Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brit Shalom (naming ceremony)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. People disagree about whether the sources we have are good enough in the light of

WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Brit shalom (naming ceremony)

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Brit shalom (naming ceremony) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relates to an extensively small, fringe movement among (predominately) non-theistic followers of

Brit Milah (the article on the Jewish rite of circumcision).— Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Citations #2, #4, #7, #11, #17, #18 are from two non-reliable sites called Circumstitions and CircInfo; #5, #8, #9, #11, #14, #16, and #19 make no direct mention of the practice at all.
Even the citations within it that mention the topic state: Ungar-Sargon, who has called circumcision “physically harmful, medically irresponsible and morally wrong,” said that an alternative to Jewish ritual circumcision, or brit milah, was “a great idea” — albeit one whose time has clearly not yet come. “Calling it a marginal phenomenon would be generous,” he said.
I agree that routine, non-consensual circumcision is wrong, but Wikipedia isn't
a place to right great wrongs and there's nothing about it that seems independently notable for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that routine, non-consensual circumcision is wrong
I fail to see how our opinion about the topic is at all relevant to the deletion or maintenance of this article (
WP:VOICE). — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm aware that it isn't relevant. I was responding to your statement that: ... seem... to have an axe to grind with the so-called "fringe movement". Given the response, I wanted to point out that I actually oppose it within developed countries. I just don't think the article is notable. Sorry if I misinterpreted your quote. KlayCax (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of those citations have numerous, extensive problems. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is simply an editorial by the group promoting it — Doctors Opposing Circumcision — that was sent to Jewish Business News and simply lists anecdotal stories of Jewish families that didn't undergo it. That's a primary source and opinion article that clearly doesn't meet the standards of a reliable source. The second article that you linked (the one by Jewish News) simply states that an overwhelming small minority of Jews have did this. Then goes on to state that that Board of Deputies president Jonathan Arkush said it was not possible to have a ceremony without the circumcision in Jewish religious law... Rabbit Charley Baginsky... Liberal Judaism's direction of strategy and partnerships... [States] "It is also...important that the Jewish community as a whole speaks up for the ritual of circumcision.. The third article — by The Forward — again specifies that it is a fringe movement, with the article sprinkled with quotes such as: "As of now, the petition has drawn about 70 signatures... their [extensively] small numbers" and Circumcision remains the norm in all major Jewish denominations... a small... minority and et cetera. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a clear instance of a
Brit Milah page. The entire page (once the current fat is trimmed from it) could be summarized in about four or five sentences. There's almost no information about this at all: beyond overwhelmingly basic information; much less ones that meet the standards of notability. Per Wikipedia guidelines, there's no need for this to be a separate article. The existent pages on circumcision are perfectly sufficient. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I found and added a few more sources in the mainstream press (these are all there; I can't remember which ones I added, tbh):
I agree the article is poorly written, and rather short, but by the coverage of the topic in the mainstream press, it seems notable enough. It just needs to be improved (I've added some more sources, but unfortunately I'm not as inclined to write prose).— Guarapiranga ☎ 07:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the citations you give don't meet the requirements of
WP: REDUNDANTFORK. The claims above that you are listed are also heavily disputed. Many online citations (as well as those published by major academic publishers) have conversely argued that Jewish rates of circumcision are rising.
If the rite becomes increasingly prevalent in the coming years — to the point in which it becomes widespread among members of the Jewish community; or, becomes independently notable for other reasons, and can be significantly expanded beyond 5-8 sentences — then I can see an argument for forking. For now, it's better merged. KlayCax (talk)
The New Yorker article cited simply gives a throwaway line about the subject.
Oh, please, the whole article, though written as a personal account rather than an exhaustive survey, is about the "circumcision debate" in the Jewish community, as Goldman (2004)
brit shalom is one response to. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You seem to be arguing under a misconception of what
WP:FRINGE is referring to, it does not preclude having articles on fringe movements, or else we would have to delete Church of Scientology, Theistic Satanism, Fourth International Posadist, and thousands of other articles on such clearly notable topics. FRINGE is largely used in order to guard against pseudoscience being presented as fact. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm aware that something being fringe doesn't automatically disqualify it from having a Wikipedia article. However — unlike Brit Shalom — those articles meet the criteria
WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The information would be better placed elsewhere. There's no need to WP: Fork the information to a separate, isolated article that has almost no opportunity for expansion. KlayCax (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with
notable. At most, if an article is too crude to be published, below stub class, then one could argue for its draftification, not deletion on these grounds only. On the other hand, I see that you've made some valuable edits to the article since nominating it for deletion; I may not agree with them all—and indeed we're discussing them in the article's talk page—but together we may be able to get the article up to scratch. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
All of those articles meet the criteria of
WP: GNG
for other reasons. Brit Shalom doesn't.
A belief merely being fringe doesn't disqualify it from
WP: GNG. However, it must meet standards of notability for other reasons. KlayCax (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived
    from the original on 2017-09-14. Retrieved 2022-07-31.
  2. ^ Shteyngart, Gary (2021-09-30). "A Botched Circumcision and Its Aftermath". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2022-08-02. When it came to her own son, she opted for the brit-shalom naming ceremony (a version of which, sometimes called the brit bat, is also performed for girls). When her son asked her why he wasn't circumcised, she told him, "You are a Jew in your head and your heart, not your penis."
  3. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived
    from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2022-07-31.
  4. ^ Bradley Hagerty, Barbara (2011-07-25). "Circumcision: Rite Faces Modern Concerns". NPR. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
  5. ^ Oryszczuk, Stephen (28 February 2018). "The Jewish parents cutting out the bris". The Times of Israel. Jerusalem. Archived from the original on 3 April 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
  6. ^ Kasher, Rani (23 August 2017). "It's 2017. Time to Talk About Circumcision". Haaretz. Tel Aviv. Archived from the original on 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
  7. ^ "Even in Israel, More and More Parents Choose Not to Circumcise Their Sons". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2022-05-25. Retrieved 2022-07-31.
  8. ^ "These Jews want to normalize not circumcising — and they want synagogues to help". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 2021-10-07. Archived from the original on 2021-10-26. Retrieved 2022-07-30.
  9. ISBN 978-1-4757-4011-0. Archived
    from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-07-31.
  10. ^ "The Circumcision Debate". My Jewish Learning. Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2022-07-30. According to a 2017 New York Times article, while "the great majority of Jewish parents still circumcise, and opting out remains almost taboo in much of the mainstream," the practice is quietly coming under scrutiny from some Jews. The article noted that "a number of parents" who opted out of the circumcision "did not want to speak on the record about their decision, and some rabbis who had done alternative bris ceremonies asked not to be named publicly."

