Talk:Circumcision in the Bible

Proposed move to Circumcision and religion
It has been proposed to move this page to Circumcision and religion. Please discuss here. --Coppertwig 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - as "the Bible" isn't the only aspect of religion in which circumcision is relevant, and I think it would give a fairer idea of the article's contents. John Carter 13:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that my support for the proposal is already known, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit! Jakew 13:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I put a move tag and it was deleted. It's my understanding that if this is an uncontroversial move, no move tag or special procedure is needed -- we can just move it.  See Requested moves and Help:Moving a page. --Coppertwig 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - I suggest leaving it for another week, though, just in case anyone disagrees. Jakew 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait -- maybe a different name might be better, as I want to copy info from "cultures and religion" section at Circumcision. Maybe "Circumcision in cultures and relgions". --Coppertwig 21:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Ok, but let's spell it properly. :-) Is everyone happy about a move? If so, let's do it tomorrow. Jakew 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a mistake. Take a look at what links to Circumcision in the Bible, it's almost always discussion of the Bible, hence the obvious and well defined title. If you wish to create a new article called Circumcision in cultures and religions, you should do so, and that new article could reference Circumcision in the Bible. Circumcision in the Bible as an article is already big enough, no need to broaden its scope. 64.149.83.66 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Circumcision in the Bible doesn't strike me as a very good name because there's more than one different Bible mentioned in it, so the singular "the Bible" in the title doesn't make sense. Also, it's focussed on a subset of religions, whereas a Wikipedia article, to be neutral, probably ought to either cover all religions or focus on one particular religion.  If the page is too long, perhaps someone could spin off sub-articles per summary style. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is a well understood term, as is the understanding that there are actually many different though related Bibles. One could specify Judeo-Christian but that's getting a bit carried away. There already is a general article on Circumcision and another on the History of male circumcision, and one on Brit milah, so neutrality is not an issue. There is no reason Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, should not have an article on Circumcision in the Bible. 75.15.199.222 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)