Talk:Blood libel/Archive 2

Blood libels against Palestinians ought to be included
For comprehensiveness, some discussion of the blood libels put forward against Arab peoples should be mentioned (ie, the accusation in assorted cases (Muhammad Durrah, Gaza Flotilla, etc, etc) that Palestinians and other Muslims murder their own children in order to defame Israel, etc. It's a very current example of a blood libel. 72.152.242.83 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

reference to the oft repeated claim (originating, iirc, with Golda Meir) that 'there will only be peace when the Arabs learn too love their children less than they hate' would be apporpriate as that is very much a weak form of a blood libel. 72.145.144.73 (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the notion about the non-Jewish "blood libel" OR?
I have looked trough the sources used to verify the non-Jewish Blood libels. Many are dead, some do not verify what they are used to and the rest do not verify that the "blood libels" involving non-Jews ever where called Blood libels. To me it seems like a stretch of the definition of blood libels that flies in the face of WP:NOR. If it can't be verified that accusations of human sacrifice against other groups then Jews have been called blood libels (and not only that the accustaions have been likened to the "blood libel against Jews") I opt that we see this page deleted and have Blood libel against Jews moved here after merging relevant material to either it or human sacrifice. Steinberger (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * funny how that is only proposed immediately _after_ it was suggested that the blood libels made against Palestinians be included as well. Strikes me that that move would be extremely political. 72.145.144.73 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against to include and debunk charges that Palestinans murder their children to be able to villify Israelis - if it all can be verified by WP:RS. However, I think the appropriate place for that would be in human sacrifice. Not here. Steinberger (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * so it is purely coincidental that you want to remove all use of the term 'blood libel' for attacks on non-Jews? Curious.  One wants to believe but the timing your demand makes it seem like you are wishing to prevent any such discussion under blood libel

And it _is_ a blood libel. 72.145.144.73 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then give me a reference to where it is said to be so. Wikipedia policy is clear on this point, everything, including terminology have to be verified with reliable sources. Steinberger (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed header
It appeared that Steinberger, when getting resistance on hs proposed deletion, pushed his POV. I've removed it. 72.152.243.124 (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding templates to an article is a just way of calling attention to a problem. Although perhaps done in bad faith, it is never POV-pushing. This time it is very justified as no source verify that the term "Blood libel" have been used for accusations against non-Jews. And this I say after checking all sourced used in the article and after a good faithed search on internet for others. I have previously asked you to find one that verify that blood libel is used to describe certain accusation against Palestinians. Now I extend that wish to any other accusation against a gentile. If you can't find any I will re-add the template. Steinberger (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Try google. For starters: and another 22,593 hits for the phrase "Blood libel against muslims". So, to claim that no such use exists is preposterous if not actually malicious. I don't want to presume bias, but it's startling to hear an incredible claim that the phrase 'blood libel' only refers to Jews when even the most cursory attempt would show plenty of other usages. 72.145.145.232 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/11/a_constructive/
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharmine-narwani/this-us-israeli-crisis-ha_b_500668.html
 * http://www.uga.edu/islam/
 * http://www.sott.net/articles/show/210085-In-Defense-of-Helen-Thomas-on-apologizing-to-apologists
 * http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/8y90w/cynthia_mckinney_refuses_israels_offer_of_release/
 * http://socfools.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
 * http://911blogger.com/news/2007-04-23/why-we-should-no-longer-tolerate-outrageous-conspiracy-theories-about-arabs-and-muslims?page=2


 * The problem is that Wikipedia have a policy of only citing reliable sources and I did not find any example of that last time I googled. Neither do I see any example of that in what you posted above, as "blood libel" where used in either blogs, forums or commentary postings. If Wikipedia should report that the definition is extended to non-Jews, it should only do so if the term Blood libel is used in that way by mainstream media, acclaimed scholars or similar. Wikipedia is not a place to redefine the meaning of terms. Steinberger (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it: no amount of evidence, no matter how large, no matter whether the source is a university or a newspaper article, will ever convince you. Use of "blood libel" to describe any group other than Jews can never be shown to have been done, as no sources that don't confirm your own preconceptions will convince you otherwise.  Any use of the term 'blood libel' to describe anything done to a mere goy is in fact a blood libel agaisnt Jews.  And it is _pure_ coincidence that your desire to remove this article happened to come after it was suggested that Israeli blood libels against Arabs, Turks, and Muslims ought to be included.  Got it.  I am having an increasingly hard time to not ascribe a lack of good faith on your part.  If you want to continue to destroy any scrap of neutrality on wikipedia, go ahead, motek.  יש כבר התעמולה הישראלית יותר מדי כאן. מה עושה קצת יותר משקרת בעניין? כדי להגן על המדינה שלנו, כל מותרת. נכון? 72.145.145.232 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and _you_ are the only one saying that blood libel refers only to Jews; you are the one seeking to redfine terms. 72.145.145.232 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you have not got it. A mainstream news-piece, some non-self-published book, a report from some acclaimed organization not to speak of an article in peer-reviewed journal would suit me and Wikipedia fine. But one million personal blogs will not. Steinberger (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed some of the links, and I agree that they are rhetoric and hyperbole rather than serious use of the term. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh! There he goes again ...
Steinberger is at it again! He stated "If it can't be verified that accusations of human sacrifice against other groups then Jews have been called blood libels (and not only that the accustaions have been likened to the "blood libel against Jews") I opt that we see this page deleted and have Blood libel against Jews moved here after merging relevant material to either it or human sacrifice" Over 20,000 citations to the contrary could be found in ten seconds on google that did just that were noted ... but not enough for him. Since he can't get his way through honest debate, first he claims that 'if I'm not right, I must be disproved" then any evidence is dismissed. Meanwhile _he_ is making teh extraordinary claim that the term "Blood libel" is exclusively used to refer to Jews.  Well, if that were true, why can literal tens of thousands of examples of all manner of use of the term be turned up on the internet alone?  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and he has not provided anything beyond "that one link is broken".  Pushing his POV through his OR for his extraordinary claims _is_ the problem.  If he insists on such attempts, perhaps he needs to be barred from edit warring.  72.145.145.232 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, show us some reliable source that say that non-Jews have been the target of a "blood libel". If you can't find any example, it is sign that you have a novel understanding of that term. Steinberger (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? you're the one with the novel reading of the term. Demonstrate that no one ever has used 'blood libel' to refer to non-Jews; that's _your_ claim; not _mine_! 72.145.145.232 (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This and this explicitly define Blood libels as against Jews. You want to redefine the term, making it more general in scoop. Then show me a reliable source. It should be very simple for you if you are right. Because it is you, who want to include something in the article that have the burden of proof and not the me, the one who challenges it. Steinberger (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Steinberger, I'm entirely with you on this issue. In all languages I know BL refers exclusively to Jews. The article is a massive coatrack of marginal relevance.Galassi (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Total agreement. Article is now fixed and antisemitic crap is gone.  Joatsimeon (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that a number of sources using the term "blood libel" for similar accusations made against non-Jews (mostly for the accusation against Christians in the 2nd century CE and against splinter Christian sects in the Middle Ages, sometimes for the claims of satanic ritual abuse as well) have been found during the deletion debate. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you further the latter. I have seen static ritual abuse being resembled to "the blood libel", not said to be one. On the others you are quite correct. Steinberger (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ontario Consulatants on Religious Tolerance is one such source; it defines blood libel as "the accusation by 'religious group A' that 'religious group B' is committing unbelievably despicable acts of ritual murder" and lists numerous examples from 1st century BCE to 20th century CE, including SRA. Some of the other sources I had linked also include SRA as an example of blood libel; namely, this and this one. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced of the reliability the third source. The first, the one you qoute is also somewhat dodgy. Both are mostly unreferenced (the single reference they each have don't support SRA as an example of a Blood libel). The second source is self-published (quoting a RS) and nothing in it say that SRA is an example of a Blood libel (it say accusations "of this sort", but the name "blood libel" is not explicitly used and perhaps with a purpose). On this issue I feel we have to be contempt with "similar" or "likened with" and not explicitly state that satanist ritual abuse is a blood libel. It can be mentioned though. Steinberger (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Falseness of Blood Libel
To Steinberger- Just in case your English is insufficient: Regardless of the UK law which is not required to consider the falseness of the accusations - the Blood Libel is explicitely, deliberately and patently false. There is no source in this universe that would indicate otherwise.--Galassi (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the blood libel is so extremely false, then show me sources where it is said explicitly. You know, the best remedy to our problem would be a string of sources where historians testify that they never encountered any evidence to support blood accusations and then note that in the article, eg "consensus among historians is that there are no truth to the accusations". Steinberger (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole book on the subject http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/17_r/rez/reznik.html . -Galassi (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Then could you translate an excerpt of the relevant part? Steinberger (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I could. IN the meantime - this is whal LIBEL article says here on Wiki: "In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images." -Galassi (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And that wikitext you are quoting lacks sources and is evidently untrue as UK and the US, both with common law, differs in this very issue. Steinberger (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

