Talk:Religion and circumcision/Archive 1

Normative position
I cannot agree with this statement. It is misleading at best.

However important it may be, circumcision is not a sacrament, unlike a Christian baptism. Circumcision does not affect a Jew's Jewish status. A Jew by birth is a full Jew, even if not circumcised.

Here is what Maimonedes had to say about circumcision(http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/932325/jewish/Chapter-One.htm): Circumcision is a positive mitzvah [whose lack of fulfillment] is punishable by karet, as [Genesis 17:14] states: "And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise his foreskin - this soul will be cut off from his people

And in Chapter 3 Anyone who breaks the covenant of Abraham our Patriarch and leaves his foreskin uncircumcised, or [although he was circumcised,]20 causes it to appear extended, does not have a portion in the world to come,21 despite the fact that he has studied Torah and performed good deeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.140.197 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks to RK for all the interesting information that you have added.

Stop the propaganda
It is noted that the intention of monomaniac anti-circumcision types to try to score/make a point that the continuing practice of circumcision among Jews is through a misinterpretation of the Bible. This is merely an opinion. The opinion of a tiny (but shamelessly vocal) minority. Give it a break. No matter how desperately some would wish to misuse wikipedia for propaganda purposes it does not deserve a mention in the article. Time to move on. - Robert Brookes 15:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Any point of view held by a group of people about a topic IS supposed to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Give it a break.                     ~Rayvn  09:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

Why the Prophet Jeremiah should not be censored out of this article
All the abusive invective in the world doesn't alter the fact that when we consider the Jewish law, the following is relevant:
 * 'How can you say, "We are wise and the law of the LORD is with us when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.'
 * Jeremiah 8:8, New Revised Standard Version


 * Huh? What in the world does this have to do with the topic of this article, circumcision? RK 14:42, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

It is relevant because:
 * Jeremiah is a major Jewish prophet, so his opinion carries weight.
 * Jeremiah lived over 2000 years closer to the time when the books of Moses were compiled.

The fact that another contributor is so determined to remove this evidence from the public record demonstrates that the point Jeremiah makes is sensitive. Nevertheless it is also highly relevant to any rational discussion about this aspect of the Jewish law, and for that reason should remain. If other contributors wish to argue that Jeremiah's comment about scribal ethics is not relevant to Biblical passages about circumcision, they are welcome to demonstrate this. However, censorship is not the way to make this point.


 * Uh, you are confused. The above stuff you write has nothing to do with the subject of circumcision. RK 14:42, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Merely a POV. Merely a leading interpretation. Nothing to do with the subject at hand. - Robert Brookes 16:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am astounded that someone can argue that the question of the reliability of the scribal tradition is irrelevant. I am astounded that someone can argue that the Prophet Jeremiah's opinion can be discounted as merely a point of view. If there is a legitimate question about the reliability of the scribal tradition, then the intellectually and religiously honest thing to do is to face it fairly and squarely, not by censorship and denigration.

Is it fair to imply that the Prophet Jeremiah is not a legitimate or reliable person to comment on the scribal tradition? I think this position would be hard to sustain. - Michael Glass


 * Nice try Michael. The point of view is that what you continue to insist should be reinserted is in fact relevant to the article. I think not. - Robert Brookes 17:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea that this statement belongs in this article is totally untrue. If it is relevant ... then it is relevant to every single article about the Hebrew Old Testament in this Encyclopedia.  I challenge you to go out and add it to all of those articles and see what people say.
 * Right now the only reason you are getting away with this revert war is that relatively few people are aware of it (just discovered it, myself). Keep it up and eventually those who are empowered to stop it will become aware of it.
 * Wikipedia will be NPOV. That is not an option.
 * This particular thought about Jeremiah might be relevant, if contextualized (i.e., don't say the opinion, say "Party X has the following opinion: ...", but there is nothing about it that makes it belong in this article. Go put it in an article about the Old Testament, not here.  This is an article about circumcision in the Bible.  Pick one of the articles this article links to if you think this idea absolutely has to belong in Wikipedia (and present it NPOV instead of the way you did). Jdavidb 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

''If other contributors wish to argue that Jeremiah's comment about scribal ethics is not relevant to Biblical passages about circumcision, they are welcome to demonstrate this. However, censorship is not the way to make this point.''

All right, we've discussed it on the talk page. So far you've not reached a consensus that agrees with you, and in fact, of the three interested parties, only you feel that this paragraph belongs here. Let me state unequivocally then that further reverts on your part are completely inappropriate. If you feel there is a problem with the exclusion of this text from the article, seek arbitration or mediation. Until then, if you continue to insert this text, it will be reverted because it is being added to this page counter to discussion on the talk page. Jdavidb 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

''The fact that another contributor is so determined to remove this evidence from the public record demonstrates that the point Jeremiah makes is sensitive. Nevertheless it is also highly relevant to any rational discussion about this aspect of the Jewish law, and for that reason should remain.''

BTW, you are completely misinterpreting what the Prophet said. You are removing it from the larger context of the rest of the Bible to imply something about the Bible that Jeremiah did not mean. You are thus pushing your POV about what Jeremiah means here. Contextualize and NPOV, or get out. (And take it to another article anyway, where it is relevant. Or else put it in every other Biblically-related article.) Jdavidb 19:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I am quoting what the prophet said. I am quoting chapter, verse of what the prophet said and I named the translation I used. You have claimed the verse is quoted out of context.

