Talk:Blood libel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Links regarding blood libels in Arab countries

This is a repository for web-links and references regarding blood libel in Arab countries. Some people, on first reading about this topic, are shocked that such libels exist, to the point of questioning the veracity of wikipedia. We provide these links as a service for such readers.

1. 19 April, 1999, ‘Al-Wattan’, Shuki Hafez, ‘The Commandment of Blood’, in Oman [1] [2]
2. TV skit, Abu Dhabi Television, against Ariel Sharon, November 19, 2001?, United Arab Emirates? [3] [4]
3. Ar-Riyadh, Saudi government daily, "The Jewish Holiday of Purim", Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma, March 10 and March 12, 2002 [5] [6]
4. Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass's book "The Matzah of Zion" [7] [8]
5. Qatari news channel, Al-Jazeera, Sheikh Colonel Nader Al-Tamimi, November 6, 2000?, "suck the blood of Arabs" [9]
6. Egypt, Al-Ahram, August 1, 2000?, "A Jewish Matzah made from Arab Blood." [10] [11]
7. Egyptian Al-Akhbar, April 2, 2001?, "The Last Scene in the Life of Father Toma!! - A Tele-drama for the Arab Summit in Amman!", [12]
8. Saudi Arabia, Al-Jazirah, Muhammad bin S'ad Al-Shwey'ir, September 6, 2002 Jews Use Human Blood for Rituals, etc [13]

---

Anti-Defamation League condemns Egyptian blood libel.

"The Dossier of the Jews in Modern Egypt" - quotes an author saying that Arab reports of blood libels against Jews are literally true. (Source: al-Sha' b, 1 Dec 1998).

Metaphorical(?)blood libel - [14]"

Google Search on Shuki Hafez's article for Al-Watan

Blood Libel in the Egptian Media - Feb 2001-2

Suggestions for focusing this article

I think it (materials that are not directly blood libels) should go out and the rest of the materials about blood libels in the Arab world should be pruned considerably. Here's why, in point form:

1. Blood libel is an ancient myth that was used against many different minorities, including Jews, but also Christians of various types (transsubstatiation aside). A long time ago, I personally did some research on blood libels against the Bogomils of Bosnia. They occassionally pop up in the United States today against people suspected of satanism. This is mentioned in the article, but hardly expanded sufficiently.
2. The first recorded blood libel was recorded by Josephus in Against Apion (Book II), where he apparently quotes Apion describing a supposed account by someone who escaped the Temple, where he said he was being fattened up for sacrifice and a cannibalistic feast. (Interestingly enough, fifteen years ago I actually heard Apion's claim repeated as fact on a tour of the Temple Mount, but my story is entirely anecdotal.)
3. As such, blood libel has a recorded history extending about 2,000 years back. That's a long time. It deserves some coverage.
4. Certain events, while linked with blood libel, are not blood libel per se. For instance, during the Black Death (1347-1350) in Europe, Jews were blamed for poisoning wells, thereby causing the plague. They were first blamed in Spain, but the rumors and stories spread north and reached as far as Poland, resulting in riots, pogroms, mass suicides, etc. The mobs were a frenzied lot. Jews were often tried before the plague hit the town, but even efforts by Pope Clement IV (twice) and HRE Charles IV on behalf of the Jews could not stop the killing. Still, these were not blood libels. Hugh of Lincoln was.
5. Similarly, some of the events listed were not blood libels, while others were.
6. Some of the most important blood libels of the 19th and early 20th century should certainly be mentioned. These include the Damascus libel of 1840 (Cremieux was involved in that) and the Beilis case (the basis for The Fixer) in 1903, and even the Polish, Greek, and Yugoslav cases in the late 1920s. (I'm skipping Kielce for obvious reasons--I avoided Himmler and the Stuermer too.).
7. I may have skipped a lot of centuries, but there were important cases of blood libel in each of them, and I am not even touching on the non-Jewish instances of blood libel, which, unfortunately, I am not as familiar with (and I don't have any sources handy for the Bogomils).
8. As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to count the victims of violent actions taken in response to blood libel charges. I think I am being conservative saying that they exceed a million.
9. Yes, charges of blood libel still exist. Yes, they are most common in the anti-Israel media. Still, I do not believe their impact is as lasting and as significant as the earlier blood libels.
10. (For those with some Jewish background--ever wonder why European Ashkenazic Jews held sefira more strictly as a time of mourning than did Sephardic Jews? Note that sefira starts on Passover, i.e., matza week.)
11. On the other hand, when perusing the article on Saturday, I saw that it had about 1,350 words, of which 928 were on Arab and Muslim blood libels, and another 200 (exactly) were on blood libels against Jews in general. This in no way is an accurate reflection of the historical phenomenon. Why is the contemporary section padded with material that is not strictly blood libel. As for the list of real potential blood libel charges ...
12. I don't see the need for a list of contemporary blood libels by a particular group in a particular period. Personally, I think it is biased, but that's just me. For history to be accurate, things also have to be placed in proportion. No one would think of writing an American history with the entire focus on Nixon.