BBQed fetus and baby fertilizer
The allegations about Chinese eating BBQed fetus and the Berlusconi story do not fit the definition of "blood libel", nor do the sources use that term. Putting them here under that label appears to be a form of synthesis. Unless a convincing argument to the contrary is given in the next couple of days, I'll proceed to remove them. --Lambiam 09:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ready to merge
I've just deleted a number of paragraphs describing incidents which no source calls a "blood libel". This leaves nothing but blood libels against Jews. As far as I can see, all that's required to complete the merge is to turn this page into a redirect. I'll wait a little while for comments before I do that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just saw the deletion discussion, which I'd missed. My interpretation of the consensus is that (after any content merge) Blood libel against Jews should be renamed (moved to) Blood libel, and not the other way around, which afaik requires deleting the present page. --Lambiam 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand the discussion correctly, deleting the present page is problematic, but apparently instead the content of Blood libel against Jews should be "merged" to here, after which that page can be made to redirect to Blood libel. --Lambiam 15:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If sources only support a title and a topic of Blood libel against Jews then I think that should be the sole article on the topic. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a simple matter to make this page a redirect to Blood libel against Jews (no need to delete it). My personal opinion is that once that's done, the name of that page should be changed to Blood libel. Comments? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot change the name of a page to that of an existing page. --Lambiam 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there should be only one page on this topic. If sources support both the content and the title of Blood libel against Jews then that should be the solitary page on that topic. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However, there was a whole discussion about this on AfD, and the consensus of that discussion (as I see it) was different. --Lambiam 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was closed as merge to the other article. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, or what you believe the consensus was. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it was closed as you say, this appears to be a misreading by the closing admin of the consensus that emerged from the discussion, namely: (A) there shall be only one article; (B) the name of that article shall be "Blood libel"; (C) the content of the article shall (essentially) be that of the article that is now named "Blood libel against Jews". An easy way to implement this consensus would have been to delete the current Blood libel article and to move Blood libel against Jews in its place by renaming it; unfortunately, however, as pointed out by Uncle G, this approach is not an option under our copyright policy. Therefore the effect has to be achieved in a roundabout way: by "merging" the break-out Blood libel against Jews back into Blood libel while removing the OR that had accrued there. As you can easily verify, this was supported by the large majority of discussants following Uncle G's comment, including you ("I personally favor redirecting Blood libel against Jews to this article and making this article read in a way that's substantially similar to the other one, with, perhaps, a small section mentioning other groups that have been the target of blood libels (provided it's well researched and cited.)"). --Lambiam 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've performed the merge according to (what I believe was) the consensus. --Lambiam 21:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Blood libels are false..."
Galassi insists that the article should begin "blood libels are false accusations". We have discussed this before and he have used two ways of reasoning to support his notion.

First, he say that libels are defined as false and thus that blood libels are false. That is not true. Libels does not have to be false. Moreover, deductions like his are in violation of the policies on original synthesis.

Second, he have urged me and other that have contested "false" to come up with "one example" where the blood accusation have been true. In this he tries to shift the burden of proof as laid out in the policies. However, more important is that abstinence of evidence is not evidence of abstinence (a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance). Even if I or someone else can't present an example of an true blood accusation, we can't conclude that the accusations always are false. Steinberger (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to study up on your logical fallacies. All documented accusations lack documentation proving them, and most feature documentation disproving them where possible. The experts are not ignorant, they have the facts to back themselves up. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that reference to the works of experts are missing from this article. Steinberger (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In modern English libel is a false accusation by definition at the dictionary level. Period. What you are doing is perpetuating an antisemitic canard, by the same original synthesis. Is that your intention?-Galassi (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To demand sources is not in any way near original synthesis. And, yet again, it is you who have the burden to find sources if you want to say that blood libels are false. Steinberger (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Other way around. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it is for you or Galassi to find sources as there are no sources in article to back up the claim. Steinberger (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Blood libels are false. All the reliable sources say so. If you have a reliable source that proves otherwise, please provide it. Right now it's what all the experts say versus what some guy on Wikipedia wants to say. We have to go with the experts on this. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bother reading trough what I wrote? Where are these reliable soures? Where are the articles and books "all the experts" have written? Looking trough the references to this article, this 100-year old source is only one I can spot that do say that blood libels are false. And the old encyclopedia entry do not do so in a so direct and defining way as in this article, rather they denounce those who, devoid of proof, are "proselyting" the idea going on to cite authors that "pronounce the accusation false" or "refute" it. As I noted above in another section, I have nothing against writing that so indirectly, eg stating that there are no proof and that consensus is that the accusation is false. But I want that, a qualifier to "false". Steinberger (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Galassi brought four sources to the article here. But seriously, all of those sources are substandard and only one (the retained) is "reliable" in a wiki-sense. The first was mideastweb.org that seem user generated and thus unreliable. The second was an essay by Abraham Dukes in an scientific anthology. The thing is that he is the only one who say it is false in the whole anthology and is doing so sweepingly in a dependent clause, going on to discuss a more specific subject. The third source was not even about blood libels and do not say "false". The last was an chapter in the internet edition of March of the titans - A history of the white race by white-supremacist Arthur Kemp and I do not think we should use known racists as experts on this. Steinberger (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper article ‘A Play for Gaza,’ a debate on hatred (by Graeme Hamilton in National Post) and the book review Trials of the Diaspora by Anthony Julius (by Antony Lerman in the Guardian) are, although published by reliable outlets, clearly substandard. They are not about "blood libels". The authors are not historians, not versed in historiography, epistemology ect. As with Abraham Dukes, I think they editorialized an opinion (eg their judgment on facts) to a objective fact. Better sources is needed for "false" - or at least something elsewhere in the article that can motivate such a common judgment on facts. Steinberger (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Clearly substandard" is you personal opinion. You would have to document professional opinions re such substandard qualities thereof.-Galassi (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not my personal opinion. WP:IRS lay out three criteria to use for identifying reliable sources and the last two sources does not comply fully with any of them. News articles and book reviews are far from perfect as sources on historical facts, the authors are not experts and newspapers should be avoided on academic subjects. Steinberger (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And although Dukes is a historian and he got his article published in a academic press, what he wrote is an essay. That means that it is his opinion (judgment) is that blood libels are "false". Steinberger (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is this fellow Ariel Toaff that have broken the the consensus, according to a book review by Franco Cardini cited in Sabina Loriga's peer-reviewed article The Controversies over the Publication of Ariel Toaff’s “Bloody Passovers” "[Toaff] limits himself, with limpid prudence and exemplary courage, to observing that definitive proof is lacking for declaring that this was a calumny; absent such proof ... no one is authorized to deny, a priori, the possibility that the investigations carried out by the authorities at the time may be believable." So, there you got it. A source that do say that there is a conflict over wither blood libels always are false. (The article do say that there was a consensus among 20th century historians that blood libels where without merit and it cites a number of historians that have argued against Toaff. But there clearly is no consensus on that the blood libel is "false" anymore.) Steinberger (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus remains unchanged. Feel free to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Toaff as you see fit.--Galassi (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article on Ariel Toaff is a typical WP:POVFORK and the unrest that is lingering after his book should be reflected here too... So where is the source where the consensus is said to have remained unchanged? Your newspaper articles? If so, you are the one who is tendentious and disruptive as you should know that you need sources that comply with WP:RS/AC to establish that there still is a consensus in this issue. If you can't establish that there is a present consensus on "false" then do not say so. Steinberger (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible compromises
I could manage with just "accusation" in the lead, but as Galassi insists on "false" (without appropriate sources) I have changed "false accusation" to "myth" as some kind of compromise. The latter word is frequently used to describe the blood libel (in both Loriga and Dundes for example) and do imply that it is false - but it is no definitive judgment on the issue. Possibly, "legend" is even more accurate for describing the accusation (and also used frequently) but I stick to "myth" for now. Steinberger (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Emptatic NO. Myth implies nonexistent accusations and victims, in English as well as Swedish. The accusation are NOT A MYTH, and are very well documented. IN this context "myth" is utterly inappropriate.
 * It can refer to "ritual murder" but not to accusation thereof.--Galassi (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I get your objection. That there is an accusation is not a myth, but what the accusation is about is. But then instead of "is the myth" we could use "refers to the myth" and get out of any such problems. Steinberger (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Then "false accusations" must be included in the lede.--Galassi (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why must it be included in the lead now when the grammatical error is corrected? The use of the word "myth" to reefer to the accusations are uncontroversial and plentiful in academic sources. That is contrary to the use of "false accusations" that you only could support with personal essays and articles in newspapers. Steinberger (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For a simple reason: to avoid the implications that BL is not groundless. Is this what you're driving at?--Galassi (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. For me it is a question of intellectual honesty. Why do you think so few historians ever use the words "true" and "false"? Steinberger (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So does your intellectual honesty tell you that some BL is justified?--Galassi (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I don't believe so. Steinberger (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And what do the reliable sources contradict your belief apropos?--Galassi (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please rephrase that so it becomes apprehensible? Steinberger (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Myth is inaccurate for the scholarly term myth and vague if what you mean is myth = false. Accusation or legend would be better. Accusation is more to the point. And false is, again, well supported by the reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree a "libel" is, by definition, a specific claim or accusation made against real individuals or groups, not just a "myth", which is typically a belief in gods or supernatural beings/events, or stories about the interactions of such supernatural beings with humankind. In addition, the fact that the blood libel is a false accusation or claim is well-supported by many reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I used it for its vagueness - colloquially it is understood as "false" and could thus be a compromise in absence of good sources. But your sources are mush better then those I could find or those brought here by Galissi, so I have to budge. But there is one thing you all should be aware of. And that is the reaction I had on the word "false". I, as many, have accepted the limits of knowledge - the inherent uncertainty of everything but in mathematics - and have grown allergic to absolute assertions of truth or its opposite. Thus words like "false" or "true" acts as a red cape (it is a idiom in Swedish used to note something that is annoying, it has to do with the muleta in bullfighting) and have detrimental effects on the credibility of any text. That is unlike words like "unfounded", "unproven", "groundless" or "unjustified". Steinberger (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I brought the sources. While I understand you might have a negative reaction to the word "false", in this case it's merely an accurate descriptor well-attested in reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not browse the article history. And because "false" is "well-attested" I will not bother you with my inherent doubt in the possibility of truly attesting that. Steinberger (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To which I have to add that in English TRUE and FALSE have no irritating effect. They are merely precise qualifiers, and English is a notoriously precise language.--Galassi (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is so precise, it is just like in Swedish. And if it precise, it is word, that free from irony, have a definitive absolute meaning. If so, I really can't understand how scholars dare to use it as especially the discipline history is a plagued by uncertainty. Especially since "historians have taken for granted that the accusations of ritual murder were full of inconsistencies". Or in the words of Hermann Strack, who still in the late 19th century found "it necessary to affirm the innocence of the Jews in no uncertain terms, but from that point on historians have felt no need to belabor the point, which they considered a proven fact." page 6 (474) That is, historians have taken for granted that Jews where innocence, but have failed to prov that with absolute certainty.
 * As I said above, the terminology is verified and I have to concede to its usage. But at least the grounds for that judgment, juxtaposition and generalization of fact, should be explained in the article. Or put another way, why do scholars believe that it is "false"? For a skeptical reader, such a section could rehabilitate some the ravaged creditability that usage of words like "false" gives. Steinberger (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions
In the section #descriptions of alleged ritual murder it is said that "William of Norwich (d. 1144) is the first known case of alleged ritual murder". A few sections down, under the topic #antiquity, we can read that the "first recorded instance of blood libel was by the Graeco-Egyptian author Apion" who lived more then 1000 years earlier. Steinberger (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How is the article corrected. Is it so that Apion was fist to levie the blood libel and William of Norwich the first that lead to widespread prosecution? I am not sure about the accuracy of that and think that is an misunderstanding. According to Gavin Langmuir :

