Talk:Blood libel

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 "Muslim lands" is a standard term, perhaps a little outdated compared to "Arab world" or "Islamic world," and I'd be cool with either of those.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

Hi Andre,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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