Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision advocacy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Uh...let me count...1, 2, 3, 4, 5... (11 delete, 7 keep, 7 merge) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision advocacy
This article is original research. It defines an activity in a novel way that has little or no mention in reliable sources, then interprets multiple persons and activities in terms of this definition. Jakew 10:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the reasons above, the whole article looks like a violation of WP:NOR by being a "novel synthesis" of facts put together to advance a particular position, which is explicity disallowed by the policy. Any useful information in it can be moved to one of the other articles about circumcision. SlimVirgin (talk)  10:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to History of male circumcision. I understand "original synthesis" to mean citing authors in support of something they did not say. This article doesn't do that. It is well-cited, and its only fault is that it presents some anti-circumcision results as the last word. Gazpacho 11:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Gazpacho. Not original research as sources cited.  Well known term. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment the original research lies in the interpretation of the cited source, Zordrac. Silly example: suppose I wanted to write an article about glowing angels in the sky. I could cite many documented examples of stargazing ('angel viewing') and identification of new stars ('angels'). It's still original research in spite of the sources, because of the novel interpretation. Jakew 12:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, this particular term is in widespread use, so its not original research. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 15:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you know better than I, Zordrac. Could you please point me to a definition of the term or an identification of the 'advocates' discussed in the article? I've been unable to find anything in any reliable sources. So Dan Blackham has found a passing mention of a different term - circumcision evangelism - in a J Med Ethics article, but that's all. Jakew 13:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Jakew, Can you point out where this article is misrepresenting sources? Gazpacho 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that it does, Gazpacho (though I personally disagree with some interpretation). The problem is one of verifiability. How can one verify that circumcision advocacy is how the article describes it, and how can one verify that these persons are advocates? If nobody has made such an interpretation previously, it must be the opinion of the Wikipedia editor(s) -- clearly a novel view, and thus original research. Jakew 13:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator &mdash; clearly original research. Nandesuka 13:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I have to admit, just the other day I was saying to myself "You know what Wikipedia really needs? More articles about circumcision!. Nandesuka 13:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I recommend that editors read Talk:Circumcision advocacy. There is a long discussion of this there. Uncle G 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I second Uncle G's recommendation that editors read Talk:Circumcision advocacy. -- DanBlackham 22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant, troll magnet. JFW | T@lk  22:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  00:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Izehar 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The AfD nominator for this article has been editing this article since Jan 2005, back and forth with another editor. The article is unusually well-referenced by WP standards, and the various authors discussed in it (read the article, read the talk page) clearly 'advocate' circumcision. The 'original research' argument seems to be a last resort, and the article is (IMO) too long and too different to merge into History of male circumcision. --Squiddy 01:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Gazpacho. A topic worth addressing within the contect of a relevent article.  Jtmichcock 02:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment &#8766; AfD is not a process for resolving long-term content disputes. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 13:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the only solution for a long-term low-grade content dispute is to delete the offending article. Some concepts do not let themselves be knocked into an article with the best will in the world, especially with a paucity of hard sources and a lot of strong opinions. JFW | T@lk  10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The content dispute was/is actually over another issue (whether an obscure indirect source for materials distributed by one person should be explicitly specified). Jakew 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what Jake alleged above, the dispute was whether the article should give an accurate attribution of where a doctor obtained his information. Dr Jesin's webpage is a copy of a Circlist webpage . I felt it was essential that this was acknowledged. Jake, a member of Circlist, was determined to remove this evidence. When it appeared that this was faltering he changed ground and began arguing that the article was original research. Michael Glass 11:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a pity that you assume bad faith in your interpretation of events, Michael. Nevertheless, it is good that we agree that the issues are distinct. Jakew 11:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that Jake has taken my summary of the dispute personally. I respect his right to his views and his right to advocate them. However, in this case there is a clear conflict of interest in being a member of Circlist and making every effort to remove information about this organisation from an article, even when he admitted that this information was correct. For details about this, I urge other readers to study the discussion page Talk:Circumcision advocacy.Michael Glass 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Please read the discussion page Talk:Circumcision advocacy. I believe the attempt to delete this article is based on ideology rather than rationality. Michael Glass 14:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete more cut cruft. Klonimus 17:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be a well-researched, sizeable, and longstanding article. The existence of articles with "advocacy" in their title (just like the existence of articles with "criticism" in their title) has some POV issues, but is defensible when there is a significant movement in favor of (or against) a subject, where describing it would be too lengthy for the main article. *Dan T.