So, if I understand Langmuir correct. Apon did not level a blood libel against Jews, but an accusation of ritual murder (without children and use of blood in the baking of bread). And William of Norwich is the first commonly agreed upon account of blood libel. Steinberger (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Bread and children are usually, but not always part of Blood Libel (which is ritual murder).-Galassi (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Alan Dundes makes a distinction between blood libel and more general ritual murders in the preface to his anthology, calling blood libel a subset of ritual murder. How do you explain that? Do you have any other source that say that ritual murder and blood libel is totally synonymous? Steinberger (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Human sacrifice and Blood libel are not the same thing! Blood libel is a subset of ritual murder, even a subset of Jewish ritual murder according to Dundes. Something that is supported by Langmuir in the same anthology (he does mention Apion in his essay). Not even Jewish Encyclopedia state that they are the same. See "Blood Accusation" where Apion charges only is told as a preface to the more specific BL. Steinberger (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Actual Jewish practices regarding blood and sacrifice" Needs to be removed, not relevant
Just because there are laws in the Torah that forbid murder,sacrifice and cannibalism doesnt mean thats proof that those actions didnt happen. There are laws in America that forbid murder also, that doesnt mean people dont murder. We have prisons full of convicted murderers. There are murderers from all religions and all races, and Im sure the majority of their laws state that murder is wrong. But what does one really expect from a crazy article like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleAAmazin (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Aftonbladet article
I find it extraordinarily suspicious that the paragraph dealing with the Aftonbladet article, despite being a part of the "Blood libel" entry for an entire year, is suddenly deemed a coatrack merely because I have pointed out that the Israeli government admitted it has, in the past, harvested tissue and organs from its own Israeli citizens, Palestinians, and foreign workers without their families' consent. This information is obviously relevant to the Aftonbladet story and their (false) blood libel of Israelis kidnapping Palestinians for their organs, for it reveals that there is actually a grain of truth at the core of the story. It is useful information for anyone who seeks to understand how such modern blood libels come to be, despite casting the past actions of Israeli doctors in a questionable light. Unga Khan (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blood libel refers SPECIFICALLY to the ritual murder and the ritual use of blood, not transplants.--Galassi (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then based on this strict definition of blood libel as "the ritual murder and the ritual use of blood", I have removed two more examples of modern cases that were listed but do not meet the criteria in order that the page may follow a consistent reasoning. Unga Khan (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more.--Galassi (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad we can agree. Unga Khan (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"assumed to be"
I've moved this recent insertion to the talk page for discussion: , what is assumed to be, To begin with, a libel is, by definition, a false claim or accusation. Not something that is "assumed to be" false, but something that is actually false.

In addition, the quotation itself does not support the claim made for it - that the definition of a blood libel is something that is "assumed to be" a false claim or accusation. Rather, the quote is the opinion of a specific author that 20th century historians have "taken for granted that the accusations of ritual murder were full of inconsistencies, as they were based on confessions extracted under torture", and they "considered [it] a proven fact". This author's opinion regarding the researches of all 20th century historians on the subject is all well and good, but that doesn't actually change the definition of what a "blood libel" is - a false accusation of ritual murder. A true ritual murder would not, in fact, be a "blood libel" at all, but rather a "ritual murder".

Also, it's a WP:REDFLAG to claim that the blood libels were only "assumed" to be false, rather than actually false. Regardless of Loriga's opinion, the historical consensus is still that these claims were false.