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No editor is suggesting that the contents of Brit Shalom should be deleted and not be replicated elsewhere on Wikipedia.
We already have a satisfactory article on the Jewish position on circumcision that meets GNG and could adequately elaborate on the subject there —
Brit Milah — and that separating the contents of the articles constitutes an unnecessary WP: Fork of the content matter. It would be better if the information is provided there, instead of it being WP: Fork'ed away to an obscure article that could not significantly expounded upon. (Beyond reliable sources stating that it involves Jewish parents who decline circumcision: there's not much else to presently write about it. It simply seems to predominately act as a term for Jewish parents who reject the rite of circumcision for their sons. Additionally, many Jews who reject Milah don't use the term "Brit Shalom" for their decision
.)
If more citations on the subject comes in the coming years by reliable sources — where keeping the information on Brit Milah would make the article an instance of
Brit Milah article in a subsection. Contents of the existing article could then be merged into it. KlayCax (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
No editor is suggesting that the contents of Brit Shalom should be deleted and not be replicated elsewhere on Wikipedia.
And yet over 2 weeks ago I questioned you at the
RS coverage (of which brit shalom has plenty), not widespread adoption. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"From the start of your nomination you seem determined to erase" What are you specifically referring to? I've been consistent in stating that the current information within the article should be merged into other relevant Wikipedia pages: such as
cultural views on circumcision
. If anything, the present layout relegates and hides the information into a low-viewed (compare the daily English page views of Brit Milah to Brit Shalom) and hardly linked article in which the vast majority of users looking for the information will never come across. Moving information from article A to article B isn't erasing it. Considering the fact that it's being transferred unto articles with far more regular viewership than its previous location. That's the complete opposite of erasure.
"We've already established that notability is determined by WP:RS coverage (of which brit shalom has plenty), not widespread adoption" Whether it meets
WP: Split while other movements in history aren't included? And why can't the information presently in the article be addressed on other, current pages? KlayCax (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brit_Shalom_(naming_ceremony)&oldid=1109731934"