Talk:Blood libel/Archive 1

message: An article this long does not look like an unfinished one, bit a biased one: I've tried to change a little the structure, moving the part about early christians to a section on his own etc.; maybe this can help stimulating additions on other aspects (if not, feel free to revert my changes). Maybe it can be useful to add some sort of "stub" disclaimer requesting help on the neglected parts. Valhalla 17:46, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I question the sentence "This story has been circulating since at least the 1st century" in the introduction.  It would be impossible for a story to have circulated that Jews killed Muslim children in the first century since Muslims did not exist until the 6th.  On this basis, the sentence should be changed to "Variants of this story has been circulating since at least the 1st century."
I also question, though, whether the story truly dates back to the 1st century.  Christians in the first century were generally being persecuted themselves.  Did the story in the first century actually specify Christian children, or Gentile children in general?  (i.e., was it a story circulated by Christians, or by Roman citizens, who at the time were generally not Christian?)  Is there a source to show how far back the story dates?
Jdavidb 21:11, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since 1st century? 

message: I cut the theory that the blood libel originates from the story of Abraham and Isaac because I can't find any sources making this connection. If one can be cited then I suppose it could go back in, along with the other theories of its origin. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  supposed possible origin 

message: There is a statement in the blood libel article regarding Jews which claims "there is obviously no ritual involving human blood in Jewish law or custom". This is factually incorrect. The Brit milah ritual of circumcision involves the letting of blood by a mohel during circumcision - in fact, the ritual is not complete unless blood is actually drawn. Recently, a newborn baby boy in Seattle died after a mohel infected with herpes sucked the blood from the infant's circumcised penis. Two others babies were infected by the same rabbi as a result of the ritual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.178.2 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 December 2005
:Yes, that is true. And the statement does need to be changed. But the vast majority of mohels DO NOT circumcise by mouth, so that particular case is a poor example. Asarelah 02:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mohel 

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: I think it's stretching things to say that there is little evidence that the primary Mesoamerican cultures practiced human sacrifice.  Certainly the Spanish accounts are biased and could perhaps be dismissed one by one, but there is considerable and overwhelming archaeological evidence that human sacrifice was practiced by the Maya, Aztecs, and in Teotihuacan.  The level of that sacrifice is often hotly debated, but there is little doubt amongst researchers that sacrifice was a part of those cultures. 
Certainly the twice-referenced James Q. Jacob article makes valid points about cultural perspectives and taking things for granted, and attacks Spanish accounts, but does not really call into question the fact that human sacrifice was practiced in Aztec culture, as this article stated.  Instead, he talks about a cannibalism paradigm. 
Still, although there is less assurance that cannibalism existed, a scholar such as Michael D. Coe has said that while "it is incontrovertible that some of these [Aztec sacrifical] victims ended up by being eaten ritually, . . . the practice was more like a form of communion than a cannibal feast." [Coe, Mexico, from the Olmecs to the Aztecs,, p. 177.]
So, let's be careful out there and look at the evidence dispassionately.  Madman 01:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I ran across this news story that gives a good overview of archaeological findings supporting human sacrifice in Aztec culture.  Madman 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, the section is pure original research. Human sacrifice was an integral part of the American civilizations, and there is a wealth of archeological and other evidence for that. Beit Or 22:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nora, you'd need reliable sources for your section, and it's not clear what kind of source www.jqjacobs.net is. It looks like a personal website, which isn't allowed. See WP:V and WP:NOR. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesoamerican human sacrifice 

message: Here is the latest on the explosive controversy over the new Italian-language book, "Pasque di Sangue" (Blood of Easter) by Israeli historian Ariel Toaff. His book upholds centuries-old reports of the ritual murder of Christian children by Judaic extremists. The Establishment media in America are trying to keep a lid on this one. Readers in Italy are urged to obtain a copy of the book immediately. We welcome review submissions from readers of Italian.
Bar-Ilan prof. defiant on blood libel book 'even if crucified'
By Ofri Ilani, Haaretz (Israeli newspaper) Feb. 12, 2007
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.  71.132.205.224 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaic Ritual Murder: Israeli author defends new book

message: "Jews have been, by far, the most frequent target of Blood Libels in history" - if this does not get a citation (preferrably an attribution) in 48 hours I will be removing it and changing the tone of the article that supports this statement.
Jewish blood libels are over-represented in the historical record because other likely target groups, particularly "witches" (crone-like positions of mystical/shamanistic power) and gypsies (European nomadic showcase societies), just weren't organised or able to keep a solid record. Jews have also been around longer and spread globally earlier than other groups that hae been targets of blood libels.
This article also has very little information on blood libels used in South American, Eastern Asian, Pacific Island, and Indo-asian societies. (I've tagged globalize).--ZayZayEM 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  In fact, this article has a rather odd emphasis and format and needs a major rewrite.  IMO it should be based upon something like the Witch Hunt article where the process itself is described rather than focusing on the broad cultural groups who have at one point or another been victimized. Geeman 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've switched to a fotmulation that it is the most extensively researched case. Something about moxt extensive historical record would be fine, too. --Pjacobi 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely sounds more accurate now.--ZayZayEM 01:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of unattributed statements that Jews are "most frequent targets"