Here is the entire chapter:

The Sin and Treachery of Judah

1  "At that time," declares the LORD, "they will (1) bring out the bones of the kings of Judah and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves. 2   "They will spread them out to the sun, the moon and to all the (2) host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they have worshiped. They will not be gathered (3) or buried; (4) they will be as dung on the face of the ground. 3  "And (5) death will be chosen rather than life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family, that remains in all the (6) places to which I have driven them," declares the LORD of hosts. 4  "You shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD,          "Do men (7) fall and not get up again? Does one turn away and not repent? 5         "Why then has this people, Jerusalem,          (8) Turned away in continual apostasy?          They (9) hold fast to deceit,          They (10) refuse to return. 6          "I (11) have listened and heard, They have spoken what is not right; (12) No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, 'What have I done?' Everyone turned to his course, Like a (13) horse charging into the battle. 7         "Even the stork in the sky          (14) Knows her seasons;          And the (15) turtledove and the swift and the thrush          Observe the time of their migration;          But (16) My people do not know          The ordinance of the LORD. 8          "(17) How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie. 9         "The wise men are (18) put to shame,          They are dismayed and caught;          Behold, they have (19) rejected the word of the LORD,          And what kind of wisdom do they have? 10          "Therefore I will (20) give their wives to others, Their fields to new owners; Because from the least even to the greatest Everyone is (21) greedy for gain; From the prophet even to the priest Everyone practices deceit. 11         "They (22) heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially,          Saying, 'Peace, peace,'          But there is no peace. 12          "Were they (23) ashamed because of the abomination they had done? They certainly were not ashamed, And they did not know how to blush; Therefore they shall (24) fall among those who fall; At the (25) time of their punishment they shall be brought down,"         Says the LORD. 13          "I will (26) surely snatch them away," declares the LORD;          "There will be (27) no grapes on the vine And (28) no figs on the fig tree, And the leaf will wither; And what I have given them will pass away."'" 14         Why are we sitting still? (29) Assemble yourselves, and let us (30) go into the fortified cities And let us perish there, Because the LORD our God has doomed us         And given us (31) poisoned water to drink, For (32) we have sinned against the LORD. 15         We (33) waited for peace, but no good came; For a time of healing, but behold, terror! 16         From (34) Dan is heard the snorting of his horses; At the sound of the neighing of his (35) stallions The whole land quakes; For they come and (36) devour the land and its fullness, The city and its inhabitants. 17         "For behold, I am (37) sending serpents against you,          Adders, for which there is (38) no charm,          And they will bite you," declares the LORD. 18         My (39) sorrow is beyond healing, My (40) heart is faint within me! 19         Behold, listen! The cry of the daughter of my people from a (41) distant land: "Is the LORD not in Zion? Is her King not within her?" "Why have they (42) provoked Me with their graven images, with foreign (43) idols?" 20         "Harvest is past, summer is ended,          And we are not saved." 21         For the (44) brokenness of the daughter of my people I am broken; I (45) mourn, dismay has taken hold of me. 22         Is there no (46) balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? (47) Why then has not the health of the daughter of my people been restored?

Show me me what is in the context of the statement I quoted that would limit it or modify its application.

Michael Glass


 * Easy: show me where in the statement circumcision is mentioned. The quote is not relevant to this article, though as I said, this POV should certainly be contextualized and expressed in a relevant article about the Bible.


 * If it needs to go in an article about circumcision and the Bible, then it should go in every article about the Bible, and I'd like to see you go add it and deal with trying to reach consensus with more editors, as is proper for Wikipedia. It clearly doesn't belong in every single article that mentions a subject from the Bible, and this is one where it doesn't belong.


 * For that matter, the stuff about what books of the Bible are canonical doesn't belong here, either.


 * You are trying to argue about what the verse means and have us decide on that. That is not how we do things here at Wikipedia.  We don't decide what the facts are and what the right opinions are.  We contextualize the various opinions by saying who said them: "Joe is stupid" doesn't belong here, but "Bob says Joe is stupid" does (or would if it were encyclopedic).  In the same way, "Jeremiah might have said the Bible has been modified" doesn't belong here, but "Some folks (preferably identified in the statement) believe the following passage of Jeremiah implies the Bible has been modified" does belong in Wikipedia, though it does not belong in an article about circumcision.


 * I appreciate the fact that you came here to discuss the issue rather than unilaterally editing the article again as many people do. When something is contentious at Wikipedia, we talk it out on the talk page, and if we cannot reach a consensus (not a consensus on what the facts are, but a consensus about what should be expressed in each article, and how), we appeal to higher authorities for mediation and/or arbitration.


 * I encourage you to have this information inserted elsewhere in Wikipedia. It does not belong in this article. Jdavidb 14:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Jdavidb. RK 14:42, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have made several changes to the paragraph on early Christian attitudes to circumcision. i removed some unnecessary wordiness. As Acts 16 says that Paul circumcised Timothy (or had him circumcised) 'because of the Jews' I included that comment in quotes. Paul does appear to praise circumcision in Romans 3:2 in most translations. However, there is a definite article before the word 'circumcision' in the Greek, so it is possible that the circumcision referred to The Jews. Michael Glass 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is indeed possible, but Wikipedia is not the place to make original research or interpretation. If a scholar has made such an interpretation, I have no problem with citing it. Jakew 19:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Greek of Acts 16 is active, not passive, meaning Paul directly circumcised Timothy. "3Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." And Romans 3:2 is certainly significant on the issue, whether or not "the circumcision" means the Jews which is rather unlikely. Paul clearly knows the difference and first century Iudaea had Jews who no longer circumcised and Greeks and others who did, it's detailed in other parts of the article. It's incorrect to assume circumcised/uncircumcised means Jews/Greeks or even Jews/Christians in the Bible. "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means!" NRSV

Yes, if the Greek says that Paul circumcised Timothy, then had him circumcised is a sanitised version. It may well be that many of the most modern translators found the idea of Paul doing the circumcising himself too confronting. However, I have my doubts about the NRSV's translation of Romans 3:2 because a footnote reveals that the Greek reads as follows:


 * "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

So the Jews was inserted into the text to smooth out the grammar. But there is a second piece of mending in this text. There is an article in the Greek before the word circumcised. Young's Literal Translation reads as follows:


 * What, then, is the superiority of the Jew? or what the profit of the circumcision? much in every way; for first, indeed that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.

