This article was nominated fordeletion on 28 June 2010 (UTC). The result ofthe discussion wasmerge toBlood libel against JewsClarification (January 2011): That was about a different article version which was effectively deleted in June 2010. The article that was at "Blood libel against Jews" was moved/merged to this article ("Blood libel"), perthis diff of discussion here.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDeath on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJudaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles onReligion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit thewikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAnthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofEngland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating toethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDiscrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join thediscussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofscience,pseudoscience,pseudohistory,conspiracy theories, andskepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChristianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject ofHistory on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of thehistory of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofthe Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIsrael on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
Looking at[1] it seems that blood libel is now spread about Muslims as well. It's hardly surprising as many antisemitic myths are recirculated that way. The problem is where to fit it into the article. Any advice? //Liftarn (talk) — Precedingundated comment added 21:55, 2 January 2014
Also, looking historically to the Pre-Roman era, many other groups in the semetic region were subject to Blood libel. While human sacrifice had long fallen out of favor and only a few cults (mostly in carthage) practiced human sacrifice, almost always their own, excluding the ritual execution of prisoners of war, it was very common for nations to claim blood libel against another nation as justification of war. I cannot doubt that due to the historic evidence Carthage practices matching the descriptions, this is where they drew their inspiration from as well. (Sorry for not logging on, lazy today)--24.208.189.58 (talk)02:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is interesting material inBill Ellis.Aliens, Ghosts, and Cults. Univ. Press of Mississippi. p. 53 ff.ISBN9781617030017.. All the best:RichFarmbrough, 17:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
The sectionOrigins in England contains this passage:
"The eight-year-old Hugh disappeared at Lincoln on 31 July 1255. His body was probably discovered on 29 August, in a well. A Jew named Copin or Koppin confessed to involvement. He confessed to John of Lexington, a servant of the crown, and relative of the Bishop of Lincoln. He confessed that the boy had been crucified by the Jews, who had assembled at Lincoln for that purpose."
But how is it possible to know what someone may or may not have confessed to 769 years later?
In case this is what was written down, how would it be possible to know whether the writing is factual or fictional?
We follow what the sources say. It is pretty clear that the confession was coerced, since the content is nonsense. But it would be nice to have more than just the blanket statement that "A Jew named Copin or Koppin confessed to involvement". --Hob Gadling (talk)18:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a source seems unreliable, do we have a duty to report their claims? I'm generally against repeating information that seems unreliable, unless the claim itself is notable enough to be relevant.
When it comes to this it isn't really up for grabs. There's no historical disagreement. Do we really know what happened 700 years ago? Nobody does, but we report what reliable historians write. Nobody has substantiated any argument that the sources are unreliable or that anything is suspicious about these claims.Andre🚐04:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from a brief mention that "blood libel" is popularly used for any negative accusation, especially against Israel, I think we should remove all incidents that don't match the definition given in the lead.Zerotalk07:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel have been dismissively alleged to be a form of "blood libel" by some supporters of Israel and by the State of Israel.
This excerpt is placed in the timeline (points under history) between events that happened during 2014 and 2019.Presumably this quotation is referring to what has happened in the region post Oct 7 2023, and therefore should not be in that place in the timeline.
In addition, being as this refers to current events, it is strange that it is put under the term 'history'.
There is room to claim that this situation deviates from the regular use of the term blood libel (i.e. false accusation of murdering people for their blood), and if one was really interested in stirring the pot -that it was inserted here to further a particular political agenda.(A. writing "accusations of genocide... dismissively alleged..." implies that the accusations are accurate in all senses of the word, and were just, unfortunately, dismissively alleged, or B."Dismissively alleged to be a form of "blood libel"" - as mentioned above, this is hardly a common use of the term "blood libel". This point seems to be reinforced by the wording of the phrase "a form...".)148.75.220.242 (talk)22:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for your comments.
As the "accusations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel" have existed throughout the entire Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the placing seems reasonable. I'd agree with you that placing current events under "History" is a bit strange, but I cannot think of any better ideas, as splitting that section would lead to events in the 1900s being marked as "current". Do you have any suggestions?
Yes, it "deviates from the regular use of the term blood libel". However, I have checked the sources listed and it is verifiable. The "a form" part directly supports this as it clarifies that the accusations are not the same as "regular" blood libel. I've removed the "dismissively" as it seems to violateWP:NPOV. About "alleged", that term is neutral since it would be POV-pushing to describe the accusations as blood libel in Wikipedia's voice.
Accusations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel have been alleged to be a form of "blood libel" by some supporters of Israel and by the State of Israel.
Accusations/allegations used twice here. Technically, when looking at the definitions, one would find that you could be able to switch the two. Which would make:
Allegations of genocide against Palestinians by Israel have been accused to be a form of "blood libel" by some supporters of Israel and by the State of Israel.
(I'm not suggesting that this be the specific change made...)
If you're "not suggesting that this be the specific change made", then what should be the specific change made?
