Talk:Brit milah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Brit milah is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Seen two Brit milahs

As a Jew I have been priviliged to personally see two Brit milahs (Jewish ritual circumcisions) up close, and it was a different sort of thing. No panic, little pain, and the infant was happy again in under one minute. People who have been to many of these events inform me that the two I saw were standard. RK

Three cheers for shock! 86.142.209.236 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many more than two, and what you describe is routine. The boy usually stops crying very quickly. As for shock, for most of the ones I remember, the boy seems no less attentive than he did prior to the bris; of course, at eight days old, their attention and perspication is not well developed yet :) . -- Avi 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible origins of the Brit milah

Jewish circumcision is a form of human sacrifice that originated from the earlier custom of child sacrifice. jaknouse 01:44 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) (paraphrased)

That's not true. RK (paraphrased)
Genesis 17, accords the ritual of circumcision as physically symbolic of the spiritual covenant between God and the Hebrews. The Bible, in its totality, is an absolute rejection of paganism and pagan practices. Wherever possible, it seeks actually to root out pagan practices; at other times, it seeks to invest less savage and objectionable pagan rituals with more spiritual meanings. Why not destroy all vestiges of paganism? Another good question, the best guess at which I can hazard is that some practices were so rooted in antiquity that preventing their implementation was nigh impossible; giving these acts new meaning, however, was the best possible solution, then. This begs another question: Now that society is more advanced, why don't we scrap these pagan accomodations, like circumcision. The answer, I beleive, is that the new spiritual meaning has so taken hold by this time, that it actually gives Judaism part of its defining characteristics. Specifically, the circumcision ritual has for some 3800 years related Jews spiritually to God; to uproot it at this time would be to rip away part of Judaism -- something we rabbis are loath to do. Thus, we keep the ritual of circumcision to this very day.
Egyptians, Moabites, and Ammonites utilized the circumcision ritual. Jeremiah 9:24 reports this to be so. Only the hated Philistines are described in the Bible as the "uncircumcised". Thus, we can see that circumcision was indeed a widespread practice in the Ancient Near East. So what did we Jews do to this time-honored sex rite?
By day eight, every male child has had a chance to experience one full Shabbat of life, a sort of spiritual completeness. As a physical mark of that completeness -- since our celebrating Shabbat indicates our acceptance of God as Creator -- we have adopted the rule of circumcision on day eight.
Jews have circumcised since the time of Abraham -- if we are to take the Bible literally. (Even if we date the practice from the time of the canonization of the Five Books of Moses by Ezra the Scribe in 444 BCE, it is still nearly 2500 years old!) Circumcising your son at eight days of age is a concrete linking of your family to an Ancient faith community and Peoplehood. Even shorn of its socio-religious meanings, this act connects your family to something long-lived and important. And what can be better than having roots -- especially in a post-industrial age where rootlessness and alienation abound. - Sparky 09:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's historically accurate that ancient Semitic tribes practiced human sacrifice of infants and children, and I can quote at least two explicit examples from the Bible (Abraham and Jephtha). It's also historically accurate that circumcision was, at the time, a huge ethical step forward in replacing an extreme human sacrifice with a minor one. jaknouse 02:18 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC) (paraphrased)

That's an anti-Semitic claim. RK (paraphrased)
It's no such thing. Lots of ancient tribes, Semitic or not, practiced human/infant sacrifice. It's also historically accurate that one particular Semitic tribe stoned people to death for blasphemy, this is not an anti-Semitic claim (while it can be, depending from your moral convictions, anti-Judaistic). The Spanish Inquisition tortured and burned heretics - this is not an anti-Iberian claim (while, again, it can be anti-Catholic). Stop crying wolf. Unigolyn 10:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if Jaknouse wrote some tribes - he is still missing the point. The bris does no harm. It's not equivalent to female circumcision which is a fear of infant women's potential sexuality.
No harm? While it is certainly nowhere near as barbaric as female genital mutilation, it is still harmful, and needlessly so. Unigolyn 10:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'd strongly encourage supplying sources for controversial claims. Content, particularly controversial content, cannot be included in the encyclopedia without being verified by reliable sources. I'd also strongly encourage not discussing the merits of claims, particularly unsourced ones. Please see the talk page guidelines. Note that the current state of the discussion, which quotes from primary sources such as the Bible and uses language like "the answer, I believe, is..." suggests that this whole topic may represent an editor's own original research. If this isn't the case, let us know. Wikipedia can include controversial theories if well-sourced, but it can't include an editor's own conclusions. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] metzitzah

