Talk:Menahem Mendel Beilis

Land of Israel or Palestine
Jews make aliyah to the Land of Israel. In 135, Hadrian renamed Judea into Palestina, but an independent country under such name never existed. Today, the term Palestine carries very different political connotations. I don't understand the anon's insistence on using Palestine instead of Land of Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Sounds fishy... Ilikefood 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. --Anonymous44 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did Beiliss emigrate to??
NPOV should be Palestine, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.235.42 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
 * This is the anon that put in the edit summary "Arz-i Filistin". The section above has the answer. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And now it's going to be a non-anon. My reasons:


 * 1) The commonly accepted term at the time was "Palestine", as apparent in the literature.
 * 2) To most Jews, it might be "The Land of Israel", but most other nations called the region "Palestine". Wikipedia is for all nations.
 * 3) As pointed out on the talk page of aliyah, even Jews called it "Palestine" at the time (at least when writing in languages other than Hebrew). An example is the article in The Jewish Encyclopedia.
 * 4) "The Land of Israel" has very special connotations and is connected to the traditional Jewish religious view of the area as the promised land. Palestine, in contrast, is a neutral geographic term. The difference is similar to the one between calling Jesus "Jesus Christ" and "The King of Kings / The Lord / Our Savior" - the first is a neutral word, suitable for wikipedia, and one which can refer to the historical person as well as to Christian views of him. The rest are specifically Christian, designate Christian views of Jesus and are hence unsuitable. In particular, Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet and not a God; and some people, including most Palestinians, regard at least parts of "The Land of Israel" as their own land (not Israel's). Hence, using the "group-internal" names would seem to endorse one religious/national POV and reject the other. Other examples would be the use of the term "The Holy Scripture", meaning "the Bible" (which - or rather, whose - "holy scripture"?), saying that the first Muslims followed "The Prophet of God" rather than Mohammed (was he really the prophet of God? to them, sure. But what about the readers?) or calling the nations that a Muslim or Christian ruler fought against "infidels/kafirs" etc. (because they were termed so from his religious perspective).
 * 5) The sentence itself says that he emigrated "to /countryname/, then a province of the Ottoman Empire". As the anon pointed out, there was no such province as "Land of Israel"; the Ottoman province in question was officially called "Palestine"; as was, later, the British-controlled area.
 * --Anonymous44 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

picture
the eyes of the people in the picture look photoshopped(to look goofy). is there a way that this can be fixed, and, more importantly, am i just halucinating? Ilikefood 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not. It's weird. --Anonymous44 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Separate Page
Why does the Beilis case redirect to the individual, shouldn't there be separate articles on the individual and event?Nwe 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Beilis would have no notability whatsoever, if not for the Case.Galassi 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about notability being dependent solely on the case/trial. Same thing for A. Yuschinsky and other figures. Suggest a single article Beilis Affair to which separate articles for Beilis, A.Y., etc. redirect.--Jrm2007 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Religous Observance
His biography seems to imply that he was an observant jew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.119.7 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A Little Balance
I think this needs a complete rewrite, because it gives no credence to the possibility that Beilis was actually guilty of ritual murder. The fact that most cases of Jewish ritual murder have been hoaxes does not mean that all have been, and this case was notable both for the credible witnesses (eg the lamplighter) and the extensive documentation the czarist government compiled. Stories as fantastic as [UFO] and [cryptozoology] are given a much more even handed approach in Wikipedia. People of all heritages, religious or non-religious, seem to have found heretical interpretations of teaching that justify ritual murder. Are the Jews the only exception in history? It seems unlikely that centuries of accusation are completely without basis, and the Beilis case is both modern and well documented. It would also be useful to consider the accusations of the murdered witnesses. I am not an anti-semite. I don't believe matzos is made of child blood, neither am I willing to believe that in 3000 years no Jew has ever been guilty of ritual child murder.Brechbill123 (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ~What we think is irrelevant. See WP:RS.--Galassi (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ~apparently Brechbill has not realized both that the lamplighters recanted in 1912 depositions. Also Tsarist paperwork in the archives reveals the forgeries and bribes paid to people who testified for the prosecution, and the fact that the government knew Vera and her gang were guilty by summer 1911.  The references include the source with the archival material.

71.163.117.143 (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No, not quite. Our standard is: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." It's certainly possible to find significant minority views on several of these ritual murder accusations that would suggest that Jews were involved in some way. It is especially true for sources contemporary to the events--and in the Beilis case it is particularly so. Just because we wince at the uncharitability of the mythology involved does not mean we should write biased articles.Brechbill123 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The onus is on you to find a single reliable source that would give credence to ritual murder.--Galassi (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And preferably more than one. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK.Brechbill123 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Brechbill123, you are wasting everyone's time with speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.50.205 (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Intelligensia
We are told that there was no single representative of the intelligensia on the jury. The intelligensia are a highly nebulous affair, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm translating the transcripts and using various materials on ldn-knigi. The only person selected for the jury who had let's say a high school education requested and was granted release by the judge over the protests of the defense.  In 1913 a law was passed specifically for Kiev so that more people with less education would be selected for juries; Kiev was a university town and regional capital but for some reason the governor thought it wasn't fair not to have more lower-class people on juries.  Vladimir Korolenko and Vasily Shulgin both thought the timing was fishy.

108.56.212.179 (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

missing info
So you have the ISBN and you have the title but where is the author or other attribution? The Beilis Case. Modern Research and Documents. 108.56.212.179 (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ~I've done some research and I can't find this reference on Amazon, in worldcat, or anywhere. Please remove or find reliable data that will find it on some of the sites listed in the Wikipedia ISBN search function.--71.163.117.143 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

transcript translation
I'll note this but it's up to the article author to decide if it fits Wiki guidelines. I have blogged an English translation of the complete trial transcript, not just excerpts as in Ezekiel Leikin's book. Which should be in the references along with the book by Jay Beilis and Mark Stein that discusses the case and Malamud's plagiarism. My blog is at pajheil.blogspot.com/p/mendel-beilis.html. There are lots of links there, too, to third-party material. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

link rot
The friends-partners.org website cannot be displayed. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Menahem Mendel Beilis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100617202308/http://www.thejewishweek.com:80/features/redemption_east_tremont to http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/redemption_east_tremont

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Talmud by presecutor
The Bible, in Ezekiel.34.31:  'For you, My flock, flock that I tend, are ADAM; and I am your God—declares the Lord GOD.' Which a Talmud verse is based on. (Like the entire Talmud is, based on the Hebrew Bible, Tanakh). This was misrepresented by the prosecutor at the trial. It's ludicrous to suggest that the Bible considers others supposedly "not human". This was part of what Rabbi Maze mentioned when replied to the antisemitic prosecutor. Some Hebrew words have multiple/different meaning, depending on the context. So what is the specific meaning of ADAM in this case? what it refers to in this case is Adam vs Ish, Adam as a unified one group of people. As opposed to many separate, unconnected individuals. In fact, the Talmud includes Gentiles specifically, twice. Tmurah 2b Sanhedrin 56a and more.