Talk:Blood libel

Precursors

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?

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)

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)

If a source seems unreliable, do we have a duty to report their claims? I'm generally against repeating information that seems unreliable, unless the claim itself is notable enough to be relevant.

Open to input on this, not an expert. Testtubewaltz (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to this it isn't really up for grabs. There's no historical disagreement. Do we really know what happened 700 years ago? Nobody does, but we report what reliable historians write. Nobody has substantiated any argument that the sources are unreliable or that anything is suspicious about these claims. Andre🚐 04:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Ariel Toaff Blood Passover

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)

Could you provides sources for the " historical research showing substantial evidence". glman (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

That is not what the book says. See Passovers_of_Blood#Reception_and_reactions Andre🚐 01:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre did you link the wrong page?

“"Over many dozens of pages I proved the centrality of blood on Passover," Toaff said. "Based on many sermons, I concluded that blood was used, especially by Ashkenazi Jews, and that there was a belief in the special curative powers of children's blood. It turns out that among the remedies of Ashkenazi Jews were powders made of blood."”

Seems to me that’s exactly what the book says ~2025-31158-56 (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope, that is not what the book says at all, not even what you just quoted says. Andre🚐 18:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I Agree,this article is not neutral and far from objective as per Wikipedia "policy" Ryan Nambou (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding, because Ariel Toaff does not say anywhere in his book that "the blood passover occurred." His book is an intentionally provocative and controversially received work that analyzes the possibility that some Ashkenazi folk magic involved the use of dried blood, NOT that Jews were capturing gentile children to kill them (i.e., the blood libel). So, no. This article does not need to be modified to consider that the blood libel was accurate because 1) it's not and 2) Toaff doesn't say it is. Andre🚐 21:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

That still proving the original comment that "blood libel" ritual are at some point in the span of 1000 years are indeed happening, or maybe still happen to this day, even if only small fraction of Askhenazi practice it. Ryan Nambou (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

No, it does not. Andre🚐 23:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

"Ashkenazi folk magic involved the use of dried blood" Interesting, but there is one problem. As with other aspects of Folk Judaism (the cultural practices of the people which did not have the approval of religious leaders), what are the surviving textual or archaeological evidence that support this assessment? One of the writers we use as sources in the main article claims that Jewish folk religion was primarily focused on apotropaic magic, protection against evil and misfortune. Why would that require a blood ritual? Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The evidence is discussed by Ariel Toaff in his Passovers of Blood book which again, is highly controversial, and does not claim that the blood libel is true. So what Ryan Nambou says is unequivocally incorrect. The book talks about the symbolism of blood in Passover, which is known to any practicing Jew, and we also know that ancient Judaism practiced animal sacrifice (paschal lamb, and so on) but there is absolutely nothing in the Toaff book that supports the blood libel. Andre🚐 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the "Muslim lands" section

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Image24, stop removing sourced material, which you've done 3 times, without any discussion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the section. "Muslim lands" is a standard term, perhaps a little outdated compared to "Arab world" or "Islamic world," and I'd be cool with either of those. Removing the entire sourced section is clearly a non-starter. Andre🚐 22:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andre,

You are obviously presumptuous, so please moderate your tone when speaking with me. That's the first thing, thanks.

With that said, if you saw the original comment on my edit, you would understand that section 3 should actually be something like section 1.8, or even interspersed throughout section 1. The issue was always taking it out of the history section, and therefore privileging it over the rest. This article is structured in a way that is misleading. Current events would suggest this is relevant.

If you'd checked my edit history, you would see that I like to make small but meaningful changes. This broad-brush-strokes approach was, I agree, a non-starter. That said, I'm not rewriting this article and I am prepared to defend the position that it is better without the section until it can be better integrated.

Thank you. Image24 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong Andre's "tone" - it is absolutely appropriate to someone who has been edit warring. Your tone, here and in other notes, is highly inappropriate. Please, calm it down. glman (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, glman. And no, Image24, there's nothing wrong with the section, or my tone. Do not remove it again. Andre🚐 02:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I was not referring to your tone. I was referring to your presumptuousness, and extrapolating that it might lead to tone issues, which I hoped to preempt. Unfortunately, I could not.

