Talk:Blood libel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Blood libels against non-Jews page?

The definitions for the term "blood libel" do not necessitate that the term refer to Jews, the various uses of the term in history have been used to reference non-Jews, and there are numerous libels in history that could be called "blood libels" that do not refer to Jews. It has been proposed that the article should split and have "blood libels against Jews" become a separate page from "blood libel". This proposal doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It has been proposed to have a separate article on the origin, definition, and use of the term "blood libel", but this doesn't seem to be going anywhere either. I propose that we have a separate article for blood libels against non-Jews then. There are numerous examples throughout history where the term blood libel was not invoked but does apply, and there are numerous examples where the term has been invoked where it did not refer to Jews.Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that those proposals necessarily went nowhere. The article split discussion above is really two topics ((1) is contemporary usage of "blood libel" a wikipedia-appropriate topic?; (2) if so, does it belong on this page), and most of the opposition is on the second point. It's true that right now this article isn't about usage, so a lot of people think that usage isn't relevant to this topic (but it's really just arguably not relevant to the current article). Nobody's ever provided a good explanation as to why a reliably sourced, non-OR article about contemporary usage, and maybe also etymology, etc., would violate wikipedia policy. There are a lot of fine lines to navigate and pitfalls to avoid (such as WP:NOTADICTIONARY, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SYN), but I think they could be navigated, would fully support such an article, and would be willing to help with one. That being said, it might be best to wait a couple of weeks to see if Ms Palin's recent use of this term prompts the sort of detailed scholarly usage analysis that currently seems to be missing. AgnosticAphid talk 19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence says the term has been applied to non-Jews. Feel free to add or discuss adding your numerous examples from history if the article doesn't have them yet. I don't see any reason to split that matches the reasons given at WP:SPLIT, so I don't see this going anywhere, and I'm removing the tag. If someone besides Aaron thinks there is merit to this proposal, then by all means replace the tag. Jesanj (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the actual split discussion, above. There are at least a few people who support a split. I'm not sure about the etiquette of removing split tags but, being reasonably sure that it wasn't warranted in this instance by your justifications and in light of the above seemingly unresolved discussion, I reverted your edit. AgnosticAphid talk 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll put it back since I haven't paid attention as of late. Phearson (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

non-Jews

The article states that the term has been used against minorities other than Jews. It would be good to have some examples of that. 65.93.14.29 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The first blood libel that I know of is that of the Romans accusing early Christians of drinking blood in their weird cult ritual (what we know today as the eucharist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

-Yes, or remove the statement altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing the statement would not be conducive to coverage. 65.93.14.29 (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is a monkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.165.21 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any sources to hand but I've heard the accusation, if not the term itself, was used against early Christians during the Roman Empire (and possibly later) and later against Pagans by Christians. In the first instance I think there was some confusion regarding the Eucarist with some non-Christians believing they drank actual human blood. Combined with the fact that Christians were known to take in orphaned babies the assumption was that the babies were killed and ritually sacrificed. In the latter case I think it's just another facet of 'pagan' and 'satanic' beliefs being mixed together and villified. Danikat (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is evidence that blood libel has been used against other groups. Just google it. The new world encyclopedia has a long list. Unfortunately, people keep eliminating any such reference from the article text because this is a sacred cow to the Jews. Apparently they have a need to be the exclusive victims of this kind of wickedness. But, that does not change the fact that this is a general sociological phenomenon not limited to Jewish victims. It's time we end this charade. WP is not designed to advance sacred cows, but to advance rational human knowledge. EastmeetsWest (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that its use against other groups warrants inclusion in the article, I think you're being a bit disrespectful in your comment. Jews WERE the exclusive victims of the blood libel for a very long time, and now groups that formerly used it against them (Christians, for example) have appropriated it to bolster their own victim-complex. Imagine a Neo-Nazi group, being investigated by the government, complaining that "Soon well be forced to wear yellow badges".128.2.51.144 (talk)

16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've inserted the Sarah Palin quote with 4 pieces of documentation 3x in the Contemporary section, giving my reasons, and keep getting reverted by 2 users who say only WP:Coatrack. As I said in my insertion, Coatrack is a non-sequitur here because the Palin quote fits nicely and approprately with others. Those claiming Coatrack do not explain why, either here or in the reversion -- just use the term "Coatrack". It is notable in its own right, and also because it indicates a historically-important spreading usage of the term away from the traditional aim against Jews. "Blood libel" is such an unusual term that someone would not coin independently -- the usage here by Palin or her speechwriters suggests that it is in fairly widespread parlance. However, I cannot edit until tomorrow because of 3RR, even though I think consensus is on the side of inclusion of the Palin usage. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I removed the insertion per the discussions yesterday. It should not be added back unless there is a consensus to do so derived on this talk page -- i think that's fair?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not fair. There was no consensus yesterday for exclusion. Nor is there a consensus today. You don't get to revert and remove the section from the article and then claim the support of consensus when no such consensus exists. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is utterly ridiculous for people wih obvious ethno-political biases to be so zealously controling the wording of this article so as to create the erroneous illusion to the larger world that this libelous phenomenon is for the exclusive use and burden of their own childish victimhood, while denigrating others for their "victim complex".

Palin's usage of "blood libel" is correct, common and understood to large portions of her American audience - evangelical Christians, who, ironically, use that phrase to defend all Jews (many of whom disparage these, their very own defenders) against the ancient, and Medieval, prejudices of the more 'orthodox' Christian sects. This 'blood libel' originated, not in Medievel myths, but in much earlier 'Catholic' church teachings of the Jews' alleged 'liability' for demanding the blood of Christ on the cross. Never mind that such teaching ignores the fact that Christ was not 'stoned' (the traditional Jewish form of execution), but was nailed to a cross by Roman soldiers. Evangelicals teach that it was Satan, who cried "Crucify him!" from the anonimous safety of the crowd, and they believe that all Jews make up a tribe of the Nation of Israel 'chosen' as priests by an unerring God, under an inalterable 'covenant', in his universal plan for an eternal theocratic paradise. They are extremely careful to always support, not disparage or offend, "God's Chosen People". I can assure you that every Eangelical Christian knew exactly what Palin was saying, without referring to any reference works. The fact that Palin's use has caused such a national 'stir' demands an all encompassing explanation of the term on Wiki. Need we seek some higher form of arbitration to get the whole story told, here, or must we just accept the tyrannies of the minority, and start a truly objective site, elsewhere? Theguardian777 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What the term refers to is not new, but how old is the term "blood libel"? I went through all of my religious studies books, history books, and my dictionaries - one of which was 2000+ pages - and I do not see the term. Even on Jewishencyclopedia.com the term doesn't exist. It is called "blood accusation". The earliest reference that I can find of the actual term is a 1998 article. Here's the source for that: Spitz, G. (1998). Anti-defamation league commits blood libel against blacks. New York Amsterdam News, 89(49), 12. ----What is the origin of the term itself. The term. What is the origin of the term? Not the myths. What is the origin of the term?

The term dates from mid-19th century in its equivalent in both Russian and Ukrainian, when people finally started calling it what really is - libel/slander. In both languages the term "Blood Libel" refers exclusilely to Jews. --Galassi (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Calling something a libel does not mean they called it "blood libel". Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an important contribution as it negates the argument of Recentism and trivialism. User:Theguardian777 can you supply documentation for your assertions from the usual reliable sources. (Smile: I just realized we can do a Wikipedia movie, with the punchline: "Round up the usual reliable sources.")Bellagio99 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term "blood libel" is not older than a few decades. It has been used numerous times to reference issues other than false accusations against Jews. Neither the definition of "blood libel" (including this article's definition) necessitates that it be a Jewish reference, nor does the actual many uses of the the term always reference Jews, and there have been numerous examples of blood libels (inclusive definition) that could be called "blood libels" that do not reference Jews. Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term "blood libel" is actually at least 170 years old, and was used by contemporaneous sources to refer to the Damascus affair. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Split proposal

I have suggested above a remedy of splitting the article to deal with use of "Blood Libel" and actual "Jewish Blood Libel". It was seconded, and here we are. It pains me to see that after the previous article merge, we might be forced to split it again, due to a notable politician, who may not have used the best choice of words. Aside with the controversy, Would anyone here Support a split of the article? And are there those who would Oppose such creation? As being of No Opinion, I am willing to moderate and if necessary create the article if the community can provide valid arguments. Remember, this is not a vote. Phearson (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose the split. No point to having a separate stub article on the few contemporary uses, and those usages are within the spirit of the article. YMMV of course. And good nite Bellagio99 (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mild Oppose Support. I think that having a separate article is better than no mention and don't think that encyclopedic discussion of what modern term usage is (rather than what it should be) is beyond the scope of wikipedia. But I honestly think that creation of a separate, inevitably relatively brief, article -- with an accompanying note here (for modern usage, see ___) -- would actually draw undue attention to the topic. Isn't it better placed at the end of the long discussion of examples here? Just my two cents. I could help in adjusting what we have now to a separate modern term usage article. Agnosticaphid (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC) [Edit: just wanted to add that the last edit of the main article that had the "contemporary secular use" subhead was 00:51, 14 January 2011 Yaksar (talk | contribs) (41,621 bytes) (unnecessary word) As a final note, I think from the history that the proposal itself came from the user "Phearson," but I don't know how to (can we?) add other people's signatures. Agnosticaphid (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)]

