon phrase, and generally jargon should be replaced with a descriptive phrase. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:31, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)


 * There is no reason we cannot talk about both "intactivism" and "intactivists". There is also no reason commonly used jargon phrases cannot have articles of their own.  Johntex 03:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Clearly "intactivists" should be merged with "intactivism". A jargon phrase may have an article of its own simply to explain the jargon, otherwise it's better to redirect to something that is more understandable to the common reader. This happens all over wikipedia. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:40, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Since merging is disputed, I am removing the merge notice. Johntex 03:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I added the "merge disputed" notice instead. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:47, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)


 * Ah, good. Thank you. I was not aware of that notice. Johntex 03:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johntex, talking about the people rather than the quality is not standard wikipedia practice. This is particularly true for political and advocacy positions. Try a few if you don't believe me: I tried "communist" and "libertarian", both are redirects to their "isms". &mdash;Ashley Y 04:00, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)


 * Hi Ashley Y - that is an interesting observation. Do you know if there is a Wikipedia guideline on this? Johntex 06:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Inasmuch as "intactivist" is an adjective, Naming conventions (adjectives) would be relevant here. As for "intactivism" vs. "gender integrity", Naming conventions (common names) is probably pertinent too. If you feel these don't cover it, I'll raise the issues on the relevant talk pages to see if the policies should be adjusted. &mdash;Ashley Y 10:25, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)


 * I have raised the issue here. &mdash;Ashley Y 00:02, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Delete
I think this article should be deleted. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:07, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the request to delete this article has been raised before, and no consensus has emerged to do so. A request to merge it with Genital integrity has also been raised and again, no consensus to do so has been found.  This amounts to continually re-raising the issue in the hopes that one day the vote will fall in just a certain way.  Johntex 16:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Correction - the discussion on deleting was only here on the talk page, it was not on VfD. The disccusion to merge was over at a policy page.  Johntex 17:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I shall continually re-raise the issue until vote falls some way. Though you carefully fail to mention it, no consensus has emerged either way. When one does, I shall abide by it. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:44, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * In absence of a consensus, keep is the default result. I don't think that re-raising it is justified in that scenario, but that is my opinion.  I certainly have seen no acts from you that would cause me to doubt that you would respect a consensus. Johntex 05:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Keep" is indeed the default result, but does not make further efforts to find a consensus unreasonable IMO. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:57, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Note that this old version of "Intactivism" is actually a better article on the topic than the current version of Intactivist. If I were someone who cared about this topic, I'd revert Intactivism, merge anything here to there, and make this a redirect there. dbenbenn | talk 03:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfD
This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Intactivist. The result was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 02:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I dispute this. I believe the vote was this:


 * Keep as is (2): Johntex, Megan1967
 * Move to intactivism (2): Samaritan, Kappa
 * Merge with genital integrity (5): fvw, ZayZayEM, Ashley Y, Jayjg, Gwalla
 * Delete (1): BM (note: merge is second choice)
 * Presumed sock puppets (2) as per VfD etiquette: U$er, Force10


 * That makes 4 votes to keep, and 5 or possibly 6 to merge. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:20, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * Admin's regard "merge" as a equivalent to a "keep" result, because it is necessary after a merge to maintain the edit history, for copyright reasons. People don't realize that when they vote anything other than an outright "Delete", they are voting against a deletion, meaning keep.  It is then up to the admin whether the article is redirected or merged, and they might not do it themselves.   Based on the VfD consensus, I am going to redirect and merge this, which is the prerogative of any editor. --BM 13:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)