Do not mischaracterize this as simple removal of sourced material. There is a structural problem: placing this content as a standalone section 3 artificially elevates it above other equally sourced historical material in section 1. Wikipedia's WP:STRUCTURE guidance is clear that article organization should reflect the relative weight of topics — WP:UNDUE doesn't just apply to fringe viewpoints, it applies to disproportionate placement as well.

The content itself may be perfectly sourced and valid; I don't think that changes my argument. Pulling one geographical location out of its historical context and giving it top-level section status implies a significance the sources themselves don't necessarily support. I think it's clear why this specific geographical location was targeted in this way. Integrating it as a subsection of the history section (around 1.8) would preserve the material and reflect its proper context.

The right response to a real concern is to engage with it, not to revert and declare the matter closed. "The section is sourced" is not a rebuttal to a structural critique. I think you did not respond this way because I don't respect you.

I'm not opposed to the content. I'm opposed to the current architecture of the article, and I'm prepared to discuss what better integration looks like, if you are prepared to humble yourself when interacting with others. Image24 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It definitely makes sense based on the sources to separate Christendom from the Islamic world. It's actually the opposite of what you're arguing: it's privileging the Christian world, not the Islamic world, because most of the discussion of the blood libel deals with Christendom, and the blood libel was less common in the Muslim world. The fate of Jewish people in these two disparate historical spheres was quite different, and this also holds true of the history of the blood libel. Most discussion of the blood libel in sources deals with the Christian world, and for good reason, and not only due to the structural bias of English/Western sourcing. Many of the Expulsions and exoduses of Jews in the Middle Ages actually took place in the Christian world such as Spain, France, England, and so on, and many of those Jewish refugees, who didn't convert under duress, fled to the Ottoman Empire or in some cases North Africa. So there's a natural progression and a natural distinction between these worlds, and it is one that appears in standard historical sources. The most well-studied instances of the blood libel deal with Christian Western Europe.

At any rate, even if you did manage to make the argument that the Islamic world section should not be a separate section but should be integrated, it would not justify removing it wholesale. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and there is WP:NODEADLINE. You are not improving the article by removing sourced material, but making it worse. And, I would likely revert your attempt to integrate the sections also, unless you can obtain a consensus for that bold change, but based on your current facile and evidence-free argumentation, it would be revertable just as removing it is. Andre🚐 02:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I will note, for the benefit of those following this discussion, that "AndreJustAndre" was banned by Wikipedia's own Arbitration Committee in January 2025 from editing articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict, following a ruling that dealt specifically with editor misconduct — including personal insults and misrepresenting sources. I'll leave that without further comment. Image24 (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That is non-responsive to the discussion and not accurate. Andre🚐 02:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"Not accurate" is incorrect. You were banned by the Arbitration Committee in January 2025 for misconduct — specifically personal insults and misrepresenting sources. Given that you've seen fit to describe my argumentation as "facile and evidence-free" and have preemptively threatened to revert good-faith editing attempts, I'd suggest your own record is the more relevent data point here. WP:CIVIL exists for a reason.

On WP:NODEADLINE — you've deployed it as though it settles the structural question in your favour. It doesn't. If there's no deadline, that cuts equally against any urgancy to preserve the current architecture. It's an argument for patience but I am getting the impression that you intend to deploy it as a defence of the status quo.

As for threatening to revert any integration attempt and invoking consensus purely to obstruct rather than build: editors who stonewall the consensus process rather than engage it in good faith are explictly considered disruptive under WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS alike. I'd reccomend that you attempt to familiarize yourself with both. Image24 (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That is not what the topic ban reasoning reads, and not true. And it is irrelevant. And a personal attack, and an aspersion. This is now at WP:ANI.

Obtain a consensus for your bold changes and do not persist in them otherwise. You have failed to mount a persuasive argument that removing the section or that integrating it into the history is a good idea. Andre🚐 03:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Change to Islamic world

@AndreJustAndre: I've come here after you post on the incidents noticeboard. As you mentioned in the prior discussion on this page you say that you'd be cool with adjusting the title of the subsection "Blood libels in Muslim lands", I'm in agreeance that the term "Muslim lands" reads as somewhat outdated. I suggest changing it to "Islamic world", as the section mentions "Muslim lands" that are not Arabic such as the broader Ottoman Empire. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Fine by me Andre🚐 23:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Just came by to check for a response, thanks for making the edit. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)