You are absolutely right, sir. I have a very bad habit of not signing my posts. Phearson (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote to support in light of the fact that the consensus seems to be that this topic doesn't belong on this page. As I've written elsewhere on this page, I think that an article about contemporary use of this term could meet pertinent policies and would be a good addition to wikipedia. AgnosticAphid talk 19:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as the little heap of contemporary uses would be too trivial for a separate article, and too trivializing to be included in this article. Xanthoxyl ^< 08:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Sounds like a good middle of the road approach.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This article is about the means of persecution of minorities, particulary religious minorities. There is nothing to split. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing splitting what used to be the "contemporary secular use" subhead into a different article. If you think that the scope of this article must be limited to persecution of religious minorities, that's a good reason for a split. I may have missed it, but nobody's ever really explained why ahistorical use of this term is not a wikipedia-appropriate topic. I linked my view as to the applicability of WP:notadictionary above. Clearly there's a fine line between explaining meaning (dictionary) and discussing historical term usage (encyclopedia), but I think we can successfully navigate it. Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the current version which is strictly about the means of persecution, you must be referring to the misuse of the term which keeps getting inserted and reverted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The Blood libel (U.S. political term) AfD discussion just ended in a blizzard of delete (not merge). Putting out a second version of the same article, two days later, will end in the same result. Jd2718 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but a different page thats not US specific could be implemented, pending the end of this discussion, we could discuss the name of the new article. But that is a very good point you have raised. Phearson (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that is a good point. We shouldn't make a new page if the overwhelming consensus is that it's not notable. But at lot of the comments opposed creation because they say she misused the term or created a new meaning for it, and I feel like (1) we don't get to say whether she "misused" it and (2) there are other articles about how terms are used. (For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28terminology%29) Yes, we shouldn't create an article just about the controversy surrounding Ms Palin's use of this term, but I don't see why a page with reliable sources about how this term is used comtemporarily is neccessarily, with her as one example, is beyond the pale. Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC) You know what, also, a lot of people in that discussion actually specifically said that they opposed the page because it belonged inside the main blood libel page. This is really two discussions: (1) is modern usage of this term worthy of inclusion in wikipedia (anywhere?) and (2) does use of this term warrant its own article? Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When you write "I don't see why..." you are sort of at the heart of the matter. There is a point, perhaps now, perhaps a while ago, perhaps we are not quite there yet, when you have shared your thoughts, when the discussion of the item in dispute has occurred in several places, and it is no longer a matter of each editor "seeing why" but either accepting the community's view or appealing (through rfc?) for more editors to take a look. Jd2718 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well put. Another potential avenue for more eyes would be a deletion review, I guess, even if the issue is slightly different than "US political term". Agnosticaphid (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The concept is clearly broader than it's application to Jews, even if historically that has been the most common usage. I remember uses of the term from my youth against other minorities, such as Slavs, Blacks, and Gypsies, although using Google Books Ngram Viewer I find no examples of that. I propose instead the broadening of the initial paragraph to read:

... false claim of murder or complicity in murder, generally by rival or minority groups, especially Jews. ...

Bracton (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Further, in a WSJ article, Rabbi Schmuley Boteach defends Palin's use of the term, arguing it is properly used "whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder." Bracton (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Rillian (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that, as noted above, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Perhaps add some substance to your vote next time? Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: a politician or fifty using the term incorrectly doesn't justify a split, imho. If the incorrect and perhaps ill=thought usages are notable include them here. Information about blood libel should logically be found on the blood libel page. IvoShandor (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Support "Blood libel", as a term, isn't older than a few decades (note: I did not say that blood libels are new and I did not say "blood accusation"). The meaning of terms are defined by their use. The use of the term has varied, and many groups, not just Jews, have been falsely accused of charges involving blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• The term "blood libel" is at least 170 years old; in fact, it was used by contemporaneous sources to described the Damascus affair. Why would you base your arguments on such obviously factually incorrect premises? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC) That is not true. The term "blood libel" was used in a book published in the 1980's about something that happened in the 19th century. That doesn't mean the term was used in the 19th century. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/688.htm Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Support The usage of "blood libel" for other purposes should be mentioned, but it would be difficult to fit it in this article. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose There is no reason to dilute the article with trivial misuse of the term by politicians. In all languages I know (Italian, Ukrainian, Russian) the term is applied strictly to slander of Jews. --Galassi (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but to make a point, because of the Internet, Its Kinda hard to accept that argument for because On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog You could speak dog for all I know. Phearson (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Papacy

'"Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it."

How could beatification or canonization proceed without the sanction of the Pope sitting at that time? Since 1153 the Pope has held this power exclusively. The only power within the Holy See that could oppose the will of a sitting Pope was the office of the Devil's Advocate whose job was to try to disprove the grounds for canonization; it couldn't force canonization against the Pope's wishes. Since several of the "victims" were sainted, there were at least a few Popes who sanctioned the Blood Libel. The claim 'no pope has ever sanctioned it' should at least be qualified with something like: "Aside from the canonizing of several purported victims, no pope has overtly sanctioned the Blood Libel." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization

Thoughts?

jg (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The cults were local money spinners and there would be lobbying for a particular cult to gain approval from Rome. I doubt that a pope in Rome, some 100 years after the event, cared much about the circumstances of how someone died in England or Germany. Their only concern would be in the credulity of the 'faithful' with respect to 'miracles' said to occur in the persons name. IOW a child may not have been killed by Jews, but if the faithful believed that praying to the person cured them of warts then why not make them saint and rake in a bit of extra cash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to continue from archive (seems it only takes 3 days in this busy an article).

Regarding the Papacy and the Blood Libel - there do seem to be many examples of Papal resistance to antisemitism in general and Blood Libel in particular, but there have been numerous Popes who promoted antisemitism, so the claim they had nothing to do with blood libel deserves some level of proof. Several Popes advanced beatification and canonizations and approved martyrologies of the imagined victims. The point was made that after time passed a Pope might not have known who these figures were beyond being a favorite by a local cult.

In the case of 'Saint Simon of Trent' whose disappearance in 1475 was blamed on Jews, the Blood Libel trials that followed were a sensation in Europe that led to large cult followings. To his credit, Pope Sixtus IV suppressed the cult veneration, but Sixtus V reversed the suppression of St. Simon's veneration. Sixtus V then went on to canonize him. In the 18th century, Pope Clement XIV openly agreed with the finding of 'ritual murder.' The martyrologies of those centuries included "At Trent, the martyrdom of the boy St. Simeon, who was barbarously murdered by the Jews, but who was afterward glorified by many miracles." These martyrologies were reviewed, updated, and sanctioned by numerous Popes.

My point is not that any of this necessarily needs to be added to this article. The Blood Libel and antisemitism are not the exclusive fault of the Papacy and there is certainly a long list of examples of the Papacy intervening against antisemitism in Europe. It just seems too strong to say the Popes had absolutely nothing to do with Blood Libel when the church has venerated, beatified, and canonized alleged victims of this mythological scourge. All I'm suggesting is either a milder wording of the statement that distances the Papacy from this, or else building a better basis for the claim that the Papacy is blameless. I'm not hoping for an anti-Catholic direction to the article - there would be no good reason for that, but "Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it" seems pollyanna.
jg (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is complex. Due to papal infallibility once canonized they can't be decanonized. All that can happen is that the cult is suppressed. As for Clement XIV he declared all accusations against Jews of ritual murder of children to be without foundation, except in two exceptional cases of: Simon of Trent and Andreas of Rinn. Recently Ariel Toaff has said that, although the general accusation is a preposterous, unfounded Christian invention, in the case of Simon of Trent there may indeed have been some evidence.

The popular cult of a child saint was hard to suppress. From the 4th century to the 10th they tended to be children of royals murder for political reasons. From the 12th century onwards they were children murdered by strangers, where the wrongly accused stranger was almost always a Jew.