As the circumcision was used in another place to refer to the Jews (Galatians 2:7) it is entirely possible that the circumcision or the circumcised referred to the Jews in this place, too. Michael Glass 12:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Paul clearly uses Jew/Greek to refer to Jews and Greeks. He also uses circumcised and uncircumcised, to refer to those circumcised and those not. As it turns out, in general, it was the Jews who circumcised and the Greeks who did not, however, that is only a generality, there were clearly many Jews who no longer circumcised (so called Hellenized-Jews) and there were clearly many Greeks who did circumcise (so called Judaizers) in first century Iudaea Province.


 * On translation, I'd recommend Andy Gaus, Unvarnished New Testament, ISBN:0933999992


 * Acts 16:3 "...so he took and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts:..."


 * Romans 3 "Then is there any advantage in being Jewish, or any use for circumcision? Yes, quite a lot in every way."


 * Better yet learn Koine Greek

Good idea, for those who have the time and the talent to do so. The rest, however, have to depend on translations. As for Gaus, his translation might claim to be unvarnished, but he's inclined to add his own gloss to texts. Take this one:


 * Those who want to keep up appearances physically are only making you get circumcised so they themselves won't be persecuted about the cross of Christ. In fact the circumcised ones don't even keep the Law themselves. They just want you to be circumcised so they can boast of controlling your physical condition. (Galatians 6 - page 356 in my edition)

Read the same passage in the Revised Standard Version and you get this:


 * It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. (Galatians 6:12-13, Revised Standard Version)

And seeing that Paul had previous warned the Galatians against the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:16-21) his reference to glorying in the flesh has added bite. Michael Glass 08:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How is this a gloss? "Showing in the flesh" is simply archaic English (probably from the 1611 KJV) for "physical appearance". The issue with circumcision in first century Iudaea was the physical appearance as traditional Greeks and Romans considered it lewd to expose the glans. Traditional Jews considered it a sign of the covenant (agreement) with their God. Many Greco-Roman male events were done in the nude, hence the appearance of circumcision was obvious.

The usage that you find archaic was taken from the Revised Standard Version Version of 1950, 1972. The Anglican Litany from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which was used in the 1950s and 1960s said:
 * From fornication, and all other deadly sin; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh and the devil,
 * Good Lord, deliver us

So for earlier generations, the flesh also had connnotations of the sinful lusts of the flesh. Since tthe 1970s, of course, there has been a sexual revolution, and so the old usages are now being lost. Michael Glass 12:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Even though the RSV was done in 1950, it is still only a revision of the 1611 ASV/KJV, itself based on earlier English translations, and thus, like most English translations, continues a large number of Elizabethan English usages that are now archaic in Modern English. As for the notion that flesh is sinful, that comes from Gnosticism.

Obviously I didn't get my point across. It wasn't that people thought the flesh was sinful per se. It was that the flesh was used as a metaphor for what the Anglican Catechism described as the sinful lusts of the flesh and what one of the baptism services described as the carnal desires of the flesh. This way of thinking was quite common in the 1950s and 1960s, but it largely died out during the sexual revolution. The RSV is indeed a revision of the King James Version, but the reason that the language remained unchanged was that the usage and the thinking had not changed. That change came later, during the sexual revolution.

I hope this clarifies the point I am making, that flesh could carry carnal overtones for previous generations. In fact, one early pornographic was named just that: Flesh. Michael Glass 08:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Flesh in English could mean a lot of things. But the NT wasn't written in English. The question to ask is what did Koine Greek euprosopesai en sarki mean when Paul wrote it.

