Talk:Well poisoning

Hungary removed

Removed this from the story from Hungary. Charles Matthews 14:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Testimonial: the author of this entry heard this story from her mother, who eyewitnessed these events as a youngster."

Cite Sources

There needs to be some primary sources cited here particularly for the "story" in the contemporary accusations section. The citation as noted above, "heard this story from my mother", is hardly sufficient and should be removed if no credible source is added. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Laws of war

Speific prohibition against poisoning wells? Quited in @Through the magic Door@ A.C. Doyle which I don't have to hand. Rich Farmbrough 16:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Fallacy

Shouldn't this article discuss the logical fallacy, which is much the better known use of "well poisoning" as a generic term? john k 17:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind - added link to poisoning the well. john k 17:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious

Would the Jewish ghetto populations' lower mortality rate have been due to cleaner living (ie avoiding the Black Plague) due to their dietary and other ritual proscriptions, or might it have been simply a factor of not mingling as much with the other city-dwellers (cutting down on infection vectors)? If anyone could research this, it would add a very useful note to the article. Kasreyn 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary accusations

Someone added the following to the Contemporary accusations section:

According to historian Harry Yang, new evidence from the journals of plague-era clerics has proven that the Jews were in fact responsible for poisoning the wells.

with no citation. Should this be removed?

Bigheadjer 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with having it removed. I have not found any trace of a historian named Harry Yang nor found any mention of this "new evidence".

68.225.188.159 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That "Harry Yang" thing is back again. Whoever is doing that seems mighty persistent.

Bigheadjer 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Serbs poisoning Kosovo Albanians

So, the reference at the slobodan-milosevic.org is a summary of the testimony given by Dr. Vukasin Andric on or before February 23, 2005 in the case Prosecution v. Milosevic at the ICTY. Reliability of slobodan-milosevic.com as a whole aside, I doubt that anyone would forge a testimony which is available to anyone, so I don't see the reason for removing it, especially when anyone who doubts it can search ICTY archives and come up with the actual testimony. Chris, I am certain that you are right man for the job ;)

Personally, I hate it when someone links to a megabyte-long document in ICTY archive, because in such a document it is hard to find what is it that actually supports the assertion in the article. It would probably be the best to link to both the summary and the actual document. But I find it strange that people are so hell-bent on removing this reference, especially when actual fact - that Serbs were accused of poisoning Kosovo Albanians - is not in any way contested. Nikola 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not hell-bent on removing the reference, and I have no knowledge or view on whether Serbs were accused of poisoning Kosovo Albanians. But if the claim is indeed supported by testimony given before the Tribunal then it is appropriate to link to the tribunal papers directly, not to a website which appears to back one of the defendants in the proceedings. If a reliable source is available then I don't think convenience is a good enough reason to cite an unreliable source instead. LeContexte 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I will just say that slobodan-milosevic.org is the first Google result for serbs poison albanians. Actual transcripts appear to be [1] and [2] and in them it is difficult to see even who is the witness. Nikola 19:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But this has nothing to do with well poisoning; hence, the source doesn't support the assertion made. Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 03:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say that. It says that "Serbs were accused of poisoning Kosovo Albanians", which doesn't mention wells specifically. I'll edit the article to clarify further. Nikola 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? If the reference does not concern well poisoning, then what is the relevance? LeContexte 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In this modern world we live in, wells aren't very much used anymore, and so the accusations have shifted to other similar means of poisoning, be it poisoning of waterworks, ventilation, food, vaccines etc. The article also mentions that Muslim fundamentalist propaganda that accused the Jews of spreading AIDS and other infectious diseases, obviously not via wells (and not even poisoning). Nikola 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. What is the relevance? In any event, Google is not a measure of reliability. LeContexte 09:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I only explained why I used the reference I did. This is reliable because it is stated by a prominent person at a prominent trial. Nikola 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I stumbled across this article by accident while browsing, but it seems odd to have an article which has maybe half of its text unrelated to Judaism branded on the right as part of the Antisemitism series (apologies if I have my Wikipedia terminology wrong). Is this actually OK, or should the article perhaps be split, or something?

Jewish Mortality

As mortality was significantly lower among the Jews, medieval Christians in Europe theorized that the Jews, who had their own wells in the ghetto, had poisoned the city wells in order to kill Christians, just as they had killed Christ.

