Talk:Brit milah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

I'm not sure what "Seen two Brit milah" has to do with this section, but given that it's here, let me say that I haven't just seen one: I've been under the knife. What it left was a large purple scar complex, and as teenager erections were so painful that I would cry. My father took me to a "doctor" when I was 14 who just shook his head and smirked. Scar tissue doesn't stretch very well, and most of my skin was amputated. As a further insult it was possibly announced on that day, as is often the custom, that I was a mamzer, as indeed according to Jewish law I am. Even worse, my mother and grandfather hid all this, and I got to find out for myself just how reviled I am in the Jewish community, unable to marry freely, and cursed 10 generations or in perpetuity, depending on which nut is giving his opinion. Thanks for the information, Chabad House. I often wonder when I look at the wretched scars if that was the intention of the mohel. Give the mamzer a real good cut. Almost needless to say, I have jettisoned every aspect of Judaism that I can. So maybe this article on Brit Milah ought to include information on the circumcision of a mamzer, the announcements during prayer, and other special procedures. Jwkuehne (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Why isn't the actual ceremony described, for example when the circumcision is performed and the blood from the cut is drawn by the mouth of the Mohel.

(By the way, why isn't your comment signed with the four ~~~ tildes?) Because it happens so quickly and what the mohel does is almost not noticeable and there is hardly any blood for anyone to see. It's maybe a speck or two and it's certainly not Bull fighting!.

Shouldn't the individual have the right to choose, at an age of consent, whether he would like to have his penis disfigured? Is it not in opposition to God and nature that an adult makes the decision for a child to mutilate his genitalia? Or is it that the religious authorities fear that the individual as an adult would never choose, voluntarily, to have this procedure performed among him? Is this not the same as mutilating the genitalia of a girl/female? And how does one allow his/her son's penis to be taken into the mouth of an adult male, regardless of his/her religion.

New Page: Brit-Dam

Please visit Talk:Brit-dam and add your two-cents.

Those who have been active on this article would be the best to give constructive suggestions and edits.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     20:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Kvatter

I've noticed the section about Kvatter, and it says the origin of the word is unknown. In german, there is an outdated term that translates into Godparent, Gevatter.

I don't know which one roots from which one, but phonetically, the relationship is there. Dabljuh 11:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its clear from this that the sorce as "kavod tier" is ludecrus and should be edited.

Also "The traditional custom is to honor as the Kvatter a young newly-wed couple (without children of their own yet) as a merit for having a baby." is false. This is not the traditional custom it is a new thing done by some. The traditional custom was and still is for many to honor the grandparents or rabbi with it. Originally Kvater went together with Sandek. Also why is only Kvater mentioned and not other kibudim such as Sandek?

I agree about "kavod tier"; I know that I've read that it comes from the German Gevatter.Benami 03:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help you. Bit more: "Vatter", appears to be an outdated way to write Vater, (father) and Gevatter more literally could mean either Co-father, or "only formally and honourably called so father", but seems to be strictly connected to the function of a Godparent. Plural form is Gevätter, and its meaning goes into the direction of (male) "elders". There appears to also be the even more outdated term of Gevatterin, which would refer to a female. Note that the spouse of a Gevatter or a Gevatterin would be a Gevatterfrau, the wife of a Gevatter, or Gevattermann, the husband of a Gevatterin.

Also compare to Geschwister which used to mean sister (modern german: Schwester) and is still in contemporary use but with the slightly different meaning of siblings, or Gebruder which is a somewhat uncommon, dated, but still familiar term for "brothers" (Bruder). Note that all these terms merely imply a somewhat familiar, close relationship, and not necessarily a blood relationship, apart from the purely modern usage of geschwister. Dabljuh 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Input from Dabljuh

These comments about the origin of "kvatter" from the original Germanic word/s by Dabljuh are excellent and very perceptive and probably deserve to be included in the body of the article. What do others think? IZAK 07:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I'd like it better if it were sourced to avoid OR. A native speaker of a language is not necessarily an expert on its history. It shouldn't be that hard to find supporting documentation. Benami 11:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this any help? It's confusingly worded, but does make a link. "Later, Ashkenazic Jews, used the word which in German means "godfather" because this is essentially what the Sandek was. This word is "Gevatter" of Yiddish "Kvatter."" [1]

Kvatter is not "essentially what the Sandek [is]". A square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square. Tomer^talk 20:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Problematic paragraphs in 'By Mouth' subsection

The 3 paragraphs at the end of the subsection Brit milah#By mouth regarding the statements of Rabbi Chaim Chizkiya HaLevi Medini need citation, rewriting, or removal. In their current uncited form it's unclear if they are direct quotes or paraphrases - they also include misspellings and several grammatical mistakes that make them difficult to understand.