The issue is, I think, that the libel arose at certain times and places for local political reasons of convenience. That there was a natural tendency in medieval societies to venerate murdered children, particularly if the murderer was a non-Christian, that once the cult of a child saint had established itself it was difficult to suppress, and that there may have been one case where the murderer of a child happened to be Jewish. John lilburne (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Papal infallibility only occurs when the Pope invokes it, and it didn't even exist back when some of these canonizations occurred. Later Popes have reversed them. In particular, these blood libel martyrs have been decanonized and removed from martyrologies. You can be proud of the Roman Catholic church for that.
The fact remains, however, that several Popes beatified, canonized, and approved martyrologies containing these mythological victims 'barbarously murdered by Jews.' First you claimed the Popes didn't know what they were doing; then, that they were powerless to do otherwise. These martyrs were among the most sensational of figures to receive Papal notice. Most Popes were against promoting the blood libel and took steps to deter all forms of violent antisemitism, but the ones who venerated these martyrs were promoting this myth.
You want to protect the papacy from any blame here - I get that. I'm not suggesting we portray the blood libel as a catholic project. I'm saying, canonization (and beatification and Papal issued martyologies) of these purported victims of Jewish ritual murder IS papal sanction. Those popes were neither uninformed, nor powerless. My proposal was NOT to identify the RC church as responsible for the blood libel; rather, to replace 'no pope has ever sanctioned it' with something more like "aside from the canonizing of several purported victims, no pope has overtly sanctioned the Blood Libel."

If you think I want to protect the Papacy from anything you are mistaken. Regarding papal infallibility on this issue, by declaring someone a saint they are saying that person is in heaven, they cannot subsequently say that the person isn't in heaven, also as to infallibility see the last paragraph here.

To you main point on the canonization, in order to do that you have to show that they were canonizing because "they were killed by Jews to use their blood in passover bread". There is no evidence that was the case. Medieval children were canonized because they were murdered, either by strangers, domestic violence, or political intrigue. Medieval societies sentimentalized children by making the saints (p74), that the child was murdered was enough the motivation of the alleged killer would have been of little consequence some 100 years later.

As I said at the beginning the issue is complex and you can't wrap it up in a single sentence without explanation you introduce POV and error. It involved local lobbying to get someone declared a saint because of the pilgrims it will bring in, and the papacy needed to feed the credulity of the 'faithful'. A murdered child that the locals declare has performed 'miracles' after death would do, providing there was 'some evidence' of the 'miracle' working. What you need is an article on how and why children were made saints in Medieval Europe.

If what you really want to say is that the canonization in some way validated the libel that is a separate issue, though I'd have thought if that were the case one would see a cluster of such accusations, besides you'll need a citation for that. John lilburne (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - consensus

Proposal: Per the discussion above I submit we should not include Sarah Palin's misuse of the term "blood libel" on this page. We do not routinely record misuse of terms on wikipedia--words are misused all the time, particularly by Sarah Palin. The incident should be discussed, if at all, on the Sarah Palin page. Unless consensus develops otherwise it should be kept out.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include per proposal.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I object to this proposal. You and other editors went ahead and repeatedly reverted something that was added to the article when it was abundantly clear that there was no consensus to do so. You do not get to single-handedly decide what is and isn't worthy of inclusion in this article. Nor do you single-handedly get to determine the scope of this article. The burden was on you and your compatriots to show that prior editors' inclusion of the Sarah Palin material was against consensus before repeatedly reverting the edit. It's clear from the comments here that this is not the case. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include--This is the latest example of Sarah Palin putting her foot in her mouth which she has done numerous times. It is more appropriate to Sarah Palin article. That is the same reason why the separate article about her "blood libel" comment was deleted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, here's a link to that discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood libel (U.S. political term).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Include The point is not where Ms Palin's foot is. Rather, the point is that this a widely noted, documented instance of the spread of the Blood Libel term to a new situation. It is such an unusual term, that the use by Ms Palin (& I assume her speechwriter) indicates that it is in common parlance in her circles, otherwise why do it. The instance fits perfectly in the Contemporary section where it was put. It is the opposite of WP:Coatrack: it is a historically significant documentation of the spread of the term that is at least as important as the preceding examples in the Contemporary section. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not a spread, its a simple misuse of a term with a specific meaning. The woman thought Africa was a country, reportedly, and we don't include that in the Africa article!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Include ::Milowent, just because you don't like Mrs. Palin, you do not need to repeat a hoax, it diminishes your reputation greatly: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94DQU5O0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.201.191 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing Breitbart has ruined your argument. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Steelbeard. Maybe you should read the article before putting your foot in your mouth. Breitbart cites your beloved "unbiased" MSNBC and NYT in retracting the hoax directly. Hate against a woman is not a pretty thing Beard and Milovent.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.201.191 (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No, YOU put your foot in your mouth by citing a "source" which has absolutely zero creditbility.[1] BTW, after Breitbart overstated his role at ABC in the link, ABC withdrew the invitation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure it was a hoax, but that's irrelevant--it was widely reported that it happened, which makes it notable for inclusion in the Africa article per the theory of the editor I was responding to. I do detest Palin, but I see no need to drag her over the coals when she misuses a word.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And this part from Milowent defines PDS: "I am not sure it was a hoax, but that's irrelevant" or should I say "if the left didn't have doublestandards, they wouldn't have standards at all".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.201.191 (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just like we should include Obamas 57 states, his if they bring knifes, we bring guns, corpseman etc.etc.etc. in his wikiprofile? Methinks you let your agenda color you blue..

If Palin's Africa commentary generated thousands of citations in reliable sources, then, yes, it probably would be worthy of mention. Ronnotel (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It generated about as many as blood libel, I am pretty sure. But Africa is still a continent.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your repretition of a hoax will not give you a Gobbels result. You are showing your "true" biased colors in this discussion.

Wikipedia is not the usage police. Ms. Palin did not "misuse" the term -- Jewish groups have recognized its use in this situation and simply object to its inherent offensiveness. Ms. Palin's is a relatively new usage of the subject of the article. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the term "Blood libel", it's an article about actual blood libel. Feel free to include Palin's usage in an article about the term: Blood libel (term). Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude, per multiple rule violation.--Galassi (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include usage is highly notable and no policy-based reason to exclude has been provided. "Misuse" of the term is subjective and nowhere in WP policy do I see a mention of "misuse". WP:COATRACK has been mentioned, but try as I might, I don't have the slighted idea what the coats are supposed to be in this analogy. What is the agenda that's being driven by citing this usage? I think we all agree that Palin is a publicity hound - but that's no reason to exclude. Ronnotel (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not that it can't be included somewhere on wikipedia, the question is where it should be noted. Everyone someone calls someone a "nazi" who isn't a nazi or doesn't meet the definition doesn't get added into the nazi article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Include for the reasons I discussed above. Ms. Palin did not "misuse" the term. She used it to portray herself as a victim. As my prior comment indicates, she's not alone in this usage -- someone else wrote a similar article this past Monday. As I also wrote earlier, Jewish groups have recognized that "the term 'blood libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused." This new usage is not "wrong." This article is not only about Jews. It was 'merged' with the article about Jewish blood libel. This new usage of the subject of the article deserves to be discussed and not ignored. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also highly likely that it is the first use of this term by a major American political figure. So it appropriately belongs in the discussion of the term "blood libel."Bellagio99 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I disagree that the "blood libel" point is more appropriate in Ms Palin's article than here. It is just a moment in Ms Palin's verbal life, but it is a major public expansion of the use of the "blood libel" term in U.S. political discourse.Bellagio99 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. What is significant about Ms. Palin's use of the term is not that she said it but that it is an excellent example of a significant shift in the meaning of this term. Hence, it belongs in an article about the term, not in an article about her. Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is NOT a change in the meaning of the term, it is a misuse of the term as noted in the condemnation of Palin's use of the term from Jewish leaders such as at [2], reinforced by the fact that Congresswoman Giffords is Jewish. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an article about a term, it's an article about actual blood libel. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish between criticism that Ms. Palin used an offensive term and criticism that she misused a term. Ms. Palin's proclivity for verbal missteps does not render her incapable of publicizing uncommon but acceptable uses of offensive terms. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not "important" at all that some failed U.S. V.P. candidate misused a term. Again, please review WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia:Recentism, and WP:WORLDVIEW. And if it were important, which it isn't, it still wouldn't belong in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I just quickly reviewed all four of those guidelines/policy statements and I note they do not discourage appropriate mention of what is probably the most salient usage in recent years of the "Blood libel" term. WP:NOTNEWS states "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." wp:NOTNEWS is mainly about article notability, and we have no issue of article notability here. It is appropriate here to mention the usage and the fact that Palin's usage was apparently different from historical usage. That serves readers who are still arriving at this article. --doncram 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude People read articles to understand what terms mean to to see how they are misused. TFD (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But why do *you* get to decide what is and isn't "misuse"? Simply because you've not used "blood libel" "to refer to someone being falsely accused" does not mean that it cannot be used to do so.Agnosticaphid (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an article about a term. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Include We don't know if this is shifting the meaning of the term or not yet. But it is a hot topic and people want it included. WP:RECENT - "Just wait and see. Remember, there is no deadline. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball." If inclusion seems silly in a year or two because such usage is not widespread (which seems likely to me), Palin's remarks can be removed. 74.138.246.109 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude. This is an article about a serious topic, blood libels, antisemitic canards which have been made for centuries, and been responsible for the horrible deaths of many innocents. In 10 years no-one will remember or care that some former U.S. V.P. candidate used the term "blood libel" in a way that offended some hyper-political partisans. Feel free to create a Blood libel (term) article, and include it there, but only after reviewing WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia:Recentism, and WP:WORLDVIEW. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

