Talk:Blood libel against Jews

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related

Middle Ages

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages

Template:FAOL

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

The author of a book on the use of blood by Jews in Ashkenazi communities in the Middle Ages said Sunday, in the face of the furor its publication aroused, "I will not give up my devotion to the truth and academic freedom even if the world crucifies me."

In an interview with Haaretz from Rome, Professor Ariel Toaff said he stood behind the contention of his book, "Pasque di Sangue," just published in Italy, that there is a factual basis for some of the medieval blood libels against the Jews. However, he said he was sorry his arguments had been twisted.

"I tried to show that the Jewish world at that time was also violent, among other things because it had been hurt by Christian violence," the Bar-Ilan history professor said. Of course I do not claim that 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

<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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

<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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Atlanta, Georgia, United States 1913

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)[reply]

Jewish women admitting Child sacrifice on OPRAH

Here is a Jewish lady speaking out against Jewish sacrifices in their families. Is that anti-semitism too? A semite that is speaking against themselves?? Come on guys, there are Jewish websites allowing Child Sacrifices: http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/columnists/reinharz/?content_id=3801 and http://en.allexperts.com/q/Conservative-Judaism-951/Sacrifice-1.htm disccussing the practice. Is that Anti-Semitic....... i guess any little thing that critiscizes Judaism is considered anti-semitic. Can someone tell me one issue that has successfully criticized Judaism as a whole? You guys make me laugh, like some army that demolishes any criticisms without realizing that you have demolished so much that it is beyond suspicion. Get real... arrogant, stubborn idiots. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the links you have given talk about human sacrifice in ancient times and why the Bible itself explains that God has outlawed the practice. It was common among the nations of the world before Abraham to sacrifice humans and/or children. No Jew has ever done so.

Neither of the links you have given says one damn thing about anybody on Oprah. So put up or shut up. Rpresser (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New posts belong at the bottom of the page so I moved it here (not that it merits inclusion anywhere). I've seen the clip of that clown on Oprah. She was part of the mid-eighties hysteria about memories of childhood ritual satanic abuse, recovered under hypnosis, that has been pretty thoroughly discredited. Best example you could ever find of a non-reliable source. Sorry, I can't comment further on this until I run out and pick up more troll food.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI5W0mfaPd8 The confession by the Jewish girl/lady in Oprah show can be viewed on Youtube. More details about the featured girl can be requested through Harpo (Oprah) productions. And also save your bile attitude to your thoughts "Shut up" "Damn thing". This isn't the Simpsons. Im sure the Jewish lobby in here will defend the Oprah clip with the wild explanations always made. Im eager to see what replies are made for this video. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the link for the first time not "again". It was not in your original entry from 30 December. I apologize for the profanity, but your own hysteria prompted mine. This lady is not reliable; there is plenty of discussion all over the Internet about why she is not. She was identified as mentally ill at the beginning of this Oprah episode. Rpresser (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Thank You, yes i realized i didn't provide the link later. What is her name, and any websites discussing the hypnosis and developments regarding her case? And Mr. George, you don't need to block my IP for saying Jewish lobby or criticizing the misuse of the term antisemitism, i might not believe so much in judaism, but you don't have a clue of my genealogy or ancestry. And the IP i used before is of an household of students, so kindly lift the block for which I think was unnecessary. And guys who use the term troll, just because someone challenges your ideals, try to be more considerate, my intention was not to troll, but to share sources which i think were not covered in the past, that have been brushed of by others using the term anti-semitic and no other explanation. 85.92.85.2 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]