Just some thoughts. Danny 21:58 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Danny, these are all valid points. There should indeed be much more written on blood libels in other time periods, by other groups. I understand your concerns about bias; fair call! I do wish to mention the reasons that this section (blood libel in today's Arab world) had so many examples listed. (A) It is still happening, as we speak. Its modern history. (B) There have been many comments on various Wikipedia "Talk" entries by people who can't, or won't, accept that some Arabs have such views. In the past, on various Wikipedia talk entries, reports of anti-Semitims have been accused of being "Zionist lies". No matter how well-known any given phenomenon was, there were just too many people who refuse to believee that it existed. Thus, all this material was put here not to attack Arabs as a whole, but rather to refute those people who deny that such anti-Semitic atttiudes and polemics exist. Personally, I think this article should be expanded. We don't need to cut any one section so much as improve the others, for both NPOV balance, and to simply offer more perspective. RK —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 3 February 2003.

And that's where we disagree. I don't think of Wikipedia as a place to refute anything. When dealing with history here, we should just be reporting the past (or the present) as coldly and as removed as possible. Danny 00:41 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Danny, you are responding to points that I am not making, and to a position that I do not hold. You have totally misread what I wrote. Again, I agree with you that we should just present history. The problem is that some people deny the existence of certain historical facts. I was giving readers specific references to the existence of such facts. In the past, some people came blazing into Wikipedia Talk pages, and brazenly lied, saying things like "Nonsense, no Arabs are anti-Semites. No Arabs would ever say such bad things about the Jews." When the existence of facts is contested, it is a standard Wikipedia response for someone to provide proof and sources. If not, someone can come here and say "Nonsense, Christians in medieval Europe never committed a blood libel", and then delete the article." Obviously, we can't have this. Such events did occur, and if more than person questions the existence of historical facts, it is a standard Wikipedia operating procedure to bring forth proof that said historical events did indeed exist. RK —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 3 February 2003.

I think Rk's point is valid. Its to counteract a negative sterotyping of Israelis as being accusers of slander. Now all he needs to do is see how he and other Israelis are guilty of hypocrisy, when they dont equally contribute to exposing the propaganda machine to which they have been acclimated.

I think Rk's course of action, despite his valid point, is invalid. Danny, as usual makes concise, clear, unbiased, and highly informed points that Rk feels compelled to dismiss with the wave of a hand. One wonders if he actually reads anything that he responds to.

Libel is perhaps the wrong word, though it may be in common use. Once again, it seems RK has taken it upon himself to politicise a topic to the nth degree, all the while claiming its NPOV. Quote:

"The problem is that some people deny the existence of certain historical facts". This isnt the problem, at all. the problem is RK's attempts to include, in a legitimate article, an agenda, which he clearly states is the refuting of what other people think and say'.

He never stops to question the validity of what he reads, nor consider the human factors; all societies propaganda, and the level of intelligence it contains, is directly proportional to the level of discourse that its Dictatorship permits it. We can excuse some, if not most of the racist, militarist, fundamentalist rhetoric (including flat out lies) to some degree. We understand that people who are kept in the dark cant be criticized for burning their fingers (and cursing!) while they light their candles...

RK's expertise in the mind, culture, beliefs and political tactics of all Arabs no doubt surpasses what anyone else knows, and perhaps, what Arabs know of themselves. Perhaps this comes from his awakening understanding of human nature as universally equivalent, and his knowledge of the other only reflects his knowlege of self. But hope digresses me... why respect any opinion other than RK's, seeing as he has the direct connection to the truth itself. -Stevert—Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 3 February 2003.

Hi Danny, RK.