I personally lack the knowledge of the position of specific Rabbi necessary to make edits; could someone with a better perspective take a look? In my mind citations and corrections to the spelling and grammar (assuming that these are paraphrases) should be the bare minimum effort accorded to these claims. Dbratton 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, Bloger, but the section in question is still very unclear. Is this a direct quote, or are you paraphrasing the statement by the Rabbi? The two problematic paragraphs are the ones that go from "He tells the story . . ." to " . . . which was the custom with all halachic rulings intended for the public." Is the reference you listed available to the general public so that other editors can have a look and help clarify what it contains? Dbratton 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just pulled the "by mouth" section. Some of it may be right and feel free to revert parts of it that are. Blogger is an anti semite troll who was here for a few weeks. See the "total true jews" discussion where he was trying to fake being Satmar,,, so there is no reason to give benefit of the doubt on that one. jbolden1517^Talk 02:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I didn’t write the entire article except for one part and the one who wrote it is responsible for citation which he gives very clearly in my opinion.

And if you are not satisfied with the citations he gave make a request for more instead of deleting it and attacking personally and not even in the right direction since I didn’t write it.

The part I wrote is quoted from the books that I mention in the reference and is public for everyone to see for themselves.

I understand that you cannot read Hebrew given your poor knowledge of Judaism as is proven by your not knowing that metzitzah is a vital part of brit milah.

BTW your accusation’s are slanders and completely false if you don’t like my opinion that’s your problem and is not a reason to go wild.

Bloger 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bloger,

In this instance, I think I agree with jbolden in temporarily removing the Metzitzah section. The entire section is rather unclear and unreferenced, especially your additions. I understand that you're quoting a published work, but it appears that your English skills aren't quite up to the task of clarifying exactly what is said and how it's phrased. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it is contributing to the misunderstandings.

Is it possible for you to make your references available for other editors to look at? An independent online source would be very helpful, since the book you mention isn't widely available.

I do agree with you that the Metzitzah section is important information, but in its current state it's difficult to understand and is not supported by references in any way. It would be best if someone with personal knowledge of the subject could rewrite the section from scratch.

For now, I think it's best to remove the problematic section and replace it with a summarising paragraph, then have it filled back in by knowledgable editors who can make it more understandable. In the meantime, we should all take a deep breath and remember that the only goal here is to work together to make the information provided as accurate and informative as possible. :)

Dbratton 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a photocopy of the book and if you tell me how I will gladly make it available.

The entire concept of Metzitzah is clearly put out in several news sources as sited in the article.

Bloger 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bloger,

Unfortunately, I can't tell you how you can make your photocopy of the book available since I don't know what facilities you have access to. You'll have to work this out on your own. Once you do find a way to provide this reference I'm sure everyone will be happy to have a look at it. Dbratton 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I can e-mail it to you

Bloger 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dbratton requested on my talk page that I review the sections of Brit milah that are currently being disputed. I have only a few points to make:

1. Metzitzah is a real verifiable part of the brit milah ritual
2. I have reviewed much of Bloger's edits and I have no reason to believe that he is an anti-Semite. I would not be surprised if he is satmer, but that would only indicate that he has minority opinions about the current State of Israel. As this article has nothing to do with Israel I see no reasons for his edits to be discounted. (And even if his edits were about Israel still they shouldn’t be discounted as Satmer is a notable minority opinion).
3. I do not know whether the section regarding the Chatam Sofer's pasak is true as I have not looked them up. Nevertheless I believe that they are. Having sources that are hard to look up is not the same as unsourced.
4. The parts added by bloger could be written better. Nevertheless, it is only appropriate to remove sourced additions if you believe that they could never be improved by anyone, otherwise correct them yourself or leave them for someone else to improve. I do not believe that these paragraphs are unsalvageable.
5. personally I think that much of the section should be cut, as Wikipedia does not need to deal with halakhic exegesis. I think that a sentence "Whether Metzitizah is obligatory is a matter of halakhic dispute" is enough. There is no need to go into all of the back and forth (did the Chatam Sofer write that? did he mean it? etc), because in any event the full scope of the dispute cannot be presented. Jon513 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to Jbolden1517 that he’s off his tracks. he keeps on deleting the entire article about Metzitzah because he doesn’t like my edits about an organization on a complete different subject, and he cant get it thru his head that I didn’t write the article except for one part (even if I did he’s wrong on deleting it because his personal feelings) he doesn’t now anything about brit milah as is evident of his deleting of the entire section and yet feels comfortable in editing it.

