Talk:Brit milah

message: User:bus stop removed my edit, I don't understand what is wrong with "drew attention to". Causing Bustle to write an article about the show's description of it sounds like drawing attention to me. How would you describe it? Ash Carol (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The source does not support the assertion. Your assertion was that "Season 3 of Broad City drew attention to the practice in 2016." But nowhere in the source is support for that assertion. Please feel free to cut and paste to this Talk page material from that source which you feel supports the assertion that "Season 3 of Broad City drew attention to the practice in 2016." Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

text: For anyone interested in the Brit Milah article as of 6 August 2022, both of these editors, Ash Carol and Bus stop, have been suspended indefinitely by Wikipedia.  So, please do not waste your time like I did in seeing what they were talking about in this section. Howardlhoffman (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Broad City]]

message: This article on Brit Milah is really quite a mess and does not reflect anything like a Neutral Point of View.  It has been edited many times and I am not going to attempt to fix it by undoing edits.  Rather, I am going to try to edit from what it is now into a more logical and neutral article, and to do so bit by bit.  Furthermore, I invite experienced WP editors to help me in this effort.  I maintain that this article suffers from WP:Cherrypicking and other violations of Wikipedia's fundamental principle of Neutral Point of View.
Starting with the Lead Section.  The Lead Section of an article according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section is supposed to serve " . . .as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents".  This means that completely new material should not appear in the Lead Section.
So, let's look at Paragraph 2 of the Lead Section:
"The original version in Judaic history was either a ritual nick or cut done by a father to the acroposthion, the part of the foreskin that overhangs the glans penis. This form of genital nicking or cutting, known as simply milah, became adopted among Jews by the Second Temple period and was the predominant form until the second century CE. The notion of milahbeing linked to a biblical covenant is generally believed to have originated in the 6th century BCE as a product of the Babylonian captivity; the practice likely lacked this significance among Jews before the period."
If you go through the article, you will see that this material (contained in paragraph 2) is not presented elsewhere in the article.  If it were, then I would be planning to delete it in both places, in the Lead Section and in any following section for the simple reason that it is obviously false.  If it were true, then why would the Greeks and the Romans (c. 500 BCE to 400 CE) even care about the look of circumcised Jewish male penises?  A mere nick would not be noticeable.  Why would even one Hellenistic Jew (as described later in the article) be trying to reverse their circumcision if it were only a nick?  Furthermore, who could attest to "the original version [of circumcision] in Judaic history"?  As indicated in the Wikipedia article on Circumcision, the actual procedure, and not just a nick, was practiced in the Middle East many centuries before the advent of an Israelite people. In fact, a nick is done, even today, when an already circumcised male is converting to Judaism.  There may have been some other times and situations where a "nick" was used in place of a complete removal of the foreskin, but those have not been dominant in Jewish history and should not be in the Lead Section of the article on Brit Milah.
If anyone wants to put this misplaced and false paragraph back into the article in any place, then please explain why on this Talk page. Howardlhoffman (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So I did, and here's why. We, as WP editors, are not here to determine what's true or ; that's WP:OR. As we discussed it my talk page, we're here to  (WP:NPOV). The paragraph you deleted seems well sourced. If you believe it doesn't belong in the lede, that's a different story. I'm happy for you to move it, but deleting it on the basis of saying the WP:RS are wrong is not what WP is about. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obviously False Paragraph - Intending to Delete 

message: Traditional Hebrew grammar allows for two readings (except that ב may lose the דָּגֵשׁ as well):  indefinite בְּפֶה bə-fé and definite בַּפֶּה bap-pé, of which the second seems more plausible, but the first one appears in the article.  The common Anglicization b’peh perhaps represents a contemporary Israeli pronunciation of one or the other form. 109.184.98.226 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are correct. In the first example that you brought down, the English translation would be, "by mouth." The second example that you bring down is literally, "by the mouth." The definite article "the" is expressed by the Hebrew vowel patach, but the meaning and sense is still clear without having to use "the" in the sentence.Davidbena (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of מציצה בפה