[note: the previous comment was later edited, I agree that blood libel is a serious topic. Agnosticaphid (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)] I disagree, the section that the discussion is placed in begins "[t]here have been many blood libel accusations...." The article also begins with the comment that "blood libel" usually refers to Jews. I don't think it's beyond the scope of the article, personally, particularly given that this article was merged with the article about Jewish blood libel this past June. Should we really create another article all over again? Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources used here are the ones that indicate that Blood libels are typically about Jews. Please review WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:WORLDVIEW - even if the scope were expanded, it still wouldn't include some non-notable misuse of a term by a failed U.S. V.P. candidate. Enough navel gazing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's appropriate for you to just revert the article when there's no consensus to do so. I'm no expert on Wikipedia's rules and I don't claim to be. But I feel like you're creating a presumption against inclusion, and given that this is controversial, I don't think that every detail needs to be decided before the article is modified. As far as notnews and recentism goes, it's not that Ms. Palin's use of the term is "news," it's that it's a very well-documented use of a blood libel accusation in an unusual situation. Yes, it's a recent use, but that in and of itself shouldn't preclude its inclusion -- we're just not supposed to be biased towards recent events. There were other examples of the use of a "blood libel" accusation in the section you deleted. I don't think that this article is necessarily not about the term blood libel, and I think it should stay for now. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for you to insert the off-topic trivia when there's no consensus to do so. Also, please review WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:WORLDVIEW. This is an article about a serious topic, blood libels, antisemitic canards which have been made for centuries, and been responsible for the horrible deaths of many innocents. In 10 years no-one will remember or care that some former U.S. V.P. candidate used the term "blood libel" in a way that offended some hyper-political partisans. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was against the rules for you to edit your comments on the talk page after you made and someone commented on them. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many documented instances of other people, not Ms. Palin, using the term "blood libel" the same way that she did. You deleted them. It's not just a single use by a failed vice-presidential candidate. The anti-defamation league admitted that Ms. Palin used the term blood libel appropriately. No need to get so up in arms. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OMG!!! Did someone else misuse the term too??? Wow, an American professor misused it in 2009!!! Well, that changes everything. But something this earth-shattering shouldn't just be hidden away at the bottom of some boring article about people accusing Jews of slaughtering children, draining their blood, and using it to bake matzos. No, we need a whole new article on the topic, to give it its proper prominence. Please create the article Misuses of the phrase "blood libel" post haste. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean, as I said above, a prominent columnist used it in the title an op-ed just this past Monday. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=rss_opinion_main Other Jewish organizations have released articles in the past few days with other examples, although I can't seem to find them just now. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, three Americans have used the term now. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The last thing that I'm going to say is that I don't appreciate that you're turning this into a personal attack for no reason. You said that I added the Palin stuff to the article. But I didn't once insert text into the article about Ms Palin using "blood libel." Other people did. I added the cite to the ADL's statement for backup. It's not like I'm on an individual crusade, there are a lot of other people, not including myself, who've been trying to and have added this to the article. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're the one doing all the arguing here, so you're the one I'm responding to, and you certainly appear to be on a bit of a crusade. I've stricken the words "for you" in my previous comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Include: Relevant, and saying she misused it is not only POV but is wrong as well.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include Although I agree and often cite that we are not the news, in this case I think we should include a brief statement about this misuse of the term. In two days there were over 600,000 views of this article, obviously because of Palin's use, and it makes no sense to not include it in an appropriate place (a section that does discuss it as a "term", to answer one of Jayjg's repeated arguments) to assist readers in their understanding, which is our purpose. I do not think this is the place to discuss at any length the media coverage it received, or any aftermath - the news aspect - but I do think that such a prominent misuse of the term needs to be identified here. Tvoz/talk 09:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude This is an article about the usual meaning of Blood Libel. The metaphorical use of the term is not relevant to this article. I think I do see the include argument; where could we find the metaphorical use of a term? But I agree that it should not be in this article. More suited to a dictionary? Alisterb (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude - Entries in Wikipedia are not about words, but about the subjects those words usually refer to. Misuses of language, however hyped they are by the 24 hour media cycle right now, are not notable enough to include in a subject entry like this. If there is sustained discussion of Palin's remark in books and papers on blood libels years from now we can reconsider adding it then.Griswaldo (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussions of how words are used -- as distinct from how they should be used -- is not per se beyond the scope of a wikipedia article. From WP:Not a dictionary: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used.)" I can see how some people would think that perhaps there should be a separate article about how "blood libel" is used, but I think that given the current contents of this article and the fact that this article was merged with "blood libel against jews" indicates that the discussion is not inappropriate here. Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would it indicate that? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