I removed some material regarding libels that (imo) weren't blood libels, and RK responded, saying that he felt it should stay, because (rephrasing):

1. They can be viewed as an evolution of blood libels

2. Other people use the term in that manner.

Both are good points, but I'm not convinced. For (1) I'd be happy to include a para pointing out some of the evolution, and providing links, but I think details of individual cases should be seperate. Regarding (2), it seems that "blood libel" is sometimes used as a propaganda term for general anti-Semitism. That's fair enough, and that fact should be in the intro (perhaps as a disambig block), but I think this article will be better and more encyclopedic if it focuses on the more clearly defined meaning of the term. To draw a parallel, the anti-Semitism article focuses on the standard meaning of Jew hatred, rather than spending vast quantities of time talking about hatred of other "Semitic" people. Martin—Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 3 February 2003.

In response to Danny, I agree on two points - and it looks like RK does too.

• Arab blood libel should be put into the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict and black propaganda.
• More content should be added dealing with historical blood libel and modern blood libel not directed against Jews.

Should material should be removed from the content regarding anti-Semitic blood libel? I think there is an argument for sticking to three or four of the strongest and clearest historical examples, but that can evolve later, once we know what examples are clearest and strongest. Martin—Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 3 February 2003.

What I wonder about in the definition of "Blood Libel" that includes Scientologists. I have never heard anything about Scientologists killing children and consuming their blood--the real definition of "Blood Libel." Anything that expands the definition beyond that cheapens the term, IMO.

Call me a purist, but I think that we should focus on the real meaning of "Blood Libel" rather than making it a catch-all term for anything critical of a religion regardless of whether it is true or not. "Libel" implies "lies that denigrate a person or group of people." Catagorizing defectors of Scientology "Blood Libelists" by including that particular organization as victims takes away from the historical forces of hatred and fear that encompass the reality of the "blood libel" that caters to those ignorant of other cultures and faiths.

If my perception is mistaken, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulturvultur (talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 August 2005

Some blood libels do exist in the Arab world today

Although none of the links that RK provided (now archived) were to neutral sources that we can all respect, and although the majority of the examples he cited were not examples of "blood libel" at all, I nevertheless concede that the racist anti-Jewish blood libel would appear to be alive and well in at least some parts of the Arab media.

I therefore humbly apologise to RK, and to anybody else who was offended by my previous forthright dismissal of RK's assertions. Sorry.

RK, may I offer you some advice, (advice that I really I ought to try to follow myself): Try to guard against over-stating your case. It just makes people automatically disbelieve everything you say. Remember the story of the boy who cried "wolf!".GrahamN 02:48 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

And not a single person here "cried wolf". These blood libels against the Jews are well documented. RK —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 9 May 2005 .

So far, I think the articles by Osam Al-Baz and the book by Mustafa Tlass are the best evidence for anti-Jewish blood libel in some parts of the Arab media. In both of these we get confirmation from moderate Arab sources, which is key. They also give some indication of scale - in the first, a response might not have been made unless there were a number of incidents, in the second we know the number of reprints. I think we should have those two, one other convincing incident, and delete the rest. As I said above, I think it's best to focus on the strongest and most compelling evidence. Martin—Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 10 February 2003.

I disagree on removing all but these examples. Many encyclopedia discuss multiple examples of a given phenomenon. Wikipedia is not paper, and thus we have no need to worry about space restrictions. For a separate reason, I think we should keep many examples here: otherwise we will end up a year from now with new people who deny that most of these events exist. Thirdly, look at the article on Persecution of Christians. This gives many different examples, and I think it adds to the context to show how common this sort of persecution is. This also allows us to see how this kind of persecution (anti-Jewish or anti-Christian) varies from nation to nation, from decade to decade. It even opens up an analysis of how historical events cause changes in these types of phenomenon. 165.155.160.122—Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 10 February 2003.

Syrian blood libels

"Syrian state-owned media have promulgated the same libel -- among other unlikely accusations, such as that "Zionists" spread aphrodisiac-laced chewing gum among Arab students. [15]"

The linked article talks about stuff that's not blood libel, and the UN response that's already covered. It also quotes an example of "blood libel" that is quite clearly alegorical rather than literal.

"This Matzah is kneaded by American weaponry and the weaponry and the missiles of hatred pointed at both Muslim and Christian Arabs."

