Talk:Blood libel/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

On decanonization

I fail to see how the source given is a reliable one. We should be looking for documents from the Church(es), given that they instigate the process of canonization itself. The source given doesn't even mention Hugh or William, and yet is used as a source for the statement that "these were decanonized," so something will have to be done about that. How exactly is a book on psychoanalysis supposed to be an authoritative source on Church canonization anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodesindo (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede now says only Simon was decanonized, per the source. Anything else? Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The sentence is now quite accurate according to the source given - thank you for using the talk page. The chosen source is still very unreliable (again, if we can't find any official Church documents or pronouncements, why are we using a book on psychoanalysis that doesn't itself have any citations for the claim it makes?), but that sentence is at least far better than it was originally. Rodesindo (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you think he is still a saint then? Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

General usage section

well done. its about time the palin incident was mentioned in a sourced, neutral, brief, appropriate manner. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

oh and here goes the usual edit war. the section lasted a not one day before another used undid it --sources and all. i think the reflexive deletion of this aspect is wrong. apparently any mention of the term's use in any context other than the historic anti-jewish one is some sort of no-no to a few guardian users. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That kind of trivia is clearly not appropriate to this article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Lengthy discussions have clearly shown no consensus for adding American-centric, hyper-politicized ephemera. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

recently i added to the top of the article a DAB to preemptively shunt the quarterly palin-adders away. here was the box:

This article discusses historical antisemitism-related blood libel information; for the term's use in news coverage of the 2011 Tuscon shooting, see: this section of the Sarah Palin article.

the two users above promptly removed it. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As before, lengthy discussions have clearly shown no consensus for adding American-centric, hyper-politicized ephemera to this article. And, given that is the case, we are even less interested in back-door attempts to draw even more attention to them here, by listing them as the very first sentence of the article. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
tempting as it is to reply to such an insinuation with a "yeah 'back door' this, pal" i remembered that i officially DGAF and resumed a state of zenlike calm. you guys seem happier batting away the palin-adders one-at-a-time which is fine. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Cramyourspam, you are the only "palin-adder" since July 22, and the last one before that was May 15. These "palin-additions" will undoubtedly get further and further apart, as this American current news event falls further into obscurity. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

explanation of my recent deletion

I deleted a piece which is referenced only to a video of an Egyptian cleric antisemtic rant. It is a primary source. There is no evidence of notability of this, i.e., there are no references to third-party sources which discuss this. I don't see the need in undue promotion of this anti-Semite by wikipedia. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification of notability. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete Actual Practices Section

The "Actual Jewish practices regarding blood and sacrifice" should be totally removed, as it is not relevent to the article at hand. Let's say you have an article about a person accused of murder, who is on trial and receiving massive media attention and who therefore has a Wikipedia article. You might argue that he/she could not be guilty because the group they belong to (US society, for example) prohibits murder. This would be a logical fallacy, however, since there is no reason a person living in such a society could not commit murder - and directly contradicts reality in that people often do. The paragraph appears to be making the same argument - that since Jews were forbidden to murder Christian children they must be innocent of the charges. The whole article seems to have a pro-Zionist bias. Considering the frequency of these charges over time and area, they should be given more weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.220.147 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really a very good analogy. The promoters of blood libels claim that it is part of the Jewish religion to use the blood of Christian children in religious practices. It makes sense, then to give information about what Jewish religious practices actually entail. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Jewish POV

Why is this article is written from a Jewish perspective? From my understanding blood libels were not limited to Jewish people. There were other cultures who were also victims of blood libels (i.e. Christians, Muslims, Blacks, Homosexuals, Asians etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.56.137 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not written from a "Jewish POV", and reliable sources indicate these accusations were historically and most typically made regarding Jews. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
When we discussed and agreed to delete all non-Jewish "Blood libels" we reviewed the sources used, and even though there where no reliable sources that used the term Blood libel for these groups without qualifiers, there where some non-reliable sources that did. So there are people that have a different understanding of the term and thus does not find what they are looking for here. For example, read the question from the anonymous reader above. So, I would then like Galassi to explain what's "inappropriate" with a hatnote directing readers looking for accusations of human sacrifice directed towards other groups to the appropriate page? Steinberger (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This article's lede says "usually Jews", not "exclusively Jews". Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I missed that. However, if one reads the deletion discussion for this articles predecessor, it comes clear that it is not entirely true. Sure, as a part of the blood libels pre-history, is is pointed out that Christians was accused of using human blood for ritual purposes. But when this myth evolved and came to include children and bread it have been directed towards Jews - exclusively. That is how the term is explained and defined in the sources consulted in the deletion process. Steinberger (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No explanation have yet been given to why a hatnote is inapproriate, so I have reverted. If someone reverts again, I would appreciate some elaboration on why a hatnote is undue in this article. And I have no objections to rephrasing it, if it is the language that is perceived as inappropriate. Steinberger (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Offensive hatnote

