Talk:Brit shalom (naming ceremony)

mainstream Judaism

 * Brit shalom is recognized by organizations affiliated in Secular Humanistic Judaism (including the Society for Humanistic Judaism, the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, and the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism), but not by any group generally considered to be a part of mainstream Judaism.

It's a weird statement. Especially the italic and bold part. How is it determined that these groups are not mainstream? I can try and reword it. ImTheIP (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose Brit rechitzah be merged into this article. It's a subset of brit shalom ceremonies, and is better explained in their context than in a separate article. It's also either a stub or just barely not -- in either case, not a particularly overwhelming amount of text. Vaticidalprophet 11:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unopposed. Guarapiranga (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:OVERREF
The 2nd paragraph in the Popularity section is too polluted with refs (some of them cited multiple times). — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed it, I think (though I've now recreated the same situation in the lede 😬). — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed refs
, I noticed you removed the refs below. I don't dispute your removing them, for now; just wanted to note them down here, before they get lost in the stream of edits: — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright! KlayCax (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me now go through some of them:
 * The New Yorker article talks explicitly of brit shalom, and is an RS.
 * Mothering, Salem News and Mondoweiss aren't listed as RS, but are at least notable enough to have WP pages of their own.
 * My Jewish Learning is not listed as an RS either, nor does it have a WP page, but it seems to have been deemed an RS by the editors of ;
 * The West and Natural Parents Network articles don't fit any of the above criteria, are indeed the weakest sources, but may they have perhaps some historical value in being referenced here?
 * Goodman (1997, 1999), Goldman (2004) are academic publications; I haven't read them, tbh, but are you sure they're not at all relevant to this topic (their abstracts suggest otherwise). Should they be put in a Bibliography section instead?

The article needs a Critics section
I've encountered quite a few RS articles speaking against brit shalom (which nonetheless add to its notability): — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)