Are we to suppose that the author literally meant to say that people were making unleavened bread with M-16s? No. It's figurative - in the same way that an Israeli politician might say that Arafat's hands are "soaked in blood". Hence, it's not a blood libel - it's opposition to slaughter. Real accusations of real blood libel really happen - let's not muddy the field by including figures of speech. Martin—Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 11 February 2003.

maybe you could just put a link to another page which has all of your examples and cases, and as martin says, keep only the strongest and least bias on the main page. that way anyone who wants to be pedantic or get a more in-depth look at blood libel, can view this but everyone else can read the page easily and not get bogged down by hundreds of boring case studies. just a thought. i'll let you guys get back to washing the decks with testosterone hehe :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.181.65 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 September 2009

We should focus on the historical context,not just the present

Once again, it seems to me that the problem with this article is that it spends more time on the contemporary (though admittedly somewhat obscure) manifestations of the anti-Semitic blood libel tale in the Arab world than it does on the better known instances of blood libel, from the middle ages right down to Kielce in 1946. Where are Hugh of Lincoln or Simon of Trent in all this? Why is there no mention of the related myth of "desecration of the Host"? Yes, I know this is not paper and it is a work in progress, but the overly excessive emphasis on one aspect of blood libel mythology and related stories while the historically important cases are ignored is what I would call a lie of omission. How many people were massacred as a direct result of Arab blood libels? (None) How many people were killed as a result of medieval and early modern blood libels? (possibly several million). I will try to remedy this a little, but a lot of the examples should go. Danny 17:36 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Glad to see you still agree with me. It's made worse because some of the incidents discussed are so obscure it's difficult/impossible to work out the truth. Many of them are only reported in sites that are opposing anti-Semitism, and I don't trust those sites not to exaggerate or over-emphasise the truth. In the same way I wouldn't go to the commission for racial equality for an unbiased view of the extent of sexism. Martin—Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 11 February 2003.

No problems, Martin. I just want the article to be representative of what a blood libel really is. See what I did with Simon of Trent. That's a blood libel. I will start work on Hugh of Lincoln next. Danny—Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 11 February 2003.

People still seem to be confused about one point: This article is not finished. No one is lying via omission about Arabs (i.e. trying to make them look evil) or about Christians (i.e. trying to whitewash European history). The only problem is that the article is being written as we speak. Please try and understand this. Of course it does not have the sections you are asking about. We, together, are still writing this article. As I have asked others before, if you think something important is missing, please jump in and help. Please add more information to the article. Please help out in any way. But NPOV and historical context are not gained by stripping away newly created entries until they are "even". The solution is to continue working on the article to improve it. I mean, isn't the point to create articles, and not to delete them ? Wiping out text doesn't help. RK—Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 11 February 2003.

Last night I thought of a key fact - no individual Jew has been accused of a blood libel since the Damascus incident in 1840 - things like Mustafa's book are referring back to that book and talking in generalities - and Danny's right to say that these are different things.

RK - are you ok with the removal of the syrian link+text (above)? Martin—Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 12 February 2003 .

"The Dossier of the Jews in Modern Egypt" is a book review in an Egyptian newspaper, on a book by 'Arfa 'Abduh. The review quotes 'Abduh as saying that all Egyptians must be made aware of the "fact" that Jews are "bloodthirsty killers,"; that Jews murder gentiles as part of Jewish ceremony, and that in no way should Arabs believe that blood libels are "a figment of imagination"; rather, Arab reports of blood libels against Jews are literally true. (Source: al-Sha' b, 1 Dec 1998).

Again, this I'm removing - the review is quoting Arfa, and reporting on blood libel is not the same as blood libel, or wikipedia would be guilty, as would news organisations like the BBC. If someone can provide information on the book itself, then that might be stronger evidence.

Question: does anyone know the name of the Syrian delegate who allegedly cites Tlass's book? It would be interesting to track his subsequent career... Martin—Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 12 February 2003 .

Sorry Martin. Your point above is not true. There was a blood libel in Austria in the 1860s, quite a few in czarist Russia, into the twentieth century, including Kishinev in 1903 and the famous Mendel Beilis case of 1911, which was the basis of Malamud's book, The Fixer. There were blood libels in Greece, Poland, and Yugoslavia in the 1920s, and in 1946, 42 Jews were killed by a mob, in Kielce Poland after a blood libel. There have been other cases since then, however these would probably meet your definition of anti-Semitism (which, by the way, I also disagree with--prejudice can be anti-Semitic). Danny 12:29 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Danny. I'm surprised, in a sense - I would have expected any more recent blood libels to be covered by the kind of articles that RK provided links to - but such articles appear to ignore them completely. Teach me to treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence...

I agree that prejudice can be anti-Semitic, but personally I would only call prejudice anti-Semitic if it was extreme prejudice. In milder cases I would prefer to be clearer and more specific by using a phrase like "anti-Jewish prejudice". Martin—Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 12 February 2003.