How is metzitzah like sucking out snake venom, a rare medical emergency? The child's blood is not venomous. --Hugh7 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hugh: You've obviously missed the point. Don't you read English? It was obviously meant as an analogy. IZAK 09:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I read English. What point have I missed? An analogy compares two things to imply further similarity. What do these two things have in common? --Hugh7 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Viewing the child's blood as equivalent to snake venom is an overextension of the analogy (perhaps deliberate?). The analogy is that both procedures employ suction of a wound to remove foreign matter for prophylactic purposes -- ie, the removal of foreign matter that may adversely affect the patient's health; This is the only intended extent('further similarity') of the analogy; To be fair, the text is too brief and doesn't make clear the connection for anyone unfamiliar with metzitza. To elaborate: In the case of the snakebite, the suction is purposed to remove a life-threatening venom. In the case of the circumcision, the medical purpose is to flush any microbes or infection from the incision site -- the presence of which is less certain or obvious, but has no less potential to threaten the welfare of the patient; If this seems a silly way to do so, bear in mind that circumcision pre-dates every advance of modern sanitation and sterile surgery by more than three millennia -- lacking disinfectant chemicals (iodine and alcohol), autoclaves and ultra-violet sterilization, and most certainly pasteurization, a technique discovered only in last century of so); Thus, the only reasonably sterile substance available with which to cleanse and flush the incision would be the blood itself; Even regular water in oft-times non-potable, let alone surgically sterile. Drawing it out by suction can be viewed as one of the greatest advances in medical science in the ancient world -- winning for jewish ritual circumcision one of the lowest rates of post-operative complication or infection of any surgical procedure in all of history... ancient or modern. This can probably be likened to the use of leeches to draw blood into reattached limbs to keep them alive (I'll explain my analogy): Subjectively 'bizarre' to the modern mind, but nonetheless indisputably effective and scientifically valid. This in no way mitigates the overriding spiritual purpose in the procedure, but merely sheds light on a common-sense aspect of metzitza, and explains the 'point' to the above analogy.
    • I believe the whole discussion of Metzizah b'peh has been given far too much space here. It is an absolute minority who perform the practice, and it is over-represented in this article. I note with some concern that a large number of Neo-Nazi websites have referred to the practice, and the single New York case as some kind of 'proof' for their appalling beliefs about Jewish rituals. I have little doubt the details has surreptitiously crept into this article to lend some form of authority to such arguments. Despite this, the absolute majority of Brits (and there must be tens of thousands annually) are performed in a totally safe and comfortable fashion. Indeed, very few parents of children who have undergone Brit would even be familiar with the issue. As such, the article needs a close review.

[edit] Sources for Haredi practice

Removed source to talk page

<ref name = "NewmanNYT">{{cite news | first = Andy | last = Newman | title = City Questions Circumcision Ritual After Baby Dies | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?ex=1164344400&en=31f8462c34a55f16&ei=5070 | publisher = [[The New York Times]] | date = [[August 26]], [[2005]] | accessdate = 2006-11-23 }} </ref> usually using a sterile glass tube, or pipette.<ref>{{cite news-q |first = Kelly |last = Hartog |url = http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=13676 |title = Death Spotlights Old Circumcision Rite |publisher = [[The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles]] |date = February 18, 2005 |accessdate = 2006-11-22 |quote = Metzizah b’peh — loosely translated as oral suction — is the part of the circumcision ceremony where the mohel removes the blood from the baby’s member; these days the removal of the blood is usually done using a sterilized glass tube, instead of with the mouth, as the Talmud suggests. </ref>