All of you people getting up in arms about "misuse" of the term... this is laughable. You can vote to exclude reference because this article is about a certain definition of the term. I'm fine with that. However, to say any other other use of the term is necessarily a "misuse" is baseless and says more about your political biases and your understanding of the evolution of language than it does about what the term actually means. To argue otherwise is to say that the Anti-Defamation League and many, many others are wrong when they say it is nothing new for it to be used in this way and it is a perfectly reasonable (as in rational and logical) term to use (though some would prefer a different one were used for "sensitivity" reasons or whatever) in political discourse to describe a situation like Palin's, where people are accusing her of being culpable in murder without an ounce of evidence or rational thinking to back it up. -- Glynth (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude - There was no accusation that Palin intended to use the congresswoman's blood in any way. Whether or not the metaphor is good is a matter for politicians and English language police. Jd2718 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jd2718, nice to see you here instead of our usual haunt. My reading of Ms Palin's comments were that she was accusing MSM of blood libel -- wanting her blood and that of her associates. YMMV, but that's the view from this Canuck. Bellagio99 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude. The fact that a few days ago an unsuccessful vice-presidential candidate in the US used the phrase "blood libel" in a questionable way in a videotaped speech, and that a bunch of people were annoyed, does not warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia article about the blood libel. It does not warrant the creation of a separate encyclopedia article about isolated examples of people who bandy about the term. I find it literally stomach-turning that people are laughing it up about this. Xanthoxyl ^< 09:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's laughing it up? You're right that the fact that Ms Palin used the term "blood libel" doesn't itself mean that we need an article about contemporary use of the term (she's hardly the only one to have used it and sparked controversy), but the fact that Ms Palin used it also doesn't automatically mean that all contemporary uses are trivial, non-notable, and outside the scope of wikipedia. I think that a well-sourced article about the different people that have used the term ahistorically in recent times and what's happened afterwards would be interesting and not inappropriate. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Include Definitely notable, and I have seen other non-Jew related uses of the term.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 11:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Easy Exclude; this is a prime example of WP:RECENTISM with no source being provided to demonstrate relevance to the article (i.e. an in depth analysis of her use of the term). Every source appears to simply recite that she said it, and that it was a silly thing to say - this is not demonstrating significance to the topic. If, for example, she kicks off a new fad for using the term that would become significant. But one use is trivial and more content for her article. We are not a news source or even really interested in what the mass media is reporting; we have to establish a long term view on an article, and I fail to see how Palin's single comment impacts on this subject in the long term. Are we going to list every time someone uses this term? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include If someone goes to the "Contemporary" section of an article about "Blood Libel", then they will want to see Sarah Palin's usage. It is apparently the most notable use since 2007.CardboardGuru (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include it. Palin's use is not misuse. It is common American usage among Evangelical Christians. There is no such thing as "misuse" of such a term, at most it could be 'artistic license', but neither, in this case. Nobody owns any common usage English word. It is utterly ridiculous for people with obvious ethno-political biases to be so zealously controling the wording of this article so as to create the erroneous illusion to the larger world that this libelous phenomenon is for the exclusive use and burden of their own childish victimhood, while denigrating others for their "victim complex". Palin's usage of "blood libel" is correct, common and understood to large portions of her American audience - evangelical Christians, who, ironically, use that phrase to defend all Jews (many of whom disparage these, their very own defenders) against the ancient, and Medieval, prejudices of the more 'orthodox' Christian sects. This 'blood libel' originated, not in Medievel myths, but in much earlier 'Catholic' church teachings of the Jews' alleged 'liability' for demanding the blood of Christ on the cross. Never mind that such teaching ignores the fact that Christ was not 'stoned' (the traditional Jewish form of execution), but was nailed to a cross by Roman soldiers. Evangelicals teach that it was Satan, who cried "Crucify him!" from the anonimous safety of the crowd, and they believe that all Jews make up a tribe of the Nation of Israel 'chosen' as priests by an unerring God, under an inalterable 'covenant', in his universal plan for an eternal theocratic paradise. They are extremely careful to always support, not disparage or offend, "God's Chosen People". I can assure you that every Evangelical Christian knew exactly what Palin was saying, without referring to any reference works. The fact that Palin's use has caused such a national 'stir' demands an all encompassing explanation of the term on Wiki. Need we seek some higher form of arbitration to get the whole story told, here, or must we just accept the tyrannies of the minority, and start a truly objective site, elsewhere? Theguardian777 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude for the reasons presented by Griswaldo. Lovetinkle (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include one or two sentences on it. I had never heard of "blood libel" until I saw all the media reports about it after Palin used the phrase. Thus, it appears that she may be responsible for putting the phrase into popular culture, which makes the event noteworthy enough for inclusion. Cla68 (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude We don't need to list every misuse of the term. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude, of course; take it to Sarah Palin or Blood libel (Palinism;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include only if it is part of a larger section related to the varied use of the term and various references to blood libels against non-Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Exclude, Wikipedia does not need 100 links to the accusations about Sarah Palin. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include it is obviously germane to the topic (recent whitewashing of the article notwithstanding.) The above discussion about misuse of the term is absurd - we are after all speaking of a term that specifically refers to a false accusation. If we exclude uses of the term not based in reality, there wouldn't be any. Wikipedia is as good a place as any for a person to go to learn the difference between more and less legitimate claims of blood libel, and the historical origin. Leaving out contemporary misuses can only heighten their perceived legitimacy, as if they are presumed consistent with the original usage.71.79.29.95 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Include It is crazy not to mention the Palin usage and subsequent media discussion, objectively, with sources. It makes Wikipedia look bad not to mention it, makes it look like Wikipedia has head in sand, denying reality of recent usage yet covering other Contemporary Usage that is less interesting. No controversy should be allowed here, it should just simply be mentioned straightforwardly. --doncram 16:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "It's crazy not to mention the Palin usage" or "it makes Wikipedia look bad" aren't policy or guideline-based arguments, so they don't really carry any weight. On the other hand, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE are policy-based arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Excuse me for not putting it into wikipedia jargon terms that u happen to prefer. It is a courtesy to readers of an encyclopedia, to have upfront explanation/mention, as is done with disambiguation and with various aspects of ledes of many articles, about why they mostly likely arrived. And that there are different usages of the term, including some deprecated by some groups. It is discourteous to explain nothing, leaving it to readers to search the entire article, not once explaining that a controversial usage, in the news, is technically not what this article is about. Why on earth not use that as a teaching moment, to explain what the article is about by comparison to how Palin happened to use it, with some brief explanation how other groups objected to that usage. I would put it in boldly myself, as a matter of good writing, but i don't happen to understand it well (because you are withholding the information from me). And i sense that any sensible edits here will be regarded as contentious and instantly reverted by owner/watchdogs. This proposal and discussion section is about a gag order, about censoring what a straightforward Wikipedia article should say factually, and is unpleasant with its badgering of editors like me who comment. --doncram 21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It's not "wikipedia jargon terms that u happen to prefer", it's relevant policy, which is what any closing admin should understand, and not have to have explained to them. And quite frankly, what's "discourteous" and "unpleasant" is the rest of your explanation. No-one is "withholding the information" from you, and the claim that "this proposal and discussion section is about a gag order, about censoring what a straightforward Wikipedia article should say factually" is offensive nonsense. No-one wants to "censor" anything, they're just uninterested in hyper-political irrelevant trivia. Go fight your political battles elsewhere please. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayig Please be CIVIL and do not impute motives to people. I've asked you politely at least once before. In my case, you're wrong. You've also previously accused me of lying. With these efforts, you move things from the substantive to the personal. As a former ArbComm member, you should know better than that. Moreover, I asked you once before, based on your experience, how we should resolve this impasse, as the Consensus effort obviously hasn't worked. I ask again. Yours in WP Bellagio99 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bellagio99, please be civil yourself, and don't falsely accuse people of things they have not done. I've haven't "imputed motives" to anyone; on the contrary, when someone says people are trying to "censor" or "withhold information" it is they who are imputing motives. I've asked you to make more accurate statements before, when you pretended you weren't American, despite the fact that you are a third-generation American and citizen of the United States, as you proudly proclaim on your User page. It is you who have moved things "from the substantive to the personal". You've been specifically admonished by others to stop making taunting statements like this, so please heed those editors. Please focus on this discussion, and not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayjig 1.Your "go fight your political battles elsewhere please" is imputing motives. As have some previous statements. You don't know what my views on Ms Palin are. 2. As you refuse to believe, I am a Canadian in citizenship and world-view, having lived here for 40+ years. Yes, I am the grandson of American immigrants, and I still have a US passport in addition to my Canadian one, but my world-view is Canadian. That's why I responded when you wagered that all of those who were for Include were American. It's hard to judge complex matters like this from my Userboxes, as you've tried to do. I ask you instead, to believe me and to be Civil. 3. As you may have also noticed from my Userboxes, I am an Ashkenazi Jew. But what's not there, is that one-half of my family fled Moldova soon after the Kishinev pogrom, a prominent instance of blood libel. Now, I shouldn't have to do all of this personal stuff, but please do not misrepresent me again. I ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN, HOW SHALL WE MOVE THIS DISCUSSION FORWARD, RATHER THAN HURLING INVECTIVE? AS AN EXPERIENCED ADMIN, WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST? I hate to capitalize, but I have asked you that politely twice already with no response.Bellagio99 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not "refuse to believe" you are Canadian in citizenship, and have never suggested otherwise. In fact, I've specifically stated you are Canadian. Please make more accurate Talk: page statements. On the other hand, you've stated outright that you're not American, which is non-factual, given that you are a native of New York City, a U.S. citizen, and a third-generation American. As I've also stated, the two conditions (being Canadian and being American) are not mutually exclusive. Now, could you please take your own advice, and rather than hurling invective, move this discussion forward? I've politely asked you to do all of the aforementioned of these things, some multiple times, with little apparent result. As for what it would take to move the discussion forward? I think it's time for people who previously had no apparent interest in this subject to accept that a) WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:WORLDVIEW outweigh their recent and sudden desire to add this material to this article, b) there's no consensus to add this material, and c) it's time for them to move on. If they really care about the content of the article, they would all serve Wikipedia far better by actually adding cited and relevant information about things like the Kishinev pogrom. That's the most reasonable way to "move this discussion forward". You could also try adding it to the Sarah Palin article instead, keeping in mind that if it doesn't belong there, it certainly doesn't belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See my reply further below to Jayjg's repetition of claim about what NOTNEWS etc. say. --doncram 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg indeed imputed motives, and incorrectly, with that "Go fight your political battles elsewhere please" crack that was directed to me. I am reminded by this discussion of Jayjig's imperious manner in unrelated, past dealings (about disambiguation and lists of synagogues), that seemed to carry over from his having served on arbcom previous to that.

I think the way forward is to draft a new statement here of what to include in the lede of this article (short mention of Palin's comment and the fact of disagreement about it), and what expanded statement to include in the usage section further below.

The separate article idea was tried and doesn't work out as well for readers, who arrive to this article having searched upon "blood libel". The proposal to split an article is unnecessary kowtowing to some editors who, for reasons i don't understand, are trying to prevent the article on the topic of "blood libel" from explaining the term and its various usages. The discussion is uninformed by the absence of any draft text to debate about, because the previous separate article with its text that could be considered as a draft was deleted. I for one did not see that draft; i expect some opposes here are specifically opposes to having some of its draft text which may well have been political / non-neutral. What is to be included here should be neutral and factual of course.

There are in fact a substantial number of editors here who wish for there to be some coverage of the term, some courteous explanation to arriving readers interested in the recent usage and perhaps also in the historic usage. The way forward is to provide that here by a proposal of specific wording here, and boldly putting it into the article, and expecting to have further discussion here of how that is best worded and shortened or lengthened. In my view brief mention in the lede is required and some substance in the usage section is needed. I would nominate another editor to do this but am not informed who to nominate. Can some one or two less-involved editors volunteer? --doncram 19:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying people are trying to "censor" or "withhold information" is imputing motive; now, stop talking about me, and start talking about article content. Since there's no consensus to insert this material that violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:WORLDVIEW, the best way forward is not to try to edit-war it in, but rather to accept policy and common sense, and move on. You could try adding it to the Sarah Palin article instead, keeping in mind that if it doesn't belong there, it certainly doesn't belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I just quickly reviewed all four of those guidelines/policy statements that Jayjg asserts rule, and I note they do not discourage appropriate mention of what is probably the most salient usage in recent years of the "Blood libel" term. For example, WP:NOTNEWS states "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" (emphasis added). WP:NOTNEWS is mainly about article notability, and we have no issue of article notability here. It is appropriate here to mention the usage and the fact that Palin's usage was apparently different from historical usage. That serves readers who are still arriving at this article.

