`  :::I don't think every section does at all.  Further, I think the ones that do, do so in such a way so seemingly calculated for minimum sympathy that they are a misrepresentation  and thus a disgrace.  Take this example: ``One argument is that male circumcision is ethically identical to female genital cutting.``  The source is .  Read that page.  Nowhere are the words ``ethic`` or ``ethical`` used, nor ``identical`` nor ``equal.``  By presenting this apparent criticism of male circumcision (I believe the site is highly critical of the female form of GC as well, based on its name, ``The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project``), the site is merely presenting facts, albeit in an emotional way; not drawing ethical conclusions.  That the WP author interpreted this as ``ethically identical`` is his problem.  It's not even clearly ``criticism.``  YOU are drawing the conclusion that it is criticism, based on YOUR ethics and worldview.  To those people who believe female circumcision is fine but male circumcision is a moral outrage, is it *advocacy*?  Ridiculous. :::The problem isn't not having a criticism section; the problem is that there is no fair and well-presented criticism in the article.  This isn't the fault of the sources that present circumcision fairly with respect to female genital cutting (which I *do* believe is mutilation, irrelevant as that is here)  it's not their place to advocate, just to present facts.   `