Removed sources to Talk page pending discussion. The NYT simply isn't a reliable source for Haredi religious law, and the Jewish Journal of Los Angelos quote doesn't discuss Haredi practice at all. I suggest using a Haredi source to identify and explain Haredi belief and practice. Not doing so appears highly POV. It seems a bit like quoting the ACLU as the source for an explanation why many conservative Christians favor public Christmas displays or oppose abortion. Why not get the POV directly from a knowledgable authority who holds it? --Shirahadasha 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I object to this being termed solely "Haredi". I know Modern Orthodox people who requested sans tube, and many more yeshivish people who requrie the tube used. I think that this "pigeonholing" that is going on is 1) not accurate and 2) implictly creating a bias. Secondly, it would be difficult to get original Halachic sources, unless what you are asking for is pages from She'elos U'Tsuvos or other work of poskim from the past few hundred years. I would prefer using the NYT and such, then having to track down an Ashel Avrohom M'Butchach or a Pri Megadim or a Piskei T'shuva or a Darchei Tshuva or a Tztiz Eliezer or an Igros Moshe etc. etc. Not to mention, that the NYT/Jewish week is more accessible and understandable to the user of wikipedia. 99% of the people reading will not be able to 1) understand the title 2) find the sefer 3) read the language 4) understand the outcome. Wikipedia is not a beis medrash and as such, at times, the secondary sources are preferred to the primary sources. If someone wishes to have a seder in Yoreh Deah, Chelek Bais and Chelek Gimel, gevaldig, but that is not what wikipedia is. -- Avi 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
On the first issue, perhaps we could simply agree that there's a better term than "ultra-Orthodox" and I'm open to your suggestions. On the second issue, my concern wasn't at all to insist on halachic teshuvas as sources, but to include sources from contemporary Haredi people explaining their position in their own words -- perhaps statements from Agudath Israel of America spokesperson Avi Shafron or similar that would be more accessible to outsiders -- rather than relying exclusively on outsiders to explain the viewpoint. It's not my viewpoint, but that's beside the point. --Shirahadasha 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have recently learned of this practice. Could someone please explain to me the rational of a placing a child's penis in the mouth of an adult male? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcarah (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] control of sexuality

With regards to the "control of sexuality" theory, I moved the relevant quotes from the circumcision article because I think they're better placed here. Obviously this leaves the article unbalanced - Ideally, we'd want similar quotes from those who think this explanation is bunk. Martin

Martin/Euridice? It is pure bunk. Sex with one's wife is considered a mitzvah. Double points if done on the Sabbath. What seems likely is that someone was trying to sell non-Jews that sexual pleasure was lessened without the hood. As a circumcised male and a Jew - I'm pleased I don't have to deal with smegma. My wife is pleased as well. I won't share what my distinguished Law professor cousin calls uncircumcised penises. Good cover if youngsters are out sowing oats.
I really don't care if non-Jews misunderstand the Akedah; The actual understanding is that God inspired Abraham to stop human sacrifices from ever happening as instructed in the Noahide Laws. I think Larry Gonick's take on it is closer to the truth. - Sparky

Is it coincident that the most sensory neurons in the penis are located where circumcision takes place? Check out http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-mcgrath/ It has good representations.

Mainmonides and many other sages have claimed that circumcision reduces pleasure, and they thought that was a good thing. --Hugh7 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hugh old chap, you are not going to convince anyone that Maimonides was "wrong". By the way, what's so bad about getting people to curb their over-endowed lusts? In any case, circumcision hasn't stopped Orthodox Jews from having lots of kids -- so something must be working right, right? IZAK 09:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Izak old chap, you contradict yourself. And "getting people to curb" is not the same as "curbing", nor is it self-evident that everyone (male) is over-endowed with lust lifelong, or that pleasure = fecundity. I agree with Maimonides that circumcision reduces pleasure. As to whether that is a good thing, I retain the right to disagree. --Hugh7 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-circumcision movement

It is acknowledged that they have made few inroads, so why give them a whole section? A one line mention somewhere is enough. Delete? - Robert Brookes 21:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Especially since they're not approved of by any movement. Maybe a couple of sentences at most. Jayjg 00:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you want to do the edit? - Robert Brookes 04:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually I'd rather see more. I'm curious as to what the anti circumcision movement reasons are, it simply says they oppose it and how they get around it. I then want to know "Why" (I can imagine plenty of reasons, but it'd be more educational for their reasons to be put forward). Maybe make it a little less verbose and a little more informative. -Ryu-80.242.32.51 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph that was in response to the above question that was largely an attack on anti-circumcision advocates and basically accused them of being nothing but dishonest propagandists. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article they relate to. While I see no problem with stating the reasons giving by anti-circumciser's for being opposed to the practice in response to the above question I don't think it appropriate, per Wikipedia guidelines, to make accusations about their motives and to argue the validity of one side or the other on this talk page. This not a debate board. As the Wikipedia:Talk page states: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." For anyone wishing to learn about the viewpoint of the anti-circumcision movement, they should read the Wikipedia articles on circumcision and Genital integrity. --Cab88 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Removed line.

