Talk:Blood libel

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

The religion jump

[edit]

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

Also, looking historically to the Pre-Roman era, many other groups in the semetic region were subject to Blood libel. While human sacrifice had long fallen out of favor and only a few cults (mostly in carthage) practiced human sacrifice, almost always their own, excluding the ritual execution of prisoners of war, it was very common for nations to claim blood libel against another nation as justification of war. I cannot doubt that due to the historic evidence Carthage practices matching the descriptions, this is where they drew their inspiration from as well. (Sorry for not logging on, lazy today)--24.208.189.58 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are presupposing that the accusations were false. But is that warranted (in all the cases)? 105.8.6.9 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precursors

[edit]

There is interesting material in Bill Ellis. Aliens, Ghosts, and Cults. Univ. Press of Mississippi. p. 53 ff. ISBN 9781617030017.. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC).


How can this possibly be known?

[edit]

The section Origins in England contains this passage:

"The eight-year-old Hugh disappeared at Lincoln on 31 July 1255. His body was probably discovered on 29 August, in a well. A Jew named Copin or Koppin confessed to involvement. He confessed to John of Lexington, a servant of the crown, and relative of the Bishop of Lincoln. He confessed that the boy had been crucified by the Jews, who had assembled at Lincoln for that purpose."

But how is it possible to know what someone may or may not have confessed to 769 years later?

In case this is what was written down, how would it be possible to know whether the writing is factual or fictional?

And just in case the person did indeed confess, how do we know that the confession was not coerced (and therefore unreliable) rather than offered honestly without coercion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:f181:9410:81dc:95ec:4786:4968 (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow what the sources say. It is pretty clear that the confession was coerced, since the content is nonsense. But it would be nice to have more than just the blanket statement that "A Jew named Copin or Koppin confessed to involvement". --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

[edit]

Remove "this is controversial because Jewish groups object to it". The sources you supplied do not say this. This source refutes it: https://cbnisrael.org/2024/01/18/modern-blood-libels-ugly-untrue-and-unparalleled/ Mollye5299 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Jewish groups objecting to it. That work? Andre🚐 19:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done ⸺(Random)staplers 05:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this article

[edit]

Apart from a brief mention that "blood libel" is popularly used for any negative accusation, especially against Israel, I think we should remove all incidents that don't match the definition given in the lead. Zerotalk 07:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree 148.75.220.242 (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edits: Timeline, usage of term

[edit]

Accusations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel have been dismissively alleged to be a form of "blood libel" by some supporters of Israel and by the State of Israel.

This excerpt is placed in the timeline (points under history) between events that happened during 2014 and 2019. Presumably this quotation is referring to what has happened in the region post Oct 7 2023, and therefore should not be in that place in the timeline.

In addition, being as this refers to current events, it is strange that it is put under the term 'history'.