As the deleted hatnote was written in the present tense, it was considered offensive. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording was:
This page is about accusations that Jews are committing human sacrifice. For similar accusations levied towards other groups, see Allegations of human sacrifice.
I may come back later, with another suggestion for judgment. Steinberger (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
And as I wrote on Steelbeard1's talk page, there are contemporary examples of accusations levied against Jews and other groups. So it was not evident to me that it was offensive to use present tense. Steinberger (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Your hatnote implies that Jews are in the same category as groups which actually do engage in human sacrifice. BL is a FALSE accusation, therefore that hat note of yours is highly offensive.--Galassi (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Human sacrifice as practiced by Satanists, Wiccans and Tibetans? Well, what does this imply to you:
This page is about alleged human sacrifice in Jewish religious practice. For similar accusations levied towards other groups, see Allegations of human sacrifice.
Steinberger (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No good. The Tibetan human sacrifice was reality, and the Jewish one was a MYTH. Nice try.--Galassi (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tibetan human sacrifice "cannot be ruled out", but it is more of a myth then reality. And what about the suggestion above? "No good" is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of argument. Steinberger (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No. It means that conflation of outright libel with ethnologically possible practices is UNACCEPTABLE.--Galassi (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
In other words: Unlike Jews, some other groups are capable of anything. Therefor it is unacceptable to compare demonizing accusations towards them with the blood libel. No matter that these accusations too are based on little to no reliable evidence. Steinberger (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the point is that the consensus of historians is that accusations of Jewish ritual human sacrifice are canards, whereas, for example, in Aztec religious rituals (and in other MezoAmerican cultures such as the Mayan) they did indeed happen, and that one should not conflate the two. Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If the link in the hatnote was to some page on actual instances of human sacrifice, then it would indeed be offensive. However, that is not the case here. The link points to a subsection of the article on Human sacrifice that is about the Blood libel, similar charges against Christians, similar charges as a motif for witch hunts, similar charges alleging Satanic ritual murder and similar charges as a motif for the PLA's invasion of Tibet. Steinberger (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A third suggestion:

This page is about alleged human sacrifice in Jewish religious practice. For similar unsubstantiated charges against other groups, see Allegations of human sacrifice.

Steinberger (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Still unacceptable. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
How so? Steinberger (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What I do not understand is the point of this hatnote. No one is very likely to end on this page looking for something completely different. "Blood libel" is a very specific term so I don't see that any disambiguation is necessary. Mezigue (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Some apparently have a different understanding of the term - "mistaking accusations of human sacrifice with blood libel" (as said by Galassi). Also, this article is the former Blood libel against Jews, the original article Blood libel was deleted as it was about unsubstantiated accusations of human sacrifice in general, not about the specific subject I think we all agree it is about. However, the previous article indicates that there is some misunderstandings out there. Steinberger (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If a hatnote were warranted at all: it has to point to other PATENTLY FALSE accusations of human sacrifice.--Galassi (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
And as the latter link, that is said to contain accusation akin to the blood libel, do point to unsubstantiated accusations meant to demonize specific groups or classes of individuals we seem to have reached some agreement. That is, if you don't mean that it is justifiable to refer to millennia-old and abandoned practices as a cause for military invention. Or rather, that some ancient practices make PLA's charges of then-current occurrences something other then "patently false"? Steinberger (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MISUSE OF TERM?

In January 2011, Sarah Palin accused journalists and other pundits of "manufacturing a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn". Her statement was in response to claims that the shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords resulted from the fact that Palin's campaign map showed a bulls-eye over the Arizona Congresswoman's district. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/blood-libel-sarah-palin_n_808104.html Palin was immediately called out for misunderstanding the historical meaning of the term and misappropriating it for her political purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.178.8 (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please review the Talk page archives for discussions about why this article only discusses actual blood libels rather than political ephemera. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Going a bit too far?

One of the later cases of blood libel says: "Leopold Hilsner, a Jewish vagabond, was accused of murdering a nineteen-year-old Christian woman, Anežka Hrůzová, with a slash to the throat." And then the article talks about "the absurdity of the charge" - what is absurd about this? Aren't brutal murders of teenage girls / young women a pretty common occurrence even nowadays? The charge itself as it's told here was't obviously absurd - it could have happened, and it doesn't even sound anything like the other blood libel cases. Here we have just ONE person - a vagrant male - being accused of murdering a young woman, in the late 19th century. Bloody murders do happen, you know. The "ritual killing" charge is obviously absurd but the rest of it - and the things included in THIS article which doesn't even mention the blood libel part btw. - doesn't sound "absurd" at all. So this example just stands out from the rest, and the current wording treats it like it's just as obvious.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That "absurd" bit needs to be removed. There is a lot of POV in this article. In the very first sentence in fact, where it says "Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) is a FALSE accusation or claim". It is not for Wikipedia to decide that it is true or false, but to state the facts and the arguments against it. If this has been categorically discredited then those arguments should be presented with references. I'm taking that word out. 94.142.66.22 (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And it's already back in. Now if you want to hold a discussion and gain a consensus, you're welcome to try, but it's been discussed before. Check the archives of this talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Canonized Saints

"Four of these have been previously canonized as saints, namely William of Norwich, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, Simon of Trent (Simon was decanonized[7] in the 20th century"

I suspected this statement because a Saint once canonized, cannot be "decanonized". So I glicked on their blue names and lo and behold sccording to the Wikipedia, and that is as far as my research went to be sure; not a one of these four were ever canonized in the Roman Church. That being said most saints aren't. So you could say William of Norwich, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, & Simon of Trent "were reverred by many as Saints"; or in the case of Simon of Trent, "was given a Feast Day on the ### calendar of Saints, latter removed". (I forget the name of the calendar in question now, just follow you own link) But they simply were not canonized. The Russians seem to have canonized the other one, but I believe their canonizations are less formal and often local. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.200.212 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Jews accused by who?