"As circumcision opponents might allege."

Nice try guys.

[edit] Milah l'shem giur

This procedure is done for an adopted child in Orthodox Judaism, but the child of a nonJewish mother who is not giving the child up and is intending to raise it is another matter. Who says this is a halakhic procedure? Such a claim needs a source. Whose POV is it? --Shirahadasha 05:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

-- In this Chabad-oriented forum, people claiming to be Mohelim are saying that such a practice is not permitted and that they are regularly asked to do this and regularly refuse. This is clearly a controversial matter within Judaism, Wikipedia shouldn't take a position, we need to cite sources and indicate who says this is permitted and who says it is forbidden. ("If the father is Jewish and the mother is not Halachically Jewish, I refuse to perform any proceedure. As an agent of the Beis Din I will do a Bris on a Ger only once the Beis Din directs me to do so.") --Shirahadasha 05:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see this source: [1] This seems to be a difference between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to do some cleanup but statements are left that I believe are factual errors or opinions that aren't universally recognized. I haven't seen a requirement that the ceremony be performed only before the biological parents and the Beit din, and since Orthodox Judaism does this for adaptions the biological requirement seems impossible. Likewise, the claim that circumcising beyond 30 days is surgical malpractice seems implausible, given that conversion circumcision is sometimes performed on adults.

[edit] Reform, Reconstructionist, and Humanistic Views

A lot of statements are made on these views including alternative ceremonies. Could someone supply WP:RS sources for these views e.g. statements of or publications by Reform (etc.) organizations or prominent Rabbis? --Shirahadasha 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason

Removed to Talk page per WP:NPOV@Undue weight:

The 1st-century Jewish philosopher Philo stated that circumcision "represents the excision of the pleasure of sex, which bewitches the mind". A similar view is voiced by the 12th-century Jewish scholar Maimonides, who once argued that one of the purposes of the Brit milah was to reduce sexual behavior and to weaken the sexual bond between man and woman (Guide for the Perplexed part III, chapter 49).


One undoubtedly had to go through thousands of commentators and hundreds of reasons to find two who gave this reason. This is not a common reason in Judaism. Emphasizing it as the sole reason given gives undue weight. This reason could be given as (a) a one-sentence discussion after some paragraphs on traditional reasons, or (b) as part of an argument made by opponents of circumcision. I suspect the latter is what is really going on, and if so then Wikipedia should reflect this. --Shirahadasha 13:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Good catch. Dbratton 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More information about the controversy in New York about metzizah b'peh

I have added information, most but not all of which appears in the general Circumcision article. I have been advised that it fits better here. Michael Glass 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited it for timeline, to combine citations (the Newman article is quoted numerous times), and to move the RCA reference to the tube section. Also, what exactly is the point of bringing Bloombergs meeting on August 2005, if subsequent to that the city issued an then dropped an investigation? ANyway, this is not about NYC politics, but about the dangers of Metzitzah without a tube from a mohel who has not been screened for HSV. -- Avi 00:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. I put this material here at your suggestion. I followed your suggestion and now you turn round and define some information as not relevant! The controversy about metzizah b'peh was in New York and involved the politics there. And the politics there was that the people practising metzizah b'peh were not prepared to compromise, and they used all their political skills to get their way. That's why this information is both appropriate and relevant. So please stop playing games. Quit censoring relevant material. Michael Glass 01:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is completely your opinion that “…the people practising metzizah b'peh were not prepared to compromise, and they used all their political skills to get their way,” and as such is WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Adding material to imply that there was nefarious political backroom deals is also a violation of WP:NPOV/WP:NOR unless you have a reliable source that says that. All the NYT article (which is referenced four times) says to this point is

Pressure from Orthodox leaders on the issue led Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and health officials to meet with them on Aug. 11. The mayor's comments on his radio program the next day seemed meant to soothe all parties and not upset a group that can be a formidable voting bloc: "We're going to do a study, and make sure that everybody is safe and at the same time, it is not the government's business to tell people how to practice their religion."

