Talk:Mohel

message: The last two paragraphs under the section title Functions are a direct quotation (not quoted) from the book "god is not Great," by Christopher Hitchens. At the very least, a quotation should be added, but it seems more appropriate to change/delete these paragraphs, especially since they are written in the first person. I'm not an expert on this topic, so I'll leave that for someone else. I came to this page for more information after reading the paragraph in Hitchens' book.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by NukEucliD (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on "Functions" Section

message: It seems to me that the article on genital modification and mutilation is appropriate as a related topic.
:Circumcision is more specifically related, covers the topic better. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Related topics

message: This reference to the television show "freakshow" is totally irrelevant. It is merely a reference to a mention of the subject in a television show, in a bizarre context that does not inform and does not add anything to anybody's sum knowledge. It is not even representative of "pop culture". The show (intentionally) distorts the whole idea. While I have no problem with the inclusion of strange or unusual concepts, or even jokes, the value of this particular entry is very questionable. I move for deletion.  -- Jane Q. Public 06:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to keep (not that this is a formal vote) -- it's no more "irrelevant" than any others in the list. I think that the goal of the creators of the show (both "Jewish", by the way, and having had the procedure performed on them) is to raise awareness of the ritual. I also fail to see how it doesn't represent pop culture. Ciotog 16:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On further reflection, the whole list is unnecessary for the article. Ciotog 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop Culture: Freakshow

message: I removed the trivia section, as it was overwhelming the rest of the article. The last version that had the trivia section is here, in case any items can be integrated back. Ciotog 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have objections to my removing or minimizing the trivia section, this is the place to put them. I did not make a unilateral decision - Jane Q. Public expressed a concern about the section, and I linked to the WP:TRIV in my first edit. I also placed a link to the last version that had the trivia section intact so that it could be integrated back in a better form than it is now. I will be requesting arbitration for this matter. Ciotog 14:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do what you want to. You own the page. I have now stopped watching it. Wahkeenah 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one "owns the page" - I would like to reach consensus about the pop culture section. Sorry if I sounded brusque, sometimes the kids are hounding me when I'm editing :) What I'd like to do is go back to the minimized version of the pop culture section, and if any entries are seen to be too short they can be expanded. I don't think a synopsis of entire episodes is necessary though. Ciotog 09:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything can be the butt of a joke. I believe that including a "pop culture" or other trivia section merely (excuse me) trivializes the subject matter. Try putting a pop culture section into the article on jesus and see how long it stays there. I don't think that there is anything salvageable in this section that belongs in an encyclopedia article. Phil burnstein (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: Isn't mohelims a bit redundant?  I would think that if one mohel isn't enough you get two mohelim.  The "s" just pluralises a plural.  Would that then make four men prepared to carry out the mitzhvah?Guille 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural of mohel

message: "Biblically, the infant's father is commanded to perform the circumcision himself." Someone I've talked with has disputed this. I notice there is no source for this statement. As such whomever added it could you reference where it says this? Tyciol (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Duty of the father

message: Sometimes the mohel performs "Metzitzah" which is when he sucks the baby's penis to remove blood. Why is this traditional and controversial aspect not mentioned? I tried to add a sentence about this but it was instantly removed. Seems like an attempt at hiding the ugly truth by those with a conflict of interest. 
--90.221.107.153 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no mention of  "[[Metzitzah]]"

message: I deleted the section which just repeats a couple of jokes because it is trivia which is discouraged by Wikipedia rules. While it is not always necessary to delete trivia section in this case it was for several reasons. Policy does recommend incorporating trivia sections into articles.  These jokes  lead to no further understanding of the subject and thus there is really no place I can see where it should be incorporated into other sections.  The jokes are very "Jewish" in nature and thus a gentile audience may not get it, violating the worldview guideline
What would make it encyclopedic if there is a reliable source stating that humor is commonly used to deflate the tension of the situation etc. Edkollin (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of "Other "Section  

message: When I saw the section heading "Women", my first thought was "female circumcision -- yikes, I didn't think Jews did that!"  I had to read the body to realize it was talking about women performing the procedure, not receiving it.  I'm changing it to "Women as mohels".  This comment is to explain my reasoning, in more detail than the log message allows. Erics (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I don't believe Jews do that, and never have believed it.  I've never heard a single shred of evidence to suggest that they might.  My only reason for mentioning them in the same sentence was to illustrate just how problematic the old heading might be... Erics (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, aren't we bending all over backwards for the sake of political correctness...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.131.203 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Women" section heading

message: Some mention could be made of the fact that the Mohel figures prominently in Eastern European Jewish humor. E.g. the Mohel who had clocks and watches in his store windows, and when a goy wanted to buy a watch he had to explain that he was a Mohel not a watchmaker. -- 92.226.93.64 (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one, and other one is, "The rabbi gets the wages and the mohel gets the tips." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohel in humor 

message: It's a practice currently on the increase, according to this article in The Atlantic (June 2015). The Telegraph (March 2015) reported that the British Royal Family (including QEII, who had Prince Charles circumcised)  as well as many other non-Jewish upper-class British families have employed mohels for generations, although the practice has decreased in recent decades.
There should also be mention of how mohels are compensated, with fees ranging typically from $360-$1,000 dollars, although the price is usually not fixed and depends on what the family can afford. Many mohels will perform circumcisions for free if there is financial exigency. Could this be mentioned? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of mohels by non-Jews