Talk:Blood libel

The religion jump
Looking at 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
 * Also, looking historically to the Pre-Roman era, many other groups in the semetic region were subject to Blood libel. While human sacrifice had long fallen out of favor and only a few cults (mostly in carthage) practiced human sacrifice, almost always their own, excluding the ritual execution of prisoners of war, it was very common for nations to claim blood libel against another nation as justification of war.  I cannot doubt that due to the historic evidence Carthage practices matching the descriptions, this is where they drew their inspiration from as well. (Sorry for not logging on, lazy today)--24.208.189.58 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You are presupposing that the accusations were false. But is that warranted (in all the cases)? 105.8.6.9 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Precursors
There is interesting material in. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022
At the end of the first paragraph, should note that in the present day, blood libel is often seen as more implicitly, perpetuated in media, where tropes of blood libel are echoed. This may be seen in political cartoons, Gisellechloe (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 3mi1y (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Cake of Light
This should be removed from See Also. It's not relevant or related to Blood libel in any way. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Blood Libel 19th Century Edit
Hello!

I am a student at Chapman University. As a part of a senior-level course, we are required to edit a small number of Wiki pages we believe may need additional information. I plan to add a small amount of information regarding an incident of blood libel that occurred in the 19th century under the list of blood libel incidents. I have listed my source below, and would love any feedback that could be offered.

EKChapman (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)EKChapman

Emanuele D’Antonio, “Jewish Self-Defense against the Blood Libel in Mid-Nineteenth Century

Italy: The Badia Affair and Proceedings of the Castilliero Trial (1855-56),” in Miscellanea

2019, eds. Quest Editorial Staff, Quest. Issues in Contemporary Jewish History. Journal

of Fondazione CDEC, n. 14 December 2018 EKChapman (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you do this? Hope you did Jim Killock (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Cases that don't belong here
The first sentence of the article clearly defines: "Blood libel or ritual murder libel (also blood accusation) is an antisemitic canard which falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christian boys in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals ." The article, however, includes all kinds of cases in which Jews were simply accused of murdering non-Jews. This goes against the definition and that is enough to strike them. But in fact such mixing ends up lending credibility to the libel itself. Because nobody in their right mind can deny that in history psychopaths or otherwise disturbed persons who were Jews have murdered, tortured and raped non-Jews. So if we equate such true or possible cases with the blood libel, it makes the latter appear possible as well in the eyes of the reader. 178.4.151.244 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I made the same point a few years ago. Either the definition has to be expanded, or the examples have to be restricted to those fitting the definition. Zerotalk 21:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

“canard”?
The lede says that blood libel is an “antisemitic canard”. This phrasing was introduced in to replace “accusation”.

I’d like to suggest changing “canard” to “trope”. My only reason is that “canard” may not be as widely understood (as it’s a less common word), despite its more specific meaning.

Comments welcome! Mifield 20:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * A "trope" is generally taken as something less malignant than a "canard." On that basis, I'd keep it the way it is, using trope would water it down to lose much of its meaning.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2024
Change “* Allegations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel have been described as a form of blood libel by some critics. ” to “* Allegations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel have been described as a form of blood libel by some critics. In contrast, several leading Jewish and Israeli anti-Zionist academics   and organizations    have similarly described the state of Israel’s continued treatment of Palestinians by classifying it as a genocide,  citing the Ten stages of genocide alongside genocidal language incited against Palestinian civilians living in Gaza invoked by Israeli officials during the 2023 Israel-Hamas War. ”

Rationale: substantive information was removed on the grounds of irrelevance to the article, despite the information being incredibly relevant to current global events and the immediate paragraph around History - further citation also added. 74.15.198.165 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @74.15.198.165 This info clearly is not relevant to the article. Users can visit the wiki linked page. The ongoing war in Palestine doesn't belong on the Blood libel page. glman (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Requested edit has been contested. — Sirdog (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Lists vs content
Some point the article should probably split into a content article and move the lists into a separate article. At the moment the later sections need more explanation of the evolution of blood libel, and I would say should pick the most important examples within a narrative and perhaps place the examples onto their own page. Jim Killock (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024
In the 19th century section, the paragraph starting "In March 1879, ten Jewish men..." should be changed to "In March 1879, nine Jewish men." You may want to add the following citation where the case, including the number of defendants, is discussed in detail: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02634937.2024.2302581 Amiens98 (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ — I had a lot of trouble finding a copy of the source attached to the "ten Jewish men" claim, and I could not confirm one way or the other what it says. This source seems better researched on this particular event, though, and is more recent, so I've changed ten to nine in the article and cited this new article, unless something changes or someone objects. This also needs to be changed on the article for Kutaisi. 〜 Askarion   ✉  16:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)