Talk:Circumcision and law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Anti-circ groups and legislation 2 bible as a historical source? 3 Hadrian's ban on circumcision 4 Speculation on the legality of male circumcision 5 Reliable source question

[edit] Anti-circ groups and legislation

Truthbomber questioned the statement: "Anti-circumcision groups have attempted in various jurisdictions to persuade legislatures to ban circumcision..."

Please see: http://mgmbill.org/usmgmbill.htm and http://mgmbill.org/camgmbill.htm for examples of two attempts in two jurisdictions. There are others, which I will provide if requested (but it'll take a bit of work to find documentary evidence). - Jakew 11:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] bible as a historical source?

excuse me? that's horseshit. The bible is not a valid historical source - it doesn't meet verifiability Lordkazan 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, being one of the most popular books ever written, it's extremely easy to verify that the Bible says what is claimed. What we can't do is to verify that the events described in it actually happened, but that's ok because we don't have to (fortunately, really, since almost any source could theoretically be false). So as long as the wording doesn't imply authenticity (eg "Jesus walked on the water") or non-authenticity, but is neutral (eg "according to ..., Jesus walked on the water"), there is no policy problem. Jakew 08:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hadrian's ban on circumcision

i found a source which gave some information about Hadrian's ban on circumcision. However, it didn't confirm other statements in the article about this period, so I removed them. Michael Glass 02:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation on the legality of male circumcision

The article read: "The passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 has caused some to speculate that the lawfulness of the circumcision of male children is unclear." This implies that concern about the legality of circumcision comes from the Human Rights Act, and that it is a concern of "some" which could be taken to imply that this is a concern of a radical minority.

This would be a distortion of the situation described in the link. According to the link provided, several interests are concerned about the lack of clarity in the law. Some human rights lawyers are concerned about the concept of proxy consent of parents, but doctors are also concerned about the unclear position because it leaves them vulnerable, and there has been a push to put the legality of religious circumcision beyond doubt.

I have therefore changed the wording so that it says: "The passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 has led to some speculation that the lawfulness of the circumcision of male children is unclear.[1]"

I believe that this wording describes the situation better.

Michael Glass 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jakew 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable source question

Jake has removed information on the ground that it did not come from a reliable source. Please explain. Michael Glass 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources discusses appropriate and inappropriate sources. A reliable source in this context (assuming that it is notable enough to deserve comment at all) might be a respected newspaper, for example. Doctorsopposingcircumcision.org is an activist web site, and is inappropriate for inclusion. Jakew 13:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Says the user who is including his own circumfetishist website as a reference in various articles. Those doctors opposing circumcision are physicians, it's safe to assume their expertise on the topic. 87.78.157.0 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you must have me confused with someone else. I suggest you read the policy. You'll find that the author being a physician (if indeed he is; DOC's membership form indicates that members need not be) is insufficient to qualify as a reliable source. Private websites can publish any nonsense, with no sanity checking from others. This is particularly true of activist sites, unfortunately. Consequently, Wikipedia requires the text should be published in a reliable source, such as a respected newspaper, peer-reviewed journal, or book from an academic publisher. Jakew 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)