message: According to the lead blood libels include allegations that persons are involved in blood ritual:
Why is it innappropriate to point out that certain Jewish rituals do involve blood?
Re: This edit , reverted with editing by me  and then re-reverted by Jhk14 --ZayZayEM 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews and Blood ritual 

message: For the Berlusconi, World Net Daily and Al-Qaeda, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of actual 'libel'.  All the 'sources' simply state claims about human sacrifice but the section should be about claims that have been shown to be false and criticism about it. For example, I think there were similar claim about Iraqis baking children during the first Gulf War that were widely discredited. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlusconi, World Net Daily and Al-Qaeda claims 

message: I just removed this paragraph, which led the article under the section heading above:
:When the Christianization of Greece occurred, there was an attempt to portray all sacrifices as blood sacrifices, but contrary to ancient Christian propaganda, sacrifices to the Greek gods were typically in the forms of wealth. Human blood sacrifices were illegal in Greek cities. Early Christians spread propaganda about the children of Christians being abducted and having their throats slit in various temples. Such propaganda bore similarity to blood libel accusations against Jews. Blood sacrifices by other peoples were seen by the Greek people as barbarous, and laws against them were believed to be part of what separated the Greeks from those they considered barbarians, even after Romanization occurred.
This entire paragraph lacks sources, and it makes some pretty strong claims, so I think it's best to remove it until someone provides sources for the claims. Also, I'm uncomfortable with the wording "Ancient Greek religion"; after all, the first sentence makes it sound like the writer was actually (and much more reasonably) talking about merely historical Greek religion, say around A.D. 300 or 400, or maybe even later, I dunno. Anyway, ancient Greek religions certainly did involve blood sacrifices* (as did ancient everyone-else's religions), and almost certainly some of those were human blood sacrifices.
Robert Graves would have us believe that pretty much any time a Greek mythological character sneezes, it indicates a prehistoric sacred king being put to death in some horrible way. I don't buy all of Graves' fantasy, but it seems ridiculously reactionary to claim that all ancient Greek sacrifices were merely of "wealth" (whatever that means — do coins burn?) and not of animals or people. If the writer merely means that all traditions of human sacrifice in Greece had died out by the time of Christ, he ought to write that. (And cite a source.) --Quuxplusone 05:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You had me until you mentioned Robert Graves. It seems you are removing unsourced material on the basis of your own unsourced disbelief in Robert Graves' ideas. But as it is unsourced, it probably should stay deleted.--ZayZayEM 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against followers of Ancient Greek religion 

message: I've only heard the term blood libel used in reference to Jews, I think much of this material could fit into the broader article on human sacrifice which can link to specific articles that reference cases of human sacrifice allegation bound to a certain target like blood libel or Satantic ritual abuse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have, but only used to liken accusations to the blood libel against Jews. Your suggestion seems resonance to me. Steinberger (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: From the Israeli Haaretz article, 2/23/08:
 Historian recants theory that Jews killed Christian child in ritual murder
[Bar-Ilan University Professor Ariel Toaff] over the weekend published an edited version of his book on the killing of a Christian child in the Italian city of Trento in 1475, denying that the Jews implicated in the murder were in any way involved. 
Also see Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Pasque di Sangue: Ariel Toaff and the Legend of Ritual Murder for a good analysis of the (first edition) of the book.
--Shlishke (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  historian who agree that there was Trento 1475 ritual [is his book cited?] changes mind 

message: I will x-post my comment above to blood libel against jews  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shlishke (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  x-posting comment 

message: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RWF2nLs0M_g&
My apologies for the intro, the real material is the Oprah interview which seems to confirm that the sacrifice of babies by Jews is real, if overstated. This was deleted, but I hope the link can remain on this talk page for the sake of argument.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.170.209 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link not allowed, you be the judge

message: Italian and Russian police, working together, broke up a ring of Jewish gangsters who had been involved in the manufacture of child rape and snuff pornography. Three Russian Jews and eight Italian Jews were arrested after police discovered they had been kidnapping non-Jewish children between the ages of two and five years from Russian orphanages, raping the 
children, and then murdering them on film.  ADM (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No reference and that is a hate site. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just citing it as a modern example of blood libel, without any extra qualifications. Also, the site  is merely a series of mailing lists and archived material. ADM (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see. Well, we couldn't use it as an example without a 3rd party recognizing it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish gangsters in Russia

message: Would you folks consider the accusations that Canada and the UK's health systems have "death panels" deciding to euthanize people based on age or cost of treatment to be blood libel?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.37.66 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health care debate