Your argument reminds me of Lady Brute in "The Provoked Wife" who was reminded that we must return good for evil. She responded: 'That may be a mistake in the translation.' If you want to find out what the Greek says, learn Greek. Otherwise, read a good translation. If you want to read anything more about this matter, see my article, The New Testament and Circumcision Michael Glass 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with others...the solution here is not to further argue about what the Greek says in a word-by-word translation, but rather what the Greek means. Back to the "the Greek uses a definite article, thus the circumcision" thing, if you take the time to learn almost any IE language that makes use of definite and indefinite articles, you will quickly learn that English uses them much less frequently (and for a rather more demonstrative purpose) than the vast majority.  I 18th the recommendation, before attempting to insert this faulty reading of the Greek, that anyone (not just MG), rely on the work of people who know what they're talking about first and learn the language, or at least its rudiments second.  Tom e r TALK  05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note that my main point above was about the meaning of the flesh and not the circumcision. I accept that my idea of a possible interpretation of Romans 3:1-2 is too speculative for the article. End of story, as far as I am concerned. Michael Glass 12:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have changed a few things in the Christianity section: it was misleading and full of false information (a perfect example of what makes wiki unusable when it comes to real reference). One of the biblical quotes was entirely wrong and much of the information supplied belongs elsewhere, if at all. Are there no decent Christian scholars or theologians who can take this up? I'm afraid the pov here is decidedly one sided and largely ignorant of an honestly Christian context. 62.105.170.206 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename this page? Summary style proposal for Circumcision page
The Circumcision page is getting too long, and there is a proposal to shorten it. This proposal involves renaming this page to Circumcision and religion and moving some content from that page to this one. Please discuss at Talk:Circumcision. --Coppertwig 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Discuss the shortening of Circumcision according to WP:SUMMARY there, but please discuss moving this page in the section below, on this talk page. --Coppertwig 00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Male, or both male and female, circumcision?
This article needs to clarify whether "circumcision" in its title refers to male circumcision, or to both male and female cirucmcision. I suggest that it means male circumcsion, and that the hatnote should specify that this article is about male circumcision, e.g. "This article is about male circumcision in cultures and religions. For ..." It does mention female circumcision; but an article about one thing is allowed to briefly mention other things. If, however, it's about both male and female circumcision, then any part of the article where "circumcision" means specifically male circumcision needs to specifically say "male" or "men" or etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The mistake was changing the title of this article from Circumcision in the Bible to Circumcision in cultures and religions. The topic of male circumcision is covered at Male circumcision, female circumcision is covered at Female genital cutting, an obviously pov title by the way. This article is about Circumcision in the Bible and should be retitled as such. 75.15.200.160 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Affirm the IP 100%. Now the title is even worse, "some" cultures and religions. There is no female circumcision in the Bible, which answers Coppertwig's leading question. If you want "female circumcision in some cultures and religions", uh, you go to the convenient redirect female circumcision. If you want "[male] circumcision in some cultures and religions", that's the scope of circumcision or the convenient redirect male circumcision. All is well except this bizarre POV title. In accord with many other "in the Bible" articles, move back to "Circumcision in the Bible", on the eighth day no less. JJB 02:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious POV titles indeed. Why does Circumcision only cover male circumcision with a redirect from male circumcision and female circumcision redirects to Female genital cutting.  Looks like we are trying to hide something here. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Habit of citing author's names to create contention when there is none
Such as this:

Hodges argues that in Ancient Greece the foreskin was valued and that Greek and Roman attempts to abolish ritual circumcision were prompted by humanitarian concerns.

What is the purpose of this? Presumably it is to make it seem that it isn't a totally accepted viewpoint. If it isn't an accepted viewpoint, then we should easily be able to find alternative points of view. If we can't find alternative POV then citing the author's name creates an air of contention when there is none. It is like saying "so and so argues the world is round." So it would be better if in this example Hodges argues that was taken out. Tremello22 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:ASF, which begins: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."
 * Now it's impossible for anyone to actually know how the Ancient Greeks regarded the foreskin. Clearly, then, any assertion about that subject cannot be a fact, it can only be an opinion.  So, per policy, we have to assert a fact about an opinion: that is, state that Hodges has expressed this interpretation. Jakew (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Circumcisiosn is not a "totally accepted viewpoint". Are you f****ng kidding me??!? The United States is the ONLY modern country that practices circumcision. In England most doctors will refuse to perform it; in Australia it is illegal in 4 out of 5 provinces. How exactly is citing an author and a book as a reference "not appropriate on Wikipedia"?? ~Rayvn 09:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

Christianity Section is Biased
The Christianity section claims that Holy Bible is against circumcision, citing things like, for example, someone saying that following Ywvh's orders physically does not make up for not following his dictatorship in behavior - a quote that has nothing to do with whether or not circumcision is supposed to be performed by the characters of this novel. This is one of many areas where Holy Bible is cited as supposedly being against circumcision, when in fact it specifically says that males MUST be circumcised, as mentioned earlier in the article. The Catholic Church has condemned the practice, but Holy Bible has not. ~Rayvn 09:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