– Andy Newman, NYT

This was soon after the event, and does not imply any more than they wanted assurances that the practice would not be forbidden out-of-hand. Further, we bring Frieden's and Novello's opinions from 2006, much more recent. Frieden is pretty clearly against the procedure. I can see no other reason to add the above paragraph, other than to cast the parties practicing the procedure in a nefarious light, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. Correct me if I am wrong. -- Avi 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'd just like to point out that this section is getting quite long, and is really only a small detail in the history, religious significance, and contemporary views on Brit milah taken as a whole. If an extended discussion on this one issue is desired, perhaps it should be moved to its own article to avoid giving it undue weight in this one. It could get a link and brief summary here. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As Metzitzah B'peh is viewed by many as an integral part of a Bris Milah, it must be mentioned here. However, if it is unwieldly, I guess it can be spun off summary style. -- Avi 04:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Metzitzah is certainly a feature, but all the details on the controversy that happened in New York and what city official said this and what rabbi said that -- that's a separate issue. Perhaps this controversy should have its own article if it is desired to discuss it at length. --Shirahadasha 05:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Avi, the reason the political controversy should be mentioned is that decisions about metzizah may have been affected by political considerations. This is a normal part of politics. Removing the information that the ultra-orthodox are a formidable voting bloc is censorship. Michael Glass 20:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is how the Jewish Week dealt with the issue:

As The Jewish Week put it recently, “some fervently Orthodox” mohelim have insisted upon retaining this ritual, and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Bloomberg administration “have agreed not to ban this practice after vigorous lobbying by New York’s fervently Orthodox community.” This despite warnings by health officials that this practice can and apparently has led “to the potentially fatal danger of transmitting herpes to vulnerable newborns.”

[2]

I don't mind if the issue is discussed in its own article as Shirahadasha suggested. However, I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned briefly but succinctly in this article. Michael Glass 10:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight?

The section on metzizah b'peh in my opinion, puts undue weight on how, what, where and when certain rabbis said about metzizah. I believe that instead of this:

In addition, Rabbi Chaim Chizkiya HaLevi Medini the Sdei Chemed printed a 50 page section called Ma'areches Hametzitzah, also claiming the practice to be Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai, quoting R' Yehudah Assad and others. He also elaborates more on what prompted the Chatam Sofer to give the above ruling:[1] He tells the story, that a student of the Chatam Sofer - Rabbi Elazer Hurvitz, The author of responsa Yad Elazer (This incident is quoted in responsa 54(?))- needed the ruling in defense to a law of the government in Vienna, his place of rabbinical authority - which sought to ban bris milah completely if it included Metztitzah b'peh, because of the concern of spreading disease to the baby, so he asked the Chatam Sofer to give him permission to do Brit milah without metzitzah b’peh. and when he presented the defense in court they marked down his words and published it as if the Chatam Sofer gave it as a general ruling. He then adds, nevertheless it is my opinion that the Chatam Sofer never even wrote this letter it is a forgery in my opinion and even if the letter was written by the Chatam Sofer he surely didn’t give it as a general ruling, given that it was not printed in his book on halachic guidance which was the custom with all halachic rulings intended for the public. Included in Ma'areches Hametzitah is a pronouncement by several hundred noted Hungarian and Russian Rabbis, not to change the procedure.

the article carries a short statement from the Rabbinical Council of America on the practice. I contend that the details above are ponderous, obscure and of doubtful relevance to the general reader.The rest of the information about the rulings of the Rabbis could also do with a rewrite. Michael Glass 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this is a complex issue, both as a matter of religious law and as a matter between the Haredi community and external society. Fairly covering it undoubtedly requires some length to present the multiple points of view involved per WP:NPOV. The Rabbinical Council of America is weighted towards Modern Orthodox Judaism and various Haredi rabbis often disagree with its views on various issues, this being one. This issue has many angles. It is perhaps a good example of the practical impact of philosophical differences between the Modern Orthodox and Haredi -- Orthodox Judaism is sometimes thought of as monolithic and this is an example of its diversity. It may also be an example of the role of religion in contemporary society. I believe these issues are good reasons for splitting the issue off into its own article, with only a very brief mention of the existence of multiple views and a controversy here. Otherwise covering this issue fairly could easily weigh down and sink this article. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. A specific article on Metzizah b'peh might be the way to go. It won't be an easy path because of the nature of the subject matter. However, at least we might be able to deal with the issues without 'undue weight' being used as an excuse for stifling discussion. Michael Glass 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Circumcision Movement material