Though the myyth of the lower mortality rates among Jews is widely held, there is scant evidence from such a trend. In fact, the Medieval Konrade of Megenberg dismisses such a claim in his "Buch Der Natur" by citing that in Vienna so many Jews died that a second cemetery was erected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herlaw (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Meta-Article

This article starts with an historical review of anti-Semites accusing Jews of poisoning wells and then turns into anti-Semitic article accusing Jews of poisoning wells. What makes the writer who demonizes the Israelis in this article any different than the Medieval accusers? It seems this grotesque story about the Jews just won't die. MsSubtext (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

I took off the anti-semitism tag as it made no sense here. There is no correlation between someone poisoning a well and them being Jewish. The Jewish genocide during the holocaust is the most notable genocide in human history yet you don't have a Jewish suffering box on that page because the act of genocide as nothing to do with judiasm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.111.236 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

took off the anti semitism tag again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.87.91 (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Text from Jewish Museum in Berlin

I copied the following text from the Jewish Museum in Berlin.

“ Well Poisoning. In 1347, ships carrying rats with infected fleas brought the Black Plague from the Crimea to the Mediterranean. In the absence of scientific explanations, the belief spread among Christians that Jews had poisoned the wells. Show trials involving torture produced forced confessions. The ensuing persecution marked the most violent turning point in the medieval history of Jews in German lands. Many were burned to death; far fewer managed to flee. ”

I note that the statement "The ensuing persecution marked the most violent turning point... Many were burned to death" contradicts the quote from Walter Laqueur in the Wikipedia article. I hope someone can research this and help make the Wikipedia article more accurate. 188.223.5.83 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Coat rack

Part of a series on antisemitism? An accusations section? That article looks nothing more like a big huge blown up politically motivated coat rack.--TMCk (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Suffice to say I disagree with your unfounded accusations. This is the second time I see you on a talkpage and you seem to have a strong anti-Israel POV. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Still here for nothing more than to soap-box. tststs. Shameful and not constructive.--TMCk (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, stick to the content, don't attack other editors.