And finally, it's rather disturbing to see a continuation of the issue above, the pushing of a WP:FRINGE view that the accusations that Jews use the blood of murdered Christian children in their matzos may, in fact, be true. There is a pattern of edits here that is unsettling. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Steinberger now changed the DEFAMATION page similarly, in order to precipitate libel justifications. Calls for DIGWUREN, IMHO.--Galassi (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To begin with. Libel have, under influence from the libel laws of US and elsewhere come to incorporate the requirement that it is false. That is not etymologically original and not true in say, the UK common law or in many civil law jurisdictions. The definition that it is false is not universally present in dictionaries either. The original meaning, in the way it is used, is that that a libel is a statement to put someone or something in a bad light.
 * Then we comes to the question wither it supports what is supposed to. I think so. Historians have failed to "in no uncertain terms" prove the libel false. They have been contempt with assumptions. Instead they have been occupied with the evolution of the myth.
 * Also notice that we talk about a statement in a peer-reviewed journal. WP:REDFLAG demands exceptional sources, and if not peer-reviewed journals are exceptional I don't know what. And it is not WP:FRINGE as it does not run contrary to the majority view. Loringa does not say that the blood libel is true, that would be fringe. She only concludes that there have never been definitive proof for that assertion that it is false. That is something most historians should agree with.
 * Also, I have never said that blood libels are true. It may be false, but I think we should let the readers conclude that for themselves from the lack of evidence rather then overconfidently write it on their noses. Steinberger (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the Loriga article. the words "assumed to be" are NOT PRESENT in it.--Galassi (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But "taken for granted" IS in the article. And "taken for granted" and "assumed" are synonymous. That is something that I have been open with. Steinberger (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so precisely in English. Assume also means suppose, and as such implies way too much for you POV benefit.--Galassi (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Whats the difference? And what about "traditionally seen as", "accepted as" or "presumed to be"? Steinberger (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, in English: assume = take in, suppose, pretend, simulate, feign, counterfeit, sham. Get it now?--Galassi (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No. It is not an answer on what the differences on "assume" and "suppose" are. And "assume" can't reasonable mean all that at the same time. Steinberger (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But it can mean MORE THAN ONE. That's why we stick to less ambiguous words, lest look like sneaky BL-pushers.--Galassi (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I still can't see how "assumed" could be misinterpreted. Steinberger (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Steinberger, your view that Jews may actually use the blood of Christian children to bake matzos is quite disturbing, and your additional view that we should leave doubt in the minds of the readers so they can decide this question for themselves is an abuse of WP:V and WP:NPOV. The overwhelming consensus of historians is that the blood libels are false, despite your claim that they "have failed to "in no uncertain terms" prove the libel false". They need not prove it to your satisfaction, and the article will not reflect your personal doubts in the matter. Rather, in accordance with WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V, the article will reflect the consensus of historians, notwithstanding the claim by one author that they have all "considered [it] a proven fact". Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not my view, but directly verified from sources. And cause it is a peer-reviewed article in a renowned journal is not WP:REDFLAG. And the conclusion that there are no certainty to a claim does not equal disbelief in it, thus it is not WP:FRINGE either. And, how is it, are your sources as "exceptional"? Are they peer-reviewed? Steinberger (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Loriga is a source making a unique claim that, by the way, is not what you claim it to be. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal enhances reliability, but it doesn't make that single source outweigh all the other reliable sources. Please review WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Does she not say that there is a lack of certainty in the claim of "false" but that historians have taken it it for granted? It was a while ago since I read the Loriga's article, but from what I remember, (non-Jewish) historians was said to be hesitant to question the flimsy ground on which all accounts of the accusation was classified as false in fear of being seen as antisemites. The initial response from those historians on Toaff was that of acclaim, not so that they necessarily bought what he wrote straight off, but because he dared to question the consensus. To me that story too, is, in itself, a manifestation of the disbelief in the certainty with which the claim of "false" is made. (Later, it turned out that Toaff's book led to a storm of controversy and the discussions took several twists and those twists are a big part of her article. Historians did, however, not universally turn their backs on him, although most seem to have been skeptical of his claims.) Steinberger (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I understand a little more of the background to the discussion at Talk:Defamation. While it is pretty clear to me that libel does not in general and under all circumstances imply falsehood, nonetheless the "libel" in the expression "blood libel" does imply falsehood. The statement "Jews make matza from Christian blood" would not be libellous if it were true since it would be both clearly in the public interest and a statement whose purview is objective (statement of fact) rather than subjective. I think this is a jurisdiction-independent statement. Zargulon (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a long story and they are only somewhat related. If you review the history of the article, in the beginning it was claimed that "false" was true and the reason it was true was because "libel" in "blood libel" said that. I have problems with absolute statements (especially without sources, as it lacked then) and pointed out that libel does not have to be true. Back and forth, Galassi edited the defamation article to reflect his own ideas about defamation, removing parts that modified the assertion that libel equals untruths and I duly reacted on that. Only later, I read myself into the blood libel and was made certain that there was no certainty to, the now verified, false. Don't misinterpret that as if it has something to do with my involvement in Talk:Defamation, they are separate. Steinberger (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To begin with, a number of reasons were given for the reason that blood libels were false, listed at the very top of this section. Please don't misrepresent that. Second, your involvement in the Defamation article is quite obviously related to your involvement here; it was no coincidence you edited that article to support your arguments here, so please don't misrepresent that either. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To begin with, this conflict are longer then this section and there where no sources present at the beginning. Second, Galissi did infact edit defamation to support his arguments here. And that is the reason why I am involved at defamation. Steinberger (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, was that your proxy IP that got blocked then? Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Steinberger (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Blood Libel Does Not Fall Under The Umbrella of Antisemitism. Rather, The Optional Antisemitic Component Of It Falls Under the Umbrella of Blood Libel
As such, the article should not be featured with the "Antisemitism" identifying icon. Blood libel has been used as a form of religious and ethnic persecution across many different cultures and religions throughout history. Jewish people have seen the most claims of blood libel for any one group, but this fact hardly makes blood libel solely a Jewish problem. In my opinion, the article focuses too much on the Jewish aspect of blood libel, giving the term too circumscribed a meaning that is misleading to the lay reader and is perhaps disrespectful of other groups that have endured similar persecution.

For instance, the following groups have been accused of blood libel as well, and these instances are well sourced:

Mormons

Christians

Muslims

Wiccans

Pacific Islanders

Native Americans

African Tribes

Gypsies\Roma

Why then, does the article focus entirely on blood libel against Jews? It needs broadening in order to be accurate.

Spacejesus5000 —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC).


 * You are mistaking accusations of human sacrifice with blood libel.--Galassi (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No I am not, those examples of non-Jewish blood libels fit the definition.


 * "Blood libel: A false belief which has endured since the 1st century BCE. It states that members ::of a religious group kidnap, abuse, ritually murder and sometimes eat the body of a member of ::another religion. Groups creating this groundless fable include ancient Greek and Roman Pagans, ::Christians, Nazis, and Muslims. Innocent religious groups victimized by the fable include Jews, ::Christians, Wiccans, Druids and other Neopagans, and Roma (Gypsies). The hoax exists today mostly ::among some Muslims (against Jews) and some Fundamentalist Christians (against Wiccans, Satanists ::and other religious minorities)."


 * http://www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_b.htm


 * Spacejesus5000 —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
 * There's no indication that that source is reliable, and in any event it doesn't really matter. Blood libel is a classic antisemitic canard, so the template is appropriate regardless of whether or not it also applies to other groups. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Guest comment - I agree - this is not remotely a problem that centers only with the Jews.  The Jews certainly got a large portion of this - but I believe there should be comments about Fundamentalist Christians who are now claiming their are widespread cults of teenagers engaging in human sacrifices in the United States.  See Christine O'Donnel for one manifestation of this hysteria.  If people don't nip comments like this in the bud - they'll be back to accusing the Jews of doing it as well.  Wiccans are frequently blood libeled.  I heard a victim-witness psychologist claim she had treated a witch that a coven was trying to impregnate to sacrifice her baby.  Such claims are just absurd - but to say this is a phenomenon that applies only to the Jews is, in and of itself, very biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.225.239 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say it applies only to Jews. Please don't insert your own unsourced opinion in front of existing citations that don't support your statements. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article focusses almost exclusively on the nonsense being directed at Jews, I don't see any other group getting a look in, but perhaps I have myopia and I'm unable to see the references to other groups. So please find me just one such references in the text notable incidents that refers to a group other than Jews? John lilburne (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article DOES, however, say "almost always Jews", which is factually inaccurate and highly biased. I grew up listening to Baptist, Pentecostal, and non-denominational Christian preachers ascribing these things to pagans, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Wiccans, and members of the Church of Satan, but never Jews. To say "almost always Jews" does not take the entire world or its history into account, only those regions and times where Jews have been especially demonized, which, contrary to popular belief, is not 'everywhere' or 'all the time', though it is certainly the most harped-upon. The Yanomamö tribe in South America makes similar accusations against neighboring tribes, as have the natives of East and Southeast Asia against Caucasians (and vice-versa), throughout history. Partially due to the fact that they drank horse blood and had atrocious manners by Christian standards, Mongols were accused of cannibalism.(Pathfinders: A global history of exploration, volume 2006, part 2 confirms this.) Many of the accusations in the time of the Salem Witch Trials were blood libel. Bob Larsen's lecture entitled "Witchcraft and the Occult" provides an exemplary instance of blood libel against the Church of Satan, Wiccans, and pagans of other sorts, in modern times. It circulated among the Assembly of God churches in the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s via cassette tape, before his book "Hell on Earth", upon which a portion of the lecture was based, went out of print. Jews are not mentioned in an unfavorable light in this. I recommend that the phrase "almost always Jews" be removed, otherwise the neutrality of this article could be in dispute over three words that are, in that order, in nearly any other situation, considered racist or a twisted form of boosterism with heavy leanings toward Schadenfreude. Jews aren't always the ones being persecuted, and they aren't always persecuted without just cause. It is a touchy topic as it is. The bottom line is that there are well-documented cases of blood libel being committed against many groups other than the Jews, worldwide. Furthermore, the section "Descriptions of Alleged Ritual Murder" has only 1 citation. This article is below Wikipedia's standards to begin with. Finally, arguing that something is a "classic antisemitic canard" is akin to arguing that we should display the United States flag with only 13 stars on every page with a footnote about the new stars, because it is the original. The reason the template should be removed is the same as the reason we display 50 stars on the U.S. flag's image here in Wikipedia: some things need to be updated to conform to modernity. We have two images of the flag, why not a section for Jews under the broader concept of blood libel, rather than the majority of the article being about how it was perpetrated upon Jews? Put the template down there. It's misleading for it to be the first thing you see on the page. Brian (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian, please check WP:RS. What you grew up listening would not be a good source for Wikipedia content, I hope you can admit that. -- H eptor  talk 14:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's obvious; what I grew up listening to would be considered original research. But seriously? You're going to ignore every other word I said and revert my edit that removes only the words "almost always Jews"? I'm going to refer you to WP:W2W and WP:NPOV, Heptor. I removed those three words in order to keep the article's neutrality out of dispute, because that loaded phrase, in particular, is creating bias starting with the article's first sentence. Now, I'm putting the article in POV dispute. The fact that there were those that attempted to drill prejudice in my head doesn't mean that the practice is uncommon and isn't among valid points that other people before me have made, many of which can be cited using reliable sources without our experiences ever having entered into it. If I had the time, I would just improve the article by reorganizing it completely, with citations, including ten or fifteen other minorities, log in to an account with page-locking privileges, and tell everyone to sit and spin on the final product. A project like that, however, fits the scope of a dissertation, not an encyclopedic article with a contributor only looking to remove bias without biting anyone or assuming bad faith. If a few amiable, un-biased people could look past the Jews and see that every other religious and ethnic group in history has been defamed in one way or another, and many of those defamations have been documented, we could actually get somewhere with the content of this article. Certain editors are choosing to ignore common knowledge in favor of policy, and, instead of doing what they should be doing (e.g. looking for references for uncited material instead of performing niggling reverts), they are attempting to keep the article's focus in antisemitism rather than what blood libel is by definition: the defamation of character of a minority involving false claims of that minority's use of blood, most frequently that of human children, in religious rituals. Just because there is more research about blood libel against Jews does not allow you to give undue weight as to which groups have experienced this phenomenon. Or should we just add the phrase "almost always blacks" to the article slavery? The proof is in the pudding, and it's a pretty good argument for a Zionist (oh no! not THAT adjective!) bias.


