Talk:Blood libel against Jews/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

External link

I removed the external link because it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Pata Hikarithis comment added on 14 Feb. 2006

Saint Dominguito del Val

I think Saint Dominguito del Val should be added. It was the first Spanish case in

Link: [1]

An Israeli professor recently wrote a book called Pasque di Sangue (based on 35 years of research) about blood libel. I'm copying/pasting the article here in case it soon leaves Haaretz:

Bar-Ilan prof. defiant on blood libel book 'even if crucified'

By Ofri Ilani, Haaretz Correspondent at Judaism condones murder. But within Ashkenazi Judaism there were extremist groups that could have committed such an act and justified it," he said.

Toaff said he reached his conclusions after coming across testimony from the trial for the murder of a Christian child, Simon of Trento, in 1475, which in the past was believed to have been falsified. "I found there were statements and parts of the testimony that were not part of the Christian culture of the judges, and they could not have been invented or added by them. They were components appearing in prayers known from the [Jewish] prayer book.

"Over many dozens of pages I proved the centrality of blood on Passover," Toaff said. "Based on many sermons, I concluded that blood was used, especially by Ashkenazi Jews, and that there was a belief in the special curative powers of children's blood. It turns out that among the remedies of Ashkenazi Jews were powders made of blood."

Although the use of blood is prohibited by Jewish law, Toaff says he found proof of rabbinic permission to use blood, even human blood. "The rabbis permitted it both because the blood was already dried," and because in Ashkenazi communities it was an accepted custom that took on the force of law, Toaff said. There is no proof of acts of murder, Toaff said, but there were curses and hatred of Christians, and prayers inciting to cruel vengeance against Christians. "There was always the possibility that some crazy person would do something."

Toaff said the use of blood was common in medieval medicine. "In Germany, it became a real craze. Peddlers of medicines would sell human blood, the way you have a transfusion today. The Jews were influenced by this and did the same things.

"In one of the testimonies in the Trento trial, a peddler of sugar and blood is mentioned, who came to Venice," Toaff says. "I went to the archives in Venice and found that there had been a man peddling sugar and blood, which were basic products in pharmacies of the period. A man named Asher of Trento was also mentioned in the trial, who had ostensibly come with a bag and sold dried blood. One of the witnesses said he was tried for alchemy in Venice and arrested there. I took a team to the archives and found documentation of the man's trial. Thus, I found that it is not easy to discount all the testimony," he added.

Toaff, who will be returning to Israel today, said he was very hurt by accusations that his research plays into the hands of anti-Semitic incitement. "I am being presented like the new Yigal Amir. But one shouldn't be afraid to tell the truth." Toaff also said, "unfortunately my research has become marginal, and only the real or false implications it might have are being related to. I directed the research at intelligent people, who know that in the Jewish world there are different streams. I believe that academia cannot avoid dealing with issues that have an emotional impact. This is the truth, and if I don't publish it, someone else will find it and publish it."

Still, Toaff says he is sorry he did not explain some of the points in his book more clearly.

He claims that he has been making the same arguments for a long time. "After 35 years of research, I have not become a stupid anti-Semite, and have not published a book to make money."

In any case, Toaff says he believes his findings have current implications. "Extremists in the past brought disaster on us by false accusations. I wanted to show that hatred and incitement of this kind can develop, because there will always be someone who will take advantage of it."

Meanwhile, Bar-Ilan University announced Sunday that its president, Professor Moshe Kaveh, will summon Toaff to explain his research. The university's statement said it strongly objected to what was implied in media publications regarding Toaff's research, and condemned "any attempt to justify the terrible blood libels against the Jews." However, the university also reiterated that Toaff was among the senior lecturers in his field in Israel and internationally.

--172.131.52.157 06:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon, can we try to keep our arguments brief and in regular (unbolded) text? Thank you.Proabivouac 07:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. --Aminz 07:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean?Proabivouac 07:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your comment but on the original post. --Aminz 07:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It's the indent that makes all the difference; should have used only two.Proabivouac 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason people here are censoring information that is entirely valid and relevant; they are trying to keep the academic that did this research (Ariel Toaff) off of this page. I do not understand why this is, considering that the book relates directly to blood libel accusations and Jews. They deleted the external links about this professor and his book, along with a brief excerpt from an interview with him; now the mere mention of his name in the article is deleted (even though some info about him is in the main Blood libel article -- but shouldn't it be mentioned in this article especially?). What gives? He is obviously an authority on this subject, probably on the foremost researchers on this subject in the world -- shouldn't his name be mentioned at least ONCE somewhere (anywhere!) in this article? Here are a few more links:

• Bar-Ilan prof. defiant on blood libel book 'even if crucified' in Haaretz
• Article in Jerusalem Post
• Commentary by Johannes Heil of the University of Heidelberg
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

--172.131.52.157 08:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This is one scholar's view, and it has been rejected by others. In addition, all the information about his views has so far come from second hands rather than from the book itself. Beit Or 08:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so quoting "the neo-Nazi site www.JRBooksOnline.com" isn't undue weight? How'd that manage to creep in there? Yes it has (obviously) been rejected by many (even though these people haven't read the book yet), but the book hasn't even been translated in to English or Hebrew yet (it's still only in Italian). However, the article's I've listed above feature numerous interviews with Toaff, so it's him in his own words (not a reporter's second-hand account) telling us what the book is about. --172.131.52.157 08:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re this summary,[6] see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and again, please stop using boldface unless absolutely necessary.Proabivouac 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems informative [7] . It is a page from "The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies" p.166-167 --Aminz 09:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That ties in well with Scapegoating, and the use of Jews as generic targets of blame in medieval Europe. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To Add?

Perhaps the following belongs in the "Actual Jewish practices regarding blood and sacrifice" section along with a brief mention of Ariel Toaff?

On Easter Sunday 1475, the dead body of a 2-year-old Christian boy named Simon was found in the cellar of a Jewish family's house in Trent, Italy. Town magistrates arrested 18 Jewish men and five Jewish women on the charge of ritual murder - the killing of a Christian child in order to use his blood in Jewish religious rites. In a series of interrogations that involved liberal use of judicial torture, the magistrates obtained the confessions of the Jewish men. Eight were executed in late June, and another committed suicide in jail. [8]

