This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
A recent addition to the article tries to claim that blood libel is still common. Reliable sources for this claim are required. It is simply not good enough to give a string of example cases. Drawing a conclusion from individual cases is WP:SYNTH. One could claim that spontaneous human combustion or self-surgery is common by citing a long list of examples when clearly neither is actually particularly common. I think this claim should be removed from the article if not properly referenced. By that I mean to some scholar who has actually done some statistical research, not some newspaper making an unsubstantiated claim.
This article is not really a suitable page to be discussing this issue in any case; it is about blood, not social issues. A brief mention and link is all that is required. SpinningSpark 12:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'll find such a reference for it. (I'll get to it soon; I'm just too sleepy right now.)
Regarding whether it's suitable to discuss in this article, since it is standard practice to include references to the article's subject even from popular culture and works of fiction, it is entirely in order to briefly mention social stigmas such as the blood libel, although a detailed treatment should be and is left to a separate article. All the more so, since blood has meaning beyond its biological significance. Musashiaharon (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It is kind of two degrees separated, particularly since the term "blood libel" is on modern usage applied to other antisemitic accusations as well IIRC. I demoted the section to an entry in the "see also" section; feel free to revert if you feel more discussion is warranted. Cheers! VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant whether are current-day blood libels or not. The fact is, it is a well-documented historical phenomenon that shaped the communities that it affected. Some Jews will still not use red wine for traditional services on account of blood libels. There are plenty of sources available so WP:V is not the problem. JFW | T@lk 09:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with everything you wrote above, which is an excellent argument against deleting the article Blood libel. But to my knowledge no one is suggesting that we do that. But the idea of removing the summary paragraph on blood libel and using a link in the see also section instead is a different issue, and I do not see how your reasoning above applies. The underlying issue is that unlike the other subsections in the article, blood libel really has very little to do with blood and a lot more to do with antisemitism. VQuakr (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have undone your revert. There was a discussion below which was closed with a decision. It is fine to reopen the discussion and a different conclusion might result but in the meantime it is not helpful to revert the article. SpinningSpark 13:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello VQuakr and Spinningspark. I am a little bit surprised about this sudden removal of well-established content that was most certainly suitable for discussion in the context in which it was presented. I am sorry that I was unable to weigh in when the discussion (however brief) in November, but I don't think the case for removing the content is strong at all. Incidentally, the discussion above seems mainly about whether blood libels are still a common occurrence. If anti-Israel cartoons in certain newspapers are anything to go by, I am not so sure whether this is just a historical phenomenon. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I was surprised to learn that blood libel was still a current issue, I was under the impression that it had long been assigned to the history books along with witch ducking and scold bridling. However, I concede to the evidence that it still does exist. However, that is beside the point of the reason given in the debate close. That is, that it relates to a belief about Jews, not a belief about blood. However, I am not seeing the overwhelming consensus in the debate that user:VQuakr seems to think there is that would justify an early close. I urge VQuakr to reverse his close and let the debate run for the standard 30 days for RFCs. If that is done the material in the article should be restored for the duration of the debate so that everyone can see what is being discussed. VQuakr, if you don't do that it is fairly obvious that the discussion is just going to start up again anyway. SpinningSpark 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
We are talking about two different things. The RfC below was regarding removing most or all of the "Cultural and religious beliefs" section, which was met with clear consensus for the status quo when considering this and this. The second issue was one that User:Spinningspark raised during the RfC - whether blood libel is relevant enough to an article on blood to merit a summary paragraph here. As far as I am concerned, that discussion is still open which is why I invited reversion and further discussion in my article-space edit .Not that anyone needs my permission to follow WP:BRD, but sometimes a reminder helps. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I think I understand your position. So let's start a new RFC. SpinningSpark 19:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
A Seealso link at the top of the Cultural and religious beliefs section would possibly be giving the subject undue weight, given the scope and breadth of material covered in the section. However, a single line incorporated into the prose would not be undue weight and can be mentioned in the segment following. Looking at the section, it could be increased a little to assist in flow of paragraphs and making it less listy. This of course requires as a prerequisite some scholarly secondary sources that link it with the larger topic at hand (in this case symbolism and cultural/ritual significance of blood).
Regarding article size, it currently sits at 28 kB (4540 words). Looking at Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline, this article can be enlarged up to 50 kb prose size before there is a need to split. I envisage that biological material would take priority, but that currently there is plenty of room. Should the biological section be greatly expanded, then more esoteric and non-core material can be reviewed and removed at that point. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, for reasons stated above. It is part of the role of blood in a societal and cultural dimension. JFW | T@lk 19:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Reiterating from below: I was initially inclined to agree with SpinningSpark, but I was surprised to see that other religions were indeed accused of blood libel. Interested in this, I did some research and found a reference for it, which I added. Hence, although typically about Jews, the topic is not exclusive to them. Combined with the fact that this was historically such a common problem in Europe and even now is common in the Arab world, I think it it merits inclusion as a general social issue.
