Talk:Blood libel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

The religion jump[edit]

Looking at [1] it seems that blood libel is now spread about Muslims as well. It's hardly surprising as many antisemitic myths are recirculated that way. The problem is where to fit it into the article. Any advice? // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 2 January 2014

Blood Libel[edit]

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

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

Precursors[edit]

There is interesting material in Bill Ellis. Aliens, Ghosts, and Cults. Univ. Press of Mississippi. p. 53 ff. ISBN 9781617030017. . All the best: Rich Farmbrough17:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Exclusiveness[edit]

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

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

Canonization[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Including short reference to more general use of the term[edit]

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

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


Non-Jewish targets[edit]

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

I suggest we use this NPOV list for the purpose:

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

1st century BCE Greeks Jews in Palestine

2nd century CE Romans Christians

12th century and later Christians Followers of Judaism

13th Century Christians Cathars

14th century Christians Knights Templar

15th to 18th century Christians Witches and other heretics

19th century Protestants Roman Catholics

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

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

1994 Bulgarian Orthodox Church Protestant Evangelical missionaries

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

Today A minority of Muslims Jews

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

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

I do not talk to numbers.

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

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

Mezigue -

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

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

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

Phibionites[edit]

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

French Protestants[edit]

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

Russian Skoptsy[edit]

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

Caribbean cults[edit]

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

Evangelical Christians[edit]

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

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

Montanists[edit]

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

References

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

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

Blood libel comment[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

  1. ^ etc