--172.128.202.99 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please no blood libel support here. Beit Or 07:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is covered in Simon of Trent. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just stopping by, and realize I am stepping into some very treacherous ground here, but he did a/write and publish a book on the subject, and b/ the book attracted world wide attention. Of course, he thought better of it & recalled the book, but what's done is done. I cannot imagine he's right, but he did publish the book and it is on the subject. I would leave out the suggested paragraph, for it adds no new information, but it does need the link. The contents of his book is adequately covered at the article on him. Simon of Trent is adequately covered by the brief paragraph here. Possibly that needs a cross ref also. I like you am aghast that it should have been published, but now that it is we will all have to deal with it. Makes it harder for every Jew and rational non-Jew, but there it is. (Better we should put it in ourselves, than it should be put in by one of the very few Nazis at WP)DGG 10:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's point. Toaff deserves mentioning as a critic even if his ideas are completely wrong. --Aminz 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Toaff's views are held only by Toaff himself and do not belong anywhere outside Ariel Toaff. Beit Or 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I just love the terse "responses" used by so many of these editors to try and silence debate -- by all means, please attempt to explain yourself and your biased edits further both here and elsewhere. Obviously Toaff warrants a brief mention in this article -- as I've said many times, I'm not trying to insert paragraphs of material about his views, just a brief mention of his name (2 measly words). As for "minority views": what about the Neo-Nazi website used (minority view) generously on this page [NOTE: Neo-Nazis are a 'fringe' minority group]? You people cite Neo-Nazi websites before you cite a SCHOLAR with a doctorate?! Also, what about the link used in the section about Prof. Israel Jacob Yuval (minority view) -- NOTE: ONE OF THE REFERENCES FOR THIS PARAGRAPH IS DIRECTLY FROM AN ARTICLE ABOUT TOAFF, from Haaretz...talk about HYPOCRISY on a colossal scale, one using an article about Toaff to try and reinforce Yuval's "minority view"! BTW: this blatant censorship/bias could (and should) be used as a test case dealing with the systematic bias found within Wikipedia when it comes to certain articles (mostly Jewish-themed articles) and certain editors (mostly the editors/'protectors' of said articles). FACT: many of them are no longer able to maintain a NPOV when it comes to this subject and set of articles; thus, they have no business editing these articles any longer. The worst part about all of this is the fact that this obvious bias has crept up in to the highest levels, the administrators. Talk about "rouge admins".... --WassermannNYC 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can hear lots of shouting, but no references to policies. Beit Or 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

" Israel Is 'Stealing Palestinian Children's Eyes,' Iranian TV Series Says" is used as a source for:

A 2004 story from Iran speaks of Jewish doctors stealing organs of Palestinian children in Israeli hospitals.

The source, however, does not use the word blood libel. Can anyone show what relation this has to the topic of this article? Thanks.Bless sins 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, is that where I'm supposed to find a source? You knwo wikipedia articles can't use other wikipedia articles as sources.Bless sins 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As you've pointed out, once a Wikipedia editor feels something in an article is relevant to a topic, they can include any sources they want about the item raised in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've said no such thing. If it is shown, by reliable sources, that an idea is relevent to topic of the article, then reliable source on that idea can be included. You're going around talk page to talk page, accusing me thing I didn't do/putting words in my mouth. Please stop it.Bless sins 05:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you've been quite explicit that individual sources do not have to explicitly refer to the topic of the article. Those are your rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh> I'm getting tired of your games where you criticize me, and thus evade the original argument. If you want to prove/disprove something's compatability with wikipedia, you have to use Wiki policies, not my statements. Please just find the sources that make a connection, and make life easier for both of us.Bless sins 05:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, do all sources used in an article need to explictly refer to the subject of the article? If you don't answer "yes", then you have no grounds to object to this. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No question has a "Yes or no, please, nothing else" (this is what you originally stated) answer. One needs a reliable source to make a connection between two topics. What is the connection between "doctors stealing organs", and "use of human blood in religious rituals"? Bless sins 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say "yes", so you have no grounds to object. Sorry, your rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I never said no either. Please just provide the source/connection, and stop violating WP:POINT.Bless sins 05:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, do all sources used in an article need to explictly refer to the subject of the article? If you don't answer "yes", then you have no grounds to object to this. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked me the question, and then you impose an answer on me. What makes you think the asnwer to that question is a "yes"/"no" answer? It isn't. I'll repeat: One needs a reliable source to make a connection between two topics. If you find something unclear in my response, then notify me. Also, don't violate WP:Point, namely disrupting Blood libel against Jews in order to make a point on Islam and antisemitism. Bless sins 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's not policy. WP:ATT says nothing about having to "make a connection between the two topics". It says every single source or argument must be attributed to a source in relation to the topic of the article. This article is about Blood libel. When you operate on people there is blood involved. All organs contain blood. There you have it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link that shows that the eye contains blood and blood vessels: [9] The link has been made. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that a source must be in relation to the topic of the article. Agreed. "Blood libel" is about "use of blood" in "religious rituals". The source says nothing about Israelis using "blood", rather using "organs". Also the source says nothing about whether the blood/organs were used in any "religious rituals [of Judaism]".

In any case are willing to have such a relaxed attitude on the article Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins 06:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been widely reported that there are cases of organ sale in China and Eastern Europe (maybe elsewhere).As far as I know, it is not very controversial. Could the Chinese and Eastern Europeans consider such a statement as 'blood libel'? Also, if the contention is that Israelis remove organs of Palestinians, how is it a blood libel against Jews? Jezzer1976 (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Jeremy

Page protection

I have locked the page to allow people an chance to discuss their differences. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

as for the ref. to Toaff

I really thing proportional representation needs at least the link. Actually, I think it needs a paragraph, both at the end, and for the section about his key example. But a link will do as a compromise.

You can't hide from it. I wish he had thought more carefully about the interpretation of his evidence. i wish he had thought about the likelihood of his conclusions. I wish he had considered writing the book just about the evidence for Jewish self-defense. And I deeply wish the book at not been published at the remarkably unfortunate time it was. I support free academic research into even this, but I also support common sense in publishing it. But is published. Everyone likely to be interested in the subject knows about it. All the bigots know about it. Leaving out the reference looks like excessively self-protective behavior, which I think we all can ill afford. It makes those predisposed against Jews to think that Jews have something to hideDGG 07:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not "excessively self-protective behavior", but the adherence to WP:NPOV, which demands that fringe views are restricted to articles about themselves, in this case to Ariel Toaff. Beit Or 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian children organs

From what I can tell, the Palestinian children organs things isn't an accusation amounting to blood libel. The accusation was that they were stealing organs for transplants. Not for ritualistic purposes. While it seems to be anti-semitic and seems extremely unlikely to be true, it's not blood libel IMHO Nil Einne 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

Did the blood libel have anything to do with circumcision, this isn't mentioned. Like, the foreskin must be cut, then the rabbi has to draw blood.

So, okay, if this is in a Jewish family, then no Christian knows about it. But, what about in a mixed marriage, or what about if a Jewish family adopted a Christian child, or the child of relatives who had converted to Christianity?

Then, what do you have? A child who might be considered Jewish by descent to Jews (considered Christian by Christians)...who at an age perhaps well above infancy, being cut by a rabbi (or mohle) and then having his penis sucked until blood comes out...What would this look like to an observer?

Is it any surprise that the 'blood libel' should keep on coming up in an age of ignorance and the mutual suspicion and general separateness of races?

There is a feeling on this page that the 'blood libel' was created by Christians out of hatred, rather than something which might have a cause in Jewish ritual being misunderstood by Christians in a climate of mutual suspicion, fear, envy and jealousy.