Editor Jayjg has several times in this discussion asserted that wp:NOTNEWS and those other guidelines/policies apply, and they would apply for some excessive treatments that could possibly be undue. They do not apply for a reasonable treatment within this article.

This discussion is less useful without a specific proposal. Jayjg is adamantly against a treatment that is not drafted. Depending on how it is drafted, his arguments could be relevant. Would someone please make a proposed wording draft now? --doncram 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Include: I have been watching this discussion since its inception and now feel compelled to jump in. Isn't the fact that we are still discussing this almost two weeks later evidence that it is probably notable? I don't see the big deal about including one bullet point discussing Sarah Palin's usage of the term. Are you really sure this instance wasn't as or more notable than the many bullet points already listed in this article, a number of which are unsourced? And if it ends up not being notable, it can always be removed later. –CWenger (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is notable, just not in this article, which is about a VERY SPECIFIC WHOLESALE SLANDER OF JEWS, not about Sara Palin.--Galassi (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If not here then where? There was a short-lived Blood libel (U.S. political term) article, but it was promptly deleted. I don't see why people are so strongly opposed to a short "Alternate uses" section. –CWenger (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for Exclusion?

(This section is discussing whether a consensus has been reached. The survey of editors continues in section above. Please feel free to add your opinion in section above.)

• It appears at this point, there is consensus among editors here after six days of voting/arguments, that the inclusion of Sarah Palin's use of "Blood Libel" to respond to allegations put forth regarding her party's rhetorical websites and speech, which may or may not have influenced the assassin who nearly took the life of an opposition party's Congresswoman, would not benefit this article. As the arguments put forth by the editors here, it appears that "Blood Libel" refers directly to a religious event that occurred against those who practice Judaism and as such, should be viewed as so. Other arguments such as WP:NOTNEWS and the like, have also been brought into play and have made very good points and seem to support to not include Mrs. Palin's use of the words.

• To sum this up, consensus has been established to Exclude Sarah Palin's use of the word from this article.

• Editors are requested that when another editor inserts any similarities to the excluded, to revert in good faith, and point them to this discussion. I also like to remind everyone that nothing is ever set in stone. Views and opinions change overtime, and perhaps one day, more may be added to this subject other then just a time when those of the Jewish faith were persecuted. Who knows what the future holds? I now request that you take part in the discussion regarding a possible split. Phearson (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Fair summary.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also have to agree. By itself, Ms Palin's use isn't an appropriate addition at all, and if sufficient context about modern usage were provided to warrant mention, it'd change the focus of this article enough that I think it's fair to say that a separate article is a more appropriate route to take. AgnosticAphid talk 19:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and a good summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree Consensus has not been reached. There are good arguments expressed in survey section above. For me, the compelling one is that allowing this article to cover recent usage of the term is educationally relevant. It is crazy not to use the opportunity that so many hits on this article provide, not to provide some acknowledgement of the term being used in the media now. This is your chance, Wikipedia, to be relevant (in a measured, sourced, reliable way). Don't post silly tags about disambiguation pages proposed, just give a reasonable mention in the lede and in the Contemporary Usage-type section of the Palin usage and brouhaha. --doncram 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody likes Palin, but it doesn't matter whether she claims to a victim of blood libel, holocaust, ice age, inquisition, junk food or anything else. because this article is about BLOOD LIBEL, for which many Jews paid WITH THEIR LIVES, and NOT about Palin.--Galassi (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course consensus has been reached. Your own vote (above), made after consensus was reached, didn't even cite policy or guideline, so it doesn't carry any weight anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Of course"??? I count it about even in terms of comments, about 12 or 13 "Include" and 13 or 14 "Exclude". The quick assertion of consensus by the nominator and first other commenter, when votes running about even, does not establish a consensus. I'm not usually involved in controversial articles, but this seems like heavy wp:OWN ownership going on, for a term that no one owns. --doncram 12:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

An administrator has not closed the discussion yet. So the split proposal is still open. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached: I agree with Doncram's point above. It's clear from the start that we would not reach consensus, and there shouldn't be a rush to judgement. Hence I've added a question mark to the header of this section (and changed a preposition). I also disgree with the tone of the rush to consensus. One of the proponents of Exclude is an Admin and has been on ArbComm, and is unfortunately using that summary, peremptory tone here -- but here he is just another Editor. Please avoid Role Conflict. To move the matter forward, I ask the same Q I did a while ago: Where do we go from here. WP:RofC hasn't worked. What's next. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be viewed as an attack article. But it might be best if we either make another article (via the split discussion), or take your edits to Sarah Palin's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phearson (talk • contribs)

I'm sympathetic, but would stand by what I wrote just above, and elsewhere. First of all, Ms Palin's use in and of itself isn't particularly notable. Second, even if you mean a whole usage discussion should be included here, a lot of people think that usage is a separate topic not covered and not relevant here. Personally, I'm deferring to their judgment because I don't think inclusion can (should?) be forced against the primary editors' will. I think a new article about usage would be the best route to take; for that, see the split discussion. I'm afraid you're not going to be able to dislodge the conclusion of consensus as to exclusion of usage here unless you can come up with some policy-based reason why inclusion of a usage discussion in this article is more appropriate than a usage discussion in some other (new) article. AgnosticAphid talk 06:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Does anyone think it kinda strange to have to vote on whether or not that we reached consensus? Phearson (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus by definition is not a ~majority vote, but a version agreeable to all parties. As such there is no consensus and shall never be.--Galassi (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't read below this yet, but would agree with Doncram, Bellagio and Galassi's obviously correct observation here that there is no consensus reached to this point in this discussion. Tvoz/talk 20:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

need for a draft

Would someone please provide to me a copy of the deleted article Blood libel (U.S. political term)? It seems relevant to drafting some proposal for inclusion of factual, objective treatment of the Palin usage in this article. Also, there is need for a new proposal of specific wording to include into this article, volunteer needed. --doncram 23:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There wouldn't be any treatment of Palin in this article, as this atricle is not about Palin.--Galassi (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• The deleted article lasted a very short period of time, i doubt it would be very helpful. Plus its pretty clear there is no consensus support for adding palin's misuse into this article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the origin of the term "blood libel"?

Not the myth, but the term. When was it first used? Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

[3] RPSM (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated before, it was used to describe the Damascus affair by contemporaneous writers. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Source to that? Because I think you are wrong. Jewish Encyclopedia from 1901-1906 does not mention "blood libel" for example, and I think it would if the term, by then, would have been in use for some 60 years as you suggest. Instead they use the term "blood accusation" all trough. Steinberger (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

To me that looks like a synopsis or a description written later. Quickly searching the content, the book does not contain the word "libel". Open Library have it here. Steinberger (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, and good find. Well, it was certainly used as early as 1912–13:[4][5][6][7] Jayjg ^(talk) 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Unclear phrase

Yuval rejects the blood libel story as a fantasy of some Christians that was impossible due to the precarious nature of the Jewish minority's existence in Christian Europe.

Please forgive me my knowledge of English, but I fail to grasp the meaning of the sentence. It is like Esher's works: each part makes sense, but together it a brain-twister. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yuval rejects the claim that the blood libel story is true. Instead, he thinks it was a fantasy of some Christians. Yuval thinks it was impossible for it to be true because the Jewish minority's precarious existence in Christian Europe would have been seriously threatened if Jews had actually done any of the things they were accused of in the blood libel stories. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured out than much from the overall context, thank you. My question was about the meaning of the sentence. Are you saying that all what you said is readable from the syntax of the sentence. Is it grammatically correct at all? I have to go back to grammar school, nu?. For me the phrase sounds weirdly even if converted word-by-word to Yiddish (I know the effects of the opposite way of translation :-) Loew Galitz (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Clarification: the syntax binding suggests the following tight collocation: "a fantasy of some Christians that was impossible". I fail to see how Christians could have been prevented from fantasies. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that well written, but yes, almost all of that is readable from the syntax of the sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Christian claims that they were accused of blood libel by the Romans is supported by Christian sources but nothing found yet in Roman and Greek sources

[8] This is a blog about the academic literature on blood libels. RPSM (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

article's beginning.

changed the article's beginning

from:

Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) is a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims—alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration—have been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]

to:

Blood libel is a false accusation against a person or group of people that there is blood on their hands. Historically, such blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) involved false accusations or claims[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims—alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration—have been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]

because:

the article intro implies that almost entirely all use of the word ever was christian versus jew. SOME use of the phrase was simply a sort of bearing false witness without religious overtones ---blaming an innocent person or group for some blood-crime. the added words at the beginning allowed for this tiny bit of wiggle room ---while also keeping all of the original words and keeping the overall structure of the article.

it was reverted on the same day by use Steven J. Anderson. i undid the revert. i expect it to be re-reverted and un-undone a few more times now that the phrase is associated with the firebrand sarah palin ---so now its political and people will edit and undo reflexively. ugh. happy foodfight.

OH and even as i type this, here is user Yaksar un-undoing. someone else's turn.