References

In response to 165.155.160.122 above - and to try and prevent references getting drowned in backlog, see Talk:Blood libel/references, where I've kept them. Hopefully this will prevent future people falling into the same trap that I and GrahamN fell into, or at least make the resolution a lot speedier. Martin—Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 12 February 2003.

ADL reports about Arab blood libels

I've used a "repeated instances" quote, although technically the ADL is refering to anti-Semitism in general, rather than blood libel in particular. I'd like to improve on this. While the ADL is very enthusiastic about condemning individual acts, it doesn't seem to give any indication of its prevalence. It is more common to see it commenting on the incidence of anti-Semitism in general, but that doesn't help us. I note from [16] that the ADL has highlighted a single instance of Egyptian blood libel in the period Feb 2001-2002. Does that tell us anything? Martin—Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 12 February 2003.

Bias

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)

Accusations in 1911

Martin - you write:

"Last night I thought of a key fact - no individual Jew has been accused of a blood libel since the Damascus incident in 1840 - things like Mustafa's book are referring back to that book and talking in generalities - and Danny's right to say that these are different things."

There was at least one accusation since 1840 - I am referring to the Mendel Beilis case in Kiev in 1911. [17] has some more info on this. Michael —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 18 December 2003.

Major copyediting completed

I've just finished combing the worst knots out of this article. I think it still needs quite a bit of work, though. Some areas I think still need attention are

1. balance
2. fact-checking
3. references.

1. While I have no reason to doubt that Jews have far and away been the most common target of blood-libel, the beginning of the article mentions a large number of other groups who've been targets. The coverage of instances against Jews is great; now we need more on others.

2. While I was editing section 3.2.11 (Syria, 1840), I found Father Thomas described elsewhere both as a Capuchin monk and as the superior of a Franciscan convent in Damascus. I couldn't find anything on him on the Vatican website, so I removed the reference to his order and went with the safe "Catholic." This is only one small piece of the article. Facts need to be checked.

3. It seems to me this is already a pretty major article, and it's going to get bigger. I think it's very important that anyone adding to it include references, particularly in light of the fact problem.

Thalia/Karen 22:07, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Since 1st century?

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)

Fetal tissue

OK, I removed two unnecessary links from the 'fetal tissue' section. One was to an anti-vivisection article and another to a religious anti-abortion article from the 1980s. These links are unnecessarily incendiary for the subject matter, and they're also incorrect. They both allege that the cosmetic industry gathers collagen from aborted fetuses and uses it in products. If someone wants to back that up go for it, but I've never heard of this. All the reputable cosmetic companies use animal collagen. Rhobite 17:41, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've heard that fetus or placenta tissue may be used as an ingredient in traditional Chinese medicine. If so, scientific experiments are not the only use of such material, as stated in the main article. However, I do not know whether my source is reliable. Comments? --Niels Ø 20:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I actually *have* heard both the anti-aging cosmetics and chinese herbal medicine libels regarding fetal collagen - but I cannot identify sources, was orally communicated urban myth. - a wikipedia reader replying Sept 9, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.132.83 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 September 2005

Elijah's cup

I've removed this text:

One lasting effect of the ritual murder charges in contemporary Jewish ritual occurs during the Passover seder, or evening meal, when a large goblet of wine is placed in the center of the table and the door is opened so that any onlookers can enter to see that no blood is added. Over the years, this cup became known as "Elijah's cup."

Where on earth does this theory come from? In Judaism Elijah's cup is placed on the table because of a dispute about whether the Torah uses four terms of redemption or five in describing the Exodus of the Jews from Egpyt, and in consequence whether four cups of wine or five should be drunk at the seder. The cup is called Elijah's cup because all legal disputes are supposed to be settled with the return of Elijah, heralding the Messiah. Jayjg 21:40, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This text is not saying that the use of Elijah's cup has to do with the blood libel. Rather it is saying that the door is opened so that gentiles can see that Jews are indeed just using wine, and not killing gentile babies. (It is sad that anyone would have to prove such a thing.) RK 17:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Is there evidence for this? If there is, it needs to be re-worded so that it's more clear. If not, it should stay removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

A few additions on actual Jewish teachings

This is my first Wiki update here, but when I was reading the page on blood libel, I realized that there was no reference to the actual attitudes towards blood and sacrifice in Judaism. Since a lot of the libels are propagated out of ignorance, I thought it'd be useful to have some references about why these stories should not be believed. That way, people will be equipped to properly evaluate any claims that are made.