This article even smacks of prejudice against Christians.194.112.59.100 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There are certain Jews that literally suck the blood from a fresh circumcision right after it is performed and then spit it out (this is called a metzitzah), yet they are in the minority. There are now regulations as to this practice after some children contracted herpes and other STDs (some even died or became brain damaged due to the infection(s) that they gained during the ritual; see here). The person that performs a circumcision is called a Mohel. Some Jews might still perform this direct mouth-to-penis circumcision ritual, but they are now ostensibly using straws to suck away the blood instead of their actual mouths. --Wassermann 12:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Is this the basis? Imagine a christian peasant seeing a mohel (type of rabbi) sucking and spitting blood and people standing cheering...194.112.59.102 08:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, let's not engage in original research fantasies about this. As the article Blood libel properly states, accusations of various forms of cannibalism were common against the Other throughout human history. The more atrocious the charge was, the merrier. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an almost desperate need by some editors to throughly ridicule any ideas which point to a reasonable explanation for blood libel against the jews and instead resorts to all too frequent form of Christian-abuse. This 'fantasy' accepts bizarre philosophical notions like 'the other' and a concrete historicity of saint like Jews persecuted by insane Christian barbarians. There are two sides to every coin. This dehumanising and chauvinistic attitude is a fantasy and the whole debate on this page shows symptons of severe denial.194.112.59.144 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Toaff

I do not think it is possible to validly assert that Toaff is not a significant recent writer on the subject, or that a link to the article by him is undue weight. I also do not see the point of us reverting each other on a daily basis. A widely known book, and the lastest one, from a recognized scholar centered exactly on the precise subject in question here must be taken into account. I think a full paragraph is appropriate weight. How shall we decide this.? DGG 08:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

DGG -- there is no use trying to reason with these censors because they aren't reasonable people. Just look at all of the valid/relevant material that's recently been stripped from the Israel lobby in the United States page, or look at what happened to the List of Jewish American businesspeople page (and these are only two recent examples). Again, we are not dealing with reasonable or rational people here (ruthless and methodical censors is more like it), and thus there isn't much use trying to be rational with them, because all they'll do is ignore you or accuse you of 'POV.' Indeed, I feel that the only thing one can do is continue to revert their blatant censorship and expose them for the POV censors that they are. Many diligent editors have already noticed the censorious and POV editing-habits of this group of editors/adminisTRAITORS and, again, they are being exposed for the POV censors that they are or have become. The funny thing is that they aren't even 'quiet' or 'shady' about it anymore, where once they were; they have no qualms about going in to articles and deleting massive amounts of relevant, valid, and well-sourced material -- they are shameless censors and should be treated as a deadly form of cancer that has infected the Wikipedia project. If we don't diagnose this sickness (identify the perpeTRAITORS) and try to root/cut it out in the hopes of trying to cure this systemic sickness, the entire project will fall by the wayside. Also notice that these people very rarely ever ADD or contribute anything to Wikipedia: all they do 99% of the time is DELETE, DELETE, DELETE. Thus, in an overall sense they are entirely detrimental to Wikipedia, eating away at it constantly, slowly but surely...like a cancer... --Wassermann 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasserman, your comments are less than civil. Metaphors such as cancer and references to treason are unfortunate choices in the context of this subject and debate; I invite you be more thoughtful in the future. I am one of the editors who has removed the insertion of the Ariel Toaff link to the top of the section; what is it that you hold me to have beTRAYed?Proabivouac 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I continue to affirm the good faith of those who would remove the ref. I know they are friends, but I think that in this instance they are wrong--very wrong--both in terms of immediate tactics for dealing with the problem he ha presented , and also strategically, in that it is always good to show that our enemies can say what they like, a fair presentation will show them wrong. (If we dont do this, people who do not trust us may think we are afraid that a fair presentation might show them right, which is most certainly not the case here.) The reasons why good people might take the view they do view is not the immediate issue here.

As for other articles, I'll deal with them when they present themselves--is there any ongoing discussion I ought to be involved in? But dont be too sure about what position I will take. DGG 09:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to censor Mr. Toaff's novel hypothesis from Wikipedia, but only believe that a link to him at the top of the section violates WP:NPOV#undue weight. A "see also" or external link might be perfectly appropriate.Proabivouac 09:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Proabivouac. Also, putting it at the top looks like a WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Excluding Ariel Toaff's work from the article is not censorship at all. The guideline on exceptional claims is quite clear: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people" [italics mine]. The policy on undue weight is equally clear: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Toaff's work is an "exceptional claim" from a single source and represents a "tiny-minority view" and so doesn't belong in the article. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the subject he writes about. The claim is currently noteworthy, and that it has been espoused by a serious student of the subject and not an utter crackpot or a confirmed bigot takes it out of the category of claims too extraordinary to consider. Articles on such subjects as perpetual motion include claims much less notable than this, and not just as peculiar exceptions but deliberate policy. The claim is extraordinary, and so is the book. The justification for the article on the book is the justification for putting the link here. It would perhaps be more appropriate to have not just a link, but a sentence to set the context, saying specifically that the view is not generally accepted. I continue to rely on the possibility of a reasonable accomodation. DGG 04:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If every exceptional claim representing a tiny-minority view from a single source were accorded an external link and a contextualizing sentence with a caveat, then a great many Wikipedia articles would be taken up with little more than lists of external links and contextualizing sentences with caveats.

The current notoriety of Toaff's claim is perhaps a reason the story might appear in Wikinews. It is certainly the reason Professor Toaff has an article devoted to him, but insisting that Toaff's work be referenced in Blood libel against Jews strikes me as an example of a rampant tendency afflicting Wikipedia that some editors have dubbed "recentism", defined as "the tendency by Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention," so that, among other deleterious effects, "[e]stablished articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens." The notoriety generated by a recent (and potentially ephemeral) controversy about a sensitive topic is not a reason for including that controversy in an encyclopedia article about that topic. It might be a reason for devoting a newspaper article to the controversy, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper.

In short, WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT are quite clear, and I haven't seen any argument about what makes this case so exceptional that they ought to be suspended.

Finally, Professor Toaff has withdrawn the book from circulation pending re-editing, so not only are there not multiple reliable sources making this exceptional claim, currently there isn't even one. The guideline on reliable sources states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." No reliable, published source makes this claim, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so; an extraordinary and extreme minority claim with not even one reliable source to back it up, at present, not even Toaff. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying that this article is related to Judaism doesn't imply that Judaism actually encourages such ridiculous acts. All it says is that some people accuse the Jewish religion of encouraging murder. Infact we have a section in this article on actual Jewish practices, so as to make clear the Jewish faith's stance on these actions. Thus the category Category:Judaism-related controversies is relevent to this article.Bless sins 17:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• "All it says is that some people accuse the Jewish religion of encouraging murder."

Oh, is that all? --Rrburke^(talk) 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Judaism-related controversies

Please stop adding this into Category:Judaism-related controversies: this has nothing to do with Judaism and is already included in Category:Antisemitism. For those who will insist: please explain what's the "controversy" is about and try to seek consensus at talk. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely so: a controversy is "a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." This isn't a controversy; it's a canard. --Rrburke^(talk) 12:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I re-added this category; it should of course stay in because even though accusations of blood libel are false, they have been incredibly controversial through the centuries. Thus, it is a controversy involving Jews and Judaism...looks like an appropriate category to me. --Wassermann 13:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this article titled correctly? I don't think so...