 * By the way, the OCRT, which is a reliable secondary source, and has been used as a reference on Wikipedia in hundreds of articles about varied religious topics, defines blood libel thusly: A false belief which has endured since the 1st century BCE. It states that members of a religious group kidnap, abuse, ritually murder and sometimes eat the body of a member of another religion. Groups creating this groundless fable include ancient Greek and Roman Pagans, Christians, Nazis, and Muslims. Innocent religious groups victimized by the fable include Jews, Christians, Wiccans, Druids and other Neopagans, and Roma (Gypsies). The hoax exists today mostly among some Muslims (against Jews) and some Fundamentalist Christians (against Wiccans, Satanists and other religious minorities).

Apparently, User:Jayjg didn't look any farther than the tertiary source before declaring the entire statement invalid, using bias as justification. My point, exactly.

Please don't refer me to WP:RS again. I'm not against referrals, I just find it to be a hypocrisy for you to refer me to a policies that I can edit and have been familiar with for years, especially when I cite a reliable source in my argument. Not only that, but I've been a registered Wikipedian (in this account) for around a year longer than you, number of edits on this particular account notwithstanding. I've been a registered user since before there was a reliable source policy. I remember when Wikipedians were called Wikipedophiles as a joke by a couple of institutions we now consider reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Most colleges do not allow Wikipedia to be cited, and many professors do not allow anything that Wikipedia has cited, in addition to disallowing Wikipedia in bibliographies. The edit war follows, I'm sure. O sibili, si ergo! fortibus es inero. O nobili! demis trux! Si vats inem: caus en dux. (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean here. As far as I can tell, you've made 66 edits to Wikipedia. To which reliable sources are you referring? Can you quote what they say on the subject? Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK?
I have no axe to grind here - Palin's use of the term seemed notable and therefore fit along side the other uses. It was certainly done with deliberation. Is there some reason why it doesn't belong here? Is there is a concern about POV? If so, on which side of the debate (pro-Palin or anti-Palin) does the objection to referencing Palin's use of the term spring? Ronnotel (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Palin's use of the term is just wrong. Not sure the article needs a section on "misuses".--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right or wrong, it's obviously passed into the public consciousness - there are over 100 citations in reliable sources already - NYTimes, WP, The Atlantic, FOXNews, CBS News, Reuters, etc. Hard to make the case that this isn't a notable usage. Ronnotel (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I re-added the section. It was balanced, sourced and relevant. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's Blood Libel comment not appropriate for this article
Per the definition of the topic: Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.

Therefore that section should be moved to te the entry on Sarah Palin, as it is not encyclopedic information about Blood Libel, but about Sarah Palin's usage of the term in a metaphorical sense. Otherwise, there should be an "As Metaphor" section in this article where metaphorical usages of the term can be separated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.197.15 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blood libel applies to any usage of the term -- and right now Palin's usage of it is widely reported and notable. It belongs here. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. Going by notability, there's no question it belongs on the list. Ronnotel (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if the usage doesn't adhere to definition provided by the article? I'm not arguing that it isn't notable, but rather that it belongs on Palin's page, not here.  The meaning that Palin has ascribed the term does not fit in with the other content of this article.  My browsing of the content did not reveal a single instance of a metaphorical usage of the term.  If you don't think it belongs only on Palin's article, then might I propose a Blood_Libel(metaphor) disambiguation article, where all metaphorical usages can be tracked.
 * Palin's usage of the term is notable precisely BECAUSE of its historical meaning. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * a new article for "metaphorical" uses would run afoul of content forking prohibition. Ronnotel (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail_%28disambiguation%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.197.15 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting points on both sides. However I support leaving the reference to the Palin comment in this article for some time: a.) the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust prominently discussed the use of the term in factual and metaphorical usages - which are both in a way part of the history of the event(s) and the history of the remembrance, b.) right now people literally all over the world are wondering about the term Blood Libel, and of course the first place many will turn is Wikipedia, so it is useful to have the connection made explicitly here at least for now, and c.) if the point of the article is in part to educate the public on the term and to spread knowledge, sensitivity and understanding about its historical meaning, then the more exposure the better (within reason) - and having Sarah Palin's comment noted will probably bring more people here, will allow search engines to connect the two and bring people here even after this controversy calms down, and provides a stark warning by example to not misuse the term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.71.66 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Arbor832466's argument provides the right rationale. Palin's usage of this term provides ZERO value to the apparent aim of this article, which is to provide information about actual blood libels. Like I said, it is notable, but not for this article.  As a comparison, the article on the Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades) or Pogrom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom) never once mentions any metaphorical usages of the term, regardless of the amount of press it garnered at the time.  Following your logic, articles would be littered with information which would distract readers from the relevant information.  If someone wanted to read about Palin's usage of the phrase, they could go to her page or to the disambiguation page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.197.15 (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We also don't amend the Africa article just to note that Palin allegedly believed it was a single country..--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It in not only inappropriate, but clearly against the rules, per WP:COATRACK. The article is about blood libel, not about a daft politician.--Galassi (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"* In January 2011, following the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords at a public constituent event in Arizona, former governor of Alaska and Republican candidate for Vice-President Sarah Palin used the term "blood libel" in a video-taped public statement to describe the claims by her political opponents that the political rhetoric of her and other conservatives, including the tea party movement, was a cause of, or contributing factor to, the shooting spree.      "


 * I've removed the entry. Palin's confusing statement is a matter for the article about her, if at all. See WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IINFO. Articles do not list every single incident of the term being wrongly used; for instance, Adolf Hitler does not list all instances in which that person has been inappropriately invoked (such as in this very post), no matter whether the incident received media coverage.  Sandstein   18:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have re-removed the entry to enforce Sandstein's prior edit. Major IP activity on the article today, of course.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Major IP activity on the article today" It's almost as though this is a noteworthy contemporary use of the term 128.2.51.144 (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin also used the word "purport." Should we alter the wiktionary entry for that word to note tht she used the word? At most, this embarassment for Palin belongs in the Palin article page, not here. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The page for "purport" isn't getting significantly more activity than usual as a result of her speech, but this page sure is. It's pretty much the only noteworthy use of the term since 2007, and page views and edits for this article have skyrocketed since she used it. I think that due to both the noteworthiness of the remark and in light of people obviously visiting this page to read up on it as a result of the remark, it merits at least a mention in the Notable Instances -> Contemporary. Just my take. 128.2.51.144 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin used the phrase 'blood libel' two days after it was used by a journalist Glenn Reynolds of the Wall Street Journal. In his article, he used the phrase "Where is the decency in blood libel?" The phrase was also used and published in 2003 and 2006 in believe. So, If Palin is to have this phrase attached to her name in Wiki, these other uses in the last decade should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronljl (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel"
Please join talk here: Talk:Sarah Palin Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"In January 2011, following the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords at a public constituent event in Arizona, former governor of Alaska and Republican candidate for Vice-President Sarah Palin used the term in a video-taped public statement to describe deliberate and coordinated false statements made with the intent to incite violence. This use of the phrase has been criticized as being ahistoric and also defended as being an accurate adaptation of historical speech. Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" Brad Hirschfield on Sarah Palin's use of 'blood libel'"

138.210.213.176 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.218.122.148, 12 January 2011
Please reconsider the remark about Sarah Palin in this article. Such an ad hominem slight only calls into question the objectivity of an otherwise good article.

72.218.122.148 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As mentioned before... See WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IINFO.. Articles do not list every single incident of the term being wrongly used. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that this is already being discussed extensively, I'm going to untransclude this request. Consensus will eventually determine whether or not the Palin quote belongs in this article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TransconaSlim, 12 January 2011
Remove or move to bottom/references.

that articles probably going to be deleted soon anyways.

TransconaSlim (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: If those articles are deleted, then at that point the deleting admin or other editors should delete all of the backlinks or change them to a different link. If they're not deleted, the info does belong here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The frequency of use of the word "allege" is suspicious
The word "Allege" or "Alleged" appears 19 times in this article. This borderlines paranoia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.75.68 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how. "Allege" means that the suspected party is not guilty, but has been accused. It is used extensively by the media to prevent litigation on the basis of libel and slander. Phearson (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hbbf, 13 January 2011
Please add that Sarah Palin, on January 12, 2011, issued a denunciation of the media and stated "journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-12/sarah-palin-says-media-guilty-of-blood-libel-why-her-speech-was-wrong/?cid=hp:mainpromo1. This is a recent usage of the term blood libel.