Besides he keeps on attacking me and others with slanders attaches and then deletes the complains from his talk page to make it looks nice and clean (check out the history)there should be a consequence for people like that who put there own filings above the concept of putting useful info out as is the goal of wikipedia

Bloger 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bloger, visit Circumcision for links that confirm the existance of this procedure. I don't blame people for not believing that this is for real; I had difficulty with it myself at first. Hang in there dude. Nokilli 08:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

To User:Humus_Sapiens, the wording here is not my own. This is what I found when I first visited this page, when I created the entry in Circumcision. Whether it is sensational wording or not is beside the point; this is what happens. This is the truth. Now I would ask you to consider that Jewish children are dying because of this procedure. I see here that User:Bloger is being accused of anti-Semitism for bringing this information to light. Consider that by publicizing this procedure it will hopefully someday be abandoned, and that as a consequence of that, Jewish babies won't die or be infected with sexually transmitted diseases ever again. In other words, less Jews die my way than yours. Nokilli 08:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The source used states "the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it"; that is the wording in the article as well. Please do not revert sourced statements in favor of unsourced ones. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum for activism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nokilli it’s me bloger:

Firstly, you got me completely upside-down on my position on metzitzah. I never intended to be an activist by bringing anything to light in my writings because that is not what Wikipedia is all about I just added info on the issue, and it shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement or a protest of the issue.

Secondly, for the sake of the truth, to proclaim that quote “Jewish children are dying because of this procedure” is not right, since its not been proven in an open way for everyone to see, instead the NYC health commissioner wrote so without giving any proof. Moreover, the NYS health commissioner recently released a statement in which she very clearly says that there is no proof beyond speculations in some medial journals on the above accusations and on that basis, she let metzitzah go on undisturbed.

Bloger 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you read the citations you will see that it has been established that this one boy died because of the "procedure". It stands to reasons that many, many thousands of boys have died over these past several thousand years because of this practice; I think it is important that people be made aware of it so that it can be abolished. Nokilli 07:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is a total violation of WP:NPOV. The procedure's methodology is in the article. Writing it in such a way as to "abolish" it is counter to all Wikipedia stands for. -- Avi 11:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV only applies to articles. Given the number of times you accuse people of violating WP:NPOV, one would think that you would have bothered to read it just once. Nokilli 07:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing your edits to the article in light of your statement here. That should have been obvious. -- Avi 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your activism; please stop replacing properly sourced information with unsourced POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See previous remark, WP:NPOV applies only to articles. Everybody here is an activist, especially you. The fact of the matter remains, the mohel sucks on the baby's penis. This is the way the information was originally presented on Wikipedia, and by an unbiased editor. The only reason you and Avi chose to change it was because you didn't like what I had to say on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that's on the record. Nokilli 07:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The information in the article is quoted directly from reliable sources; please stop violating policy by inserting unsourced POV material. Also, please stop speculating and fabricating regarding other editors; that is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That was WP:NPA. When have I ever discussed anything you have done on the I-P conflict? For that matter, have I even edited an article that you have on the conflict? I do not recall any such. By making allegations such as you have, you are making it difficult for me to continue to try and deal with you on a civil basis; not to mention you lose credibility. -- Avi 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

Jon513 just left a message on my talk page asking for more detail here. I'm trying to prevent this from becoming a personal attack and more importantly this isn't even an issue that interests me, I ran into this article almost by accident. Jon513 seems to be a real editor but was also an advocate for keeping Torah True Jews Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews which was unquestionably a fake. So I'm still suspecious.

I'm not disagreeing that mouth to genital contact may still occur in traditional communities. If some minor (as a percentage of population) Jewish groups use mouth to genital contact that's no more representative of Jewish practice in general than the mouth to genital contact in Coin Locker Babies is representative of Japanese conduct. The focus of this article should not be on obscure practices but rather on how the practice generally done in a mainstream way. 100 years ago the Jewish encylopedia wrote an article on this practice [2] and they spent about 1% of the time addressing mouth to genital contact. So yes the problems I have with this article are fundamentally the same problem as the one with Torah True Jews. There are Jews who do all kinds of craziness and believe all kinds of crazy things [3]. So what? Wikipedia is supposed to document high quality verifiable sources. The material at the very least is unbalanced Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, and comes from original sources (that is direct quotes from Rabbis) WP:OR.