Also, somebody came and cleaned up my addition right away, which was pretty cool. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.188.161 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 August 2004 66.253.188.161

False Memory Syndrome

I am removing this section (see explanation below)

False Memory Syndrome and Satanic ritual abuse

In the United States, in the 1980s, a frightening wave of blood libels erupted as a result of the use of recovered memory techniques. Hundreds of psychotherapists began teaching that adult stress was a sign that a person was sexually abused by their parents and neighbors. Using putative techniques to "recover" these lost memories, hundreds of people eventually were convinced by their therapists that they were abused by Satanic priests, these Satanists being their own family or kindergarten teachers. This phenomenon became known as Satanic ritual abuse.

Hundreds of people were convicted of these "crimes" and put in jail. From the late 1990s onward a skeptical reappraisal of these recovered memory techniques has shown that these were not recovered memories at all, but rather created memories. This is now known as False Memory Syndrome. Most of the people convicted on such charges have since been freed.

Blood libel is about ritual murder and has a clear documented history and meaning. It is certainly possible that some have tied False Memory Syndrome with Blood Libel for whatever purpose. However, by definition, it is not Blood Libel and counts as original research to say it is. In the False memory syndrome document it could refrence the Blood libel page and discuss the usage of the term in connection with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbalbach (talk • contribs) 06:17, 23 August 2004

Why shouldn't this topic be described in this article? Our articles defines blood libels as allegations that a particular group kills people as a form of human sacrifice, and uses their blood in various rituals. The alleged victims are often children. That is precisely what is going on in this case. At the very least we should briefly discuss this topic here, and link to other related articles where it is more fully discussed. RK 17:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

i agree with you, it shouldn't be on this page but it does have truth in it, the practise by psychotherapists to drug patients with medication that has almost LSD qualities in the hope that they will "remember" that something terrible happened to them to make them sick. usually considered by normal people (doctors are NOT normal, trust me i'm training to become one ;P) to be admitting defeat by the doctor, that they simply cannot find the real problem.

I have found some text sources to give you a bit more info and probably explain it better but beware because I’m not so sure that some of them are trustworthy.

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

http://www.fmsfonline.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse#False_memories

-kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.181.65 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 September 2009

Did such a thing ever really happen?

I have never heard of an instance of an anti-Semitic blood libel story proving to be true, or even based in fact. Should the article explictly state such, that none of these allegations are factual? Is that too dangerous in that such things can be imitated by deranged individuals? Frankly, if it never has been, that is in a way surprising. I think of the old story about an old man who had been accused of child molestation. He said that he never had done it, but if he was going to be accused of it anyway and could never live it down, then why not do it? I'm surprised that no one has done this sort of thing at some point on that basis.

Rlquall 14:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know it's never happened; I'm not sure why that fact would make a Jew want to do it though, it's a horrifying act regardless of whether or not one is accused of it. And I similarly can't imagine why anyone would want to become a pedophile even if accused of being one; that's a bizarre thought. Jayjg 16:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but apparently the latter actually occured. I've always thought that the anti-Semtic blood libel was too ludicrous for words, as no one could explain how so many people could be involved in such a vast conspiracy and yet all maintain perfect silence, or how anybody who knew anything about Judaism could buy into it. I think the idea that all Jews in an area could have knowledge of or be involved in such a thing and yet none reveal it is a tremendous example of how people can convince themselves that "they're all just alike" when thinking of the "others". Anyone whose ever gotten to know many of "them", whoever "them" is, knows the utter ludicrousness of that statement, regardless of whom it is (which "them") directed toward.

Rlquall 16:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is impossible to prove that a certain event has never happened, since all it takes is one counter-example. Has a case of blood libel ever been based in fact? Since humans do unthinkable things to each other every day, I don't doubt it. From a logical standpoint it would be ignorant to state a negative with 100% certainty. Rhobite 16:33, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

The point about the blood-libel is that it alleges a traditional ritual of some sort. It is not about what some deranged individual or two might decide to do of their own accord. In fact, the very existence of the libel as a widespread myth makes it likely to be acted out by persons with serious criminal psychopathology. That sort of thing belongs elsewhere as it isn't really what this article is about. --Zero 14:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that it seems that a deranged individual might do this sort of thing somewhere; the fairly recent case of cannibalsism in Rothenberg, Germany (a quaint, charming town) proves this. I guess that the monstrousness of its (the blood-libel itself) being based on a total myth, a complete fabrication, at least as the legends would have it occuring, and yet hundreds and hundreds of people dying over the years because of it, is what makes it so disturbing. It would somehow make sense, even though still wrong, if there was any real history of this sort of thing, but it seems so apparent that there is not. I also think that there is a tendency to downplay these events in history classes, etc., or at least there was thirty years ago or so -- I took European history from teachers who impressed me as good and knowlegeable, but this aspect of anti-Semitism went unmentioned and I never heard about it until later.