This article does not say who accused the jews of blood sacrifice. Was it the catholic church that accused the jews of blood libel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.129.101 (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Globalize

I've spent most of the day trying to bring this page up to standards via prose and removal of content for structure. While the first parts of the article have been revamped to make it clear that blood libel is not solely an antisemitic canard, but applied to many groups, the article is still very euro-centric and the main text is still not inclusive of other groups in its examples. I don't think this is an interest many groups other than Jews advertise. Wiccans, on average, make every attempt to downplay their supposed association with Satan. There is some inclusion of the Middle East, but I have a feeling that blood libel has been perpetrated everywhere, not just in the Occidental and Arab countries where Jews typically reside. It's a pretty common myth to make up about one's enemies. I can't do it all myself. I added the globalize tag for this reason.174.51.31.120 (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Historically, the vast majority of the accusations have been (and currently are) applied to Jews. There seems to be a phenomenon on Wikipedia where editors find an article that mostly or exclusively applies to Jews (e.g. Antisemitism, Holocaust denial), and somehow find it offensive that the material isn't universalized or globalized to refer to every person - or just don't like Jews getting "special treatment" because they've been "slighted". Nevertheless, in the real world, certain types of discrimination, accusations, attacks, etc. have been applied almost exclusively to specific groups. For some crazy reason bigots don't seem to subscribe to the notion that "everyone is the same", and apply their bigotry to specific groups and in unique ways. That's why one finds all sorts of examples throughout history of blood libel against Jews, but very few against other identifiable groups. Please review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
See discussion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood libel. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blood Libel Saints

So, the intro section asserts that four alleged victims have been canonized as saints. However, the pages for William of Norwich, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, and Simon of Trent make clear that none of these, in fact, were ever officially canonized -- they were revered locally, and sometimes added to the general Roman calendar, but not ever actually universally made saints. I'm going to adjust the sentence to better reflect this. Korossyl (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What about others

What about including the Romans accusing the Carthaginians of sacrificing children or the Americans accusing the Iraqis of killing infants in the first gulf war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.205.215 (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Go right ahead and add it if you have reliable sources. Asarelah (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Role of Serratia marcescens

I remember visiting a microbiology laboratory and being told about how this bacterium was used in experiments to see where airborne spores could be carried...

The microbiologist also told me about its alleged role in blood libel - the bacteria forms orange/red colonies, and can grow on bread. Presence of colonies of S marcescens on bread in Jewish households was, he told me, used as evidence - it was thought or claimed to be blood.

--peter_english (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Blood libel is a "false" accusation

Improper to use the word "false" because then the burden of proof rests on those conspiracy theorists to prove beyond a question of a doubt that all 150 cases were in deed false charges. Wikipedia is for researchers and scholars, not for conspiracy theorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.74.35 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Why the qualitative term up front? Even if it is a "false" accusation, the first intro paragraph should define what it is. A separate section about how this is claimed to be false by many people could be made, but it makes no sense to put it up front like that. No other article does this. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that is my take on it too. And it is a reoccurring annoyance among some readers of this article if you look at the history. All serious scholar dismiss it as a untrue libel. There is no convincing evidence that the accusation have ever been true and there is lots of evidence to the contrary. It is important to make sure that no one believes otherwise, but it should not say false in the leading paragraph. It is not the "falseness" of the accusation that defines the accusation. Moreover, it is impossible to prove a negative... Steinberger (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Words like "accusation" and "allege" in themselves mark the unsubstantiated nature of the claim. Adding "false" is superfluous and I also think the introduction is more powerful without it. Steinberger (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I must agree with Galassi. First of all, an accusation/claim can be true or it can be false. We know the claim is false; there are no any disputes in scholarly sources about this. At the same time, still there are people who believe it. Hence it does not hurt to mark it as false in the opening phrase for clarity (this is not like telling "false claim that Earth is flat"). In addition, I do not see any reason to mark phrases in opening paragraphs as "citation needed". This part should simply summarize content in the body of article. If something needs additional sourcing, please mark it in the body of article. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Some people do in fact believe that the earth is flat but still, we don't say that the the earth isn't flat in the leading paragraph of the article Flat Earth. In fact, we don't explicitly say that the claim that earth is flat is false at all. Steinberger (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is obviously not a "flat earth claim". False analogy. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Then why did you rely on this "obviously" false analogy in your argument for inclusion? Steinberger (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the primary characteristics of "blood libels" is that they are, in fact, false - that they are libels, not simply "claims". The reliable secondary sources at the end of the sentence support that characterization. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I would call the "falseness" a secondary characteristic: If you read about something that could be a blood libel and you bring out your mental checklist to find out if it is, you start with "human blood", "children", "jews", "persecution" and so forth. That it is false, is something you conclude on you way through the checklist and it is thus beside the primary characteristics of the accusation. Steinberger (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The name has two words, "blood" and "libel". Given that half of its name consists of libel, one would reasonably conclude that its falsity is a rather critical primary characteristic. That is certainly the way the preponderance of reliable sources treat it. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly agree. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't. But let's say, libel equals false: Then why should there be a tautology in the lead? Steinberger (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
All definitions are tautologies. That's part of what makes them definitions. If I say "A wristwatch is a watch worn strapped around a wrist" (source:dictionary.com), I am employing a tautology. This is because the word before the word "is" means the same thing as the words after the word "is". The act of defining words consists entirely of creating a tautology by stating the equivalence of a (possibly) unknown word to a (likely) known word or phrase.
It does make sense to use the word false in the lede. Here's why: yes, it is true that blood libel IS libelous, ergo false. But our hypothetical person coming over here to read about it doesn't necessarily know that it's false. They know there's a thing called "blood libel" and that could be the extent of their knowledge. But they don't know that "blood libel" is libelous. Indeed, calling something libelous does not mean it is libelous. So this thing that is referred to as "blood libel" could, in theory, be something that the perpetrators of it refer to as libelous, but that, to reasonable people, possibly might have some truth to it. In other words, the reader does not know if this blood libel thing is reasonably considered to be a lie, or if the issue is up for debate. By saying it's false right there in the lede, it becomes clear to the reader that there's no truth to this thing at all, that from the perspective of a neutral point a view, yes, it is libelous. It is an important fact that must be mentioned immediately and up front. This has precedent in other Wikipedia articles. For example, in the List of common misconceptions, despite the word misconception being in the title, the article says the beliefs are "erroneous" in the first sentence. The article on Tornado myths says in the first sentence that these are incorrect. I could go on--there are a lot of articles that use the word "myth", "misconception", "legend" or "lie", etc., that also say immediately in the article that it is not true. QuizzicalBee (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the first intro paragraph should define what a "blood libel" is. And what it is is a categorically false statement; was never true, is not true, and will never be true. It is solely a falsehood used to spread hatred of Jews, and its falseness is an inherent part of the term, and is certainly needed in the lede. -- Avi (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Going back to the beginning of 2012 there have been numerous attempts at removing or substituting the word "false" ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]). Some of these may be rubbed away as obvious vandalism ([11] [12] [13]) but most can't. So the word is obviously a source of reoccurring annoyance and, as I know at least some of you know, have been so since the word appeared in this articles predecessor all the way back in 2005. Then, is't it time to rework the lead? Short-circuit this persistent source of controversy once and for all by simply rephrasing? For example: "Blood libel (also blood accusation) is a antisemitic canard alleging that Jews murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Throughout European history, these unsubstantiated allegations have reoccurred as a motif in the persecution of Jews, alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration." Steinberger (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this edit, but didn't know there is a discussion about this. I don't have a strong opinion about this, although if it were up to me, I would probably leave it there, tautological or not. MrBlueSky (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Witchcraft and Blood libel