I continue to believe this is a problematic. I think the Jewish encyclopedia coverage is far more representative of the issue. So I don't want to hear about how some rabbi in some work that's not quoted very often made a series of comments about a small part of a procedure and thus 1/3rd of the article should be discussion his position. jbolden1517^Talk 15:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I now think I know what jbolden 1517’s problem is I’ll try to explain so he can understand.

1) The word “metzitzah” in today’s day does not necessarily mean mouth to genital contend.

The English translation of the word means suction, and it is done in a brit milah to suck blood from the wound its believed to be a heeling method as is written in the Talmud, So much so that it may be done on Shabbat, when anything considered work (and this is) not directly involved in life or death is forbidden, but this is allowed given its healing power.

Until about 150 years ago “mouth to genital contend” was unanimously accepted to be the only way to apply the heeling called “metzitzah”.

At that time, there were those who had a problem with “mouth to genital contend” so they came up with a solution to use a glass tube that is placed on the wound and the mohal sucks the other end in order to extract blood. They clamed since the blood is being extracted anyway why go through the trouble of putting the mouth directly to the wound.

Others came with a different solution, why at all involve the mouth since the goal is to extract blood apply an absorbing materiel to the wound and that should do the job.

The point being, that whatever method used “metzitzah” is done in every brit (at least in orthodox quarters) the only difference is in which way it’s done.

For example in Hasidic quarters (and a lot of orthodox non Hasidic as well) it’s applied by “mouth to genital contend” the most strict way of doing it, its not confined to satmar or any other group within the Hasidic population. So its not as you put it some maniac in some rural aria has some crazy tradition that’s not noteworthy it’s a widely practiced thing.

On the other hand in more modern quarters it’s applied in one of the other ways mentioned above but “metzitzah” is done in every instead.

2) in dismissing the “chasam sofer” as being “some” rabbi in “some” work that is not quoted you have again shown yourself as not knowing anything about Judaism given the fact that the “chasam sofer” is considered one of the biggest rabbi’s ever to live in every corner of religious Judaism his word is considered the most revered and respected it has been said about him “from Moses to Moses there was none like Moses” meaning that from the time of “maimonides” (rambam) till him there was no one as great as him (which is the same as was said about maimonides in respect to Moses of the bible)

(BTW, I appreciate that you have conceded the fact that the issue doesn’t interest you so why bather editing a subject not known to you and not interesting you why not leave it to editors with knowledge and interest in the subject)

Bloger 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that sounds the answer an orthodox Jew would give about a ritual question. If you had provided those kinds of answers during the Torah True Jews debate I wouldn't have nearly so worried you were really white power. Anyway you may get a kick out of knowing that expression means something very different to liberal Jews. For them from Moses to Moses their were none like Moses" is: between Moses (of Sinai) and Moses (Mendelssohn) there was no one like Moses (Maimonides).

Now can you explain to me why you feel the need for this to take up a 3rd of the article? More importantly how do you address the issue of original research? jbolden1517^Talk 23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1) The reason its imported enough is that writing an article about “metzitzah” without talking about the “chasam sofer” and his ruling on the matter is like writing about baseball and not mention Babe Ruth, or like writing about the landing on the moon and not talk about Neil Armstrong, even better talking about the founding of the USA and not pay tribute to George Washington.

Since in his time and on his words the entire debate of changing the way this vital part of the ritual is conducted took place and each side triad having this great sage baking there way of practice.

2) About the concern of original research as I looked up the WP:OR this is what I found:

“This policy in a nutshell:

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.”

now since this is not “previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments” given that its written in books written and published more then 100 years ago from very famous people I don’t see why they violate the original research policy.

3) Thank you for giving me my faith back and taking me off the hostile nation list.

Bloger 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but doesn't allowing a grown man to place a child's penis in his mouth, which would be illegal under any other circumstance, strike anyone as sick in 2007? And the historical medical reason of post-surgical"sucking" doesn't hold water; the child would not need a man to do this had the parents not allowed that man to mutilate his genitals? Can someone explain how in the name of humanity this is legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcarah (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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: [4] 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.

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)

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)

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.”