There is room to claim that this situation deviates from the regular use of the term blood libel (i.e. false accusation of murdering people for their blood), and if one was really interested in stirring the pot - that it was inserted here to further a particular political agenda. (A. writing "accusations of genocide... dismissively alleged..." implies that the accusations are accurate in all senses of the word, and were just, unfortunately, dismissively alleged, or B. "Dismissively alleged to be a form of "blood libel"" - as mentioned above, this is hardly a common use of the term "blood libel". This point seems to be reinforced by the wording of the phrase "a form...".) 148.75.220.242 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your comments.
As the "accusations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel" have existed throughout the entire Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the placing seems reasonable. I'd agree with you that placing current events under "History" is a bit strange, but I cannot think of any better ideas, as splitting that section would lead to events in the 1900s being marked as "current". Do you have any suggestions?
Yes, it "deviates from the regular use of the term blood libel". However, I have checked the sources listed and it is verifiable. The "a form" part directly supports this as it clarifies that the accusations are not the same as "regular" blood libel. I've removed the "dismissively" as it seems to violate WP:NPOV. About "alleged", that term is neutral since it would be POV-pushing to describe the accusations as blood libel in Wikipedia's voice.
If you have any more questions/comments/concerns about this, please feel free to let me know. Regards, x RozuRozu • teacups 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the first point that was made in the original post under a? 148.75.220.242 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think it should be rephrased? x RozuRozu • teacups 01:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel have been alleged to be a form of "blood libel" by some supporters of Israel and by the State of Israel.
Accusations/allegations used twice here. Technically, when looking at the definitions, one would find that you could be able to switch the two. Which would make:
Allegations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel have been accused to be a form of "blood libel" by some supporters of Israel and by the State of Israel.
(I'm not suggesting that this be the specific change made...)
What I'm basically saying is that when one plays around with those words you can see it taking a political stand in one way or another. 148.75.220.242 (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're "not suggesting that this be the specific change made", then what should be the specific change made?
I find the terms "accusations/allegations" to be quite neutral since it does not imply whether the accusations/allegations are true or not. If it really takes a political stand as you say, then how should it be rephrased to be truly neutral? x RozuRozu • teacups 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See @Jayjg comment below 148.75.220.242 (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about actual blood libels (people accusing Jews of consuming or otherwise using the blood of non-Jews, typically children), not political rhetoric. Whenever some political use of the phrase hits the news cycle, I advise waiting a couple of years until everyone forgets about this specific usage. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2025

[edit]

Use of genocide narrative on Wikipedia

[edit]

In the context of the 2025 Israel–Hamas war, accusations that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza gained widespread traction online, including on Wikipedia. A July 2025 opinion piece in The Jerusalem Post described the successful push to apply the term "genocide" to Israeli actions on the platform as a modern reincarnation of the blood libel trope.[1] The article claimed that editors sympathetic to anti-Israel narratives leveraged Wikipedia's open-editing model to promote a legally unsubstantiated use of the term, bypassing international legal definitions and expert consensus. The author argued that the campaign to label Israel's conduct as genocide on Wikipedia reflects the persistent structure of the blood libel—modernized to fit political discourse—by portraying Jews or the Jewish state as uniquely malevolent. The inclusion of the genocide label on Wikipedia has drawn criticism from pro-Israel advocates, who view it as part of a broader strategy to legitimize antisemitic tropes under the guise of human rights language. Ptaah75 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you are proposing that this paragraph be added to the article, it will need substantially better sourcing than an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post. Day Creature (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Liberman, Jonathan (11 July 2025). "The Gaza food aid 'massacre': Yet another modern blood libel". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 12 July 2025.

2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy

[edit]

This is a somewhat recent case that's just more widely known than a lot of the "historical" cases where the Jews claimed blood libel and the thing ended up being true, confirmed by Jewish govt. Should definitely be added to article as an of example of the Jews false flag claiming blood libel 75.118.12.202 (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayjg 148.75.220.242 (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Toaff Blood Passover

[edit]

This article seems very biased in light of the historical research showing substantial evidence that the blood passover did actually occur in some cases. It referemces dozens of court cases, not just hearsay.

Moreover, shouldn't it be mentioned that the passover story does involve elements of extreme violence towards innocents (i.e. the murder of the first-born Egyptian children)? The killing of the lamb also involves ritually killing an innocent animal. Is it really so implausible that someone who thinks passover is good might be tempted to take things further? 45.146.232.70 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provides sources for the " historical research showing substantial evidence". glman (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This book was written by a professor of history at Bar-Ilan University:
https://www.amazon.com/Passover-Europe-Ritual-Murder-PAPERBACK/dp/B0863S9WJF
I've read the book and it's very much an objective historical treatment.
Of course, I'm under no illusions about wikipedia overcoming the ADL's hard power, but I do want to just record what's actually true here. 45.146.232.93 (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the book says. See Passovers_of_Blood#Reception_and_reactions Andre🚐 01:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this article (again)