Hbbf (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there's no indication that it's notable or relevant to the topic, and in any event it's original research based on a primary source. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems overly nitpicky. Long sections of this article are simple lists of past accusations of blood libel.  How is this less "notable or relevant" than these examples?  (Also, aren't lists discouraged and/or not in compliance with Wikipedia policy?  I can't seem to find the right one.)  If you're upset over the precise suggested source, there are plenty of reliable sources both demonstrating both that she used the term "blood libel" as well as that such use is controversial due to the associations discussed in this article.  See, for a few of many examples, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B3W320110112, or http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/sarah-palin-remarks-over-gabrielle-giffords-offensive-to-jews/story-e6frg6so-1225987361935.  I believe something should be added as well, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit: While I understand that Ms. Palin was not using "blood libel" to suggest that Jews eat Christian babies, I don't understand why modern uses of the term are an inappropriate addition to the article.  Ms. Palin is not the only pundit to have recently used the term this way.  See, for example, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=rss_opinion_main (01/10/11 Opinion piece titled "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel").  Jewish groups have noted that the term has come back into vogue as a way to describe victims of injustice, and have encouraged the use of more appropriate language. (The director of the Anti-Defamation League stated, "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.") Why is all of this so unworthy of mention?


 * The fact that so much ink has been spilled on this issue, which certainly not itself indicative of the appropriateness of inclusion, should at least be some indication that it is a "notable" use of the term this article is about. Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Source
What is that long, italicized segment? Who wrote it? What is the source? What do italics signify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.183.195 (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific? Phearson (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * They were referring to the italicized paragraph in the first headed section immediately following the sentence "In general, the libel alleged something like this." I wondered the same thing myself.  Is it italicized because the whole thing comes from some other source?  That'd be weird since it has citations within it.  But if like the rest of the article it's been written by an editor, why is only it italicized?  Because it's a long paragraph?  Agnosticaphid (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't have internal cites, it just has internal "cite needed"s. This makes me think the whole thing is an unsourced quotation.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Often"
I added "often" to the first sentence. I think this clarifies that "blood libel" may be used in alternate ways without unnecessarily drawing attention to the current controversy over its use by Sarah Palin in particular. If we're going to studiously avoid any discussion of alternate uses, readers should be aware that "blood libel" is not only used to reference Jews. Please don't simply revert this edit again. Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you cannot put something in a Wikipedia article and simply command that other users not revert it. If others disagree with you, you have to explain how it improves the article and gain consensus for your edit. Please review WP:BRD. You boldly edited; you were then reverted; now it's time to discusss your proposed change, not simply use brute force to keep it in until someone can convince you otherwise. The phrase "blood libel" means what it means and that fact can't be changed simply because one person elects to use it in a previously unheard-of way. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is kind of ridiculous. You reverted my edit without explaining yourself at all, and then complain that I've not justified my edit.  I've reviewed WP:BRD (although I'm not sure that a single word counts as a bold change).  I've repeatedly explained, twice now, that the Anti-Defamation League itself has stated, "the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused."  Is there some reason why the Anti-Defamation League is an unreliable source on this topic?  The opposite would seem to be the case.  To be completely clear on my justification, the addition of the term "often" to the first sentence of this article would clarify that the term "blood libel" is not only used to reference Jews, as pro-Judaism groups have themselves admitted.  I would be willing to add a citation to the ADL's statement on this issue if you think it would improve the article.  I'll go ahead and do this in a couple of hours unless you have an alternative suggested compromise?  I'm willing to discuss this but you don't seem to be acknowledging any other viewpoints.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article about the term "blood libel", it's an article about actual blood libels. Also, please review WP:NOTNEWS, Recentism. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "actual blood libels," exactly? You're imposing your view of what a blood libel *is* on this article when there's obviously no consensus for this. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read the article in question? It gives specific historical events. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding me. All I'm saying is that the article "blood libel" shouldn't necessarily be limited to specific historical instances of false accusations against Jews relating to the use of blood in religious practices when it's clear that the term "blood libel" has been used at least a few times in the past few years to mean something completely different.  Particularly given that there used to be a "blood libel" article and a "blood libel against Jews" article and they were merged just a few months ago. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)  Edit:  I'm actually not sure and don't claim to know whether or not it means something "completely different."  But regardless, I don't see why it's necessarily inappropriate to include instances of non-Jewish examples. Agnosticaphid (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please review WP:NOTNEWS, Recentism, and WP:WORLDVIEW. In 5 years no-one will know, remember, or care that some failed U.S. V.P. candidate misused a term. Hyper-politicized American political rhetoric just isn't that important. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Often Blood of Europe Children oftensee Palestine Children. The 60+k hit support inclusion in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.171.251 (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Table the discussion for now
This is hot-button issue do to Ms. Palin's affiliation with political parties in the US. While the argument to add information regarding Palin's comment is not without merit, why not wait until this is discussed more by mainstream media, or until this has died down... say 10 days from now? As per the discussion, I have no opinion. Phearson (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In 5 years no-one will remember this happened, and even now no-one outside the U.S. cares about it. To repeat, everyone needs to review WP:NOTNEWS, Recentism, and WP:WORLDVIEW. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Phearson, this is already discussed a great deal by mainstream media, so that's not an argument for waiting. And Jayjg, there's a tremendous amount of material in this encyclopedia that no one in the United States cares about, yet I don't see anyone making an argument based on WP:WORLDVIEW  that such material be excluded. Since we're also not a crystal ball, I don't think you have any idea whether this will be remembered in 5 years or not, so that's not a particularly valid argument either.  In fact, it is quite possible that this comment by Palin, and its timing,  will be talked about in this country for a long time, if it has the deleterious effect on her presidential aspirations that the early commentary suggests it might.   She is, for better or worse, not just a "former VP candidate".  Tvoz / talk 09:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll wager all editors !voting "Include" above are American, and of course we have to decide what's of permanent interest and what's ephemeral, per WP:NOTNEWS. And you're right, Palin not just a "former VP candidate", she's also the star of a reality TV show. I eagerly await the opportunity to document the term's usage by Nadya Suleman, Kate Gosselin and Nicole Polizzi. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ''Hi Jayjg, I'm not American, so you lose your wager. But what do you lose? You didn't specify terms? May I suggest that you back off and let the little para. I wrote (or others revised) stay in? Under grounds of fine Canadian inclusiveness. (And please dont say that Canada=US. We kill with Snowplow, not machine pistol.) Thanks. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you identified with the Bronx? Jd2718 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's odd, on your user page you state you're a "third Generation American", a citizen of the United States, attended Harvard, and live in or hail from New York City. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ''Jayjg, you're taking user boxes as subtle distinctions? LOL. I was born in the Bronx, and have been a Canadian for 4 decades +. And Harvard is filled with unAmericans. Indeed, my Chinese student dreams daily of attending. I drink Tim Hortons every day, pray to the god of Medicare, and can sing the PizzaPizza by heart (seriously, the latter was used by Toronto immigration to check on bonafides for a while). I. Am. Canadian. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you're also American, as you proudly proclaim on your user page. Born in New York City, U.S. citizen, third generation American. It doesn't get much more American than that. The fact that you may also be Canadian is irrelevant, as the two are not mutually exclusive. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You lose your bet again. I'm English, have no family relations to America, and never even visited America, but having read the contributions here, I say include. CardboardGuru (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not just about Ms Palin. The real question is whether it's appropriate to include a section in this article's "notable examples" section discussing "contemporary secular use of [the] phrase" blood libel -- she's just a very good example of this sort of usage.  I don't see why not. It was referenced with reliable sources.  If the sources or examples were unreliable for some reason, they could be changed.  As I posted above, it's fine for articles about terms to discuss how their subject terms are used (although not how they should be used).  There are examples of other articles doing so posted in the policy I posted above.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this article is about acts of blood libel, not the use or misuse of the term. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Steelbeard1, reading other controversies, you have sometimes accused people of not reading your comments. I have read your comments here, and I wonder if you have read mine. The Blood Libel page also encompasses accusations of blood libel, which would include this one, and as I have said above, it is linked to a series of discussions that have been expanded beyond the traditional anti-Jewish one. Hence, it is both germane and relevant. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any examples in the current actual article that are not in dispute? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously since everyone's been reverting the edits that were made there's no mention of contemporary secular use of the term "blood libel" in the current article at the moment. That does not mean that the term "blood libel" has no contemporary secular use.  There were non-Palin examples in the reverted text of contemporary secular usage and there are also other examples of contemporary secular usage that were not in the reverted text.  There was also a statement from the ADL that "blood libel" has in modern parlance come been used to mean falsely accused.  Insisting that Ms Palin "wrongly" used the term and that "wrong" uses of this term shouldn't be in the article is POV.
 * Nor does the current absence of contemporary secular use in this article mean that the scope of this "blood libel" article excludes a discussion of modern usage of the term "blood libel," if such a discussion is reliably sourced. Yes, we could create a separate article on the topic of contemporary, ahistorical use of the term blood libel, but is that really necessary when we already have an article with abundant examples of blood libel accusations?
 * Ms Palin is a controversial figure and this is a sensitive topic. But if we focus on whether and why this article should or should not include a discussion of contemporary usage, I think it's clear that it should. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, your view is clear. But WP:NOTNEWS, WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:RECENTISM indicate otherwise. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how any of those policies have any bearing upon whether or not the scope of this article properly includes a discussion of contemporary usage, whether by Ms Palin or not. Your view is that three instances of what you view as contemporary "misuse" of this term -- which, incidentally, is POV -- is not enough to justify such a discussion.  Is there some golden number of uses by prominent contemporary figures that would justify a discussion of their existence in this article?  If so, perhaps myself or someone else interested in such a discussion could furnish them? Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, it may be a good idea to split the article again... Just a suggestion. Or just keep the comment made by Mrs. Palin on her own page. Phearson (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A blood libel (term) article could be made (although the recent merging seems to advise against). But this doesn't belong on Ms Palin's page -- it's not about her, it's about how the term "blood libel" has been used in recent times, and she's but one example. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the merger "advise against" that? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, why would it? Articles can be split and merged as needed, provided there is consensus. Phearson (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with another article. It just seemed like reading the discussion about merger that we'd sort of be reversing course by creating another article on the exact topic (non-Jewish usage) that seems to have been here before "blood libel against Jews" was merged in.  The problem then seems to have been OR into usage, but in my opinion that particular problem is either fixed or fixable with references to reliable sources demonstrating contemporary use or commenting thereon.  Obviously the circumstances are different now than then, though, due to all the attention Ms Palin has drawn to this issue.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As User:jayjg lost his bet, I've decided that the prize should be reinsertion of the Palin para. In the morass of 1K ? edits, I could only search my own and put that in. However, others made constructive adds to create a Contemporary Secular subhead. So fair is fair: the leading deletionist Jayjg made a bet (only Americans want to keep it in), his bet lost, and now we move on to the next tempest in a teapot. (As if.) One way to solve a Wikipedian dispute, because it looks like all involved are experienced editors, if not mellow Canadians.:) Bellagio99 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The last edit of the main article that had the "contemporary secular use" subhead with references was 00:51, 14 January 2011 Yaksar (talk | contribs) (41,621 bytes) (unnecessary word) Agnosticaphid (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I "lost the bet", since on your user page you state you're a "third Generation American", a citizen of the United States, attended Harvard, and live in or hail from New York City. That counts as "American", so, by your logic, the material stays out. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg: I am astonished that I have to remind an experienced admin of WP:AssumeGoodFaith and WP:Civil. My cultural orientation and world view reflect where I have lived for 40+ years. I have reasons for keeping the original citizenship. Calm down. You don't want to pay off on your bet, so be it. But stop lawyering me. More useful would be to answer my question: should we go for Mediation or RFC in this impasse?
 * Someone who proudly proclaims on his user page that he's from New York City, a "third Generation American", a citizen of the United States, now claims he's not American, because he's also Canadian, and accuses me of "lawyering"? LOL! You bluffed, you "lost the bet", now move on. The RFC is working, and it's clear there's no consensus to insert this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bellagio, stop it. Taunting Jayjg will get us nowhere. Consensus has not yet completed. Wait until a week has past. Phearson (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Papacy