[5]

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)

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: 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)

Anti-Circumcision Movement material

Moved the following here:

The human foreskin has twelve known functions, such as to contact the G Spot. [6] 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. [7] 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)

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)

Just because an article mentions (and cites) that the subject is controversial, does NOT mean it should be deleted. As a matter of fact, most wikipedia articles do mention anything controversial about the article. It is people who delete these sections that have a bias and an opinion, such as yourself....as if you don't want people to know that there is a controversy. That is against wikipedia's neutrality policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.48.21 (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2009 (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)

I'd like to comment on this issue. Although I'm not that familiar with Judaism, I'm very familiar with sources regarding all aspects of circumcision. My (admittedly subjective) impression is that the anti-circumcision movement is given a disproportionate amount of weight in this article. For example, the volume of text given to this subject is roughly equal to that in the "Academic opinions" section, and also that in the "Biblical origin" section. My view is that this presents an inflated picture of the importance of the anti-circumcision lobby in the context of circumcision within Judaism. My impression is that only a small fraction sources on that subject even mention the anti-circumcision lobby. Regarding the sources themselves, there seem to be rather a lot of self-published and other questionable sources. I would therefore propose to shorten the material down to, perhaps, one paragraph, deleting the dubious references and citing strong ones instead. Jakew (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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). Daniel^C/_T+ 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. :) Daniel^C/_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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ritual Circumcision Originated in Africa

Ritual Circumcision pre-dates Judaism and began in ancient Egypt. This ancient practice along with the naming ceremonies are traditional ritual customs that traverse many African traditional religious rites and culture. Also, Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. He was an African of the East African Korite clan (now Kenya). He was a powerful diviner and astrologer of the traditional African religions of which his parents were worshippers of the Goddess Di-Anna. If the later converted European Jews learned of these ancient African practices it surly must have been in ancient Egypt, of which there is absolutely no mention made in this article. It is time to stop pretending that Africa is not the ancient origin of Judaism and many of its traditional religious practices --74.229.102.208 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wine

Oddly, there is no mention in the article of the use of wine in the circumcision "ritual". Why is this? http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/11033/study-confirms-that-wine-drops-soothe-boys-during-circumcision/ http://www.jewishmag.com/28mag/bris/bris.htm http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std-bris.shtml etc. Why the omission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.181.181 (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Article from Israel

This site: [Circumcision and its critics] has an Israeli article about this subject.Agre22 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

Proportion of American Jewish male population having undergone Metzitzah b'peh according to Gesundheit et al.

According to the source paper by Gesundheit et al. published in Pediatrics: "This procedure [ritual circumcision] is widely accepted, and 60% to 90% of newborn boys of the Jewish population in the United States undergo this procedure, [...]" The term "ritual circumcision" is then clearly and explicitely defined in the following (second) paragraph as a three-step process, the third being "sucking of the blood from the wound." Therefore, it is clear that 60% to 90% of American Jewish boys routinely undergo Metzitzah b'peh, according to Gesundheit et al. -- contrary to the statement made by Steven J. Anderson in his edit dated 4 April 2010. --Alibubba7 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Ritual circumcision" is a circumcision on the 8th day by a mohel. It may or may not include metzizah b'peh. The second paragraph says "Historically, Jewish ritual circumcision consists of 3 parts..." Your assumption that this applies to the 60 to 90% of newborn Jewish boys circumcised today is an incorrect WP:SYNTH, which is a violation of policy. Please click on the link for more information. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The source is clear. If you have another definition, cite the source. --Alibubba7 (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the source is clear that 60-90% of Jewish males have a brit milah, but it's clearly not making the claim you attribute to it. In order to make the claim you want, you must find a source that explicitly states this regarding metzizah b'peh. You cannot create assume it is making unstated claims based on your personal reading of the text; that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

sabbath and bris

you should know that brit milah is done on the sabbath if it is the eigth day. in fact unless there is pikuach nefesh or heath problem(child is born premature for ex) then it is always done on the eigth day even if its yom kippur. doing a brit milah is considered working but because it is such an important commandment it is doen even on the sabbath and on holidays. it can only be delayed for pikuach nefesh.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Brit Levanah

It is becoming increasingly common for girls to have a brit levanah in addition to a naming. This does not involve cutting, rather a nice service based around the moon and moon festivals. Should we include something here or a separate page? THDju (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense at Zeved habat? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

History

I think the article would benefit from an History section like in the hebrew wikipedia. Adiel lo (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Why don't you write one? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"On the eight day" means the child is a week (7 days) old

It is wrong to say "on 8-day old male infants". The writers of the Torah had no zero, therefore started counting on the birth day (day 1). So on the 8th day the child is 7 days old. This makes sense in the lunar calendar - a week is a lunar quarter.