Moved the following here:

The human foreskin has twelve known functions, such as to contact the G Spot. [3] It is the opinion of some researchers that foreskin can be a tool for intercourse. In the book Sex as Nature Inteded It author Kristen O'Hara argues that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and allowing for the achievement of female orgasm more often and in shorter periods of time. [4] It is therefore believed by some that the absence of the foreskin and gliding action makes it more difficult, not impossible, for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse. This, among other reasons and health concerns, have made the medical and ritual practice of circumcision controversial.

This material may be -- we have no source to say -- an editor's personal essay explaining why the editor is personally opposed to circumcision in a way that links together potentially original arguments. We don't know -- at least not from sources available -- if any published arguments actually cite these sources or the reasoning behind them as reasons for opposing the Jewish ritual of Brit Milah, which doesn't necessarily have the same arguments or reasoning for or against as circumcision in a purely medical context. See WP:OR, WP:NOT#OR. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved the following here:

<ref> [http://www.bellybelly.com.au/articles/men/circumcision-son ''Circumcision - should your circumcise your son?'', David Vernon, 2007] </ref>

The link is to an advocacy article posted on an advocacy organization's website which is attempting to appeal to members of various religions. Per the verification policy, it's not a reliable source for claims about Judaism or the beliefs of Jews of any denomination. There's also no evidence this organization is notable. --Shirahadasha 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced tag

I've looked at the sources listed for this material and currently every single one of them is an advocacy or similar private website. I found no links or references to any general media or other independent, reliable sources. As a result, there currently isn't any evidence that this movement and these organizations are notable or that information about them is independently verifiable. I would like to give editors an opportunity to find sources meeting our reliable sources policy that provide independent information about these organizations and issues. I believe Wikipedia's original research synthesis rule prohibits synthesizing the medical debate over medical circumcision with the religious debate over ritual circumcision. A synthesis which assumes that people who have a certain medical opinion about an activity performed as a secular medical practice also have a similar religious opinion about the activity performed as a religious ritual can be particularly problematic. There are, for example, many Jewish doctors who would recommend against eating bread with salt as a general practice, but who regularly eat bread this way themselves as part of the ritual observance of Shabbat. Independent sources are required on the specifically religious debate. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that because no 'independent' media has mentioned that some organizations exist that dispute the need for circumcision in Judaism that this entire section should be deleted? The references provided (including the David Vernon reference that you removed) may not be strong references, but they do indicate dissent about Brit milah, and this should be recorded. Perhaps the issue is more to do with WP:Undue weight rather than notability of sources? I'm not sure how WP:SYN comes into this. Where is the medical debate being synthesized with the religious one? Regards Gillyweed 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be what Wikipedia policy is saying. There is a policy of not recording things in the first instance; and only including material previously published in reliable sources Best, --Shirahadasha 23:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the notability template from the said section. This is only for technical reasons: First, the template should never be used with "subst", as done here. Second, in my understanding it applies to the entire article (not a section) and moves the article into Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance. This is not intended here; the notability of the entire article is not in question. I added Template:unreliable instead, since I think this is what was intended. But feel free to replace that with any other appropriate tag. --B. Wolterding 10:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the right template. --Shirahadasha 01:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circlist.org site

I just reverted the removal of a link to a bris-related site which had been done under the supposition that it was 'gay erotica'. Examination of just the bris material convinced me that it was just another anti-circumcision campaigner on a crusade, but looking through the rest of the site now post-revert, I'm not quite as convinced. Would someone else have a look and offer a third opinion? In any circumstance, I do apologize to the editor who removed it in the first place for my reactionary edit summary; I'm not yet convinced, but I can see that based on some of the pages that it could be construed as more than just a purely informational site (though 'gay erotica' still seems a bit much). DanielC/T+ 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copying/moving information from Circumcision page

I'm copying some information here as part of a plan to shorten the Circumcision page. See Talk:Circumcision#Article too long?. --Coppertwig 21:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not copying over this sentence because it seems to be just a summary of the Bible quote that's already here: "According to the Torah (Genesis, chapter 17 verses 9-14), God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself, his offspring and his slaves as a sign of an everlasting covenant. " --Coppertwig 21:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

