Talk:Brit shalom (naming ceremony)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Jewish naming ceremony?
I've just gone through and improved the language a little, and couldn't decide whether to remove 'Jewish' from the description.
Here's the problem:
- On one hand, it was developed by Jewish people, who clearly consider it to be Jewish in nature (and, after all, it is intended to recognise the child's 'Jewishness'). From that point of view, it is Jewish, and calling it so is accurate according to their view of Judaism.
- On the other hand, if a Jewish person plays tennis every time a child is born, that does not itself make that a Jewish ceremony. Calling it so may be inaccurate from the viewpoint of those with a different view (or maybe not, this is partly why I ask).
What do other people think? Jakew 21:18, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I cannot make sense of JakeW's hypothetical. If a group of Jewish people decided to play tennis every time a child was born, making reference when they did to elements of Judaism, that would become the Jewish tennis ceremony. However, nobody else but Jews celebrate Brisot Shalom, whereas tennis is not confined to any religious or ethnic group. The Jews who celebrate it (Brit Shalom, not tennis) do so because they are Jews and for no other reason. For them it most certainly is a Jewish ceremony. To a large extent it replicates the events of Brit Milah, an indisputably Jewish ceremony, leaving out only the surgery (very much as some sects of Christianity leave out the bread from Communion and some substitute grape juice for the wine). Some Jews may say Brit Shalom is not Jewish, just as various sects of Christianity say others are not Christian. --Hugh7 08:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The reference to Russians being prevented from being circumcised under communism and being circumcised later is not relevant to Brit Shalom --Hugh7 09:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Undue weight
I've again reverted the addition of a couple of sources asserting that circumcision is associated with harmful psychological and physical effects. As can be seen from the circumcision article, this is just one of several points of view. It is inappropriate to assert only one viewpoint, especially one that is arguably a minority viewpoint. More importantly, this article isn't an appropriate place to be making these arguments: neither of these articles even mention the subject of this article. Jakew (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- All you removed was the references. If you think the statements they support are "undue weight", take out the arguments completely. But don't just remove references from statements that would otherwise be unsourced. Meanwhile, the circumcision article is hardly a standard we should be aiming for, since it is pure pro-circumcision propaganda. This article at least can make an attempt to be NPOV. Angr (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll remove the sentence. Incidentally, the sentence was still effectively unsourced even with the purported "sources", since they didn't support the claims made by the sentence itself — neither source mentioned brit shalom, nor (I believe) the concerns of Jewish parents. We could, in principle, have rewritten the sentence as something like: "Some people believe that circumcision has adverse psychological or physical effects,[ref] though others disagree.[ref] Jewish parents who have these concerns may opt for a brit shalom.[ref]" But chances are, that could only be done by violating WP:NOR, since (as I pointed out above) the sources discussing the proposed adverse effects aren't directly related to the subject of this article. Jakew (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Phineas
Any idea why this ceremony is named after Numbers 25? 96.251.19.59 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)