Proposed change: "...religious circumcision ceremony performed "on the eighth day" on a 7-day old male infant by a mohel." Oneye1i (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree and seeing no contrary opinions in 17 months i'll make the change as per WP:BB. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 09:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

brit is the transfer of house from mother to father

I propose no changes since I cite no sources. Please someone else research this. Ishmael was born to Haggar into the House of Sarai, the chief wife of Avram. Yitzhak was born into the House of Sarah, her name change coming from her "miracle" pregnancy by divine providence. After the men were circumcised, Avram became Avraham, Ishmael became Ishmael ben Avraham, and Yizthak became Yitzhak ben Avraham. So circumcision transfers males from the house of the mother to the house of the father. This is, in my opinion, recording the changeover from matriarchal to patriarchal society.

Later, when there were Israelite tribes, the brit made the boy a member of the the tribe (the father's tribe), and they were expected to remain in the tribe and fight for the tribe.

It makes a female ceremony equivalent a little paradoxical, since girls are born into the house of their mother, and there is no transfer. It also hints that women did not belong to the tribe, and could marry outside the tribe. Men therefore often sought wives in other tribes. Oneye1i (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Medical Dangers

I propose that a paragraph or two dedicated to dangers of traditional Jewish circumcisions be added. May I add one? I will cite all medical complications that may occur. (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

That is handled in Circumcision and Circumcision controversies, linked to in this article at Brit milah#The anti-circumcision movement and brit shalom as the dangers of which you speak are those that pertain to all circumcisions, religious or otherwise. This article is specifically about the religious covenant that includes the act of circumcision, not a repeat of Circumcision. -- Avi (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jewish circumcision present other complication risks separate from medical circumcision. Such as the tranmission of STDs from oral-wound contact (doctors do not put their mouths on the child's penis) and accidental amputation of the penis (though this could occur in a medical circumcision as well). (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

You are referring to Brit milah#Medical controversy, which, as you can see, is prominently in the article under Brit milah#Metzitzah technique, where it belongs. -- Avi (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this text However, in an article titled “Is Metzitza bePeh Dangerous?” written by Dr. Daniel S. Berman, MD, Chief of Infectious-Disease at New York Westchester Square Hospital, he argues that there is no proof linking Metzitza bePeh to neonatal herpes infection [30]. It is WP:OR and there are no reliable secondary sources given that discuss its importance.195.171.9.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, WP:OR forbids an editor from putting his own “original research”, however what I added is not my “original research”, it’s an article that was published by a verifiable expert in this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloger (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A curiously lacking article

This article talks at length about the kvatter and other aspects of the ceremony, it discusses priah, goes to great lengths discussing metzitza b'peh, but the most consequential action is curiously absent: the cutting of the foreskin!

Nor are the various instruments and methods -- mogen shield vs. mogen clamp, gomco clamp, free-hand knife -- given an overview, let alone a contrasting treatment.

I learned twenty times more about brit milah just from a single website of one orthodox rabbi than from this Wikipedia article, which if I had to grade it right now, I would give it a failing grade.89.204.154.177 (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite the recent flurry of edits, still no response. Here, I'll make it even easier by putting in a direct link to that rabbi's page on cutting methods. It may be unusable as a reliable source in Wikipedia, but use it as guidance for finding acceptable secondary sources that discuss this essential information.--89.204.139.162 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the whole religious event, not specifically the medical procedure that is part of it. If you want to enhance Wikipedia's article on that topic, I suggest you start at Circumcision surgical procedure. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds do you propose to keep a description of the various cutting methods and implements used by mohelim out of the article?--89.204.137.167 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't made any such proposal. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

burial of the foreskin ? sale of the foreskin ? destroyed as surgical waste ?

I came across this account of what happens to the foreskin after the Brit Milah : Traditionally they are buried. That's what we did after our son's Bris. The requirement to do so is given in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 265:10. Occasionally the parents will put a bush or (preferably) a fruit tree on top of the foreskin. Kabbalistic (mystical) interpretation of the reason is as follows:

"According to Kabbalah, the foreskin is the symbol of the negative consciousness/energy in our world. Therefore, after the Brit we must bury the foreskin immediately in the ground. Kabbalah tells us, the earth (soil) is the only matter that has the power to eliminate/diffuse all of the foreskin’s negativity. When it is buried, it must be done with the intention of helping to diminish the negative energy in the world. All people present at the Brit benefit from the diminishment of their own negative energy, so therefore it is advisable to invite as many people as possible to participate in the ceremony of the Brit Mila, to share the positive benefits."