Hi A Sniper,

I think all the regular editors here appreciate your placements of the semi-protection notices on this article, but the problem is that only admins can actually protect articles. You can place the notices, but since you lack the ability to actually protect the page, you'll keep being reverted simply because the notices don't mean anything without the actual protection being implemented. Most people learn this the same way (me included). You can ask for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, but since this article isn't vandalized to the same extent as many others, you may not be successful. In any event, your efforts here are commendable, and I think we all hope that you stay around to help with it. :) DanielC/T+ 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI: Requests for protection can be made to WP:Requests for page protection. You can also leave a message with an administrator. I'd note that many Wikipedia articles get vandalized every now and then. Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol looks at all recent changes to check for possible vandalism and all editors are more than welcome to join it. Semiprotection is appropriate for especially high-profile, frequently vandalized articles. Full protection is done for articles that are in the middle of an edit war and for pages like the main page. Unfortunately the commitment to an encyclopedia anyone can edit carries a high price. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I've looked at the history and the most recent incident seems to have been the only one in the last week. Am I missing any? --Shirahadasha 23:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I am well aware of policy re: protection - I knew that, most likely, this would not be granted. However, in an effort to let the occasional vandal OR evangelistic POV editor know that there are keen editors monitoring the page daily, I added it with no authorization. If anyone wants to remove the icon, go ahead; if anyone wants to seek protection, that would be fine, too. Best wishes, A Sniper 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply and your efforts. If you feel that the protection policy makes protection too difficult, I'd suggest going to Wikipedia talk:Protection policy and arguing for change, and you wouldn't be the first. As to leaving up a protection template to deter vandals, this is certainly creative, and appreciated, but I have some concern that the cure could be worse than disease here. If people came across spurious notices and warnings too often, they might stop believing what we told them, and this could turn out to make administering the encyclopedia difficult in ways that might turn out to be even worse than occassional vandalism. I suspect we depend on our notices being reliable in ways we don't even suspect, and I'm not sure I'd want to do anything that might undermine peoples trust in them. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on the anti-circumcision movement section

I believe John D. Levenson, "The New Enemies of Circumcision", Commentary, March 2000 is currently the only reliable source the section has that provides information about the contemporary anti-circumcision movement as distinct from 19th century historical Reform views. For that reason, I would suggest attempting to source the section using material from that article as opposed to sourcing directly from websites of anti-circumcision organizations, at least until other third-party sources can be found. The use of advocacy websites is significantly limited by Wikipedia's verifiability policy and reliable source guideline. My purpose is not to censor material on this view, but to ensure Wikipedia's sourcing policies are complied with. Note that religious sources can be used -- if a major Reform etc. publication covered this movement it would be acceptable -- but they have to be religious sources that are widely read/regarded within a major denomination. --Shirahadasha 00:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Shirahadasha. I agree with you that there should be a new section on Reform. I think the synthesis happened because classical Reform had an 'anti' element, and a very small minority exist today within the denomination who advocate for brit shalom. However, the URJ actively encourages circumcision for newborns and converts (and hence reference to Reform mohelim), albeit without forcing the issue as a test of faith, and this should be clear: Reform Judaism is not part of the anti-circumcision movement. Best, A Sniper 19:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] metzizah bi peh

This spelling was added because it is common on the internet. It does not conflict with the text, as it was also added to the text before it was removed. Please discuss this before it is removed again. Very cordially, Die4Dixie 10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If we start using alternate spellings for every Hebrew word on every Judaism related article, there will be no end to it. This just doesn't add anything useful --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable source

Way down at the bottom of the article there is an unreliable source tag on this statement "Proponents of genital integrity condemn circumcision as sexual mutilation." I checked out the source, and since it is a website for genital integrity group, and they do condemn circumcision, I feel that the source tag is in error, I'm going to remove the tag. Kerowyn Leave a note 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herzl

I think the text is not clear - Did Herzl not circumcise his sons, or was he not circumcised by his father?

17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of the Baby

I understand that it is custom (certainly in European/British Jews) to name the child at the Brit Milah ceremony and that the proposed name of the child should not be mentioned prior to the Bris. Can anyone expound on this or perhaps create a section in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignition00 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)