However, blaming the Jews is somehow the last refuge of many bad governments as well as mobs. Look how the tsarists encouraged pogroms whenever things went bad, how ultrarightist French Army officers used the Dreyfus Affair to distract from what a poor job they were doing, and how today Yassir Arafat, whenever confronted with cronyism, corruption, and other aspects of his misrule, repsonds by attacking "Zionists" and rekindling the "intifada". Anti-Jewish activity seems to be an unending pathology. (I don't know as we could call Arafat an anti-Semite, by most definitions he's a "Semite" himself.)

Rlquall 14:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Semite means Jew hater, not hater of Semites. And anyone can be an anti-Semite, even a Jew. Jayjg 15:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it technically means hater of any Semitic group, e.g. anti-Palestinian. Anti-Judaeite would be Jew hater. ~~~~

No, technically and actually it means Jew-hater, not hater of Semites. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Anyway, I was just going to say that the Isaac sacrifice-thing is something usually subjected to blood libel, with the implication that in the original version of the story Isaac was killed, with later editors changing this when changes in the religion made such things inappropriate. Such a situation is difficult to prove either way, particularly as both sides of the argument are subject to being supported by religious extremists, rather than purely academic discussion. ~~~~ 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1st century

um, variants of the story of Jews killing *Christian* and *Muslim* children can hardly go back to "at least the 1st century". There weren't even any "Christian childern" in the 1st century, as baptism was for adults (not to mention Muslim ones, and not to mention times *before* the 1st century, unless you want to argue that Jesus himself was intended to be ground into a matzoh by Herodes in 6 BC). dab (ᛏ) 15:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

There were not any Muslims before at least 400BC, so yes, thats probably the case. Unless, that is, the variants refer to Jews killing adherants of Roman religion, or Greek religion, etc. ~~~~ 16:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean 400 CE (AD) right? (It's actually more like 600 CE, since Mohammed was born during the late 500s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentt (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 May 2007

Just to clarify on the history of the blood libel against Jews -- while there was an accusation of a yearly human sacrifice by Apion in 38 (""Ejus corpus sacrificare secundum suas solemnitates et gustare ex ejus visceribus et jusjurandum facere in immolatione Græci, ut inimicitias contra Græcos haberent"), there was no further accusations until William of Norwich is 1146. Saying that there were variants of the accusation going back before the Middle Ages doesn't make sense - there was only one such accusation, and it was much different than the later Christian version, which had no root in Phonenican beliefs about sacrifice, or at least none I have ever seen. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Policy

Ril, please don't put editorial messages in NPOV boxes. The talk page is the proper place for you to explain how this article violates the NPOV policy. If your only complaint is that it disproportionately discusses blood libel against Jews, I disagree with the tag. The proper solution would be for you to research the topic and add content to the article, as opposed to slapping on an NPOV tag or (worse) removing some content from the article. Rhobite June 29, 2005 07:13 (UTC)

supposed possible origin

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)

The mohel

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.[18] —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)

Religioustolerance.org

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)

Mesoamerican human sacrifice

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)

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)

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)

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)