Requested move
see at end Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC) From "Circumcision in some cultures and religions" to "Circumcision in the Bible". Believe the reasons are pretty obvious from the above. The single non-Bible section here, "other faiths and traditions", is obviously contextual only, can be cut back as redundant with circumcision, and does not justify the longer name here. This title mess apparently arose from the view that circumcision was too verbose; but it is now broken down into several articles. In fact, based on the hatnote at that link, if the title of this article were accurate, then brit milah and khitan (circumcision) would be redundant with this article and needing merge here! JJB 02:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The above proposal sounds good assuming the non-Biblical material is actually pared. Most importantly, the current title is an abomination and should be changed to something else. —   AjaxSmack   03:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose moving to "Circumcision in the Bible", but support moving to something other than the present title (which is far, far worse than the previous title of "circumcision in cultures and religions"). I think "in the Bible" would be a mistake, as I think it is important to have a logical hierarchy in which there is a general article about circumcision in cultures and religions, and then, if necessary, more specific articles as well per summary style.  Suppose that the reader wanted to find out about circumcision practices of the (hypothetical) Qoxxiy people (also suppose that some helpful editor has actually included this information somewhere in the encyclopaedia).  The reader would presumably start with the circumcision article, and would likely go to the cultures and religions section.  With the present title (or variations thereof), (s)he would then be directed to a general article about circumcision in cultures and religions, and (s)he could either find this information here or find a link to a narrower topic.  If this page were renamed to something that is basically limited to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, then there is no general article and it is not obvious where this information belongs. Jakew (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The obvious hierarchy intended by most edits is (1) male circumcision (general) -> (2) in Bible; bris; khitan (specifics). Your suggestion amounts to the proposed overly deep hierarchy (1) male circumcision (general) -> (2) circumcision (culturoreligious, and what gender?) -> (3) bris and khitan (specifics). For it to work, some changes are required, in accord with WP:SUMMARY style: bris and khitan would have to be summarized in this article, not in circumcision; this title would need "male", or it would be technically a summary of the female article too; the Bible template would need to be removed; the "other [non-Biblical] cultures" part of "circumcision" would be summarized there instead of redundant here; the use of the word "circumcision" for females is disputed and confuses the scope; etc. Male and female procedures are two different main articles and should not be conflated in spinout articles. If someone wants info on circumcision of a hypothetical people, it should appear in "circumcision" first, and preferably only, if brief. If "circumcision" is too long (it is), that is solved by more rigorous application of WP:SUMMARY to the other sections of that accumulative article, not by creating new artificial categories when perfectly good ones ("Biblical circ") exist. JJB 09:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me address these concerns in order:
 * brit milah is already summarised in this article, please see the In Judaism section. I agree that khitan ought to be summarised here as well.
 * Your argument that 'this title would need "male", or it would be technically a summary of the female article too' is invalid. A small degree of ambiguity in page titles is quite common, and perfectly acceptable in many cases.  For example, Paris is about the capital of France, not about every settlement in existence named Paris.  In situations such as circumcision, where there is a primary meaning (the removal of the penile foreskin) and a secondary meaning (female genital cutting), the recommended approach is to use a disambiguation hatnote on the primary article (see WP:2DAB).  There is no need to use the more cumbersome and unfamiliar construct, "male circumcision", which would violate WP:UCN.
 * I don't see why "the Bible template would need to be removed". Many articles have multiple templates, reflecting the fact that these articles are logically a part of our coverage of several wider subjects.
 * I don't follow your argument that 'the "other [non-Biblical] cultures" part of "circumcision" would be summarized there instead of redundant here'. Can you re-phrase?
 * I agree with you that 'the use of the word "circumcision" for females is disputed and confuses the scope', but I don't see why it is an argument against my position.
 * I also agree with you that 'Male and female procedures are two different main articles and should not be conflated in spinout articles', but again I don't see why this is an argument against my position.
 * I strongly disagree with your statement that 'If someone wants info on circumcision of a hypothetical people, it should appear in "circumcision" first, and preferably only, if brief', for two reasons. First, this contradicts WP:SUMMARY, which states that information should be added to the detailed article first, then (optionally) the summary in the parent article.  Second, I cannot see why one would want to create a two-tiered system in which we actually encourage highly detailed information about circumcision in religions derived from the Hebrew Bible and only brief mention of other cultures and religions.  Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are currently over-represented in our coverage when compared to other cultures and religions that have received scholarly attention. Jakew (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim that the phrase "male circumcision" is "the more cumbersome and unfamiliar construct" is part of Jakew's long standing argument in the dispute over the title of the circumcision article, argued by others to violate WP:NPOV as well as WP:TITLE, which states, "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous." Jakew's claims seem utterly invalidated by a simple examination of its use as a title or in the title of major international documents , journal articles,, as well as the inclusion of the discussion of female circumcision under the "circumcision" entry of other encyclopedias (note also the correct definition there of circumcision, instead of the incorrect, conflicting with the dictionary, definition Wikipedia has).  This dispute is longstanding, and the facts weigh heavily against Wikipedia's current arrangement, which I believe is a product of longstanding, glaring WP:NPOV violations, maintained in place through hand-waving arguments.   Blackworm (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we can define that this article's scope excludes female a priori on the grounds that female circumcision does not have enough culturoreligious content to spin out, and that is one step forward. But please don't think I'm making an anti-policy argument. One basic point is that any particular detail should go in one basic article, and should only appear in others via summary treatment; but here we have too much redundancy. Another basic point is that it appears your ideals of this topic's organization do not agree with the WP self-organizational tools already used by these articles, and this internal organizational contradiction needs to be resolved by some system rather than remain subject to wikichaos.
 * The biggest problems to be worked out are (1) If bris and khitan were really to be summarized here, the overly tiered organization would still be too cumbersome for searchers of those concepts who start with "circumcision"; if the search difficulty is supposed to be resolved by the hatnote at the section of circumcision, then they should be summarized there too and not here. Otherwise the redundancy is overweighting, because retaining the hatnote there tries to have the hierarchy both ways. Bris should be treated by a "see also" (lateral) summary, not a "details" (vertical) summary that is really more than summary. (2) The very last graf of this article, the only graf that speaks of cultural (religious?) circ not provably Bible-linked, is also largely redundant with the main article and thus overweighted. The answer to your question is that source weighting indicates that unlike Biblical, bris, and khitan, the non-Biblical circ is not significant enough to warrant its own article. I would argue that Biblical content is still lacking in points, such as the 4 years and 2 phases of orlah, and the uncircumcision of Moses's lips, both easily sourced. But if you believe the other culture content is underrepresented, then that needs sourcing, or else needs the trimming of unsourced Biblical content; until that happens, the current name is invalid because not proven to be a discrete topic verifiably supported by sources. (2b) For an example of a real imbalance, in the "history" section of circumcision, "Origins" gets 3 grafs, "English-speaking world" gets 5 longer ones, and non-English is apparently part of "Origins". Trim the 5 grafs to 1, and move most of it to history of male circumcision, and pull other content from that badly desynched article. For another example, if you believe male is redundant, try moving that article to its redirect, history of circumcision! (3) The whole idea of a Bible template and a Bible hatnote "about male circumcision in the Bible" and a Bible lead sentence, while refusing to put Bible in the title, is typical WP schizophrenia. Every graf but one is about circumcision as informed by the Bible. At minimum, fix the hatnote the way you think, which would include restating the scope; either adding a link to female circ for disambig or else linking the word "circumcision" to provide the primary article's link; and deleting the ref to the circ church controversy, which can be demoted to the text. (4) If this were really supposed to be a summary of the whole culture section of "circumcision", first, the hatnote on that section needs changing. But a deeper problem is that the Bible is a key factor relating to circumcision, as the sources show, and is not mentioned in that article at all, except in one footnote quote. Thus the very non-Biblical culture section there, and the very Biblical article here, are very very unsynched.
 * I've participated in a very successful solution to a similar problem on Sabbath coverage. We have the main article for all temporal uses of the word, plus relatively neat breakout articles (or sometimes sections) on all cultural POVs, starting with Shabbat, Sabbath in Christianity, and Sabbath in seventh-day churches, the most controverted, but also including Jumu'ah, Uposatha, Subbotnik, etc. This current muddled situation will require similar hard work, and I have not intended on making it a priority. Rather than take more of our time for you to reply, would you be willing to take an hour or two to fix the gaping scope errors (such as the abysmal title) your way under WP:BRD, taking this data into account, so that at least the main article's summary section, the hatnotes, the lead, and the section titles have some policy-compliant consistency among them, reflecting your suggested organization, and then we can see if there is further advocacy to move the article? Fixing the big problems might make the nuances much easier. Thank you. JJB 12:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would not just Religious male circumcision or something similar be better? The article is not really about the bible, but Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic religions, plus a bit. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move to "Circumcision in the Bible". Circumcision in the Bible is deserving of an article in itself and should therefore be named as such.  There isn't that much written in this article about 'other faiths and religions' (this phrase isn't ideal - sounds a bit tautological, and is also ambiguous) and so what little there is can be moved to history of circumcision.
 * JJB, in regards to what you say about the history section of the main circumcision article. The first paragraph of 'Origins' describes theories at to why it was originally done:


 * It has been variously proposed that circumcision began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility, as a means of suppressing sexual pleasure or to increase a man's attractiveness to women, or as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical, among other possibilities. Immerman et al. suggest that circumcision causes lowered sexual arousal of pubescent males, and hypothesize that this was a competitive advantage to tribes practicing circumcision, leading to its spread regardless of whether the people understood this.[15] It is possible that circumcision arose independently in different cultures for different reasons.


 * It is debatable whether the next to paragraphs belong under the subtitle "Origins". It is basically describing circumcision in the middle east up until Greek conquests (3000BCE or so, up till 300BCE).


 * The oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from ancient Egypt.[16] Circumcision was common, although not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples.[17] In the aftermath of the conquests of Alexander the Great, however, Greek dislike of circumcision (they regarded a man as truly "naked" only if his prepuce was retracted) led to a decline in its incidence among many peoples that had previously practiced it.[18]
 * Circumcision has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, and is still performed on adolescent boys to symbolize their transition to warrior status or adulthood.[19]


 * I have discussed this on the circumcision talk page recently with Jakew. He found faults but offered no constructive criticism as he didn't suggest anything himself: Talk:Circumcision.  I bring up the fact that cultures and religions doesn't sit well because it would be better to set out the article on a chronological/historical basis - i.e when certain cultures - the Jews, the Muslims, etc - adopted circumcision.
 * In light of what you say, here is my proposal. The first section of the main circumcision article should be Origins - listing possible motivations for circumcision first being done.  Then we should proceed chronologically.  First we should mention ritual circumcision - this would include Pacific Island/Polynesian island/African/aboriginal.  Then we should mention the Egyptians and other cultures around the Middle east of that time -  Israelites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites .  The Jews were one of those peoples.  We should therefore then then move on to the Jews adoption of circumcision.  This would be around the time of Abraham which is 2000 BCE-1500 BCE.  However, we should also mention the documentary hypothesis - I believe Leonard Glick says something about this in his book : Marked in your Flesh.  Shaye Cohen says: When Genesis 17 attributes a covenantal value to circumcision, it's not really talking about Abraham. It is really talking about the exiles of the sixth century B.C.E., who, far from their native home, were desperately trying to find a way to reaffirm their difference. Therefore they began to look at circumcision as, not simply another practice, but rather as the marker of the covenant and they attributed this view back to Abraham. See: PBS:The Bible's Buried secrets  In other words, the commandment to circumcise was added to the Torah much later.
 * Then we would go on to when the Muslims adopted it. It is not in the Quran but it is a Hadith.  Nothing is said about when exactly Muslims adopted it seen as though it isn't in the Quran.
 * Added 11 May: Just reading Leonard Glick's 'Marked in your flesh' referencing Abu-sahlieh: Male and female circumcision : Among Jews, Christian and Muslims he says "[circumcision] has been a Muslim tradition since about the 9th century."  Tremello22 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The we can discuss Christianity. There is currently no mention of St Paul.  I find this pretty astonishing since it was mainly Paul's fault that circumcision no longer became required to convert to Christianity.  See here for explanation: Circumcision and the Christian Parent  Currently, all that is said is :The vast majority of Christians do not practise circumcision as a religious requirement.  No explanation is given.  We would also go on to say how it was adopted into "Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, and also some other African churches" (quote from Circumcision).
 * The Medicalisation of circumcision should be made distinct from these religious/ritual circumcisions. We would therefore start a new subsection : Medicalisation of circumcision: (1870 to present day) or something similar.  My previous proposal was Medicalisation of circumcision and advent of routine infant circumcision.  But Jakew found fault with this.  I don't know why because most historians that write of this era use a similar title: From ritual to science: the medical transformation of circumcision in America ; Gollaher, Dunsmuir and Gordon, Below the Belt: Doctors, Debate, and the Ongoing American Discussion of Routine Neonatal Male Circumcision; Dritsas, The masturbation taboo and the rise of routine male circumcision: A review of the historiography; Darby, Whither the foreskin; Preston (1970)