To add to my above, the objection to including blood libel here seems to be splitting hairs at the expense of convenience and usefulness. But I question even whether there is a hair to split: the blood libel is a salient issue that gives further insight into the (cross‑!)cultural significance of blood, and this is a proper venue to present that information. Musashiaharon (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not about blood, it is about false accusations against Jews. SpinningSpark 02:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes - only if strong secondary and contemporary sources exist. --LT910001 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that there is an objection here. The references are already secondary and contemporary, and as far as I can tell they are WP:RS. Musashiaharon (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
They don't attribute the term blood libel to the persecution of other groups. FMMonty (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes - sort of. Blood libel as a term is for false allegations against Jews, although more recently it has become a more general term for a false accusation. The reference that was added covering false allegations of Christian cannibalism isn't really the same thing. I'd move a sentence on blood libel into the section on Judaism where it would sit more cleanly, as a page mentioning blood and Judaism would seem strange without pointing at blood libel.FMMonty (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The reference clearly describes supposed rituals of consuming children's blood on pages 420 and 421, et al. This usage is essentially the same as the admittedly more common blood libel against Jews. Hence the reference is on-topic. Since we now know that another culture has been similarly accused of blood libel, it is difficult in my mind to move that section under any one culture. Musashiaharon (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
That is a scholarly article on the early claims that Christians murdered and consumed infants and blood. The term blood libel has been very specific for a long time, so much so that you'll notice that source doesn't mention the term in a Christian context. If you look at a dictionary definition of blood libel http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/blood-libel you'll see that it is very specifically targeted at Jews. FMMonty (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford definition is clearly incomplete and out-of-date. As can be seen from the sources I referenced in our own article here, the blood libel is current and is now no longer limited to charges that Jews murder Christians; it has evolved to be a charge that Jews do the same to Muslims, too. Given that the victims can change and this is still called blood libel, it is entirely reasonable that the identity of purported perpetrators is not fixed either. Although the context is typically that of an accusation against Jews, there is no compelling reason why the same moniker shouldn't also apply to the same situation with another group. For an example usage demonstrating this, see the Encyclopaedia Judaica's Blood Libel article, where it mentions a case of blood libel against Christians. Musashiaharon (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You'll notice that the article you've quoted there talks about allegations of blood sacrifice and infanticide against Christians, and specifically states that blood libel is against Jews.
While blood libels are of different forms and perpetrated by different groups, persecuting Jews doesn't change as far as the term goes in common understanding. As I said earlier people have started to use the term on occasion for non blood persecution of non Jews, however they are usually slated in the press very heavily. The point of encyclopedic articles isn't to create new usages of words, or to give equal time to fringe viewpoints. I'm happy to agree with LT910001 and say if there are strong modern sources attributing the term blood libel to the persecution of non Jews then by all means keep it separate. However there would need to be a body of strong sources, as although I can find some examples of white people being called the N based insult usually used for black people it doesn't really change the meaning. FMMonty (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No There are many terms with 'blood' in them ('blood brothers', 'blood relatives', 'blood diamonds' etc) we obviousy cannot put them all in here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No Just like there is no section "Blood in popular culture". Debresser (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No: blood libel is tangentially related to blood itself, but discussion of the libel does not contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of blood itself. A link in the "See also" section is the most appropriate way to facilitate navigation there. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Same goes for the Eucharist, actually. "Blood itself" is just as absent there. Are you arguing that the symbolic aspect of blood is irrelevant in the notion of blood libel? If not, I'd say your argument is inconsistent. PeterIsotalo 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
A brief mention of Eucharist is included in the section on Christianity. I would agree that the Eucharist itself is not relevant enough blood to merit an entire section in this article. VQuakr (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbolism is a completely valid encyclopedic topic. The Eucharist and blood libel both refer to actual, literal blood, even if they are merely metaphysical. This is not at all comparable to the metaphorical meaning of "blood" as a synonym to "ancestry" as in "blood feud" or "bloodlines". Even those aspects are worthy of a reasonable amount of information here. We're a general encyclopedia, so please don't try so hard to purge this article of everything that isn't about physical science.