Witchcraft links to this article, yet there is no mention of witchcraft on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.216.190 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Order of Papal Pronouncements

The section about Papal pronouncements doesn't seem to be organized in any obviously systematic way, neither alphabetically by author's name nor chronologically. Is it an artifact of the source of the information or of gradual edits to the section?

Regardless, what is the general feeling regarding how this section would best be ordered, chronologically or by name? I am inclined toward a chronological sorting.

169.231.35.176 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Blood Libel

Blood libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover, although this element was absent in the earliest cases that claimed (the contemporary) Jews reenacted the crucifixion. The accusations often assert that the blood of children of Christians is especially coveted, and, historically, blood libel claims have been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children and then the ghosts of the dead children came back and killed all of the christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:9000:666:159D:62B7:FA35:B57E (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The description makes much of the human consumption of blood not being religiously condoned. However human sacrifice and consumption of human blood are too entirely separate matters.Royalcourtier (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Canonization

@DD2K: Hello, taking your invitation to discuss my edits to this article. I apologize in advance as I made a few, so I'll go by 1-by-1 but for the sake of brevity will put them under this one header. All mentions of "previous article" will refer to this version made immediately before my edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_libel&oldid=688068393

1. Canonization - the previous reads "Three of these — William of Norwich, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, Simon of Trent — became objects of local cults and veneration, and in some cases were added to the General Roman Calendar, even though they were lacking official canonization in the Roman Catholic Church. One, Gavriil Belostoksky, was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church." Wherein I removed the phrase "even though they were lacking official canonization in". The reason being there is no "official" canonization...there is just canonization. The process in both the Catholic and Orthodox church has changed and evolved over the centuries, but Saints that were canonized (which simply means that the church recognizes a person is in heaven) in the 1st century when there was virtually no process are just as recognized as the ones from this century, since canonization is a statement of doctrine. For whatever reason, when a saint is removed from the liturgical calendar, this does not make them "un-canonized" or not recognized as a saint. So, once again, there is no "official" canonization vs canonization in either the Catholic or Orthodox church.

2. Line 53; according to all sources I have read (and I refer you to the Simon of Trent page) 8 people were executed per Toaff. The following paragraph stating 15 were executed is unsourced and circular (the original poster cited another wikipedia source). If you can find an external source saying 15 people were killed we can absolutely keep it. Regarding the "saint" and "martyr" addition I made, I refer you to point 1. above. Also, saying his feast day is "only celebrated by extremists" is absolutely WP:POV. At the very least we'll need to agree to edit this out.