Accused groups

The article lists many groups accused of blood libel, but actually there is verifiable material only about three groups (Jews, Christians in the pagan Roman Empire, and pagans in the Christian Roman Empire). I'm inclined to think that the rest of the list is original research. Beit Or 22:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this egregiously incorrect. Beit Or, please follow links to other sections. Also, section IS referenced. NoraBG 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about "Blood libel against Mesoamerican civilizations" section, which is discussed in the talk section above, then I have read Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, which says (correctly) "...there is universal agreement that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice..." Contrary to what you're saying there is not a single reference in the intro. Beit Or 10:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You may not use wikipedia to support your primary research. The section on the MesoAmerican blood libel on this page is well supported. For instance, there have been Science articles devoted to fallacious role of cannibalism in mesoAmerican diet. There are cited articles covering the sociopolitical aspects of early reporting on Mesoamerican. The fact is that it there is far from a universal agreement as to the extent of human sacrifice. Part of the accusation of the blood libel has to do with the nature of this extent. Almost all present scholarly sources agree that the scale of human sacrifice reported in the early historical records of colonization could NOT have been true (e.g. tens of thousands of sacrifices per day during peak holidays etc). Therefore, there is much scholarly attention as to the true extent. The discrepancy between these two numbers is the core basis for the blood libel. Others have expaned on this core to include other aspects. NoraBG 17:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Blood libels are unfounded allegations that a particular group kills people as a form of human sacrifice" There is consensus among the scholars that human sacrifice was an integral of the culture of Aztecs and several other American nations, so the "allegations' are pretty well-founded. Most importantly, however, do you have sources saying that there is such thing as blood libel against Mesoamerican civilizations? I haven't seen any so far. Beit Or 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on the Rape of Nanking should be removed. The documented evidence of Japanese atrocities is so overwhelming it can hardly be called libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.18.241 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 31 October 2006

Judaic Ritual Murder: Israeli author defends new book

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)

Accuracy of unattributed statements that Jews are "most frequent targets"

"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)

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)

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)

Definitely sounds more accurate now.--ZayZayEM 01:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jews and Blood ritual

According to the lead blood libels include allegations that persons are involved in blood ritual:

Blood libels are sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism

Why is it innappropriate to point out that certain Jewish rituals do involve blood?

Re: This edit [19], reverted with editing by me [20] and then re-reverted by Jhk14 [21]--ZayZayEM 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Berlusconi, World Net Daily and Al-Qaeda claims

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)

Against followers of Ancient Greek religion

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)

* – Assuming "blood sacrifices" means "sacrifices in which blood is spilled". If not, then the real definition should be mentioned in the article when the term is used for the first time.

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)

Terminology

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)

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)

historian who agree that there was Trento 1475 ritual [is his book cited?] changes mind

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)

x-posting comment

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)

Link not allowed, you be the judge

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)

Jewish gangsters in Russia

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. [22] ADM (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No reference and that is a hate site. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just citing it as a modern example of blood libel, without any extra qualifications. Also, the site [23] is merely a series of mailing lists and archived material. ADM (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Health care debate

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)

Aftonbladet article

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) --Rm125 (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please revert to previous version --Rm125 (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

86. I just posted a new revision on blood libel. If you want to change you wellcome to comment here. otherwise lelax and have a good day. --Rm125 (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Separate the term "blood libel" from the things that it would describe

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)

Blood Libel is not in itself discrimination and cannot be by definition inaccurate

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reading Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a "libel" does not have to be false. Steinberger (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

However, the Blood Libel invariably is.-Galassi (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

And which BLs were founded, please? -Galassi (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How should I know? And don't you try to shift the burden of proof. Steinberger (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Defined as untruthful?

I think it is very problematic to say that blood libels are, by definition, untruthful. If a something branded as blood libels appears to come up true, as in the case of Aftonbladet's infamous article on Israeli organ theft (let not go in on whether or not the article said that IDF "killed for organs", it is not explicit in the article and there is differing opinions on whether or not is implicit in the text - at least to some the premise of Aftonbladet's story was confirmed and that is enough to make the following points). Is then the accusations that Aftonbladet's article was a blood libel false by definition? Should it be removed from the article? I would not personally say that. A blood libel to me is more on the malicious and sensationalized form of a allegation, rather then the truthfulness of the factual claims. And I can't find anything in these definitions of blood libels that do say that blood libels always are false. Steinberger (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Libel=defamation=calumny, false by definition. if it ain't false - it ain't libel. per Amer. Collegiate Dictionary.-Galassi (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an original synthesis to me. Steinberger (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis??? That's English language, my friend... Maybe you should take a course.-Galassi (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Logical deductions is not good enough for verification, read WP:NOR. I challenge "false" and then "you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." Steinberger (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Which "deductions"? It is printed in that dictionary. BTW, that daft Swedish article actually does not qualify as BL, and probably shouldn't be in the BL article. -Galassi (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1. "Libel" is a false allegation (notwithstanding that it is a dubious claim)
2. The term "Blood libel" contain the word "libel"
3. Therefore "Blood libel" is a false allegation

There you got your deduction. On the Sweden bit, it seems that Benjamin Netanyahu and Yuval Steinitz said that the article was akin to a Blood libel. It is contested though. Steinberger (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You both need to stop edit warring over this.   Will Beback  talk  07:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)