 * "Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it."

How could beatification or canonization proceed without the sanction of the Pope sitting at that time? Since 1153 the Pope has held this power exclusively. The only power within the Holy See that could oppose the will of a sitting Pope was the office of the Devil's Advocate whose job was to try to disprove the grounds for canonization; it couldn't force canonization against the Pope's wishes. Since several of the "victims" were sainted, there were at least a few Popes who sanctioned the Blood Libel. The claim 'no pope has ever sanctioned it' should at least be qualified with something like: "Aside from the canonizing of several purported victims, no pope has overtly sanctioned the Blood Libel." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization

Thoughts?
 * jg (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * jg (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. The cults were local money spinners and there would be lobbying for a particular cult to gain approval from Rome. I doubt that a pope in Rome, some 100 years after the event, cared much about the circumstances of how someone died in England or Germany. Their only concern would be in the credulity of the 'faithful' with respect to 'miracles' said to occur in the persons name. IOW a child may not have been killed by Jews, but if the faithful believed that praying to the person cured them of warts then why not make them saint and rake in a bit of extra cash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern Usage
In 1984, Ariel Sharon sued Time magazine to defend against “blood libel”. There were over 2000 news stories covering this and Mr. Sharon had to resign his post as defense minister. Please explain how this is not notable and worthy of inclusion. Here is an example Ellan Cates UPI “Time is Accused of ‘Blood Libel’”, Durant Daily Democrat, November 15, 1984--Nowa (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This person (or someone else?) added this to the article, but it was reverted because it's the same nature as the Palin misuse. Your comment was deleted because in the view of some editors this article's not about ahistorical uses of this term.  (This seems to have happened many times, before the recent Palin incident.)  Their problem with your addition is not that it's not notable, it's that it's not relevant.  I must say, it does seem to indicate that a separate article about modern use would be, at the very least, helpful.  But that's a topic for the proposed article split. Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Here's another incidence of modern usage that could be included in a split article.--Nowa (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

''In 2006, Washington Times editor Tony Blankley accused the media of over reporting of the alleged massacre by U.S. troups of civilians in Haditha Iraq. He characterized the over reporting as a “blood libel” against US president George W. Bush ''

and another

U.S. News' Barone accused Dem pollster Greenberg of "blood libel" for saying 1988 Willie Horton ads were race-baiting

and my original post related to Ariel Sharon

''In 1984, Ariel Sharon sued Time magazine to defend against “blood libel”. There were over 2000 news stories and Mr. Sharon had to resign his post as defense minister. Please explain how this is not notable and worthy of inclusion. Here is an example Ellan Cates UPI “Time is Accused of ‘Blood Libel’”, Durant Daily Democrat, November 15, 1984''

Most of these can be found in Google News Archives.--Nowa (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A new term use article would need more secondary sources discussing ahistorical use itself. I have trouble determining what is and isn't OR for the purpose of contemporary usage and any new article on this topic is going to undergo very close scrutiny.  I'm sure there's more stuff out there, especially in light of the attention (including, admittedly, my own) Ms Palin's drawn to this, but the only definitively non-OR things that spring to mind at the moment are the statement by the anti-defamation league and the comment by professor dershowitz in the shootings article. Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC) [edited Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)]

It seems to me that there are quite a few miscellaneous uses of the term “blood libel” by prominent persons and reporters unrelated to the traditional use. Granted this is OR, and I’m not quite sure if or how it should be worked into any wikipedia article, but here are some samples.--Nowa (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A “Blood Libel” Against The N&O Raleigh newspaper shows restraint, Durham newspaper doesn’t


 * Blair seized the opportunity of a New York speech to trumpet the blood libel that Iran is now the embodiment of the entire "global ideology" of Islamic extremism…


 * But when the overall military action itself is unjust--based on the calculated perversion of public trust by lies invoking an "imminent threat" which was patently non-existent, and on the constantly insinuated blood libel that Iraq was somehow complicit in the September 11 massacres;…


 * This charge is preposterous and a true "blood libel" for all the men and women, many of whom have remained my dear friends, who worked so hard to make HSN a world-class company…


 * HILLARY'S 'BLOOD LIBEL' - AND THE POST'S, TOO


 * The episode that caught my eye -- mostly because I was acquainted with the purported principals -- is a blood libel directed at the late Kenneth O'Donnell, an original Irish Mafia aide from Massachusetts who was a quasi-chief of staff in the White House and was as close as you got to JFK outside family.


 * This is definitely something to explore including. However, using a number of articles that mention people using the term is not sufficient to do so. What is required is a source discussing contemporary use of the term in general. --Errant (chat!) 10:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree but I haven't found one. I suspect that no one really cared until the Palin usage.  Perhaps something will be written in the not too distant future.  There's no rush.--Nowa (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Using a number of articles that mention people using the term is sufficient to do so. Those articles are primary sources to document a claim that the use of the term is "x,y, or z". What you are requiring is that we source a person who made the claim by sourcing primary sources - which is what wiki should do. Cut out the middleman. Cite the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What next? RFC or Mediation
Both sides are utterly convinced of their logic, even though the side I am on is right. (Note to User:Galassi: this is called "humour" like my claim of victory was after winning the bet. Although in my ancestral Bronx and current Canada, losers pay up with a smile.)

Anyways, let's lighten up.

I assume Good Faith, albeit with some skepticism about why folks are so strongly defending censorship.