3. Christopher of Toledo - Citing one author to state "it is now believed" is WP:WEASEL wording. I would accept "Author James Reston hypothesizes..." But once again, for such a statement it would probably be better to have at least 2 reliable sources. WP:POV also pertains to external writers. I hope this isn't too unwieldy, and once again thank you for the discussion invitation.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and the edit I undid took out sources and was not an improvement to the article. In fact, it lessened the fact that the so-called 'blood libel' is a conspiracy theory. Also, your edit and the edit summary stated "removed citation of "official canonization" as there is no such thing as an "official canonization"; one either is or is not canonized.", which did not fit the true edit you made. Dave Dial (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Dave Dial - such weasel statements should be removed. Zezen (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Including short reference to more general use of the term

Blood libel has entered the common parlance as meaning any severe and damaging accusation, but a recent edit I made to include that context and the controversy surround the broader more metaphorical use was reverted. It was supplied with a BBC reference and was appropriate in length. I'd like to discuss reversing the revert. The term 'blood libel' has been used very publicly and noticeably to refer to general cases of damaging unfair accusations, and news articles have been published to this effect. I think two sentences is more than adequate to cover this use and to put it into context. - Primal Chaos (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Both Blood Libel and Pogrom have been occasionally diluted by wider coverage, but it remains WP:WEIGHT.--Galassi (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering the usage has hit major news over the last decade with several articles, I think two to three sentences are well within WP:WEIGHT's guidelines. WP:WEIGHT is specifically written to not provide 'equal time' to fringe theories, not to delete short references to other uses and references to a cultural term. I consider the gap to be a serious flaw in the article, especially since Jewish organizations have said it has become a part of the common parlance. - Primal Chaos (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
"Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder." http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318
" “While the term ‘blood-libel’ has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.” - ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/12/anti-defamation-league-overall-supportive-yet-disappointed-in-palins-use-of-blood-libel-term/
Article listing over 15 years of common usage: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think-jim-geraghty

Non-Jewish targets

I started to add other groups accused of eating children for ritual or medicinal purposes (plus some real-life cases).

I suggest we use this NPOV list for the purpose:

A few examples are: Date Group A (Accusers) Group B (Victims)

1st century BCE Greeks Jews in Palestine

2nd century CE Romans Christians

12th century and later Christians Followers of Judaism

13th Century Christians Cathars

14th century Christians Knights Templar

15th to 18th century Christians Witches and other heretics

19th century Protestants Roman Catholics

19th century and later Christians, Nazis, Communists Jews, viewed as a race; Roma (Gypsies)

1980's and later Fundamentalist Christians, feminists Wiccans, Druids & other Neopagans and nonexistent evil, Satanic cultists,

1994 Bulgarian Orthodox Church Protestant Evangelical missionaries

1980's & 1990's A small minority of Christians; mainly Fundamentalist Wiccans, Druids & other Neopagans

Today A minority of Muslims Jews

Some of these have already been cited in the article for years. What do you think? Zezen (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you haven't read the lead and its definition of what "blood libel" is:
Blood libel is an accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered the children of Christians to use their blood as part of their religious rituals during Jewish holidays.
It is not possible, therefore, for blood libels to be used against other groups. Accusations that groups other than Jews kill children are, by definition, not "blood libels" (i.e., accusations against Jews). 107.10.236.42 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not talk to numbers.

However, I expand the subject : apart from such cases let us change the lead definition as it looks POV to focus on such canards against Jews only. Zezen (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

And I don't usually talk to morons. But here we are.
No, you can't make up your own definition of "blood libel". Tough shit if you think it's POV that reliable sources define it as an accusation against Jews. As I wrote earlier, Wikipedia doesn't care what you think or feel. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:71B2:6F01:9EB8:B237 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Let us keep it civil please. Zezen, it's not POV to stick to the topic of the article. Mezigue (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mezigue -

1. Let us not feed the trolls, see the admin decision about this IP's edit of another article.

2. Ad rem: the scholarly sources that I had found and which were deleted by this IP define blood libel more broadly, see here, here and the ones in the now-removed section, which I requote here, if only to show you such references that I had found:

Other religions or nations have also been accused of using dead babies for ritual or medicinal purposes.

Phibionites

In 330-340 AD Alexandrian bishop Epiphanius claimed to have defected from a sect called the Phibionites, which were claimed to worship a snake, have sexual intercourse during religious ceremonies, and eat aborted fetuses - considered to be "the perfect mass". This account was used by the Christian Church to attack its enemies.[1]

French Protestants

During the French wars of religion, the Protestants, especially Calvinists,[2] were accused of child blood sacrificies.[3][4]

Russian Skoptsy

The Skoptsy sect was accused in the 19th century Russia of killing babies and using their hearts and blood for religious ceremony of communion.[5]

Caribbean cults

Voodooists, wizards, and obeah men were accused of ritual murder of white children in the second part of the 20th century.[6]

Evangelical Christians

Soviet atheist propaganda of the 1950s and early 1960s claimed it was evangelical Christians who were ritually killing young children.[7]

-> What do you think? Zezen (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Montanists

Finally the page has been semi-protected against IPs, so we can engage in civil and reasoned discussion. I have looked at this historical discussion of articles for deletion, and found an additional political blood libel target: Montanists, the term in the title of the book itself. Zezen (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bill Ellis. Aliens, Ghosts, and Cults: Legends We Live. University Press of Mississippi. p. 54.
  2. ^ Jackson, Mark (2002-01-01). Infanticide: Historical Perspectives on Child Murder and Concealment, 1550-2000. Ashgate. ISBN 9780754603184.
  3. ^ "Hatred in Print: Aspects of Anti-Protestant polemic in the French Wars of Religion". www.academia.edu. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  4. ^ Racaut, Luc (2002-01-01). Hatred in Print: Catholic Propaganda and Protestant Identity During the French Wars of Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 9780754602842.
  5. ^ "Фольклор и постфольклор: структура, типология, семиотика". www.ruthenia.ru. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  6. ^ Paton, Diana; Forde, Maarit (2012-04-13). Obeah and Other Powers: The Politics of Caribbean Religion and Healing. Duke University Press. p. 254. ISBN 0822351331.
  7. ^ Dobson, Miriam (2014-04-01). "Child Sacrifice in the Soviet Press: Sensationalism and the "Sectarian" in the Post-Stalin Era". The Russian Review. 73 (2): 237–259. doi:10.1111/russ.10728. ISSN 1467-9434.