Cramyourspam (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)cramyourspam

Rather than edit-warring, can you explain which reliable sources you use to support you changes? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Split Tag

The article is Tagged to be split but no discussion was made. The split tagg was made by a BOT, but no explaination for the split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is long over, and there was no consensus to split. The tag should be removed. However, I'm not clear what you mean by "the split tag was made by a BOT". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove the tag. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

previous deleted article request

Would someone please provide me a copy, by email or otherwise, of the previous deleted article? I requested that here previously but the request here has been archived. --doncram 15:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the version put up for deletion was this version from June 28 2010 of this article Blood libel. The decision of the AFD seems to have been to delete that and replace it by the then-separate article "Blood libel against Jews", but the implementation was done with no actual deletion, just a merger and redirect of the separate other article. So anyhow, i guess i and anyone else has access to the article that was proposed for deletion. --doncram 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "blood libel" comes from a bible verse

This Guardian article quotes a biblical verse for the origin of the term: [9] 2001) And all the people answered, Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that a riot was about to break out instead. So he took some water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood. Attend to that yourselves."And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” [10] RPSM (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that a newspaper cannot be source for such statements: for scholarly claims scholarly sources are required, even if a newspaper is right. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Section Contemporary

I see it is marked with "This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose". I would like to express a disagreement. At present it is just a list of incidents, with no logical connection beyond their mere type. In this case the "bulleted" format is just fine: it clearly separates the events. If you just put all this into a continuous paragraph, this will be more difficult to read/browse. If you start to add some verbiage, for "smooth" flow, then it is a path to Original Rasearch and opinions. In summary, a "prose" in wikipedia may come only from prose in external sources. In other words, if one finds a source which scholarly discusses the "Connemporary" topic, then it may be the source of prose. Otherwise I would rather suggest to simply split away a list article, List of blood libel cases, especially keeping in mind that the page is long. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

It would seem an important addition to indicate the origin of the actual term. Lots of different groups have been falsely accused of lots of different crimes in order to besmirch and condemn them. How did this particular usage come about?Execreblete (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"False" accusation

The article starts with the categorical statement, that the subject is a "false accusation or claim". I wonder, who ever proved, that such facts were and are false?... 195.50.1.122 (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the consensus of historians/reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, am not convinced. As every article concerning "blood libel" or the killing of christians (ritually or otherwise) by jews is virtually riddled with obvious and strenuously biased POVs favoring the jews, and routinely denouncing all claims against them as exaggerations, or outright fabrications, with claims of "antisemitism", it makes each article so worded appear to be nothing more than biased historical revisionism, and, quite frankly . . . it smells like an intentional cover-up.

I think the best thing to do in cases such as this is to equally and fairly present both sides of each such argument, as originally written, and let the reader see the actual controversy for what it is. Whitewashing the past is not only intellectually dishonest, it is a clear violation of the principle of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.169.39 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

draft language for coverage of Palin brouhaha

Would someone please propose draft language for mention in the lede, and some further development in a bit more detail with sources below, for coverage of the Palin mention of "blood libel" and subsequent media discussion? The previous discussion about this led to dispute. There was NOT consensus that NOTHING should be stated. I suggest that specific proposal of what could be stated is needed. --doncram 15:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Palin debacle has been removed from this article per consensus. It is inappropriate either fort he lede or for the body of this article.--Galassi (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a false, unhelpful claim. Please see archive 3 discussion in which Tvoz summarizes that my own, Bellagio and Galassi's observation that there was no consensus reached was "obviously correct". --doncram 16:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. No consensus to add the material. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't be deliberately obtuse. There seems to be more comments in the past discussion in favor of mentioning the recent usage which brought 600,000 viewers to this article over 2 days and which still brings an unusally large readership. Jayjg has postured that no consensus in favor of any specific wording equates to a consensus that nothing should be mentioned, which is not how Wikipedia works and is counter to general sense here. Please participate in developing a decent proposed wording, if you wish, or don't. --doncram 18:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling someone here is being "deliberately obtuse", but it's clearly not me. A number of editors did opine that the scope of this article should be broadened to include off-the-cuff misuses of the phrase by reality TV stars, but an equivalent number were quite clear that the material violated policy. Insisting that we insert policy-violating material when there is no consensus to do so "is not how Wikipedia works and is counter to general sense here". Please accept that you did not gain consensus for your view, and please stop trying to (rather disruptively) claim that the only thing one can do when a proposal fails is accept the proposal anyway and "develop wording". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To make this discussion more tangible, i propose as minimalist mention: "*In 2011, Sarah Palin prominently used the term "blood libel" in a way that was immediately objected to by others as representing non-standard usage." I think that is helpful and innocuous. How could anyone object to that? Seriously, think before you object. I added that to the article for now. --doncram 16:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, there was was a lengthy previous discussion in which there clearly no consensus to add the Palin material; in particular, people noted that the material was ephemeral trivia that was not on the topic of this article. Your persistent response has been "Let's work out some wording for adding it, then force it in". Please stop acting as if that previous discussion did not happen. When there's no consensus for adding material, on the grounds that it is fundamentally inappropriate for this article, the solution is not to tweak wording and edit-war it in. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What is "the material" to which you refer? I wonder what you see as wrong with the specific language i propose here? But I would like to see other specific suggestions from others to say a bit more than that, too, and I don't suppose Jayjg is going to make a tangible proposal (as his position against any mention is clear). --doncram 18:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the false accusation against minorities, particularly Jews. Anything else is not appropriate and that includes misuse of the term. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly so. This article is about accusations that minorities (particularly Jews) kill children (and typically use their blood) as part of their religious rituals. It is not about off-the-cuff misuses of the term in political rhetoric by former politicians and reality TV stars. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add my name to the "keep that stupid, worthless, idiotic bullshit out of the article" side of the ledger. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Further !Votes not needed. --doncram 20:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone else please propose specific language? To those who are all irate about any possibility of any mention, please don't comment here. Please allow this discussion to be a drafting space for possible language. If you can make constructive comments on what language would be okay, please do contribute. --doncram 20:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop asking people to "propose specific language"; tweaking wording will in no way make it possible to insert material that violates policy and has no consensus for insertion. Your comments here are not constructive, and are becoming increasingly disruptive. Please stop, and focus on other articles. Alternatively, you could add something important and relevant to this article about its actual topic; for example, the "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages" sections could use improved sourcing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That is nonsense to accuse me of being wp:disruptive. Your repeatedly commenting negatively within a discussion thread trying to find a constructive resolution of a content dispute could be fairly termed "disruptive" in a normal English language meaning of the term, frankly.

Perhaps one way out would be to put in some header note referring to other meanings of the term "Blood libel", such as other meanings suggested at Wiktionary's definition (which is linked from bottom of the current article). In political columns i've browsed recently, there is a fair amount of agreement that the term "blood libel" can be used in the sense described in Wiktionary's third definition: "Any false or purportedly false accusation of guilt, especially of guilt in mass murder or homicide." I don't believe that anyone "owns" the term and can fairly deny that there are other usages besides the historically important usage so far described in the article. I'll draft some more expanded statement eventually based on the many news discussions, some quite learned, eventually, but again i'd welcome others' suggested wordings. --doncram 20:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me use your own words; perhaps you will understand then: "To those who are all irate about no possibility of any mention, please don't comment here." Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the established consensus that Palin's comments are not notable for mention here. This topic covers thousands of years of history. The fact that some flash in the pan former politician turned media critic used it once incorrectly is not notable for this article, though it might be for the article on Palin herself. DreamGuy (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There was NO consensus, just a slight outnumbering. I have real Work to do, so I am not going to re-argue this now, but I hate to see history rewritten. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. There was NO consensus to add the material. No history has been re-written. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm. While there was no consensus to add something about Ms Palin, there also certainly wasn't -- and isn't -- a consensus to say nothing about Ms Palin. Nobody owns this page and, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't have some sort of presumption-against-change-in-the-event-of-disagreement policy. There are a number of legitimate reasons why under Wikipedia policy a discussion of Ms Palin's use of the term "blood libel" would be appropriate here. But just thinking about going back over it all again is exhausting to me. I actually avoided wikipedia completely for a couple months just because I found the whole episode so discouraging and unpleasant. Maybe that just makes me crazy, but it seems to me that this sort of thing is exactly why wikipedia has been losing experienced editors as of late. (Not that I would claim to be an experienced editor!) AgnosticAphid talk 05:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add anything about Palin. And I think the reason why "wikipedia has been losing experienced editors as of late" is because people keep trying to insert hyper-politicized US-centric trivia into what is supposed to be an encyclopedia with a global view on significant topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Javig As I am writing scholarly stuff about Wikipedia, do you have any systematic evidence that (a) WP has been losing experienced editors" and (b) that the reason is that "people keep trying to insert hyper-politicized US-centric trivia"? I would appreciate knowing it. I watch the Palin page, so you could respond there. Thanks. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You should probably address your question to Agnosticaphid, who first made the claim that "wikipedia has been losing experienced editors as of late", giving his own reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not just making things up. You can see at the top of this page that Wikipedia is trying to become more open and collaborative. Apparently the problem is more that wikipedia is losing "non-vandal newbies" than that there's been an decrease in retention of long-time editors -- I was wrong on the "experienced editors" point. But the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees found that "over the past several years it's been getting increasingly difficult for people to edit the Wikimedia projects," and I would submit that the intense hostility to any mention of contemporary use of the phrase "blood libel" -- including Ms Palin's use -- is a perfect example of this. The wikipedia project has ossified, and this is driving away editors. Just my two cents. AgnosticAphid talk 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Excluding the Sarah Palin incident is an insult to the neutrality of wikipedia. It was a significant event that created much controversy. It NEEDS to be on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That is simply a misuse of the phrase and has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The Palin misuse is inappropriate for this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Extension of the term in political discourse

The term "blood libel" has been used as a hot-button term for an unfair accusation by many people besides Sarah Palin.[11] I recently added some mention of such extension of the word, without realizing there had been previous discussion at the article talk page. I feel that the following widely-reported[12] [13] [14] condemnation of such wider usage is relevant to this article:

The term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation.' It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line.

