Talk:Well poisoning

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Removed this from the story from Hungary. Charles Matthews 14:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Testimonial: the author of this entry heard this story from her mother, who eyewitnessed these events as a youngster."

Cite Sources

There needs to be some primary sources cited here particularly for the "story" in the contemporary accusations section. The citation as noted above, "heard this story from my mother", is hardly sufficient and should be removed if no credible source is added. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Laws of war==

Speific prohibition against poisoning wells? Quited in @Through the magic Door@ A.C. Doyle which I don't have to hand. Rich Farmbrough 16:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy

Shouldn't this article discuss the logical fallacy, which is much the better known use of "well poisoning" as a generic term? john k 17:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - added link to poisoning the well. john k 17:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious

Would the Jewish ghetto populations' lower mortality rate have been due to cleaner living (ie avoiding the Black Plague) due to their dietary and other ritual proscriptions, or might it have been simply a factor of not mingling as much with the other city-dwellers (cutting down on infection vectors)? If anyone could research this, it would add a very useful note to the article. Kasreyn 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary accusations

Someone added the following to the Contemporary accusations section:

According to historian Harry Yang, new evidence from the journals of plague-era clerics has proven that the Jews were in fact responsible for poisoning the wells.

with no citation. Should this be removed?

Bigheadjer 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with having it removed. I have not found any trace of a historian named Harry Yang nor found any mention of this "new evidence".

68.225.188.159 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "Harry Yang" thing is back again. Whoever is doing that seems mighty persistent.

Bigheadjer 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs poisoning Kosovo Albanians

So, the reference at the slobodan-milosevic.org is a summary of the testimony given by Dr. Vukasin Andric on or before February 23, 2005 in the case Prosecution v. Milosevic at the ICTY. Reliability of slobodan-milosevic.com as a whole aside, I doubt that anyone would forge a testimony which is available to anyone, so I don't see the reason for removing it, especially when anyone who doubts it can search ICTY archives and come up with the actual testimony. Chris, I am certain that you are right man for the job ;)

Personally, I hate it when someone links to a megabyte-long document in ICTY archive, because in such a document it is hard to find what is it that actually supports the assertion in the article. It would probably be the best to link to both the summary and the actual document. But I find it strange that people are so hell-bent on removing this reference, especially when actual fact - that Serbs were accused of poisoning Kosovo Albanians - is not in any way contested. Nikola 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not hell-bent on removing the reference, and I have no knowledge or view on whether Serbs were accused of poisoning Kosovo Albanians. But if the claim is indeed supported by testimony given before the Tribunal then it is appropriate to link to the tribunal papers directly, not to a website which appears to back one of the defendants in the proceedings. If a reliable source is available then I don't think convenience is a good enough reason to cite an unreliable source instead. LeContexte 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will just say that slobodan-milosevic.org is the first Google result for serbs poison albanians. Actual transcripts appear to be [1] and [2] and in them it is difficult to see even who is the witness. Nikola 19:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this has nothing to do with well poisoning; hence, the source doesn't support the assertion made. Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 03:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that. It says that "Serbs were accused of poisoning Kosovo Albanians", which doesn't mention wells specifically. I'll edit the article to clarify further. Nikola 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? If the reference does not concern well poisoning, then what is the relevance? LeContexte 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this modern world we live in, wells aren't very much used anymore, and so the accusations have shifted to other similar means of poisoning, be it poisoning of waterworks, ventilation, food, vaccines etc. The article also mentions that Muslim fundamentalist propaganda that accused the Jews of spreading AIDS and other infectious diseases, obviously not via wells (and not even poisoning). Nikola 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. What is the relevance? In any event, Google is not a measure of reliability. LeContexte 09:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only explained why I used the reference I did. This is reliable because it is stated by a prominent person at a prominent trial. Nikola 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

I stumbled across this article by accident while browsing, but it seems odd to have an article which has maybe half of its text unrelated to Judaism branded on the right as part of the Antisemitism series (apologies if I have my Wikipedia terminology wrong). Is this actually OK, or should the article perhaps be split, or something?

Jewish Mortality

As mortality was significantly lower among the Jews, medieval Christians in Europe theorized that the Jews, who had their own wells in the ghetto, had poisoned the city wells in order to kill Christians, just as they had killed Christ.

Though the myyth of the lower mortality rates among Jews is widely held, there is scant evidence from such a trend. In fact, the Medieval Konrade of Megenberg dismisses such a claim in his "Buch Der Natur" by citing that in Vienna so many Jews died that a second cemetery was erected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herlaw (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Meta-Article

This article starts with an historical review of anti-Semites accusing Jews of poisoning wells and then turns into anti-Semitic article accusing Jews of poisoning wells. What makes the writer who demonizes the Israelis in this article any different than the Medieval accusers? It seems this grotesque story about the Jews just won't die. MsSubtext (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

I took off the anti-semitism tag as it made no sense here. There is no correlation between someone poisoning a well and them being Jewish. The Jewish genocide during the holocaust is the most notable genocide in human history yet you don't have a Jewish suffering box on that page because the act of genocide as nothing to do with judiasm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.111.236 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)