I have compiled a longer list, with references, in my draft area. Please analyze it: from Satanists via Tibetan Buddhists to Communists have been accused of eating babies and such by their opponents. Zezen (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Blood libel comment

  • Comment - I don't understand why editors and even Cluebot are removing 'superstitious' from the quotation from Britannica. The source is here, and it states:

    Blood libel, also called blood accusation, the superstitious accusation that Jews ritually sacrificeChristian children at Passover to obtain blood for unleavened bread.....

    Dave Dial (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
There are 3 RS already, none of which mention superstition. 2. the accusation is MALICIOUS, and is often leveled without being superstitious.--Galassi (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
STOP vandalizing the article. The sentence is a quotation, from a single source, and you can't change it because you don't like it. Try it again and I will report you at WP:ANI. 66.87.114.118 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
But it's a direct quote from Britannica. I agree that the accusations are malicious and unfounded, and superstitions are also. I'm afraid you are going to have to discuss this on the Talk page, and we can decide if quoting Britannica is needed or not. But we cannot remove a portion of the quote to make it seem as if it's not there. That seems to go against policy. Dave Dial (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
There doesn't seen to be any consensus for unclusion. You are welcome to include a line like "Britannica calls the accusation "superstitious"[1]."--Galassi (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you even looked at the article you're edit-warring over?!? It says "The Encyclopaedia Britannica writes:" before the quote. Sheesh! 66.87.114.147 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. That's precisely why we don't need to have it twice.--Galassi (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Twice?!? WTF are you talking about? You keep removing a word from a sentence in <blockquote> that is preceded by the statement that it is from Britannica.
You've tried to justify your vandalism by saying the word isn't in other sources. And you say you've read the article. Are you drunk, or just stupid? 66.87.115.116 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPA.--Galassi (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Galassi, there are really only two choices available here: (a) remove the Britannica quotation completely, and rely on other means of supporting the article text, and (b) leave the Britannia quotation as-is. You can't edit the text of quotations to fit your preferences. -- The Anome (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem: keep it as is in the History section, but not in the lede.--Galassi (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just been WP:BOLD and removed it entirely. It's not usual for us to quote whole sentences from other encyclopedias, and it's a peculiar thing to do here. This hopefully resolves the issue. -- The Anome (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, that closes the matter. If a source is quoted, it's got to be quoted correctly.
@Galassi: Could you clarify what you mean when you say "in the lede"? You objected to the word "superstitious", but I can't see anything remotely like that in the article's introductory section. 66.87.115.251 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blood libel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Exclusiveness

The article Religion in Carthage speaks of blood libel against the Carthagians, and the term is used in relation to a large variety of ethnic groups as victims. Why does the lead sentence attempt to claim that it is only blood libel when used against Jews? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I have just found an article about Korean Chinese. Here it is not libel, actually, but a fact: South Korea seizes drugs made from dead babies. Is there a separate article with real-world cases thereof, concerning other nations than in the lead? Zezen (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This wiki article is about the history of blood libels against the Jewish people which occoured for over hundreds of years and in various empires/nations. The ongoing obsession with charging Jews with ritual murder accusations has given the term "blood libel" a particular connotation to those charges leveled at Jews.

While surely there are numerous instances of similar accusations against other groups, it is the persistance and consistency of the anti-Jewish blood libels that sets them apart. These are not individual instances, but a series of continued accusations going back at least 800 years. As an editor if you feel there are enough instances of ritual murder type accusations targeting other groups, you are free to create a new Wiki article dedicated to it. Eframgoldberg (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blood libel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blood libel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Unhelpful and Bad Faith Reversions

Why has there been a series of reversions to the edits made by 2604:2000:814B:B300:B53B:CAF6:6A26:9261 , reverted by registered users? The IP edit's seemed to be accurate and legitimate. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: User that created this section has since been blocked and appears to be a sock of the IP. Tdts5 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blood libel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Eucharist connection

Anthropologically speaking the origin of the eucharist itself and the belief in transubstantiation in some way ties into Solomonic apocryphal texts that talk about using literal blood in a proto-eucharist. See "cakes of light" in thelema and the apocryphal text "sefer haraziem". Efforts need to be made to in some way create a nuanced presentation that is fair to the Jewish people and not accusatory, but at the same time explores these connections which scholars in western esoteric philosophy think are self-evident. There is no mention of magic, magical texts, or Solomon on this page. That need to happen but it has to be presented in a way that it will not be misinterpreted or taken out of context. True context need to be given to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.185.169 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Jews accusing Jews" for drinking blood.