 * Currently this paragraph about circumcision in South Korea, or a variant of, is in both the main circumcision article and Circumcision in some cultures and religions and in history of circumcision:
 * Circumcision in South Korea is largely the result of American cultural and military influence following the Korean War. In West Africa infant circumcision may have had tribal significance as a rite of passage or otherwise in the past; today in some non-Muslim Nigerian societies it is medicalised and is simply a cultural norm.[41]
 * In the main circumcision article, it is currently situated in the Circumcision section. This is obviously more suited under the 'Medicalisation of circumcision' subheading because it is as a direct result of the medicalisation of circumcision in English speaking countries (mainly USA) in the late 1800's.
 * Note: This proposal would not violate summary style.


 * I also propose we devote a whole article to the medicalisation of circumcision in English speaking countries from late 1800 to present day. There is more to say about this particular history then anything else; also, it is completely separate from ritual/religious circumcision. See a list of articles on circumcision's recent history at cirp: http://www.cirp.org/library/history/  Whole Books have been written on this specific history: Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery; David Gollaher, Circumcision, The Hidden Trauma : How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All; by Ronald Goldman, A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain; Robert Darby; many articles too: Gollaher, Dunsmuir and Gordon, Dritsas and there are many more.  No real mention is made of the debate around circumcision.  What is currently said at  History of circumcision is inadequate and doesn't give a complete picture to the lay reader - for instance, no mention is made of when circumcision began to be seen as a prophylactic against certain diseases: penile cancer (late 1800s-early 1900's), UTI's (1980's), HIV (late 1980's).  More could be said on the history of how the medical community have viewed routine infant circumcision.  Their policy statements from the 1970's onwards: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ Tremello22 (talk) 16:04, 08 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose move to "in the Bible"; Support move to something less cumbersome than what we have now. Case in point, Christianity does not have circumcision, despite the fact that it is in the Bible (Ecumenical Council of Florence and all). If it was just Biblical, there should only be Bris Mila, because khitan is not in the Bible either. We need a better title than what we have now, certainly, but making it "Circ in the Bible" would require us to cut the article down by a large portion. Perhaps we should split this into two articles: Religious aspects of circumcision and Cultural aspects of circumcision or better flowing words to that effect? -- Avi (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Christianity does not have circumcision Christianity does deal with circumcision though.  See the link I posted above.  People will want to know what the Christian view of circumcision is; especially since it is closely related to Judaism which does practice circumcision.  I think your proposals are equally ambiguous and inadequate.  I'm not sure what you envisage would be put in each article.  I think Blackworm's suggestion makes sense considering we are only talking about male circumcision.  In the past they wouldn't have used the term female genital mutilation and so a distinction would be more appropriate here.  Tremello22 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose any title that does not include the phrase "male circumcision," if only male circumcision is to be covered in the article. Blackworm (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First attempt

 * That's seven people who all disagree, but they all agree that the move adding the word "some", which occurred in March, was ill-advised. This was performed with the edit summary "moved Circumcision in cultures and religions to Circumcision in some cultures and religions: Wonky title as it is; besides, the intro states "This article is about male circumcision in the Bible", which implies its relevance to only some cultu". We can agree that was a bad solution and use that initial consensus toward building out what, exactly, the topic categories should be. (It looks like Tremello has an involved, well-thought proposal that we can start moving toward as well.) Accordingly, because the title "Circumcision in cultures and religions" has no other history, I'm going to start by moving to delete the word "some". Then we can continue the discussion from there. JJB 19:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No move. It is not about in the Bible only, but it is not about circumcision in all cultures and religions. "Circumcision in some cultures and religions" is an adequately clear title, and I have seen longer article titles. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Try again with "Religious male circumcision"? "Male" should certainly be included, and the article covers religious rather than medically-motivated circumcision, with at least mentions of several cultures. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am moving this page to Religious male circumcision.

current circumcision status for those religions who favour circumcision
The article is good on history but poor on the current state of play re the requirement to be cut to join any of the cutting religions. Who has good sources to amend this lack ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by a "cutting religion" - do you mean a religion that support hair-cutting (vs. one like Sikhism that does not)? Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jayjig,Jayjig,Jayjig - faux naive is so 1972. You know very well from our many discussions elsewhere and the title of this article and the title of its attendant talk page that cutting religions refers to those religions that choose or mandate the full or partial chopping off of the male foreskin for a variety of reasons from "Our God said to do it" to "It is cleaner" to "It makes us more like women" to " It cuts down on sexual friskiness" Do you think that with your vast knowledge and enduring interest in the subject that you might be able to help with improving this article on the current rather than historical practices of the Lopping Religions  as I asked above ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with your terminology or your sources, so it's hard to understand what you are referring to or what article changes you are proposing. Could you possibly clarify? Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which word are you having most difficulty with ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Shems Aposthia and Earlier INstances of Circumcision in the Bible
Shem is only mentioned once in this article and no mention of his Aposthia is made, despite it accomplishing a very similar effect as circumcision and being a religious sign that predates Abrahams covenant by several generations. Also, where there prophets before Shem with Aposthia, and who was the first prophet to actually be circumsized. Shouldn't this article indicate the first prophet to practice circumcision as the originator of the practice in Judaism instead of Abraham? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction is quite long for this small article. Parts of the introduction are nowhere to be found in the rest of the article, don't have much or anything to do with religious male circumcision or are at best dubious:

"but the highest percentages of circumcised males is in the USA, for health, hygiene and aesthetic reasons." "Circumcision for medical reasons is quite widely performed in China and Japan, being the largest single medical procedure performed in both countries, but religious circumcision in each is comparatively rare, and largely confined to Muslim communities."