No there is no need to cover blood libel in the blood article; I like the way VQuakr puts it in terms of encyclopedic coverage. -- Scray (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No The primary title of the article deals with a huge subject dealing with physiology, medicine, and a great deal of biology. It is already too large, but at least the topics are coherent and deal with matters of material fact. Even so, the field is so wide that it could persuasively be argued that the various topics should be split into smaller (linked) articles. Matters that refer to blood in other material contexts, such as industrial uses of blood in food, plastics and fertiliser could well be split off. Metaphorical, legal, superstitious, or traditional uses of the term might or might not be of encyclopaedic interest, but they have no material relevance to anyone looking up the subject of blood, and the subject of blood as a material or tissue would be of no interest to anyone interested in metaphorical expressions such as "blood feuds" or "blood libel" for example. By lumping all that into a single article we are doing no one any favours, neither WP, nor editors, and certainly not the users. JonRichfield (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No As said above, there are many things that involve the word blood. Just because it has the word blood in it does not make it pertinent to a person searching an encyclopedia about Blood. As VQuakr says, it does not contribute to the encyclopedic understanding of blood. Rmosler | ● 00:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, since it's a very well-known negative myth that is directly tied to the idea of blood as a sacrificial matter. But not as a separate section, but rather as an example of myths about sacrifices. This goes far beyond the mere inclusion of the word "blood". And I strongly oppose that common, if negative, beliefs regarding blood should be forked out. Cultural history is a serious field of study and an important topic, not some subservient appendix to "real science". PeterIsotalo 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Blood libel is already a separate article, and certainly not a POV fork. This discussion is not a merge proposal. VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about the general drive against cultural aspects of blood. When it comes to common topics, this is something that receives rather poor treatment due to a systemic bias towards natural sciences. This type of content needs to be improved, not reduced to a minimum or replaced by "see also"-links.
A consensus appears to have emerged that the section already adequately adheres to WP:SUMMARY. In a somewhat separate subject, a valid point was raised that including Blood libel in with religious beliefs is a little incongruous, but this is tangential enough that it probably makes sense to discuss in a different section. VQuakr (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should religious beliefs concerning blood be moved to a separate article?
This is a science related article. Science rejects creationism. So no usage of mentioning religion. There are lots of religions and various other foolish believes. Mentioning about them in a scientific article is very ironical. These blood-related believes should be collectively created as a seperate article and only a link to that article should be included in this article. Some scintists and students may get angry if they see religions and need of citations to them in this scientific article. So please tell your views about creating a seperate article- Blood related religious believes and only providing a link in this main article-blood.--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I support moving the material out of this article. It is completely out of place; at best it should be a see also. I have added an RFC template at the top of the section to attract wider participation in this as it is likely to stir up some controversy. SpinningSpark 09:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose without further refinement of the nature of the move. Frankly, the reasons suggested for the necessity of a split do not hold water in terms of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not have a scientific article/non-scientific article dichotomy; rather we provide encyclopedic articles and any aspect of the subject matter of an article which a significantly large enough number of readers are likely to find useful qualifies for inclusion in the main article, regardless of how empirical or cultural the nature of the rest of the content there. The only valid policy reason for spinning out a second article here is size concerns, which, looking at the overall size of the article and of the cultural sections, a decent argument can be made for. But if this approach were taken and a "Blood in religion and mysticism" article were to be created, the standard Wikipedia approach to such divisions should be followed and a small summary section retained in this article with a "see main article" tag at its head. This is the well-established, nearly universal process for splitting articles and we certainly will not be completely excising all mention of the cultural aspects of blood simply because they may "anger" some theoretical reader who would prefer a purely biological article. That's not what we are here to provide and we definitely do not guarantee it in our articles, especially those on subjects that straddle both scientific and cultural domains. Snow (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Please consider the following facts.If it is the Wikipedia's policy, then this article should also include information about many other religions and believes such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other Asian and Indian religions. Then the article will get too long mentioning all about these religions. I only asked to split the article. I did not ask to delete the contents. If the article is split into two, then readers can read comfortably, and the articles will be complete in their respects. There will be also a link between the articles. So no need to worry. It will be only a good improvement in reading the article. Policies are not always firm; Policies are flexible. There are many such good articles in Wikipedia. The articles will not be ironical.