I found a series of articles in the French "anti-masonic" paper "La Bastille" (1913-14) with the title "Les Juifs Frankistes accusent et convainquent les Juifs Talmudistes de se servir rituallement de sang chretien". It starts from the Dec. 20, 1913 issue [14] (p. 4) and continues in issues Dec. 27, 2013, Jan 10 and 17, 2014, with the Talmudist's reply on Jan 31, 2014. If i got it right, the article is a transcript of a discussion between these two Jewish sects in 1759. "Frankists" was a Jewish sect formed by a Polish Jew in early 18th c. The artice cites some bibliography and claims to be a translation from a rare Polish or Russian book. If anybody is interested, can read those articles and inform us if the are of any encyclopaedic merit. At least I see some linguistically interesting points there.--Skylax30 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

See Frankists here in WP Zezen (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing link

I am missing a See Also link to faiths that really drank human blood during their practices.

Here is a sample Christian one from 1930s in Poland

https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muraszkowcy#

See the photos here: http://retropress.pl/tajny-detektyw/nowy-rasputin/

-》 What is an EN WP article about such real cases of ritual cannibalism?

E.g. List of incidents of cannibalism is not the one have on mind here . Zezen (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I was reading about this and noticed that nowhere in the article are there any sources or evidence saying that blood libel is a myth? For example in the article of "Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln", nowhere is there a source or any evidence that suggests that jews would have been falsely accused.

On the other hand we have a substansial mouantian of written and verbal sources, from different countries and time periods, who indipendentlly tells the same story, would not that talk in favor of blood libel actually having merit and is not a myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.66.72 (talk • contribs)

On the unlikely chance that you're not trolling, have you read all 111 references? Acroterion (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

He is, Acroterion, bordering on griefing. Do not feed the troll :). Zezen (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Is human flesh kosher?

The page states that "Furthermore, the consumption of human flesh would violate kashrut." I can find several sources saying that Rabbis actually disagree over whether or not human flesh is technically kosher, easy to find if you google "is human flesh kosher". The kashrut is just a set of dietary laws: It is important to note that the consumption of human flesh can be forbidden for other reasons than violating the kashrut. This is an important distinction because the significance and the possible ritual remedies for eating pork and eating human flesh might not be the same.

Futhermore, the article in makes multiple scriptual citations concerning animals with the implication that humans are also to be considered animals. This is completely incorrect. Scholars in all Abrahamic religions agree that the word used in scripture does not refer to humans but only to non-human animals, "beasts". Statements like "blood from sacrificed animals may only be placed on the altar of the Great Temple in Jerusalem" are irrelevant since humans are not considered animals in this context, and human sacrifice is explicitly forbidden either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.35.178.66 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any reliable sources on whether or human sources are kosher? Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Democritus

The Democritus who wrote Maxims was the 5th Century Pre-Socratic atomist philosopher. Only fragments survive. Josephus's Contra Apion makes no mention of Democritus. He's probably has nothing to do with it, and "Maxims" also has nothing to do with it; it is a false identification by inaccuracy of David Patterson who quote Joshua Trachtenberg's book, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Antisemitism, p. 126, who take as reference the work of Theodore Reinach: Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au judaïsme. The Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say:Similar in import is the following statement of a certain Democritus, which the Greek lexicographer Suidas (tenth century) has preserved: "Every seven years the Jews catch a stranger, whom they offer as a sacrifice, killing him by tearing his flesh into shreds" (0151τι κατὰ έπταετίαν ξένων άγρεόοντες προσέφερον καί κατὰ λεπτὰ τὰς σάρκας διέξαινον καί οὓτως ἀνῄρουν). Nothing further is known of Democritus. Perhaps he drew his information from Apion's book.--Gustavo Rubén (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC) My edition was reversed, however I want to specify: David Patterson's book is inaccurate also his source Trachtenberg. They attributed the quote to Democritus, the pre-Socratic philosopher of the 5th Century, and his lost book Maxims. This is incorrect. The quote is actually some later character also named Democritus, in a lost book called "On the Jews." We only know about this attribution because the 10th century Suda refers to it. The same story of human sacrifice appears in Josephus, Contra Apion, Book Two, but that book makes no reference to either of the Democrituses. Josephus is apparently quoting Apion, who may be quoting Democritus "the historian," but if so, it isn't cited by Apion or Josephus. So, no "blood libel" was known to exist to pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. The "blood libel" legend can be definitively traced only to the First Century CE via Apion and Josephus, who may be drawing on a slightly earlier Greek writer named Democritus. The Jewish Encyclopaedia points out: "In the polemic of Josephus against the Alexandrian grammarian Apion ... the latter is charged with having accused the Jews of annually fattening a Greek in the Temple, killing him, offering his body as a sacrifice, eating of his internal organs, and swearing an oath of enmity against all Greeks... Similar in import is the following statement of a certain Democritus, which the Greek lexicographer Suidas (tenth century) has preserved: "Every seven years the Jews catch a stranger, whom they offer as a sacrifice, killing him by tearing his flesh into shreds" (0151τι κατὰ έπταετίαν ξένων άγρεόοντες προσέφερον καί κατὰ λεπτὰ τὰς σάρκας διέξαινον καί οὓτως ἀνῄρουν). Nothing further is known of Democritus. Perhaps he drew his information from Apion's book."--Gustavo Rubén (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Gustavo Rubén raises a good point. Patterson describes Democritus as "the first anti-Semite to invoke a blood libel", but he is contradicted by Richard Gottheil, Hermann L. Strack, and Joseph Jacobs, who wrote that it was a different Democritus, whose work is lost and is only known because it was cited by tenth-century lexicographer Suidas. They suggest Democritus may have drawn on Apion. While we can't be expected to judge who Democritus was, we should at a minimum note that the sources disagree on this point. Unless somebody knows whether scholarship has resolved this question. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No scholar, as far as I know except Reinach, has dealt with the subject of which Democritus it is. However, the text in question does not appear in any of the works preserved by the philosopher of Abdera. Parterson quotes the book Maxims from Democritus, edited by Barnes, but in this book the text "every seven years ... etc." never appears. Paterson also gives as reference the book of Joshua Trachtenberg, "The Devil and the Jews" with the same unprovable source. On the other hand, the text quoted in the article does appear in Suda : τι κατὰ έπταετίαν ξένων άγρεόοντες προσέφερον καί κατὰ λεπτὰ τὰς σάρκας διέξαινον καί οὓτως ἀνῄρουν (Damocritus) (Damocrite in Reinach). It is evident that the Jewish Encyclopedia is right and Paterson is wrong.