I find the terms "accusations/allegations" to be quite neutral since it does not imply whether the accusations/allegations are true or not. If it really takes a political stand as you say, then how should it be rephrased to be truly neutral?xRozuRozu •teacups20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about actual blood libels (people accusing Jews of consuming or otherwise using the blood of non-Jews, typically children), not political rhetoric. Whenever some political use of the phrase hits the news cycle, I advise waiting a couple of years until everyone forgets about this specific usage.Jayjg(talk)22:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the 2025 Israel–Hamas war, accusations that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza gained widespread traction online, including on Wikipedia. A July 2025 opinion piece inThe Jerusalem Post described the successful push to apply the term "genocide" to Israeli actions on the platform as a modern reincarnation of the blood libel trope.[1] The article claimed that editors sympathetic to anti-Israel narratives leveraged Wikipedia's open-editing model to promote a legally unsubstantiated use of the term, bypassing international legal definitions and expert consensus. The author argued that the campaign to label Israel's conduct as genocide on Wikipedia reflects the persistent structure of the blood libel—modernized to fit political discourse—by portraying Jews or the Jewish state as uniquely malevolent. The inclusion of the genocide label on Wikipedia has drawn criticism from pro-Israel advocates, who view it as part of a broader strategy to legitimize antisemitic tropes under the guise of human rights language.Ptaah75 (talk)11:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate. If you are proposing that this paragraph be added to the article, it will need substantially better sourcing than an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post.Day Creature (talk)17:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a somewhat recent case that's just more widely known than a lot of the "historical" cases where the Jews claimed blood libel and the thing ended up being true, confirmed by Jewish govt. Should definitely be added to article as an of example of the Jews false flag claiming blood libel75.118.12.202 (talk)13:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems very biased in light of the historical research showing substantial evidence that the blood passover did actually occur in some cases. It referemces dozens of court cases, not just hearsay.
Moreover, shouldn't it be mentioned that the passover story does involve elements of extreme violence towards innocents (i.e. the murder of the first-born Egyptian children)? The killing of the lamb also involves ritually killing an innocent animal. Is it really so implausible that someone who thinks passover is good might be tempted to take things further?45.146.232.70 (talk)12:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“"Over many dozens of pages I proved the centrality of blood on Passover," Toaff said. "Based on many sermons, I concluded that blood was used, especially by Ashkenazi Jews, and that there was a belief in the special curative powers of children's blood. It turns out that among the remedies of Ashkenazi Jews were powders made of blood."”
I need to again raise the issue of what this article is about.Lots of things are called blood libels by someone, as it has become a general purpose phrase for anything the speaker believes is a false charge. But that does not mean that anything called a blood libel by anyone deserves its place on this page. The scope of the page is provided right in the first sentence:Blood libel or ritual murder libel (also blood accusation) is an antisemitic canard which falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christians in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals. I'd be happy if "Christian" became "non-Jewish", but otherwise anything that does not fit the definition does not belong. I'm prompted to write this due to the recent addition of the murder of Alexander II, since I cannot see anything in the source about the Tsar's blood being used. He was killed in the street by a bomb and accusing a Jew of throwing the bomb doesn't make it a blood libel.Zerotalk00:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted my addition of that pending discussion. While the specific ritual murder accusation of physically using the blood is the original blood libel in history, I would say a false antisemitic murder accusation doesn't have to involve the usage of blood in a ritual, it could still follow the pattern of blood libel by being an antisemitic, false accusation involving a murder accompanied by religious misinformation particularly Christian. A blood libel, in my view, just needs to be a false murder accusation that some expert or some number of experts call that, without anyone meaningfully disputing whether it should be called a false murder accusation. By definition, it is a libel, namely a published false statement, and blood, meaning that the charged false statement was about blood, which could encompass murder, particularly ritualistic or ritualized murder. So I do not thinkHeinz-Dietrich Löwe [de] was calling it a blood libel idly. but I can see that he is just one expert and this is less obvious of a case than others on the list that clearly check all the boxes.Andre🚐06:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I would remove a lot more than just Alexander II. I would remove everything that does not fit the definition of the page as provided by the lead, with the caveat that the lead is also subject to change by consensus. It isn't enough that someone called something a blood libel, as even experts use the phrase in a wider generic sense. Every accusation against Israel isclaimed to be a blood libel by some politician or "expert", and there are countless other examples where accusations are called blood libels or even directly compared to the traditional blood accusation when they arenothing of the sort. If we choose to widen the scope by rewriting the lead, let's discuss that, but not keeping a tight focus will lead to the page becoming more and more useless.Zerotalk11:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the scope is fine. The lead also clarifies that"The term 'blood libel' has also been used in reference to any unpleasant or damaging false accusation, and as a result, it has acquired a broader metaphoric meaning. However, this wider usage of the term remains controversial." We could discuss re-splitting the page, but I think it's a fine length and covers the original meaning and modern usage well atm.glman (talk)13:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are "modern uses" every day. Hundreds in a year, almost all of them metaphorical. You are proposing that the original meaning, which is an important topic with a large serious literature, can be buried in the noise.Zerotalk14:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all what I'm proposing. There is nothing wrong with coveringwell-sourced modern instances. And again, if the page gets long, nothing wrong with proposing we split.glman (talk)15:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was only referring to well-sourced cases, so that doesn't help. The real issue is that they aren't actually blood libels but instead events where someone used "blood libel" in a metaphoric sense. It is like mentioning an event where someone became very angry atboiling point because a reliable source used that phrase, or listing a business leader alleged to be authoritarian atNazism just because someone called them a "Nazi".Zerotalk02:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I approve of the sentence you quoted in bold above. It can help readers who came to the article after seeing the phrase used metaphorically to understand why the usage does not imply an allegation involving blood or human sacrifice. It isn't license to list such cases in the article.Zerotalk02:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already done ⸺(Random)staplers05:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate. If you are proposing that this paragraph be added to the article, it will need substantially better sourcing than an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post.Day Creature (talk)17:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
%2c_early_1900s%2c_Central_Africa%2c_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo%2c_Pende_people%2c_wood%2c_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG)