--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe I have taken the facts very much into account in my comments; perhaps you can be more specific if you feel I missed something of central relevance. We don't remove content on one aspect of a subject just because someone has yet to add content on another. Wikipedia article creation is an iterative process and people add what they know and can source, so the fact that there is more information on the role of blood in some religions as compared to others is not surprising, nor is it an argument for what content should be included, or where it should be located. If the article grew so large as to be unwieldy, that is a reason for a split, but if you re-read my initial comments, you will see that I already stipulated as much. I think my wording should have made it clear that I am not opposed to a split outright, but only to a split made solely on the grounds that were forwarded. And my comments were mainly intended to highlight that we have an established process for this sort of (extremely common) situation and that a complete split with the retention of solely a "see also" link alone is not policy-consistent, no matter how much this article is perceived by some as one that should treat only the biology of blood; a summary section is standard accepted approach when a sub-article is spun out from the main article, for a number of reasons. Blood is a very broad topic and we can reasonably expect a good number of readers will come here for something other than a description of platelets, and those non-cultural subjects should be treated here, however briefly, with a clear summary of the present section, even if the clinical description of blood takes precedence. And for the record, I do feel it's reasonable that such physiological information should take precedence at this namespace, but it should not do so to the absolute exclusion of all other aspects of the subject. Snow (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I accept your facts. So what should we do? Close this argument or any other move? (please describe briefly. I am not vey fluent in English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Kiruthikan (talk • contribs) 11:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, typically when an RfC (Request for Comment) is made for a discussion, we must wait for an administrator to close the discussion with a summary of the general consensus of the viewpoints and maybe further comments on how they fit with policy. We should wait for that to happen, but I think it is likely at this point that few more comments are forthcoming and that most editors would agree that the default splitting process I described above is the best way to handle the issue. The admin will close the discussion soon and then we just need an editor to sandbox the new page, write the summary, and move the appropriate content around. Snow (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
RfCs are not automatically closed by administrator's. Most of them sort themselves out. If you desire a formal close you need to make a request at WP:AN/RFC. SpinningSpark 01:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with Snow's suggestion of summary style except that I don't think blood libel should be included in this article. That is not really a belief about blood, it is a belief about Jews and is consequently off topic here. SpinningSpark 01:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with Snow's points. Cultural beliefs should be at least summarized here, since blood has clear and strong cultural meaning as well as scientific significance. I also agree that should the section become too lengthy, we should split it off and leave a small summary. However, I don't think we are at that point yet. The section on cultural beliefs makes for an interesting digest, and the amount of material under each culture seems appropriate.
As I mentioned in an earlier conversation above, it is standard practice to include cultural (or even fictional literary) references with short summaries at the end of articles. Although such summaries are typically a sentence or two for each reference, the complex beliefs about blood cannot reasonably be summarized so quickly. The topic also merits more material because the actual belief in these ideas is non-fictional and quite influential on the cultures and languages of the world. Therefore, a couple paragraphs or so can be expected per culture. Much more than that, and I would agree to split off that section.
I think that the splitting should happen on a per-culture basis. If we were to split off an entire article about blood beliefs for all cultures, I'm afraid that the article would be further split by culture anyway. I think we should keep a digest of all the cultures here, just like how each social or literary reference is enumerated after other articles.
Regarding the blood libel, I was initially inclined to agree with SpinningSpark, but I was surprised to see that other religions were indeed accused of blood libel. Interested in this, I did some research and found a reference for it, which I added. Hence, although typically about Jews, the topic is not exclusive to them. Combined with the fact that this was historically such a common problem in Europe and even now is common in the Arab world, I think it it merits inclusion as a general social issue.Musashiaharon (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - an encyclopaedic article on the topic 'Blood' should certainly not be limited to the biological aspects - and I think the cultural aspects should be mentioned in the Lead. I think the cultural section could be at least as long as the biological sections without unbalancing the article - and if the religious aspects did get too long I would support the summary and link procedure as discussed above. But I don't think the section is there yet at all. Actually I think it needs more detail and better quality in general, and not to be limited to religious beliefs. Depthdiver (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - The cultural section already reasonably adheres to WP:Summary style and does not look out of balance within the whole article. 00:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
blood donors generally give whole blood. in many cases though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! I did the following changes to the article:
Phlegm redirected to Phlegm#Phlegm and humourism Black bile was redirecting to melancholia. However, melancholia has been described as a mere consequence of excess black bile; the link was not pertaining to "black pile" itself. Yellow bile was redirecting to humorism that was already linked in the article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jayaguru-Shishya. Overlinking is common. It is good practice to determine the destination before adding any links to articles, but it can be cumbersome. JFW | T@lk 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Reference 7 Ganong is the reference for saying the normal range for platelets is 200,000 to 500,000, and that platelets are called thrombocytes. Apparently I am not allowed to edit this page: anyone care to research this, provide another reference for the correct information? Platelets are only called platelets in mammals. Thrombocytes is for non-mammalian vertebrates.
The upper limit of normal for platelets is 400,000.