Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood libel


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Blood libel against Jews. Or merge Blood libel against Jews back here after trimming this article. After merging, at editorial discretion the location of the article and the location of the redirect resulted from the merge may be switched. The basic idea here is that the current content of the page should not be retained; however, for licensing reasons, this article cannot be deleted. T. Canens (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Blood libel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article have become a vehicle for original research - a coatrack that does not address the nominal subject, blood libels. Textbook definitions of blood libel say it is against Jews. Non of the sources used to back up non-Jewish blood libels in the article do verify that the terminology of "blood libel" is used. There is an article named Blood libel against Jews that could be moved in its place instead. Steinberger (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and rename Blood libel against Jews to "Blood libel".-Lute88 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Chesdovi (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some of the see also links might be useful to retain, but attempting to claim that slurs against other groups are "blood libels" isn't supported by any sources that I can find. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, actually I can find one source that says there was blood libel against an early Christian sect called Montanism.. The article Blood libel should probably link to the article on Christian heresy or Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and rename Blood libel against Jews to "Blood libel". I agree it's OR and a coatrack. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another option is to merge the two articles and pick one name or the other for the merged article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Blood libel against Jews.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:NOR. Rename Blood libels against Jews as Blood libel, period. Blood libels have always referred to accusations against Jews. However, I think there should be a section added to this Jewish Blood libel article about "reverse blood libels", which would include things like the cartoon about Ariel Sharon eating a baby. Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The term "blood libel" has also come to refer, especially in Israeli usage, to any particularly vicious accusation which is viewed as libellous; and that accusation need not be by nonJews against Jews. I refer editors particularly to the article Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, on a book that accuses David Ben-Gurion and other leaders of prestate Israel of magnifying the story of the fighting in Deir Yassin to discredit the Irgun, who were political opponents. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Switch content of Blood libel against Jews to this article, and delete the former the common phrase is simply "blood libel", and it refers to its use against jews. There is apparently no common or significant fringe use of this phrase to mean anything besides the legendary blood libel against jews. i would of course also accept deletion of this article if people feel that "against jews" needs to be added to help clarify, but i see it as redundant. If reliable sources are eventually found showing this phrase used against others, those examples can be slowly added to the "blood libel" article as rare but possibly notable variants. No prejudice to creating a separate article like "the blood libel canard used against nonjews" some time in the future if it does become more notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to the established and well-researched Blood libel against Jews. The article violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTMADEUP, and is an attempt at unjustified WP:CFORK. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeping blood libel against Jews and deleting this article is not an option under our copyright policy, since the other article was in fact broken out of this article in 2005 by (diff diff).  The prior three years' worth of edits to this article must be kept in order to preserve attribution.  The simplest approach to trimming the unwanted content that editors above want to trim, that accords with our copyright policy, is to keep this article and merge the breakout sub-article blood libel against Jews back into the main article once more, removing the unwanted content along the way in the normal editing manner (which ordinary editing all of the above editors opining for this change are implicitly volunteering to perform &#9786;).  No administrator tools are required.  A more complex history split, at the aforementioned diffs, and re-merger is also an option, as long as the orphaned history that results is dealt with properly.  But that's a lot of work for something that is achievable without using any administrator tools at all.  Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! Yes, a merge back in of Blood libel against Jews is what is needed, removing the OR in the existing article at Blood libel. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was just thinking about the issue of preserving the separate edit histories. I think all that's needed is to turn one article into a redirect to the other. 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.) Does that all make sense? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is the same as what Fences & Windows is proposing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if my suggestion causes edit history to be lost or obscured, im ok with whatever more experienced editors feel works better. "Splunge" for me too:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Selectively merge into Blood libel against Jews, and move that page back to Blood libel. At least half of the incidents described in the article are unrelated to blood libel; some actually belong to the current article Blood libel against Jews. A mention that similar accusations have been made against other groups (the current "Christianity" section, and Satanic ritual abuse) is probably warranted. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance also used "Blood libel" as an umbrella term. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and possible (based on whatever the consensus is here) redirect. Per above deletes.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Use Google to find RS; there are many. Based on the statements above, almost nobody so far bothered to do even that :-( Keep in mind that in the 19th century the proper English term was blood accusations in relation to both Jews and non-Jews. Qualifier "against Jews" was (and is) actually quite widespread. 24.152.178.230 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples of these many RS that speak of non-Jewish Blood libels? Steinberger (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one, discovered by searching for 'blood libel against Christians'. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is that a IP-user, possibly the same, have previously alleged that a google search gives loads of examples of Blood libels against others, giving these links to prove his point. The only problem is that they are not RS. Steinberger (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have checked a few of those links, and I agree that they are more rhetoric and hyperbole than serious use of the term. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I see no reason to believe that he is the same person as the one contributing here; the IP address is completely different, and he was promoting the term "blood libel against Muslims". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I'd asked the IP to post a few examples. If he posted the same, or similar links. I would know. Steinberger (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record: I am indeed a different person - although I think that arguments ad hominem are generally not acceptable in WIkipedia. Just in case, here are few more quotes: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1940, from index in A social and religious history of the Jews, by Salo Wittmayer Baron (Columbia Univ. Press, 1937): "Blood accusation: against Christians, I, 149; II, 34; against Jews (Grotius on), III, 138; (history of), III, 106; (international action against), II,-20; (modern), II, 291; III", The Blood accusation by S. Zeitlin. 24.152.178.230 (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another possible one is Encyclopedia Britannica, though I don't have access to the complete article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the article. Here is an article from an older Britannica. As I have said, ritual murder charges were leveled against different groups of people,and are not exclusively anti-Semitic. 24.152.178.230 (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another source, apparently using Encyclopaedia Judaica. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another author using "blood libel" as an umbrella term, though it's not a scholarly source. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think Uncle G has it right. This isn't really an appropriate article to be deleted, especially in light of some of the potential sources ID'd by Mike Rosoft. The best thing really would be for some of the regular editors in this area to re-merge the articles in an appropriate way. It is technically possible to use revision deletion to accomplish this, but that frankly puts the admin in the position of making too many editorial decisions re: what should be kept and discarded. This is really is most appropriately done by regular editors. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Encycloaedia Judaica source that Mike Rosoft cites says explicitly that "BLOOD LIBEL, the allegation that Jews murder non-Jews especially Christians, in order to obtain blood for the Passover or other rituals; a complex of deliberate lies, trumped-up accusations, and popular beliefs about the murder-lust of the Jews and their bloodthirstiness, based on the conception that Jews hate Christianity and mankind in general" I don't see how this can be cited as evidence that the term blood libel refers to slanders against nonJews. I also checked some of the 12,000 hits that someone found in Google for the search "Blood Libel against Muslims". All the articles I checked were about the blood libel against Jews by Muslims, in which the words "Blood", "libel", "against" and "Muslims" all appeared (but not necessarily in the same sentence). --Ravpapa (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's title is "Blood libels against Jews and Christians", and it mentions accusations against Christians in the 2nd century CE, and against "heretical" Christian groups in the Middle Ages. As for blood libel against Muslims, I have already agreed that the uses cited elsewhere by an unregistered user aren't serious use of the term, but rather rhetoric and hyperbole. (You could have used Google to search for the exact phrase, but I don't believe it's necessary.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.