* 20:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious original research, no evidence such movement or social activity actually exists. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Claiming that no evidence exists for circumcisionadvocacy is just silly. Just look at the likes of Brian Morris who pushes human genital mutilation against the medical positions of every organization on Earth which has a medical position about human genital mutilation.  —  — Ŭalabio‽ 07:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 	Keep		If deleted someone would just restart the page. This article does not fit will in any other article because it is too large  (this article split out of circumcision because it no longer fit there)  so merging really does not work; besides, merging will not solve the real problem, which is contentdispute.  Indeed, the real issue is a contentdispute.  This whole vote seems like an attempt to solve a contentdispute by making the problem go away.  —  — Ŭalabio‽ 07:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it most interesting that nobody who has opposed deletion has addressed the issue of original research. As far as I'm aware, the policy is no original research, not no original research unless it has other merits. Jakew 10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, NOR. --nixie 10:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment A Google search with "circumcision advocacy" in double quotes yielded 127 hits. One was used in an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics . One article using this term was republished in Jake Waskett's own website . Another group using a very similar term is Advocating Circumcision Today a Jewish group . Usage of the term seemed divided between references to circumcision advocacy and anti-circumcision advocacy. Therefore as other commentators have said, it is a common enough term. As for the claim that no-one addressed the question of original research, this is just not true. Gazpacho, Zordrac and Squiddy all specifically argued against the notion that this article is original research. If there is something in the words circumcision advocacy that raise concerns, then a term should be sought that people feel more comfortable with. Michael Glass 11:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * These three uses merely use the term in passing. They do not define it, nor do they identify any advocates. These latter are introduced by the article. The remainder of these hits are activist sites, not reliable sources, and as you note, frequently refer to anti-circumcision advocacy. As for an alternative term, fine - let's use whatever someone else has already used! Jakew 11:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that people use the term in passing and without defining it is evidence that they are using natural English and not a technical term that needs to be defined. The fact that the same language is used in activist sites is further evidence that it is part of the vocabulary of these groups, something that I would have no problem in noting in the article. However, this usage is not restricted to these groups. One example is in Rachel Gathercole's article on the Medicaid funding of circumcisions. She wrote: "Some circumcision advocates still contend that the surgery results in slightly fewer infant urinary tract infections, a possible decrease in incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, and the prevention of penile cancer." The term circumcision advocate is used quite naturally here in a newspape article. A Google search of circumcision advocate yielded about 1260 hits, and this is further evidence that the term is natural English and not some tecchnical term that has to be defined.Michael Glass 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You said above that it yielded 127 hits. Now you're claiming ten times that number. Surely there must be a mistake? Anyway, there is a problem here in that you're saying that the term doesn't need to be defined yet the article defines it. How do you propose to remedy this? Jakew 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 127 hits for circumcision advocacy; 1260 hits for circumcision advocate. Ask Google a different question and you get a different answer. I am glad that you are now talking about improving the article. One way to improve it is to use a dictionary definition of advocacy'' . Michael Glass 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Addressing the NOR question: it does not appear to me that searching for the specific term "circumcision advocacy" is enough to deny the existence of a large group of people who advocate for circumcision. Circumcision, oddly enough, is one of the most heated and contentious subjects on the internet. I always avoid these arguments because I frankly don't care one way or the other. However, I think that most people here know that there are pro- and anti-circumcisionists. Whatever name is chosen, the collection of information characterizing the views of each side only makes sense. And, honestly, it could be done much worse than this well-references, well-balanced article. InvictaHOG 13:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - A lot of the information is not original research. The article is well written and well referenced. The article contains relevant information on the subject of circumcision which is not in other articles in Wikipedia. --Dumbo1 13:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no original research. Stifle 14:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the lengthy discussion on the Talk page it appears that this AfD is a continuation of a content dispute.  I agree that the 'original research' argument seems to be the last resort attempt to delete information. -- DanBlackham 07:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I have noted that those arguing for keeping the article have argued the case at some length. On the other hand, nearly all those who spoke for deletion simply dismissed the article in one line, citing original research. I find it curious that the debate is so polarised. I see the article as fitting the description of "source-based research" as defined below:
 * Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia WP:NOR.
