Talk:Andreas Oxner

Triumph Cron Marter etc.

Hi there, the translation of the title of Guarinonis book was wrong, I corrected it, but am not sure about the first three words. "Marter" in alpine dialects means also Wayside shrine and baroque language was rich on metaphors, so instead of "Triumph Crown of Martyrdom etc." it could also mean something like "Triumphant Crown-Shrine and Epitaph etc." Greetings -- 84.119.111.11 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ritual Murder Accusation

It's all well and good that an article about the victim of an alleged ritual murder is written up neutrally, but to have the article state clearly that Andreas was the victim of a ritual murder is absurd, as all of the scholarship on the subject has shown that ritual murder was a myth. This isn't my area of specific expertise, but if someone who does have some expertise in this subject comes along, please add some context to the ritual murder blood libel. Cdtew (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Where?

Where is the evidence that this is a false accusation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:D16B:270C:1B28:6683 (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blood libel

2 sources agree the uncle sold Oxner to Jews, and multiple agree that Oxner ended up dead. So we have, corroborated across multiple sources, that Oxner was sold to Jews and then turned up dead. To say that the only reason these people were accused is because they were Jews is to essentially exonerate them for being Jewish. Why do we say travelling merchants when two sources say it was Jews? Does anybody think this is suspicious? What exactly does anyone, of any creed or colour, buy a small boy for? ~2026-12268-47 (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Sources do not agree that Oxner was sold to Jews; the sources also all mention (besides one Catholic Encyclopedia, which shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia per WP:TERTIARY, as well as the fact that a Catholic source confirming a blood libel probably shouldn't be used as a RS) the fact that Oxner's uncle supposedly initially sold Oxner to traveling Merchants, who were only later identified as Jews.
2. All sources (again, besides the Catholic encyclopedia, which shouldn't be used) state the unreliability of this story, and the fact that it likely did not happen.
3. Create an account and sign in if you want to consistently edit Wikipedia.

Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

insofar as who he was sold to: source 1: 'travelling merchants'

source 2: 'The uncle claimed he had sold the child to Jews'

source 3: 'several Jews persuaded a poor farmer to give up his child's

source 5(or6, 5 is broken): 'The perpetrators were said to be four Jewish travelers who had purportedly bought the child from his uncle.'

source 6/7: 'little Anderl (Andreas) Oxner, a 3-year-old boy, was murdered on 12 July 1462 by foreign Jews at his village of Rinn, in the north Tyrol.' (p.348)

one of these sources identifies travelling merchants. 3 out of 5 sources corroborate either outright responsibility or involvement which would reasonably warrant accusations in the circumstances. none of them deny it.

If you want to get rid of the Catholic source then fine, that's up to you. The issue I take with the word blood libel, is that 4 out of 5 of the sources say that they either bought the boy and then disappeared with him, or outright murdered him. Whilst also calling it a blood libel.

The final source I listed doesn't call it a blood libel, in fact it describes it as a 'crime' and 'history' so either we can remove that one for being an antisemitic source, or, I can use the one source that doesn't call it a blood libel, just like you've used the one source that calls whoever bought the boy 'travelling merchants' ~2026-12268-47 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

1. It was a blood libel, and I cannot begin to understand how you could contest this point. Every single source listed on this page calls it an antisemitic blood libel. I cannot compromise on this, and I'd be willing to submit a RfC to build a broader consensus about this.
2. The story of Oxner's murder isn't reported by any reputable sources; it's only reported by sources that were interested in promulgating antisemitic blood libels.
3. The story of Oxner's murder isn't reported on at all until nearly 180 years after the murder supposedly happened!
4. The Catholic Church prohibited celebrations of Oxner in the 1990s, ostensibly (though I've not yet find a source that explicitly states this, but I am looking) like other prohibitions in the aftermath of Nostra aetate.