This has little to do with Sarah Palin and everything to do with notable information relevant to the topic of this article, Perhaps it would be better to organize the section as a controversy over whether or not extension of the term to wider usage is appropriate, citing WP:RS for two points of view. betsythedevine (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, misuse of the term is NOT appropriate for this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information based on WP:RS. If you look at articles regarding other terms facing shifting usage, people avoid using POV expressions like "misuse" to describe new usage. For example, an internet "troll" was originally somebody who posted jokey provocative stuff on Usenet. Usage has broadened to cover other behavior that I personally think of as more like "griefing" than "trolling." But if WP:RS document the term's usage that way, it is Wikipedia's job to describe, not prescribe. betsythedevine (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about centuries of falsehood perpetrated against minority groups. Nothing else. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This article describes and illustrates the term "blood libel." As per WP:CENSOR: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." Could you cite your policy arguments for excluding relevant, modern, notable, and indeed widely publicized usage of the term "blood libel" from an article whose title is "Blood libel"? betsythedevine (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is typical coatrack. Agree with removal of irrelevant materials [15]. The poisoning of the girls, imaginary or real, has nothing to do with the subject. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

<-- WP:COATRACK prevents introducing "a tangentially related biased subject." It does not forbid a brief and neutral presentation of closely related material. The article Slavery includes a section on "Other uses of the term." The article Genocide has a section on "Cultural genocide"; Genocides in history has a section on "Alternative meanings of genocide." Wikipedia practice for similarly history-based words is to give some (relatively brief) indication of broader or metaphorical or polemic uses of the term. betsythedevine (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Subject of this article is not just any accusation of Jews, but a very specific accusation, as also quoted in the segment you inserted. Hence inclusion of something which is clearly not a blood libel accusation seems to be questionable. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hodja, my personal POV is exactly what you state also. I am not trying to legitimize wider usage of "blood libel." Political discourse is polarized enough without political hacks accusing each other of "blood libel." By documenting not only the wider usage of the term but also the very strong pushback against such wider usage, I think we could create a small, NPOV section that would actually function to discourage people from misusing the term. Again, my goal is NOT to legitimize wider usage but to document it and to document the response to it in WP:RS. betsythedevine (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be fine to notice that the term blood-libel has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, as described here [16], but the ridiculous dispute involving Palin, which is not about blood libel, hardly belongs to this article as an example of WP:Recentism at least. This subject is centuries old. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

<--What would you think of this wording, with the references appropriately written out of course:

"The expression "blood libel" has also been used metaphorically in political discourse to describe any false accusation.[17] Such broader usage is opposed by many, with President of Jewish Funds for Justice Simon Greer saying "The term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation.' It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing .. [the speaker] of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, .. use of the term is totally out-of-line." [18]

(Signed) betsythedevine (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not in this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Steelbeard1 and Galassi. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an article about actual blood libels; there has never been any consensus to expand the topic of this article to cover various random misuses of the term. See also WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:WORLDVIEW. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be about words; they're should be about the subjects referred to by those words. A publication giving a list of word meanings, proscriptive and descriptive, is usually called a dictionary. Palin's remarks had nothing to do with actual blood libels. I realize this principle is often honored in the breach on Wikipedia, but, y'know, WP:OTHERCRAP and all. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

For a term, there is ony one way to use it correctly, and thousands of potential misuses, methaphorical uses, and typos. If some misuse becomes very common, then a new concept arises, like it happened with the word moron, assassin, etc., and only then (i.e., as documented by scholars) it may give rase to a separate wikipedia article.

If some people think that Sarah Palin's usage of the term is so notable as to be encyclopedized, then the appropriate place to do so is in the article "Public image of Sarah Palin". After all, we have the whole "Bushism" article, but we don't have the article, e.g., "illiteracy level", not even a redirect :-). Loew Galitz (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The test for notability/inclusion either here or in a separate article would not be scholarly study but WP:RS discussion of the usage, which this obviously has. But exclusion of this information has consensus at this article. betsythedevine (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Some people want to write about this somewhere. I suggested a solution, independent of "consensus at this article". How does yours reply mine? Also I fail to see why scholarly study of Palin's bloopers (provided it was independent of wikipedia) is not a test. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in Giffords shooting#Speculation on causation, where it is more appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's mentioned as part of quoting her, but without any comment on the stupidity of the usage. AFAIK the latter is the main point of contention here. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add it there, or in the article about Palin. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think betsythedevine's points and general suggestion are entirely reasonable. I was astonished previously by what seems to be kneejerk, over-the-top ownership of this article by a few editors, so I am not now surprised again to see the several reactions above. Comments like "No" or "over my dead body" and the like are not appropriate. This is the Talk page for improvements to the Wikipedia article, and unthinking kneejerk reactions should be disregarded. I appreciate that editor User:Hodja Nasreddin acknowledges "It would be fine to notice that the term blood-libel has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, as described here [19]". --doncram 22:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus to expand the subject of the article to include off-the-cuff misuses of the term by American reality television stars, and there still isn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

New Article Proposal

This article is about blood libel, false accusations of (mostly) Jewish ritual murder of children. Why not have a separate article covering the better documented cases of possible Jewish ritual murder of children such as the Beilis case? It could be titled "Jewish ritual murder" and contain an honest and open minded examination of the likelihood or possibility, however remote, that Jews, insane or otherwise, did in fact murder Christian children and drain their blood ritualistically. This myth is so well known over so many years, that it beggars belief that some deranged Jew at some point in time hasn't believed the anti-semites mythology and given this a try. After all, it seems all heritages at some point or another have had at least individuals if not groups who engaged in bizarre ritualistic murder. It seems unlikely Jews would be exempt somehow. Besides, isn't this accusation a lot like kaporot? It's fine to have an article that addresses the false accusations of blood libel, and by and large it must be false. It's ridiculous to think that mainstream Jews would even engage in anything like this. On the other hand, it seems there is plenty of documentation of cases that could be examined to write and article on the non-false claims of Jewish ritual murder.Brechbill123 (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any wikilinks or non-biased supporting citations in the above proposal to back it up. So the answer is no. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop filling article talk pages with your unsourced theories that Jews might have actually committed ritual murders. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think both of you are missing my point. My point is that this article is intentionally limited to false accusations of Jewish ritual murder. There are examples, such as the David Berkowitz case, of Jews killing Christians as part of religious ritual. I don't think the David Berkowitz case is disputed, and there are plenty of sources such as the letters he wrote to police that express a thirst for blood, and the blood being drained from victims. I suggest either widening the scope of this article, or writing a new article to cover these cases. I'm not "filling article talk pages with unsourced theories," I'm making suggestions for a new article or to widen the scope of this article.Brechbill123 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) case was "Jews killing Christians as part of religious ritual"? And you don't think this is disputed? Have you completely fucking lost it? I think they might have a spot for you in the looney bin right next to Berkowitz. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm equally baffled. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an article about Berkowitz. It is sui generis. Any claim that he is representative of some group is immediately OR, SYN, and far-fetched. Jd2718 (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Brechbi11123's posting does not deserve any comment other than to say he does not have a level head. Should he be blocked indefinitely as well as his IP addresses? Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The David Berkowitz case shows that a Jewish person can become a serial killer just like anybody else, but that's about it as far as Judaism goes. There is a possible "religious" connection discussed in the David Berkowitz article, but it's with Satanism. And there is no reason to believe that he had any idea what religions his victims were. The last person he killed was named Stacy Moskowitz, for whatever that's worth. Neutron (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I just came across Ariel Toaff, and I'm surprised his name doesn't even appear in this article. From a quick search I see his name pops up in the talk archives a couple of times. Rd232 ^talk 17:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)