 * Michael Glass 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So where are the sources defining circumcision advocacy or identifying circumcision advocates? Jakew 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Use a dictionary definition of advocacy and apply this definition to tthe examples of those who have advocated circumcision. This would be source-based research, and is strongly encouraged, according to the policy. If we don't recognise the right and indeed the duty of us to collect and organise information, Wikipedia will be like the position of ijtihad in classical Islamic scholarship, when progress in learning was stifled by defining it as illegitimate. Michael Glass 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean using the dictionary definition of one word and interpreting the activities of individuals accordingly? That's the very definition of original research. Jakew 21:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that using a dictionary is to be defined as original research? Is that the straitjacket in which you want to bind those who disagree with you? Please follow this link: ijtihad Michael Glass 10:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Michael, it's a slippery slope. If it's okay to use dictionary definitions to create an article, what is to prevent anyone from creating anti-broccoli advocacy, as discussed on the talk page? The answer is nothing. It opens the door to any article coming into existence, just because the central term is an accurate use of language. That's original research, it's junk, and it devalues the rest of Wikipedia. Jakew 13:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Jake, please note the civil tone that Slrubenstein uses. I do not see the subversiveness in using a dictiionary. I do not see that sourced-based research can be deemed to violate the "no original research" policy, or that it is a slippery slope. Please read ijtihad for an example of what can happen when a society deems certain approaches off-limits. Michael Glass 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you felt my comments were uncivil, Michael, though I can't see how. I would agree - source-based research is not original by definition. But this article is not source-based. The central theme of the article is that there is such a thing as circumcision advocacy, that is consists of "social and political activity to promote it and ensure access and funding for circumcision" (though the introduction is better now, that's still implied), and that the various individuals listed in the article are advocating circumcision. All of these must be sourced in order to be verifiable. Sure, certain facts are sourced, but the interpretation of them as circumcision advocacy is not. This is the problem.
 * Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical book. Let's call it Bloggs' Circumcision advocacy through the ages. In it, Bloggs discusses advocacy at length, noting Morris, Schoen, and so on. Now when we cite Bloggs, it's a true source, because there is no interpretation. The reader can check Bloggs and readily see that these people are indeed identified as circumcision advocates. As it is, he's just got Wikipedia's word for it. Jakew 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge and NPOVify cited information into Male circumcision and History of male circumcision. There can be no justification to delete valuable, cited information; it is not irredeemable in its presentation.--Eloquence* 22:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. I have serious NPOV qualms about the article.  But if it can be merged with the Circumcision article and NPOV'd, that would be fine. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please say what your NPOV concerns are. Michael Glass 12:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am troubled by the very nature of an article on "advocacy;" I think the topic itself is a POV. I know that people who have contributed to the article have tried very hard to conform to our NPOV policies, I am not accusing anyone of deliberate policy violation. But all the things that are good about the article, that address multiple points of view and place them within a larger NPOV context &mdash; in short, material I think has value &mdash; goes so far beyond the specific topic of advocacy, that I think it should all just go in one article on "circumcision." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I feel that advocacy can be discussed, just as any other topic can be discussed. If we say that certain topics or even certain approaches are off-limits, this raises concerns about what is being said and what is left unsaid and why. For instance, if some things are left unsaid, whose interests does this serve and whose interests are discounted? Michael Glass 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with your general point; if we disagree it is in its application. I think any NPOV discussion of circumcision advocacy is best placed within the circumcision article, which provides a larger context for the issue. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete or at best merge. Much of this does not belong in an encyclopedia; what does should be moved. Eusebeus 14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEP This article - JDJ -


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.