Is there any basis to this ? If so it is missing from article. Any body got a solid reference for teaching or practice on it  ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Talmud and Halacha

Before stating opinions about certain aspects of the Bris, it is important to write the first source of these laws, such as the Talmud. It is wrong to alter the words of the Talmud in order to reach an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chabadbris (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is changing what is said in the Talmud, חס ושלום, but please review WP:RS. We CANNOT use vozizneis. Also, what in particular in the current article do you believe is not in accordance with ש"ס (Talmud). Please list what you believe are the issues prior to making wholesale changes. -- Avi (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Avi, There are two primary things I want to correct in the article:

1. There was a misleading translation to the entire meaning of "Metzitza". The article translated it to be "removing blood", and the layout of the article suggested that a small number of ultra orthodox Jews began (a "new custom") "Metzitza B'Peh" "sucking with the mouth" .
   • I want to clarify that in fact it is the opposite: the word Metzitza (brought in Talmud) means "sucking", and is recently changing to use tubes etc.

The right way to post an article is to state and clarify the orginal custom/law and later to explain changes/opposers etc.

1. I noticed many postings bringing one side of the story without any sources or citings.

Please let me know if you beleive I made any errors or any unverifiable sources. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chabadbris (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually really unclear on the spelling. There are at least 3 diffs I can see:

1. metzitzah
2. metzitza
3. mezizah

Can we verify which of these is proper? Apparently some drop the H or the Ts. Ranze (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on which transliteration schema is being used. One is not "more proper" than another, and there are a number of standards (see Romanization of Hebrew). I agree we should be consistent. -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Title sectioning

On a related note, mentioned this above, but can we do a comparison about whether to spell the 'suction' term as metzitzah / metzitza / mezizah ? Brit_milah#Metzitzah includes a subsection that is rightly titled "oral suction" because that is the meaning of metzitzah b'peh, which is the only thing discussed there.

This emphasis makes sense as this is what the majority of this section is talking about. I have not been able to locate anything in 'oral suction' unrelated to oral suction, so titling it a vague "metzitzah techniques" is intellectually dishonest.

Should anything actually be overlooked, such information can be put into the main metzitzah section, while leaving the oral suction title alone, since over half the metzitzah section is information about oral-based suction. Ranze (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Titling it Metzitzah B'Peh is even better, since that is consistent with the topic heading. The text describes what the process is. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need to post everything in hebrew. Section titles should be concise and easy to spell. Posting the english translation as the section title (suction and oral suction) makes more sense. We can post the hebrew terms and pronunciations in the sections themselves. For other languages we don't tend to literally post them in other terms like that, we translate them when a translation is available, which is the case here. Ranze (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that מציצה, metzitzah, isn't always translated as "suction" either, I believe. The noun is used to mean "pressure" and "squeezing" as well, and those definitions have bearing in a Bris as well. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Pressure" is contextual, if the pressure is created through suction, we should call it suction. As for "squeezing" I'm not clear on how that applies in this instance. Is the mohel using his lips to squeeze the penis to force blood out, in addition to sucking? I can't fathom how this would be done in conjunction here, because while some lip tightness would be needed to create a vacuum seal, anything beyond that would decrease the diameter and interfere with blood flow out of the wound. Regardless of other interpretations, in our section here we explain it as meaning "suction" so based on that, that is what the title should be. If there are less obvious meanings like pressure/squeeze why is a note not even made of that here? Probably because it's clearly irrelevant. When words have multiple meanings but 1 meaning is clear and backed by reference we should just run with that ball. Ranze (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Metzitzah" is the more common and accurate term, as a simple Google search will confirm. We should use the most common and accurate terminology. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Restating definition multiple times

Ranze, the article as it stands has the translation of Metzitzah in the section that introduces it, and the translation of Metzitzah B'Peh in the section that introduces it. Restating the same thing multiple times in different sections disrupts the flow of the prose whilst adding nothing to the article. That is why I removed your recent edit. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources

Before writing specific opinions on aspects of Bris Milah, it is important not to leave out the primary source of these laws which is stated in the Talmud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chabadbris (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you are mistaken. Wikipedia policy is to avoid primary sources. We quote Shas at times (I did in the Semicha article for example) but not always and not often. -- Avi (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Avi.

In this case I beleive that the orginal law brought in Talmud must be clearly stated, translated and explained, before writing a long list of oppositions/modifications.