It seems to me that this article is titled incorrectly. Blood libels weren't targeted AGAINST Jews, i.e. people didn't allegedly try to 'harvest' Jewish blood for ritual purposes...it was accused that Jews targeted Gentile children (i.e. blood libel accusations against Gentile children)...correct? Thus, this article should be titled something like Blood libel (Jews) or Blood libel accusations (Jews) or something like that. Otherwise it would need to be something like Blood libel accusations leveled against Jews or Alleged blood libel against Gentile children that caused Gentiles to target Jews -- and those unwieldy titles are of course ridiculous and out of the question. --Wassermann 13:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jews are not being accused of libel. The accusation of blood-drinking is the libel. In this case, that libel is directed at the Jews. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial sentence in intro

The third sentence is problematical: "In many cases, blood libels served as the basis for a blood libel cult, in which the alleged victim of human sacrifice was elevated to the status of martyr, and in some cases, canonized."

The first problem is with the beginning phrase "In many cases, ...". I found no substantiation in the article for this and it is not cited. Not even the majority of the "notable" examples illustrate this. If there is no reliable source for the claim, the most that can be said is "In some cases, ...".

The second problem is that what a "blood libel cult" is never explained in the article. Given the negative connotations associated with the word "cult", the phrase is open to accusations of bias.

A third and more general problem with the intro is that this sentence, through its use of the term "canonized" implies that the problem of blood libel against the Jews was strictly a Christian phenomenon, which is actually contradicted by the article. A more general and NPOV formulation about the phenomenon and its perpetrators needs to be developed. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

, just as you point out, some is clearly the better word. "Cult: is being used here in the specific sense that Christians call the honoring of individual Christian saints their "cult", as the cult of the Virgin Mary. Thus it specifically applies here: some of the alleged victims were recognized as saints, and had their cults. Not many, but the recognition of even a few gave a official sanction to the libel. Clearer wording might help. The article reports what people believed and said about it in the past, and say about it now. To any extent it might seem to offer an opinion of our own it would need adjusting. DGG 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize the different meanings, but the general reader often may not. Since the term "blood libel cult" was not ever described, the context would sometimes be misunderstood. In any case, the reformulations are a great improvement and I thank you for your effort! Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have therefore adjusted the first paragraph to match what I think we have been saying. I can't tell myself whether its clear enough, of course. DGG 03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at a redraft of the intro. Please tell me what you think of it. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Professor Israel Jacob Yuval of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

I found this section a bit confusing as the article begins with a statement that the first recorded accusation of blood libel was pagan and in the 1st century. Perhaps Yuval is speaking of the medieval resurgence?LCP 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the known history of the practice has been recorded since medieval times. However, the first known instance of an accusation of Jews sacrificing humans as a part of ritual practice was indeed pagan. There may have been other accusations by Greeks or Romans before or after, as well as Christian accusations before the Middle Ages, but sources mentioning them have been lost to us. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how what you said can be included in the Yuval section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by L.C.Porrello (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

What "Yuval section"? In any case, the source for the accusation of Apion was Josephus (Contra Apionem). I don't know if Yuval mentions Apion or what we don't know in his work as I don't have his work available. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

first line as changed

"usually false and villifying" is a little too weak I suggest "always or almost always false and villifying" It's still flexible enough to accommodate any modern position & it gives a fairer sense of the very low likelihood than "usually". It even allows for the misguided and ignorant who in good faith did not think the charges false. 05:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems SlimVirgin reverted the changes you're referring to. However their author, 138.77.2.130, makes a valid point in his edit notes that the intro and more especially the "Descriptions of alleged ritual murder" section really need sourcing. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

false

If blood libels are necessarily false accusations, what word would be used to describe any that might be true (not that I think there actually are any, but we need a word for the concept). . DGG (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A libel is necessarily false. --Redaktor 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If so, what term do we use for cases where the accusation is true--do we need an article with the title "ritual murder by Jews?" -- not that it has happened, but that it has been a cultural theme. DGG (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that, since they are all libels, they can all go here. --Redaktor 09:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Will the article then accept a reference to work --current or earlier -- that advocates the position that one or more of them may not be a libel? DGG (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not speak of "accusations of ritual murder" as a neutral phrase then? "Ritual murder" is the term I've often heard from Christian sources which promote the story. If the story is either undecided or provably false, then we still have an accusation of ritual murder that may be spoken of. That sounds less judgmental than the term "blood libel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.41 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Leo Frank

I deleted the text below about Leo Frank. Frank was railroaded and lynched and happened to be a Jew, but this is not blood libel. There was no allegation of ritual nor involvement of other Jews. He was viewed as an outsider for being Jewish, but also for representing carpetbagging factory owners. The bits about the Klan while true are misleading, since Jim Conley, the principal witness and likely actual murderer, was black. —  Randall Bart   Talk  07:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta, Georgia, United States 1913

Main article: Leo Frank

In a case very similar to the above, Leo Frank, a Jewish manager at a local pencil factory was accused of raping and killing 12 year old Mary Phagan. Though he was never accused of using her blood in any kind of ritual, there was a consistent yellow press campaign to portray Frank as a pervert and a sadist. After he was pardoned by the governor in 1915 Frank was lynched by a group calling themselves the Knights of Mary Phagan, which would become the kernel of a revived Ku Klux Klan. The Leo Frank lynching was also related to racist tensions and policies in Georgia, as many other people had been lynched in Georgia.

Heraklion

The blood libel case in Heraklion, Greece in 1451, had important ramifications for the Trento trial of 1475 as a precedent and perhaps merits a mention. There is an account of it in the records of the rabbi of that period in Heraklion/Candia, Elia CapsaliNishidani 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious edits on this page

I deleted the discussion here. Wikipedia talk pages show up on Google searches, and I strongly suspect that the material was placed so that it would create a high level hit in a Google search with a link to a you-tube video with inflammatory material --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk pages do not show up in Google, only the articles do, i'm sure if the Oprah clip was inflammatory it wouldn't be aired on US national television. They have more stringent checks than Wikipedia. Even if talk pages did show up in google, there was no need to remove the entire discussion. Please revert it as it also included links other sources. And if you read the discussion, you will realize the intention for the source was not for Google searches, but to provide a source that hasn't been covered before. If you don't like the source, fine, but to remove the entire discussion for absurd reasons is really bad, I've had a read on Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm willing to mediate, or involve other Wikipedians to prove to you removal of this discussion was unjustified.85.92.85.2 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an official mediation at WP:M process which we can enter into, assuming all the parties agree. I am uncertain if removing the discussion here is in violation of policies, but I think there might be something wrong with it. Archiving is allowed, but outright deletion might not be. Bstone (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Then revert it, and archive it, but do not delete it. Yes you can't just wipe out discussions unless it is irrelevant to the article and other guidelines which you can read. And if your unhappy about the links, as you stress in regards to Google, then take out the links, not wipe out the discussion. I also don't think you can wipe discussions out without both the author and the wiper agreeing. But if you are archiving it, leave the links, since archives definitly do not show up on Google. And im also sure other people will mention the clip in the future, it is becoming notorious amongst some groups on the internet, so its better to deal with it and archive it, than to wipe it out. And if you do a search on Youtube for "oprah ritual" or other keywords, there already 2/3 versions of the same clip, so i doubt it was seeking google ranks, 1 with 5,000 views. One might also ask why S.J. Anderson contributed to the discussion, then deciding after a number of days to remove the discussion once it had grew. I will mediate, but i will compromise on an archive if you guys agree to it? It will save alot of time on all sides. 85.92.85.2 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your mediation offer is appreciated, but it is most proper to enter into the official mediation of Wikipedia. Since you have been involved in the discussion/debate and have an opinion as to how it should turn out, your offer to mediate can't be accepted. Also, you may want to register an account as you are currently posting from an anonymous IP address which can change at any time. Bstone (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just also come across some more information about the lady which i think should be included in the original post to balance things. Her name, Vicki Polin, she runs an awareness centre for jewish sexual abuse, has written to ADL, and still stands by her words. The following link also includes people from the Jewish community who detest her and beleive she is crazy aswell as Jewish people who back her and believe her. The link also includes the full transcript of the Oprah show of which some were cut out on the youtube video which helps balance things. There is also some good information on blood libels for those interested. http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/vicki_polin.htm . Please add this if we agree on an archive. 85.92.85.2 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The very link that you've provided states:

OPRAH: I want to stop right here, though. because you know how people build prejudices. I want to make it very clear this is one Jewish person, so don't go around now saying to people, you know, "Those Jewish people, they're worshipping--'. This is just one person. Okay.

"RACHEL": Most Jewish people do not do what my family did.

Even if Polin is to be believed, she makes it very clear that this is certainly not practiced by the vast majority of the Jewish community. This is therefore not a case of traditional blood libel and is thus irrelevant to this article. Asarelah (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages do show up on Google searches. For proof of this look here. Any more false claims you'd like to regale us with, 85? Since you've already admitted that you're the same user who posted the Oprah link to this talk page in the first place, and are evading a block by using another IP, I'm a little surprised at your offer to "mediate." Were you offering to serve as mediator or take this to mediation? All the deleted comments are still available in history to anyone who wants to see them, but no longer show up on Google searches. Also, I'm a little surprised that an apparently new IP user with little or no edit history before coming to this talk page pretends as much knowledge of how Wikipedia works as you do. I'll ask you straight out. Are you new here? Have you ever had an account? Have you ever been banned apart from the ban on your other IP that you're currently evading? Furthermore, it's well within Wikipedia guidelines to delete discussions from talk pages that are posted primarily for the purposes of disruption and do nothing to contribute to improving the article, as this discussion still doesn't do. Damn, all out of troll food again. Didn't last long, did it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also verified that archived discussions, which have survived long enough, often survive on Wikipedia mirror sites which show up on Google searches as shown here. Also, 85, the lukeford.net site you linked to is something called a weblog frequently shortened to blog. (Have you heard of them?) These self-published websites are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. You're doing an excellent job of trying to promote Ms. Pollins claims here, but it might not be working as well as you'd hoped. Has anyone mentioned to you that, although Wikipedia articles and talk pages show up on Google searches, Wikipedia uses "nofollow" tags, so placing a link to a website in Wikipedia will not enhance its Google ranking. Hope this doesn't disappoint you.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of completeness, I'll mention that deleting the links alone is no solution. It's the existence of the keywords on this page that cause the page to show up on a Google search, not the links. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay Sherlkock homes, you are becoming overly paranoid. You blocked my IP, not me, and you blocked it for what i think are unfair reasons to shut me up without even trying to explain to me what I did wrong in beginning, "im going to get troll food"<your explanation. Yes I am new here in terms of editing or discussing, but your overly paranoid mind can think what it wants, you can think everyone is trying to be antisemites, you can think everyone is a troll, you can smoke marijuana, that is up to you, but don't take it out on me. Calling me a troll, without even explaining why my source was wrong, just saying she'z crazy without even providing a link or a source. I apologized for being rude, and the next thing I see is the whole discussion wiped out. You call it a troll for someone to ask people to have a look at a video that has very much to do with accusations of ritual murders of jews, and then you delete discussions without even discussing it, just saying ok im going to delete this due to paranoia set in that some 5 minute video clip on youtube, is trying to increase google rankings by placing a link in a discussion page. Use your brain, if someone wanted to promote something, it would make more sense to put a link in the article. Forget the fact that I also included other sources from other places, describing the sacrifice in the Jewish religion but you liked to turn the whole story on the video clip. And if you read the luke website, you would see, he has compiled, information on Polin citing various websites in the beginning of the page, such as the Jewish Weekly. If you want me to post each source seperately, I will, but I thought it would be easier to cite 1 link that has already included everything about the story. And my reason to post the lukeford site was to perhaps discredit the video a little as I found out it had been edited out and also to bring a balance to the facts surrounding the Oprah show, but your paranoid mind again seems to see the lukeford addition as somewhat a means to further disprove your ideals. I also take it from your reply, you haven't even read any of it. After seeing your radical and extreme action to wipe out and your expression that my my post was to interrupt something, I sure took a harder look at Wikipedia guidelines, and will carry on taking a look to defend my self against someone like you, who might think its his talk page. Its funny how Somebody, Asarelah, can constructively discuss the source and discredit it... where as all you do is look for troll food. Maybe you have something wrong with you? What is troll food, how does it look like? Is it salty? Do you eat it also? Maybe it has cannabis inside. Seriously, because I'm sitting here, with the intention of adding a source that is contradictory of the articles direction and to await the reply of others, and your offense is to call it disruption, crazy, advertisement, and so on. Stop being paranoid it will get you in the end. Your reaction is another level. First your view on it was, it is a troll, some days later, you think its advertisement/google ranking, and now you imply disruption. Whats next? 85.92.85.2 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this very briefly and simply.

• • I didn't block you. I have no power to block you or anyone. You were blocked by an admin with whom I had never communicated before your block.
  • Vicky Pollin's allegations have nothing to do with the subject of this article and discussing them here doesn't contribute to improving the article.
  • You are still engaging in personal attacks in violation of Wikipedia's policies.
  • Trolling is defined as "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia." One way of doing that is to overload a talk page with unproductive nonsense.
  • My reference to "troll food" was meant as a criticism of myself. Usually the best response to this sort of thing is to ignore it, but I think I'm letting my impulses get the better of me (again).
  • I read the lukeford link. Here's a quote from today's edition of that page: "Why should I, a struggling blogger, bail out rich people with mortgages" It's a blog.
  • I have never called you an antisemite. Neither has anyone else in this space, although your very first post here all but challenged other editors to do so.
  • You, not just your IP, were blocked. Using another IP, another user name, another computer, or any other mechanism to continue editing while blocked is expressly against Wikipedia's policies, which is why
  • Your new IP has been blocked for six months.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vicki Polin

For what it's worth, there is already another article on WP that covers Ms. Polin's The Awareness Center. This article has been subject to a great deal of contentious editing too. I suggest that 85.92.85.2 consider what is on that page, and if that article needs editing that it be done there. I believe the point has been made rather thoroughly that Ms. Polin's allegations do not qualify as a traditional Blood_libel_against_Jews, and that this discussion can come to an end now. I am not arguing, however, that formal mediation should be forgone, should 85 still be interested in it. For what it's also worth, I agree that removing content from talk pages is a very bad idea. 85's arguments certainly seem sincere to me and I think the idea that this is all an elaborate Google spam troll is quite ridiculous. Rpresser (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit existing discussions here