"The practice is also widely practiced in some predominantly Christian areas such as the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, Ethiopia, Kenya and West Africa, as well as among Christians in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Israel" should be replaced by something like "the great majority of Christian denominations are neutral about biblical male circumcision, neither requiring it nor forbidding it. The practice is widely practiced for non-religious reasons in some predominantly Christian areas such as the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, Ethiopia, Kenya and West Africa, as well as among Christians in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Israel".

If in 30 days, there are no replies to my comment, the first two parts will be deleted and the third one will by replaced by the rephrasing I offered. Chrono1084 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Constant disruptive editing and possible vandalism
Hi, I would like to pose a request (as I have done to many other similar pages) for this page to likewise be protected or at least semi-protected. I have noticed heavy and persistent disruptive editing from unregistered users to the Muslim circumcision section of this, and other similar articles for awhile now and I believe it's verging on possible vandalism and edit warring and I feel that protecting this page, as well as perhaps blocking the users responsible for this trolling, are the only ways to make it stop. Thanks, hope to hear back from someone soon and hopefully we can resolve this. FrozenIcicle96 (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Religious male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070616011136/http://www.kyha.com/documents/CG-Sikh.pdf to http://www.kyha.com/documents/CG-Sikh.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071113210451/http://www4.jrf.org/showdt&rid=322&pid=15 to http://www4.jrf.org/showdt&rid=322&pid=15
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081227065531/http://www.jewishcalgary.org:80/page.html?ArticleID=63645 to http://www.jewishcalgary.org/page.html?ArticleID=63645

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Religious male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.jrf.org/showdt%26rid%3D322%26pid%3D15
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://beritmila.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213065752/http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html to http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929080506/http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm to http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808051655/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ci/circumci.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ci/circumci.html
 * Added tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=2699
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213044716/http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/calendar.asp?Y=2007&M=1 to http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/calendar.asp?Y=2007&M=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813204310/http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm to http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Religious male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160522200028/http://www.omnilogos.com/2014/11/christianity-coptic-christianity.html to http://www.omnilogos.com/2014/11/christianity-coptic-christianity.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015161234/http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=8320&pge_prg_id=29839&pge_id=3450 to http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=8320&pge_prg_id=29839&pge_id=3450
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515075416/http://www.circlist.com/styles/page3.html to http://www.circlist.com/styles/page3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907214906/http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-20.htm to http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-20.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete data/information
The global map of male circumcision prevalence at a country level is incorrect, the source material (from December 2006) says that the prevalence of circumcision in Slovenia is 20-80%, whereas erroneously shows it as being 80-100%. Not to mention that according to the international journal Sexually Transmitted Infections from 2008, the national prevalence of circumcised men in Slovenia is 4.5%, which is much lower than the number reported by the WHO. Therefore, I suggest removing the erroneous map until a more up to date version can be found.

--109.60.64.129 (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced content?
Hello all, Near the end of the "Christian" section immediately prior to the "Catholic Church" header occurs this paragraph:

"There are strands of study and research (see P Whelan,[73] F Grewel [74] and E Douglas[75]) which show that certain foreskin conditions (paraphimosis and frenulum breve) when left unacknowledged, and therefore untreated, cause psychosexual problems - especially when mixed with courtship and other individual and environmental factors from childhood - wracking with self-doubt, and leading ultimately to psychosis. Once having successfully overcome the condition(s), however, the effect of the traumas can recur on the birth of a son, and later. This is a dangerous situation and liable to cause much confusion and disturbance, or worse, and provides an explanation of the story of Abraham, covenant of circumcision and the binding of Isaac, i.e. psychosis and foreskin management intention and, ultimately, the saving nature of faith. The conclusions in Acts 15, when logically interpreted (see E Douglas[76]), raises understanding of these adverse anatomical conditions: paraphimosis (symptom: strangling the head of the penis); and slender frenulum breve (symptom: blood from rupture of frenulum blood vessels), and advises avoidance of them. It raises awareness of the issues but carefully refrains from being prescriptive as to the means of management. This allows room for modern methods of management, e.g. frenuloplasty.[77] The psychological effects of these conditions, while little understood, are real, and are visible in literature and art.[75]"

Besides the mention of the Book of Acts, this paragraph is not related to Christian views on circumcision. I feel that the phrasing ("when logically interpreted", etc.) suggests a certainty that does not exist and sounds as though it was written by someone with emotional investment in the research. Additionally, it is poorly articulated (switching tenses in the middle of sentences, horrifically convoluted sentence structure) and heads off in many directions without explaining any of them. I suggest it either be removed, or re-written and moved to its own header, hopefully with more context. Feel free to disagree. I was unsure, hence the talk post rather than an edit. -mtw