I apologize for doing research, but both scholars did not do their homework.--Gustavo Rubén (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Good work! Shame on these scholars. Zezen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the proper form of this name is Damocritus (Damokritos, transliterated without Latinization). This is the form found in Suda. I am not sure where some of these people are getting Democritus; presumably through confusion with the philosopher (who is unrelated to this libel, as has been pointed out). It seems the misspelling in the Jewish Encyclopedia (look up Damocritus on Google Books if you want confirmation that that is indeed the correct spelling) is fueling the proliferation of this misspelling, given its easy online availability. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Eurocentric Views

The page itself with few exceptions, and especially the introduction treats the blood libels as a purely European phenomenon. While it may have started in Europe, there are certainly a plethora of cases that occurred in the Arab world. While the Damascus Affair is mentioned, I suggest the wording of the 1st paragraph is changed and a record of incedents of Blood Libel from the Arab world be added as a section. Eframgoldberg (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

for nearly 1000 years it was in europe it only entered the muslim world in the last couple hundred years and the damascus blood libel was partly incited by the french consul.עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


I noticed the History section says that "The earliest versions of the accusation involved Jews crucifying Christian children..." then under the first subheading we find accounts of allegations made before the Christian era, that paragraph needs to edited or deleted to line up with facts presented in the "Possible precursors" subheading. There is, in general, more focus on dismissing the allegations then presenting history to examine how this started and spread. This emphasis encourages modern-day proponents of blood libel to lean towards conspiracy theories, imagine if in 50 years time it was reported that allegations of clerical abuse were brushed aside as anti-Catholic propaganda, focusing on Europe allows us to point to Hitler and hinders historical rather then apologetic coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarnibog (talk • contribs) 07:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The above is hasbara propaganda and lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.111.55 (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What the blood libel is and is not.

The lead sentence defines the blood libel as a canard which "falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christian children (or other gentiles) in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals." I agree with this definition 100%. The problem is that the "in order to use their blood" aspect, a key part of the concept, is missing from many of the examples. In this article we should stick to the definition and not expand the article to examples which don't include the blood aspect, even though it is popular to do so. Zerotalk 06:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well history has certainly given strong warrant to the narrowing of blood libel to antisemitism, but as my edit to the lead noted, blood libels were characteristic of Roman accusations against Christians. One could write a whole section on that, which then was recycled against Jews after Christianity became the official ideology of that empire. Historically one could argue that it began as a canard against Christians.Nishidani (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Uncharacteristically, you missed the point. I didn't address the identity of perpetrator or victim. The question is whether accusing Jews of murdering a Christian child is an example a blood libel even if the accusation does not include a claim that the purpose was to use the blood of the child. Zerotalk 08:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. I rather focused on one single point, relatively ignored in the article's definition of blood libel as a specifically anti-Jewish "canard". It throve originally as an anti-Christian canard. Of course, I accept that the coat-racking here, which could end up by an encyclopedia-length roster of the Pavlovian rhetorical reflex of abusing the term stricto sensu to cover any accusation, in Israel's many wars, that notes the high incidence of child casualties, for example. Anyone who mentions this is characteristically accused of 'blood libel' ergo antisemitism. Such abusive metaphorical and displaced abuse of the term should not form any part of this article. By the way it is a tautology to define a canard as 'falsely accusing', in that by definition a canard is inherently false. Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AllieCamp11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MNaczek.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Against groups other than Jews

The Wikipedia article about the right-wing news outlet OpIndia mentions that they ran a series of articles falsely claiming Muslims sacrificed a young Hindu boy in order to consecrate a newly constructed mosque. This would seem to fit the classical definition of blood libel except that the targeted group is Muslims instead of Jews. Should it be mentioned in the article or at least the See Also section? 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:7267 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, in the first three centuries AD, the early Christians were often accused of cannibalism. Shouldn't this be mentioned at least briefly in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"Eating children" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eating children and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Eating children until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsure about this sentence

The article says " Some Jews committed suicide and many were forced to kill their own children rather than be subjected to forced conversions." I can't really see a better wording. The phrased "forced to kill" seems off, as what was forcing them? On the other hand, I don't want to give legitimacy to all the antisemitic conspiracy theories. Maybe "killed their own children rather than them be subjected to forced conversion"? Hm. Does anyone have the original source? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I read the relevant parts of Yuval's book and rewrote that paragraph. Zerotalk 04:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ etc
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blood_libel/Archive_4&oldid=1217365128"