I also have Real Work to get done this weekend. So, what do we do next? User:Jayjg as you are a super high status Wikipedian, what do you suggest? It would be a second chance to pay off on your losing bet! Bellagio99 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't "lost the bet", since on your user page you state you're a "third Generation American", a citizen of the United States, attended Harvard, and live in or hail from New York City. That counts as "American", even if you happen to currently live in Canada. And no-one here is "defending censorship" in any way, much less "strongly"; they're just trying to keep hyper-political, irrelevant, navel-gazing American trivia out of articles on important topics. In the future, please make more accurate statements. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In my experinece, few people who censor say they are censoring. They have other reasons. Two years ago, I shipped many boxes of books from Canada to Vietnam. They were held up on the docks for 3 months for "cultural inspection." I treat blood libel as an important topic, and I put in a mild short para that showed how the rather unusual term had spread beyond the standard usage -- a usage that I've been familiar with since I was a kid. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't hold your books for inspection, and neither did Jayjg. Nor is anyone here censoring. We should focus on the content dispute. We know what the blood libel is, what its consequences can be. When someone tries to claim victimhood by throwing around a wild charge of blood libel, that doesn't make it so. In the case of Sharon, mentioned above, the claim was rejected by a US court and an Israeli Commission. In the case of Palin, we won't reach that point until we are past the Tucson news cycles, but we will reach that point. There is a reason editors above keep citing WP:NOTNEWS. Jd2718 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's not be uncivil now. There are two consensus discussions on this page going on at the same time, and they have not even been completed a week! Let us wait and finish before going to the next step, so we at least show good faith that we are trying. Wait until seven days have passed for each, and again, let's be civil. Phearson (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as this is the most recent section, I want to re-iterate my points above: Hopefully this is useful :) --Errant (chat!) 10:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply including the Palin mention is a prime example of WP:RECENTISM, and so we should avoid it because we are not a news source and (on its own) this use is not historically significant to the topic (at least at this stage)
 * If Palin's use of the term kicks off a fad for using it in the US political landscape that may become significant - and I am sure a source will appear at that point discussing the origins of the fad etc.
 * There is definitely space for contemporary use of the term, though we should be very careful about what we write. Terms and their uses change all the time - it is easy to write about the historical use of the term because, well, it has happened and is set somewhat in stone. Contemporary use is recent or ongoing "history" and so it is much much much harder to get a balance in the content.
 * To include contemporary uses you need to find a source that critically discusses contemporary usage, preferably contrasted to the historical usage. Listing a number of sources for people who have used the term blood libel in a modern context and using that to build a contemporary section amounts to original research and should be avoided.
 * I think this is spot on. If a proper article about contemporary use, with secondary sources, is written, I think that it would be difficult to argue against its inclusion in wikipedia.  Maybe citations to the ADL statement and Dershowitz' statement (if those are good secondary sources) and then discussion of a few different examples -- to avoid drawing undue attention to the incident with Ms Palin in particular -- would be enough.  I'm certainly no expert on this topic but I know there was also an incident with Israel and Sweden a few years ago.  I haven't looked deep enough into the Sharon incident to know what the Israeli commission found.
 * But obviously reference to a scholarly usage synthesis would be a lot better. Maybe someone has or will write such an article soon and it'd be advisable to wait a few weeks. Maybe not.  I think that it's clear that a lot of people would prefer not to have a contemporary usage discussion on this page, so it'd need to be a separate article.  Then maybe after an article's assembled we could go the RFC (or other appropriate) route. Agnosticaphid (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

clear any previous references on talk page

"Origins and use of the term" section
I've moved the following section to Talk: for discussion: "The origin of the term is not certain; however, blood libel has had varied uses.    One of the earliest reference to the term is from an article in 1998 in New York Amsterdam News called, 'Anti-Defamation League Commits Blood Libel Against Blacks.' However, the term can be found in use as early as 1990." As should be clear, the section suffers from a number of serious issues, as follows: I look forward to further comments on this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) This article is about the phenomenon of blood libel, not the term "blood libel". That's what the whole discussion above is about. This insertion is really just a back door for inserting all those Palin and related sources that are being discussed there.
 * 2) It's self contradictory. The second sentence says "One of the earliest reference to the term is from an article in 1998 in New York Amsterdam News", based on one source using it in 1998, but the very next sentence says "the term can be found in use as early as 1990", based on three sources using it in 1990. If it can be found in multiple sources as early as 1990, then how can the 1998 reference be "one of the earliest"?
 * 3) Even worse, the whole section is pure original research, based on primary sources. They're all examples of uses of the term, not discussions of usage. Which one of them states "The origin of the term is not certain" or "blood libel has had varied uses" or "One of the earliest reference to the term is from an article in 1998 in New York Amsterdam News etc." or "the term can be found in use as early as 1990"? None, of course, that's just an editor's opinion. Even if this article were about the term, this section would be unacceptable as OR.
 * 4) On top of being pure OR, it's simply wrong. The term has been used for over 100 years, and I can find many examples of its use in sources from the early 20th century. This is, of course, one of the reasons why we don't allow OR in the first place; because Wikipedia editors generally aren't good at it, which is why we leave it to experts in Reliable Sources.
 * Sounds like a sneaky attempt to get the pig with glasses into the article.--Galassi (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to use the word "sneaky." I'm sure the edit was in good faith.  I agree that the above discussion is outside the boundaries you've defined for this article.  (My intuition tells me that unless a "this article is not about usage" header is added to the article, or a separate usage article is linked to the top, editors of this page may be looking forward to a bevy of similar removals in the future.)  Finally, I agree that the sources cited cannot support the sentences written above, because text is a(n incorrect) synthesis of the cites.  I'm not sure that the references couldn't be used to support different sentences (that instead actually referred to the text in the source). Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "blood libel" is only a few decades old. The meaning of the term is defined by its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I have searched all of my history books, my religious studies books, my dictionaries, Jewishencylcopedia.com, and I searched the local University library here and I cannot find the term "blood libel" used earlier than 1990. If you have an earlier use of the term (not example of a blood libel or use of the term "blood accusation") then where is it? Give me one. Also, several of those links were discussing use. There was a Harvard law professor who discussed the broader meaning of the term that exists today and Rabbi's opinion about the broader meaning of the term.
 * Problem is... that is original research, what you discovered is neither verifiable nor reliable - you need a source that discusses this. --Errant (chat!) 16:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If editors give examples of blood libels against other groups, other editors say it primarily is a Jewish issue. If I ask you to support that, then you give examples of blood libels against Jews. However, that's what has been done; editors have provided examples of blood libels against other groups. Now it becomes an issue of definition. Definitions are defined by their use. As a contemporary term, it has been used to describe a variety of things, and many editors have given examples of its contemporary uses. This is the basic issue revolving around whether the article should split. If "blood libel", by definition, refers to Jewish things, then it should not split. If by definition it is inclusive of any false accusation against a group involving blood (ex: the Chinese government being accused of harvesting the organs of Phalun Gong members in prison) then many things could be included besides Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * if editors give examples of blood libels against other groups, other editors say it primarily is a Jewish issue. If I ask you to support that, then you give examples of blood libels against Jews., no, we do not write this article using examples - we write it using sources which discuss the topic. And we do not write anything that is not sourced. See WP:V
 * As a contemporary term, it has been used to describe a variety of things, and many editors have given examples of its contemporary uses.; great! The problem is that no one has provided a source that identifies the significance (if any) of such contemporary use to the topic. Example of recent use are great and will be useful, but without anything to tie it into the topic we are in a bind. This is the in inherent problem with documenting contemporary matters - if we wait some time this matter will be solvable simply by becoming history (for which there is always ample documentation).
 * If by definition it is inclusive of any false accusation against a group involving blood (ex: the Chinese government being accused of harvesting the organs of Phalun Gong members in prison) then many things could be included besides Jews; agreed. Please provide a reliable source, if you can find one (I tried and failed as it happens) then I utterly support you on this. --Errant (chat!) 16:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no one has provided a source that identifies the significance (if any) of such contemporary use to the topic. Example of recent use are great and will be useful, but without anything to tie it into the topic we are in a bind. Contemporary use doesn't need to be significant to some other topic.  It can be its own topic.  A discussion of ahistorical contemporary use of "blood libel" is even an encyclopedic topic.  Obviously a lot of people don't want to include that topic on this page, so another article will have to be written.  But with reference to a statement like this:  "the term "blood-libel" has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused" (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/5962_00.htm), and preferable additional reference to similar statements, I don't think that someone citing newspaper articles reporting on past usage would be OR if the citation is merely to the fact that the statement was made. A primary source on usage would be a link to, for example, Ms Palin's speech itself, but a link to an article about Ms Palin's speech is a secondary source if properly used.  AgnosticAphid  talk 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already provided examples where the term blood libels was used for different things other than Jews and it was deleted. I also provided examples of things that are blood libels (inclusive definition) and they were deleted. They were reliable sources. I used sources from journals and real news articles, and they were deleted. This is just round and round, and it all has to do with the desire to keep the word tied to Judaism when the actual use of the term does not always indicate it, and the definition of the term (including this article) does not necessitate it.
 * Try these: Templars, Roma steal children a sell them in parts, and Cathars and dissident Fransiscans. John lilburne (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)