message: You can not just revert other people contribution without discussion.
You have to reason and justify your actions here. Please read all relevant info regarding Wikipedia conduct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely think this is appropriate for the article, but I'm concerned about undue weight/recentism.  There's an article on the controversy, and a link to that article somewhere would be useful, but we can't go into too much detail here.  I also think it's important to make it clear that the article did not make accusations, it reported them.  It sounds like a niggling distinction, I know, but the writer didn't say 'this is happening', he said 'people say this is happening.'  I still think he acted irresponsibly, but important to be clear. -- Vary  (Talk) 01:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I also think it is appropriate to mention the Aftonbladet article, but not in such detail - especially as the controversy has its own article. As Vary I am concerned about undue weight. Moreover, the responses to it mentioned seems picked to convey Israels view on the issue, rising POV concerns. Steinberger (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Vary and Steinberger. There are two problems here. One is the recentism of the Aftonbladet controvery, seen in a wider context it is rather insignificant. I still think it should be mentioned, but while reactions to the controversy have criticised Aftonbladet for publishing a poorly researched and highly speculative story and have criticised Liberman for overreacting for political purposes and not understanding the freedom of the press, the sources here only give one, very one-sided, view of the controversy. For both of these reasons, the section should be shortened quite a bit.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad we have some agreement.  Since my changes have been reverted, perhaps someone else would like to take a whack at it?  -- Vary  (Talk) 22:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I have now rewritten and shorten the bit on Aftonbladet. Steinberger (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftonbladet article 

message: I came to this page to learn the history/etymology of the term "blood libel" but this page has nothing, or at least nothing clear; instead it is a history of things that are being labelled blood libels, things which for example took place in countries that don't speak English so they would not have been termed blood libels at the time. FYI dictionary.com and m-w.com do not contain entries for "blood libel", and searching the internet for the term along with words like etymology also yields nothing. Does anybody know the history of the term? 68.175.101.2 (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate the term "blood libel" from the things that it would describe 

message: Greetings, I belive that Wikipedia should be a bastion of freedom of speech and that it should not shred from controversy.
According to the article "Discrimination" on wikipedia the word "discrimination" is defined by the United Nations as "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."
By its very form an accusation, no matter how dire it is cannot in itself result in discrimination. It is the action of humans that results in discrimination. Laws or actions that prohibit others from doing something. So in such accusing a jew, a christian or a muslim or anyone ellse of blood libel is not discrimination and cannot be discrimination as little as accusing a jew of being "greedy", a christian of being "imperialst" or a muslim of "enslaving women". These are if anything prejudice and prejudice is not discrimination. 
Further more no libel (and libel is synonymous with accusation) can ever be false just by being a libel. 
Thusly the edits made by Galassi removing my edits that in themselves removed the biased opinion that Blood Libel is by definition false and that it is discrimination do not make sense. At the very most one could write "that most scholars belive in most cases are false" or something like this, and source this very well. 
I hope that Galassi within 2 weeks can provide an official english dictionary definition of discrimination that defines it as "accusation" or "libel" or else I will revert to my edits again and if that displeases Galassi we will take it to higher levels. 79.102.241.153 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to check any English dictionary you like, wherein you will find that the definition of a libel is a written or published accusation that is both false and defamatory. So far as the presence of the discrimination sidebar is concerned, first, the presence of the sidebar does not explicitly mean that blood libel=discrimination, only that blood libel is relevant to the broad topic of discrimination, which it self-evidently is. Second, you are explicitly wrong when you say that blood libel is not discrimination. Any time I treat someone in a different way then I do someone else because of his membership in a disliked group, I am engaging in discrimination. This plainly includes blood libels. This issue has already been litigated ad nauseum both here and at Blood libel against the Jews. You're perfectly welcome to continue to pursue it, but if you do, you're going to lose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it up to Wikipedia to decide what is fale and what is not? If you define libel as a misleading or false accusation then it has no place in Wikipedia more than in its dictionary section. If you belive still that blood libel should be allowed, then "holocaust libel" should be allowed aswell. This considering that a large amount of people in the Arab states, Russia and even Europe belive that the holocaust is either false or a complete lie and used by jews and/or others to attack national socialists and get money.  Ofcourse, me and you (hopefully) know that this is all bollox, but who is to define what is discrimination and not if a mere accusation can be considered discrimination. Looking forward for your reply, hopefully it won't end in a childish "you lose, I win" remark again.79.102.235.205 (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article on Holocaust denial.  Is that the kind of thing you were thinking of by "holocaust 'libel'"? Geeman (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Reading Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a "libel" does not have to be false. Steinberger (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, the Blood Libel invariably is.-Galassi (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then find a WP:RS that say so. That is, not only that certain accounts of blood libels where unfounded, but that all are. Steinberger (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And which BLs were founded, please? -Galassi (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How should I know? And don't you try to shift the burden of proof. Steinberger (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are mistaken. The burden is on YOU. You made a claim that some libels are supposedly founded in truth, without supporting documentation, and contrary to the current dictionary definitions. You may be stretching the definition of Good-Faith too far as well.Galassi (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I am not mistaken. You have the burden, as you insists on including "false" in the definition of blood libel. Steinberger (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Libel is not in itself discrimination and cannot be by definition inaccurate