(The one citation of "vosisniaz.com" could be removed however since it is alongside other citations the sentence does not need to be removed.) ( Chabadbris (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) )

You can't use dictionaries either, as they are also primary sources in this context. What is meant by a word in Modern Hebrew may not be what is meant by that same word in Mishnaic Hebrew. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no dispute that word "Metzitza" means "sucking", both in modern Hebrew as well in the Mishnah language. (The same way everyone translates "Metzitza B'peh"). The reason I brought a dictionary, was in order to bring additional citation as to why I removed a previous false translation. I hope to soon look up the Artscroll translation and cite that source in place/addition to the dictionaries. Chabadbris (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You still need to find proper sources; these aren't appropriate. You also can't put just anything you want in front an existing citation; citations can only be used to support material they actually support. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Every word I posted came straight from the Talmud. In fact the source of this law originally comes from the Talmud and it seems that you removed essential aspects of the law that were properly sourced in that very same Talmud. You then replaced it with information amd state "Conservative Rabbinical Assembly do not consider metzitzah to be required by Jewish law" but you fail to provide any source to this. Do you have a difficult time understanding Talmud (Please explain your own version)? or are you trying to hide certain aspects of Talmud? I will not remove your un-sourced material since it may true but please don't remove properly sourced material. Chabadbris (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition If you do not understand the language of Talmud (as I see with the word Metzitza in your earlier post) you could look up in an English translated Maimonides which also brings everything mentioned in his "book of laws" Laws of Milah Chapter 2, Law 2: "... and afterwards he sucks the circumcision until blood comes out from far places, in order not to come to danger, and anyone who does not suck - we remove him from practice..." Chabadbris (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the personal views, which I obviously share with you, Chabad, as a frum Jew myself, the article is already clear in that the purpose of metzitzah is to protect the baby's health. We don't need extra quotations from Shas and Rishonim for that. It leaves the realm of the encyclopedic and becomes more POV-pushing. Just as we try and protect this article from those who would use it as an anti-Bris platform, we have to have equal vigilance and prevent it from being a platform which is skewed from being informative to proselytizing. B"H there are sites on the internet which are not bound by wikipedia's neutral policy, and can take a different tone (see [8] for some). -- Avi (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If However the same place in Talmud that brings down the requirement also states about it's importance and quotes "and anyone who does not suck - we remove him from practice" - Why do you think that this is not part of the Law.? Furthermore, the article discusses at length about recent opposition to the law - do you really think that it is not relevant to cite the importance brought in Talmud? I have not removed any of the opposition side what is your problem? Do you want to hide the fact the until recently Metzitza was universally excepted? Chabadbris (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the additions you have added are not helpful, and open the article up to accusations of trying to push a point. We do not have to quote Shas here, this isn't WikiShiur or WikiPosek. The article is already clear that the purpose of Metzitzah is protection. Furthermore, the practice is still accepted; the only dispute is whether or not Metztzah B'peh should be done without the sterile tube in between--which would only be addressed in "heintigeh poskim", not in the Rishonim. Multiple authors have indicated that your changes do not have a consensus at this pont. Please make your arguments on the talk page, as ignoring the lack of consensus may be viewed as disruptive editing. Wikipeia functions on consensus. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be fair to clearly state both sides. I is also important that before all of the opposition to clearly state the full law including it's importance that was brought in Talmud alongside with the law. Otherwise how do you understand the opposition.

Also you just added ""Conservative Rabbinical Assembly do not consider metzitzah to be required by Jewish law" could you state your source? You also added that Metzitza is because of "infection" - where is you source to that exact health reason? Please cite sources. Chabadbris (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How does an editor make a request for a citation or point out that a claim is being made without a citation? There is at least one important example in the metsitsah section. Boundandheard (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Brit milah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929145712/http://beritmila.org/Glossary.html to http://beritmila.org/Glossary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207154048/http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=4591 to http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=4591
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214162309/http://my.webmd.com/content/article/91/101352.htm?lastselectedguid=%7B5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348%7D to http://my.webmd.com/content/article/91/101352.htm?lastselectedguid=%7B5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348%7D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150725090533/http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar03dec-14.pdf to http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar03dec-14.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101127135422/http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19861990/reisner_conversion.pdf to http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19861990/reisner_conversion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Brit milah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070205033348/http://www.health.state.ny.us:80/diseases/communicable/herpes/newborns/circumcision_protocol.htm to http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/communicable/herpes/newborns/circumcision_protocol.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070218224659/http://www.health.state.ny.us:80/diseases/communicable/herpes/newborns/2006-05-08_letter_to_rabbis.htm to http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/communicable/herpes/newborns/2006-05-08_letter_to_rabbis.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071113210451/http://www4.jrf.org/showdt&rid=322&pid=15 to http://www4.jrf.org/showdt&rid=322&pid=15
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081227065531/http://www.jewishcalgary.org:80/page.html?ArticleID=63645 to http://www.jewishcalgary.org/page.html?ArticleID=63645

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)