[edit]

I need to again raise the issue of what this article is about. Lots of things are called blood libels by someone, as it has become a general purpose phrase for anything the speaker believes is a false charge. But that does not mean that anything called a blood libel by anyone deserves its place on this page. The scope of the page is provided right in the first sentence: Blood libel or ritual murder libel (also blood accusation) is an antisemitic canard which falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christians in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals. I'd be happy if "Christian" became "non-Jewish", but otherwise anything that does not fit the definition does not belong. I'm prompted to write this due to the recent addition of the murder of Alexander II, since I cannot see anything in the source about the Tsar's blood being used. He was killed in the street by a bomb and accusing a Jew of throwing the bomb doesn't make it a blood libel. Zerotalk 00:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my addition of that pending discussion. While the specific ritual murder accusation of physically using the blood is the original blood libel in history, I would say a false antisemitic murder accusation doesn't have to involve the usage of blood in a ritual, it could still follow the pattern of blood libel by being an antisemitic, false accusation involving a murder accompanied by religious misinformation particularly Christian. A blood libel, in my view, just needs to be a false murder accusation that some expert or some number of experts call that, without anyone meaningfully disputing whether it should be called a false murder accusation. By definition, it is a libel, namely a published false statement, and blood, meaning that the charged false statement was about blood, which could encompass murder, particularly ritualistic or ritualized murder. So I do not think Heinz-Dietrich Löwe [de] was calling it a blood libel idly. but I can see that he is just one expert and this is less obvious of a case than others on the list that clearly check all the boxes. Andre🚐 06:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bid too much emphasis on blood rituals here. The main topic is the allegation that the Jews traditionally practiced human sacrifice, not the specific rituals involved in these tales. We even cite as precursors the allegations of ritual murder within the Second Temple reported by Apion, Posidonius, and Apollonius Molon. By the way, Socrates Scholasticus' narrative of child murder in the article's text does not actually fit with the main narrative. Socrates describes a sadistic murder by a group of drunkards, not a religious ritual. Dimadick (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I would remove a lot more than just Alexander II. I would remove everything that does not fit the definition of the page as provided by the lead, with the caveat that the lead is also subject to change by consensus. It isn't enough that someone called something a blood libel, as even experts use the phrase in a wider generic sense. Every accusation against Israel is claimed to be a blood libel by some politician or "expert", and there are countless other examples where accusations are called blood libels or even directly compared to the traditional blood accusation when they are nothing of the sort. If we choose to widen the scope by rewriting the lead, let's discuss that, but not keeping a tight focus will lead to the page becoming more and more useless. Zerotalk 11:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the scope is fine. The lead also clarifies that "The term 'blood libel' has also been used in reference to any unpleasant or damaging false accusation, and as a result, it has acquired a broader metaphoric meaning. However, this wider usage of the term remains controversial." We could discuss re-splitting the page, but I think it's a fine length and covers the original meaning and modern usage well atm. glman (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are "modern uses" every day. Hundreds in a year, almost all of them metaphorical. You are proposing that the original meaning, which is an important topic with a large serious literature, can be buried in the noise. Zerotalk 14:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all what I'm proposing. There is nothing wrong with covering well-sourced modern instances. And again, if the page gets long, nothing wrong with proposing we split. glman (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was only referring to well-sourced cases, so that doesn't help. The real issue is that they aren't actually blood libels but instead events where someone used "blood libel" in a metaphoric sense. It is like mentioning an event where someone became very angry at boiling point because a reliable source used that phrase, or listing a business leader alleged to be authoritarian at Nazism just because someone called them a "Nazi". Zerotalk 02:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I approve of the sentence you quoted in bold above. It can help readers who came to the article after seeing the phrase used metaphorically to understand why the usage does not imply an allegation involving blood or human sacrifice. It isn't license to list such cases in the article. Zerotalk 02:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]