Dear editors, in accordance with wikipedia policy, I would urge everyone to not edit existing discussion here. Please feel free to add and contribute to the discussions, but editing existing text is not appropriate. Bstone (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When you say "edit," do you mean delete?--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I guess he does. 85.92.85.2 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit, which includes deleting, redacting or modifying. Bstone (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very belated reply, but here goes. Bstone, contrary to your claim, your request is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The relevant policy is found at WP:TALK. It clearly delineates what sort of comments are and are not appropriate on talk pages. It also states that off topic posts can and should be deleted. Therefore I will continue to delete from this and other talk pages posts and threads that do not and are not intended to produce any useful changes to the related article. Please read and learn the relevant policies to avoid mischaracterizing them further. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Metzitzah

I deleted the section titled "Metzitzah". First the source cited does not support the claim that metzitzah is a reason for blood libels. This makes the claim original research. Second, suction by mouth is almost never done, contrary to what the deleted text implies. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points, and you were right to remove the section as it stood. There was no intention to do (let alone show) original research. Of course, the frequency of suction by mouth (metzitzah b'peh) in latter days is not relevant to the discussion of whether the practice formerly contributed to the growth of the blood libel. What is important is that the common practice, as its more rare latter-day occurances confirm, was real - something that most outsiders view with surprise. At the least, mention of brit milah and metzitzah b'peh must be included in the section "Actual Jewish practices regarding blood and sacrifice", if that section is to be accurate. It is interesting to note, however, that Rabbi David Zwiebel, of Agudath Israel of America, reported to the papers that 2000+ such suction-by-mouth circumcisions occur in New York per annum (http://www.jewishledger.com/articles/2006/02/23/news/news02.txt). Not widespread, perhaps, when one considers the worldwide community, but neither is it "almost never done" when 2000+ a year happen in one town alone (big town though it be). A new citation will be inserted that supports the claim that ritual circumcision has been connected by current scholarship to the original rise in the phenomenon of the blood libel ("The Blood Libel and the Blood of Circumcision: An Ashkenazic Custom That Disappeared in the Middle Ages" Abraham Gross The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 86, No. 1/2. (Jul. - Oct., 1995), pp. 171-174. {connects changes in public display of circumcision rituals to jewish community fears that said displays were contributing to the growth of the blood libel}. It will also be noted that there are countless scholarly references reporting versions of blood libel that have brit milah in general at their base - most usually involving the need for gentile blood as part of the circumcision ritual, especially as a salve or such to be applied to the wound of circumcision; there are so many reputable, peer-reviewed sources about this last libel that it requires little if any citation - but I'll pick the clearest ones. In the end the section will be reintroduced in amended form to make it clear that recent scholarship supports a link between misunderstanding surrounding circumcision practices in former days (when metzitzah b'peh was de rigeur) and the growth of the blood libel. None of it will be OR. I'll wait for further comment before making the revision, and I am willing to test post the revision here, or email it to concerned parties, if that is appropriate (rules, anyone?) As a last note, I think it strange that so many resist so vehemently the idea that an outsider finding out about a baby's blood (even the tiniest bit) in the mouth of a rabbi (if only for a second) would not be a contributing factor to blood libel, or at the least a useful handle for centuries of anti-Semites: how could one think for even a second that they would have missed such an "opportunity"! black thorn of brethil (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Professor re Trentino, his view that it happened, and his change of mind

Re Trentino, I guess this should have been noted earlier.

From a Haaretz (Israel) article, 2/23/08:

Historian recants theory that Jews killed Christian child in ritual murder [Bar-Ilan University Professor Ariel Toaff] over the weekend published an edited version of his book on the killing of a Christian child in the Italian city of Trento in 1475, denying that the Jews implicated in the murder were in any way involved.

Also see

Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Pasque di Sangue: Ariel Toaff and the Legend of Ritual Murder for a good analysis of the (first edition) of the book.

--Shlishke (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted a new edit that mainly concerns Prof. Ariel Toaff and his book, Passover of Blood. In my view the edit gives undue weight to a fringe theory, discredited and contradicted by every other notable academic who deals with the subject and recently recanted by Toaff himself, as can be seen here, where he states "Jews were not involved in ritual murder, which was an entirely Christian stereotype." --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I read the Toaff discussions above on this page. Points taken, mostly. I write this in good spirit.

As it stands, Trentino passage ends "...a few extremists." Well, it may be debatable, but the guy is not an extremist on staff at a normal, accredited (technically religiously founded) university. He apparently is not someone who's into radical revisionism scholarship, if you take a look at his pubs (I did a quick check at Lib at Con). Although anything is possible...

If the entry is about only those instances where documented attacks, pogroms, etc. took place, I guess he can be more easily left out. But it's not, of course.

How about a footnote for the poor bastard?

Shlishke (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Shlishke, I have to admit that I'm rather nonplussed at this turn of events. When I first saw your edit I thought "Hey, wait a minute. Didn't I just read somewhere that Toaff recanted?" So, I went to google news, found the report in Haaretz and reverted. Since my reason for reverting was a little long for the edit summary, I put it here in the talk page. Then after I saved, I saw... huh? what? That edit was made by the same editor who originally brought my attention to Toaff's retraction. So, why do Toaff's claims suddenly become notable enough for inclusion here within a few days of Toaff retracting/recanting/modifying/clarifying them (or whatever he did). In any event, it's now clear that Toaff is in agreement with every other scholar with any competence in the field: No blood sacrifices were committed by Jews. Ever. Your edit didn't read that way to me. It seems to be saying that Toaff thinks there might be some truth to the claim that Simon was killed by Jews in a blood ritual. Or am I missing something?

As to what, if anything, to do with Toaff in this article, I think we ought to allow some time for others to weigh in here. If you'll take a look at WP:FRINGE, you'll see why I deleted. I still view any suggestion that there were real blood sacrifices as a pretty clear-cut fringe theory. Now that he's recanted, he's just one more scholar who agrees with everyone else, which doesn't seem very notable. However, I'm certainly willing to hear what others have to say on the subject and work toward some kind of a consensus.

You may, however, want to take a look at the Ariel Toaff article. The recent news probably deserves mentioning there. Also I think his book is described in far more detail than is warranted in an encyclopedia article.

Lastly, I took the liberty of combining all of your and my comments on this issue into one section, since they all concern the same topic. I really should have put my comments in the same section as yours in the first place. I hope that's alright. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Blood libel quote in today's (10 March 2008) Jerusalem Post article

In an article in today's (10 March 2008) Jerusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546446423&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Sheikh Raed Salah, the head of the Islamic Movement's northern branch is quoted at a press conference regarding suggestions to expel residents of east Jerusalem who engage in terrorist activities against Israel (last line of article):

"We are not those who ate bread dipped in children's blood."

The article is headlined on the 3/10/2008 Jerusalem Post front page:

Arab leader denies temple ever existed

Bshein (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)bshein

move sentence?

The Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram published a series of articles by Osam Al-Baz, a senior advisor to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Amongst other things, Osam Al-Baz explained the origins of the anti-Jewish blood libel. He said that Arabs and Muslims have never been anti-Semitic, as a group, but accepted that a few Arab writers and media figures attack Jews "on the basis of the racist fallacies and myths that originated in Europe". He urged people not to succumb to "myths" such as the blood libel. [25]

Shouldn't the above sentence be in the "Denunciations" section? Shlishke (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've moved it since it seems pretty non-controversial. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

'False', yet again

re this. "Libel" is by nature false. If these accusations had any merit, they wouldn't be libel. Using WP:NPOV to insist that Wikipedia not take a stand on a matter of simple fact is, shall we say, pushing it. These accusations are so universally viewed as utter nonsense that we need a source to say that they aren't false, not that they are. -- Vary | Talk 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need a source to confirm that water is wet. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Since libels are by nature false, one way to better restate it might be: "Blood libels against Jews are discredited accusations..." (if only because the POV-pushers might like that even less). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears that ther is no clear concensus on this matter. i prefer Askati's wording instead of the redundant version that is being pushed.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus on this matter. It's been discussed repeatedly and extensively. The consensus version is obviously not redundant because it gives the reader information that he many not already have, namely that libels are false. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please list the others that are part of the concensus. It appears that you believe one person is a consensus. I reget to inform you that you do not own articles that are related to issues that are related to Judaism. This is a collective project.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Look higher up on this page and you'll see that the issue has been raised and resolved before. The change you are proposing never survives and has been reverted by numerous editors. That is evidence of consensus. If that isn't sufficient to you, I'll alert the relevant noticeboards and get more editors involved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your "good faith" offer to canvass is interesting. What you have offered is not a consensus, and offering to rally folks who will support your ownership of the article to keep from having it improved is shocking. If you cannot approach this in a neutral way, I suggest you find some subject in some other corner of the wiki, say paintballing, that is not controversial. If you coose to stay here, then lets please try and improve it. "Juridical murder", while an interesting euphemism for execute might belong on your blog, but not in an encyclopedia. I shudder to think what might happen if you were to be able to get your hands on Brittanica. Insistances like yours on absurd terminology is why no one , other than the seasoned editors who know how to read articles and understand POV pushing, will never be able to take this project seriously. Congradulations for your contribution in keeping this project from improvement.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tone it down, please. There's no need for that kind of hostility. Requesting input on noticeboards is not canvasing. It's the proper way to get more people involved in a conversation; it's the reason noticeboards exist. This is a discussion that has recurred several times on this article, and the word 'false' has always wound up staying in the lead. If that's not consensus enough for you, then clearly the only option is to get more people to comment; how else do you expect us to resolve the dispute?

And incidentally, 'Judicial murder' (not 'juridicial') is not simply a synonym for 'execute'. -- Vary Talk 02:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a real problem with it staying in the lead. "Most obviously " for references to the ten commandments is not good wording. As I said in the summary, what is obvious to me and you might not be to everyone else. The whole section is original research as it stands. You don't call a telephone a hand held personal communicator, you call it a telephone in an article, although three people might call it the latter. My tone changed when he left an edit summary that told me to get a dictionary.You'd think I'd invented Zyklon B from his reaction. I really just want the article to be improved. It is full of original research and is extremely poorly written. Perhaps you could off your talents to improve it. Hell , one day it could achieve GA status, but never in anything like the state it is in.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Middle Ages

I removed the part that said the Jews had been accussed of a blood libel. The way it read it was saying that they had commit a blood libel ie. had falsely accused someone of having commited a ritual murder. I'm certain that this cannot be right. If I am mistaken and the Jews of Norwich did accuse some other group of some dastardly bloody deed, than feel free to add it back properly sourced. The section that i added the OR tags to should go unless someone can find a third party source that can link these things for us. As OR , it is subject to removal, and will be removed propmtly if not addressed. Unless a reliable third party source does this it is analogous to rebutting a the accusation that a christian committed murder with the same argument.As a Noahite, he is still bound by the Commandments.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've saved you the trouble with one of the OR tags. That paragraph discusses claims made about a bible verse that describes a form of child killing unrelated to the kind of ritual murder and use of blood usually described in blood libels. Further, it doesn't belong in a section regarding actual Jewish practices regarding blood and sacrifice, as it doesn't pertain to such practices. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work . I imagine there is some Jewish scholar who has made the link with the Torah and levitical law as a defense against, but it's OR if we do it with out attributing it, right?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, after the destruction of the Temple, was ritual cleanlyness an isue with the refutation of the libel? WOuld those passages not then be moot, or is there some scholarship that will shed some light on it?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ritual cleanliness is still an issue in Judaism, regardless of the destruction of the Temple. The issue with the Torah, is a little different from simply saying that a Christian couldn't possibly commit murder because his religion forbids him to do so. The blood libel makes the claim that Jews murder Christian children because such murders are specifically required to fulfill their rituals, a claim which is demonstrably false and easily shown to be so. A closer analogy would be if someone claimed that a certain Christian must be the guilty party in a murder because his religion requires to commit such murders. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Abortion as blood libel

Do accusations that Jews promote abortion count as blood libel ? They are strange accusations, but they are still rather prominent among accusations launched by contemporary antisemites. (Link removed) ADM (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"False"

Using the word "false" in the opening of this article is a serious breach of wikipedias NPOV policy. I am a Jew, I KNOW that we don't use human blood, but we have to keep this site free of POV. Do you want to add the word false to the pages on holocaust denial as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewishnsbmfan (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops! Yes, that was me, forgot to sign Jewishnsbmfan (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see why the word "false" is a serious breach of NPOV. First of all, it's called "blood libel". Not "blood may-or-may -not-be-true." So the term itself conveys that it is a lie. So calling it a lie elsewhere is merely part of the explanation of what it is, rather than the voicing an opinion on what it is. Second, it's fact that there's nothing in the Jewish religion that supports the activity of killing and eating the blood of children. Thus, saying so isn't opinion, it's fact. If the word of any crackpot were enough to change any fact into merely one of many opinions, then there really wouldn't BE any facts, and everything would be just an opinion. Otherwise, we might as well edit the page that tells of the heliocentric hypothesis to convey that it's biased to say that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. It's not bias to say that the truth is the truth.QuizzicalBee (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Libel is by definition false, therefore, the statement is not only redundant, but a tautology. It should perhaps be reworded, but doesn't need to be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.22.157 (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Every other entry on blood libel uses some derivative of "sensational." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Christians

Why is this one different?

Why is editing this entry "vandalism" when I've done nothing more than make the Wikipedia entries on "blood libel" consistent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.255.141 (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are against consensus and you've been told that repeatedly, yet you continue to tendentiously change the article. Leave it alone and your problems are over. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, if you'd take the trouble to look at your own links, you'd see that there is no "every other entry" there's one other entry. Blood libel against Christians is a redirect to Blood libel, which I fixed to say false, since libels are false by definition. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Proving the negative

Regardless of how utterly positive we think we are in 2009, I propose that the first sentence add the word 'allegedly' here: "Blood libels against Jews are allegedly false accusations..." or "alleged accusations". Otherwise there is no pretense of objectivity (the goal of an encyclopedia) because how does one prove the negative? ALL accusations throughout time are a priori false because we decide they are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.15.66 (talk • contribs) 01:51, April 14, 2009

So we should imply that all of the accusations 'may' be true because we don't have solid evidence that every single one of them are not? Ridiculous. If an accusation is true, it's not libel. This article is specifically about accusations of ritual sacrifice and similar activities by Jews and why those accusations are not seen as credible. I have said before that I would not oppose the term 'discredited' instead of 'false'; this is because many of the people who made and repeated these accusations genuinely believed them to be true, whereas the term 'false accusations' implies deliberate fabrication. (I aknowledge that consensus is stronger for 'false'). However, anything that implies that the accusations described in this article are even remotely credible is completely inappropriate, and the recurring justification that it's more 'neutral' does not hold water. We call a spade a spade. We call a libel a libel. -- Vary Talk 02:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh! (Eyeroll)... Maybe what we'll have to do to deal with this incessant idiocy is add a notice to the top of this talk page:

ATTENTION: IF YOU ARE A MORON WHO CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE SIMPLE DEFINITION OF A WORD, HERE IT IS ALL IN CAPS, ESPECIALLY FOR YOU:

LIBELS ARE FALSE BY DEFINITION.

CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO LACK OF OBJECTIVITY, NO POV PROBLEM, NO OPINION INVOLVED. IT'S A SIMPLE MATTER OF DEFINITION.

Never mind. Not worth it. I guess some folks wouldn't get a simple concept like this if they fell into a swimming pool full of it and drowned, so the notice probably wouldn't do any good. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting unsourced bit about early Christians here for now

"It is also possible the rumors were influenced by the ancient blood libel against Christians, which seems to have similar elements (mainly as a distortion of Eucharist)."

The above was placed in actual practices of Jews section. I removed it from the section, and since it wasn't sourced, brought it here instead of adding it to another section. I believe this is plausible, but we need an expert scholar who thinks so to have it in the article, otherwise it's just speculation. Auntie E. 17:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/octavius.html http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2006/08/31/%E2%80%98come-plunge-the-knife-into-the-baby%E2%80%99-tertullians-not-so-subtle-retort/ http://www.jstor.org/pss/1583728

Well, there are reliable sources about such accusation against early Christians - Which contained the familiar elements of babies, blood and bread/flour. But I must admit that my source which actually claims there is a connection is a Russian book series called "Encyclopedia of misconceptions" - a somewhat amateurish work. It does claim that up until the twelfth - thirteenth century the Church accused all kinds of Christian heresies (starting with Montanism) in such crimes - some eight names are mentioned and then "etc". Then, the book says, they switched to Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeganian (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Swedish case - lack of neutrality

Claiming that an article in Swedish press was a blood libel preordains that events described never took place. This is lack of neutrality. Even though the article uses tabloidal language the case has been reported many times earlier by various sources. Wikipedia should not be instrumentalised for spreading political PR or historical policy. There are already too many Hasbara-like editorial campaigns on Wikipedia. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert Atzmon has a readable translation of the article in question, should anybody actually happen to care. Starts at the paragraph titled: “Our sons plundered for their organs”.MX44 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just added some context to the section about the Sweedish case, in light of today's news that the Israeli government has confirmed that some unauthorized organ harvesting did occur in the 1990s. But I suggest going further: Mention of this article as an example of contemporary blood libel should be removed. While it was legitimate to include the accusations of blood libel when they were first made (when the Sweedish article was first printed), there is now some clear evidence that the article has at least some basis in fact. Using it as an example of blood libel therefor violates NPOV. ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus

I was surprised that there was not a section here on the accusation that the Jews killed Jesus, which is really the first blood libel, and probably much of the motivation for those that followed! Stellarkid (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a link

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hi,

whilst reading Wikipedia this evening, I found the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahra%27s_Blue_Eyes

which has a notice:

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions are available.

I then found this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews

which has a mention of the TV series 'Zarah's Blue Eyes'. So I tried to create a link, as requested in the notice. I couldn't edit the page as I was not a registered user, so I created an account. However, I still couldn't edit the page, hence this new section. My new account has my e-mail address, so contact me if needs be.

Clark42 Clark42 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, Clark. I've added the link, copied a reference from that article to this and also fixed a reference link which was broken - so good job you brought it up!

Also, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm going to leave some helpful links on your talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to ad external link.

{{Editsemiprotected}} Link: [10] VIDEO Jewish Ritual Murder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.163.161 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 January 2010

Not done: Please read our policy on external links. This video is an example of blood libel but it is not presented in a neutral and accurate manner as an example. Rather, it is presented inaccurately and sensationally as a fact. Celestra (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

no one 'asked' nazi. now put the link in to the truth before i accuse you of aiding and abetting the murder of children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.163.161 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'view' you have is noted. But that is not the view of history and evidence. Both are presented in detail. Now we can continue with this till dooms day. Or you can ad the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.163.161 (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the 'accused' should have a say in the matter. You are biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.163.161 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) This is not zionist israel 'is ra real', nor any other nazi rule. I will not obey or comply. You do not 'tell' people no. You are a discrace to wikipedia. Might i remind you of, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.163.161 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a waste of my time, but it is my time to waste. The reason we have the {{editsemiprotected}} template is to allow non-autoconfirmed editors to get their reasonable changes implemented while screening out unreasonable changes. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the person servicing the request to decide whether the change is reasonable or not. If we just implemented every request, there wouldn't be much value to semiprotecting the page, would there? If you feel that I have misjudged your contribution, either try to convince me it is reasonable or follow our dispute resolution paths, but you need to give up on the personal attacks and impotent threats; they just make you seem immature. Celestra (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

that goes back to who, you? I think what I am going to do is ad a little side story about how wikipedia is not only calling these murders fake, but activly keeping the truth suppressed. just like my military school Deberry Academy that if a page is made about you delete in two hours. i am simply tired of wikipedia calling itself for the people as you activly suppress the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.163.161 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 30 January 2010

You should read WP:TRUTH. Truth has to do with what a person believes and varies from person to person. Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about about verifiable facts. One of the useful lessons here is that you should always question the authority behind "truth"; what facts support that as truth. I don't know why your articles about that miltary academy have been deleted, but I expect the person deleting it would explain the problem, if you want to correct it. Frequently, though, new articles are deleted because the subject isn't notable or the author fails to show that it is. Finally, dispute resolution doesn't come back to me; it is more of a group thing. If I am wrong, you should be able to convince me. If you feel that I am not being reasonable, you may choose to convince others. Celestra (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what he should read is WP:EL which explains Wikipedia's policies on external links. Question for the IP: Doesn't your military school have an honor code? Most of them do. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

When someone starts talking about suppressing the truth, I like to direct them to WP:TRUTH because that essay does a good job of highlighting the absurdity of that position. The IP is still welcome, like everyone else, to discuss whether and where this link should be added. I don't think questioning his honor is productive to that conversation. Or are you just using the honor code as an example of a system of rules which must be obeyed? Celestra (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would call questioning 'what is truth' the zionist M.O. to the letter. The video presents the proof itself. As does the history of wikipedia presents the 'truth' of what kind of honor really goes on here. Personaly, i think you are far outside your 'charity'. But thats not for me to decide. What is for me to decide, is when this little war starts, who I point at. To long, far to long, have you had a 'good' reputation as you complety lie to the public except on the most base subjects. We have had more than enough of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.163.161 (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess we have moved far enough away from the subject of the article that we should take this conversation elsewhere. I'll comment more on your talk page. Celestra (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)