I'm more than willing to help others come to a consensus, but we can't implicitly trust antisemitic blood libels from hundreds of years ago as explicitly true. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

you removed two of the sources listed on this page previously because you dictated that they'improperly do not refer to this event (if it even happened) as a blood libel.' in spite of the fact they do list it as blood libel. the fourth one you listed, a book on antisemitism describes it as 'ritual murder'

By your logic every single source you used are all antisemitic. This story lists a date of birth and death, and does not list Andreas Oxner as a fictional character.

So, I am going into this working off of the fact that Andreas Oxner was a real person, and did die young. Now, of course it could be any number of things that did it, but every source we have on this points to the fact he was sold to somebody, and then was murdered.

So, the only real question here I see is who was he sold to? Well, either it was wandering merchants, or it was Jews, or it was wandering merchants who were Jews or vice versa.

Now, all but one of the sources say Jews were the buyers, and all but one of the sources lists it as a blood libel. Now, one of the sources states that it was a real event which had nothing to do with Jews, and that the boy being sold to Jews was a change made later.

By the way, one of the sources which reports this, and is therefore 'interested in promulgating antisemitic blood libels.' is the encyclopedia Judaica, which you removed.

this source: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3408-blood-accusation

if you scroll down to the 13th century section, states that he was said to have been bought by 'Jewish merchants' 2 of these sources we've now been through have been Jewish sources, one you deleted earlier was catholic, and the fourth one you've listed was by Hervé Ryssen (according to Wikipedia, take it with a pinch of salt) 'French writer, militant nationalist, Holocaust denier and antisemite. He is close to the circles of the far right'

So diametrically opposing sources are agreeing on who was accused of buying the boy, and the source saying they were also merchants is not directly contradicting either.

So, a clear chronology appears: wandering Jews buy a boy, and a crime occurs, we do know there is an inscription in 1575 and the church in Rinne mentioning what happened, if we're going to use the argument put forward in the currently cited book that the author thinks somebody changed the story 13 years later, doesn't that apply moreso for a book written centuries later?

If the problems are the tweaks and changes to the story of it coming out 180 years later, then it ought to be considered that the best source is the earliest one, and the earliest one is the inscription, then why don't we use that?

every source will give us a version of events not dissimilar, and every source bar one written by an antisemite calls it a blood libel at some point. The only one which takes it a step further and says it's probably not true, is Helmut Wiser Smith, in 'The Butcher's Tale: Murder and Anti-Semitism in a German Town' p.107 he says 'recent research suggests that a child named Andreas Oxner perhaps never existed, the date 1462 in all likelihood product of a seventeenth century invention, the work of a doctor named Hippolytus Guarinoni from Hall, in the Tirol, who had heard of the story, and collected evidence, however dubious, to support it' so we know it existed before, because we have the 1575 inscription, and we have absolutely no idea what date that 1575 inscription said because it was taken down by the Catholic church in the 1990s.

The inscription had been there since he was a 4 and was, on Google maps at least, about 2 hours walk from his hometown. It's possible he had encountered the story, in a tiny town, with the inscription in a nearby church, in a town full of people who would've had grandparents or great grandparents who would've seen it. so we know at least 2 of the man's facts are good, it did happen, a la the inscription, and it did happen in the town, a la the location of the inscription, i.e in the town where he said it happened. It is not a stretch for me to think the third is true, that he knew the boys name or when it happened. ~2026-12268-47 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Both of you are past WP:3RR, count yourselves fortunate you aren't blocked for violating one of Wikipedia's bright-line rules. I've fully protected the page for 48 hours so this content dispute can be discussed and a consensus established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  alright thank you bushmaster ~2026-12268-47 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: The current version of the article reads well to me without tacking on "blood libel" into the lead. The lead already says "ritually murdered" and the body goes into more detail. Also, I'm not sure "blood libel" belongs in the infobox either. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request on 24 February 2026

There is a missing period at the end of the second sentence:

−

The three-year-old boy was said to have been ritually murdered by the Jews in the village of Rinn (Northern Tyrol, currently part of Austria)

+

The three-year-old boy was said to have been ritually murdered by the Jews in the village of Rinn (Northern Tyrol, currently part of Austria).

Please fix this. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)