I don't feel that this one little event of no consequence merits such undue weight, nor do I find the blatantly bias wording and cherrypicking of facts to be acceptable. Sepsis II (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Your feelings are not really important. It was obviously important enough to warrant coverage in major newspapers like the New York Times. It is no different from the paragraph describing allegations that settlers poisoned Palestinian wells with dead chickens, which received far less coverage. The section can perhaps be reworded and/or trimmed - what alternative formulation do you suggest ? Epson Salts (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Soap box? Did you read the article? It clearly shows, using reliable sources, the this antisemitic canard was one of the main false allegations used agains Jews, since the Dark Ages- it is on par with Blood libel, for which we also have an article. Epson Salts (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Congrats on making those 500 edits so you could edit here, but the spirit of 30/500 was to keep all those banned editors out for good, not to serve as require community service before they could come back to return to pushing their anti-Palestine views. Sepsis II (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is your argument against the inclusion of this relevant material? Epson Salts (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It puts Abbas in a bad light, and Israel in a good light. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• The endless children like back-and-forth "he did/she did" bickering of grownups has a minor historical significance (and notability) as a whole but not in every detail and belongs even less in an article which is not about the conflict. The encyclopedic reality (should) lay far beyond Israeli and Palestinian talking points.--TMCk (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree, the section has "unconfirmed reports" of Israelis poisoning, so it's perfectly reasonable to include the Abbas incident. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• The very section that shouldn't be there in the first place. Donkey at the wrong end.--TMCk (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• so get rid of the whole section. I would agree with that. But until the whole thing is gone, it makes sense to include the Abbas thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Removing it was the point when I started this talk section.--TMCk (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Except that the only edits you made to the page was to delete the Abbas mention, but leave in the unconfirmed parts. If you remove the unconfirmed parts I can then see the Abbas section not being included. But if you want the whole contemporary section removed, then do so I think I would be OK with that. But again, as the article stands now, if you will be including the unconfirmed then you obviously need the Abbas mention to expand on that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the newly introduced part and THEN templated the rest. But of course false assumptions are as usual the problem.--TMCk (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly, you removed the one that paints Abbas in a bad light, left the one about "unconfirmed reports" and then put a template. You could have removed the unconfirmed as well. That is my point, if you include that unconfirmed reprots then why do you have a problem with expanding on that and including Abbas' statement? If you don't want to include Abbas, then get rid of everything. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Your bad faith is duly noted.--TMCk (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, in other words, you remove something you don't like, leave the part you do like and then tag and that is supposed to be OK? You're not a neutral person, you should be able to see if you have one section detailing "unconfirmed" than the Abbas section is extremely relevant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Constructive discussion is not possible with you in this area and I won't join your bickering.--TMCk (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not bickering at all, I'm just showing how your bias is not going unnoticed. When you remove balancing items and then just leave POV that is not good. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Eh, yes. It started with stupid little silly childish attacks and went on with more stupid little silly childish attacks. It most likely will also only end with stupid little silly childish attacks.--TMCk (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Nakam part is not even an accusation why don’t you start by moving that to its own page?Jonney2000 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I will not add or remove anything until there is some consensus and by that I don't mean "declared by someone" like for the addition.--TMCk (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
(add) I just saw you singled out the only claim that might already have some historical notability. How comes?--TMCk (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
(+) BTW, I had to check the German entry on Nakam to see that more clearly.--TMCk (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The section has a few entries. Which ones would you remove? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have already unmasked him (see above) he wishes to keep that which embarrass the Jews while remove that which embarrass Abbas.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Eh, yes. It started with stupid little silly childish attacks and went on with more stupid little silly childish attacks. It most likely will also only end with stupid little silly childish attacks.--TMCk (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jonney2000: You joint the childish accusations but you haven't answered why you don't want to remove the section in whole but the only entry there which has at least some historical notability.--TMCk (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So no answer to what exactly you want changed in the section? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jonney2000: A good start would be to actually read what I said. The only thing "unmasked" so far is you parroting other's childish claims. So do you agree with Joseph and myself in that the whole section is undue and should be removed or do you have a different idea?--TMCk (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear the "unmaking" was tongue in cheek. This is an article about well poisoning after all.

The Nakam stuff its likely a sanitized version of the very questionable Ernst Zündel’s work. Which tries to prove that Jews readily do poison wells.

Both section “Nakam Plot” and “Contemporary accusations” are overly long for the article but I am divided on removing anything since it will just return and likely in a worse form.Jonney2000 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where that "unmaking" is coming from but anyhow, you too basically agree with removal of what has by now become two sections. We're making some progress after all.--TMCk (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If you must know it came from this " I just saw you singled out the only claim that might already have some historical notability. How comes?-"Jonney2000 (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean "unmasking" I guess.--TMCk (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no serious discussion here, so I opened a section below. However, another editor thinks the discussion should be centralized here. In that case, I ask all editors to stop the childish behavior, and I mean from all sides!, and start discussion if there is any superfluous section here. I for one think that some vague allegations about Israeli settlers who allegedly threw something into a well I not really notable. Certainly not as notable as a head of state making a statement in the EU Council. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevancy of Abbas allegations

Abbas' allegations are clearly referred to "well poisoning", and were made recently. I'm struggling to see how this could be "not relevant" to a section titled "Contemporary allegations", in an article about Well poisoning. Epson Salts (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree one eyed anti-Zionist censors sure wish this historic event would go away. The shocking part is not so much Abbas who everyone knows has said questionable stuff before, but rather the European response. Those European politicians should have known better.Jonney2000 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I think the sentence about the standing ovation the speech received needs to be kept in the article. And BTW, I see our friend has again removed it - perhaps you can restore it? Epson Salts (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this information, which is well-sourced and neutrally worded, is eminently relevant to the "contemporary" section of this article. I am shocked by the pro-Palestinian editors who try to block this against all policies and common sense. Debresser (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Same here, and it seems that there is consensus to include relevant and information. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I put it back in. I can't believe that there are those arguing against inclusion. It is relevant, well sourced and should be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• That whole section needs lots of work. The section has one or two sentences on one story and then a whole paragraph or more on another. It needs to be weighted to stay within DUE guidelines. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Tag

TracyMcClark added an undue weight tag,[3] adding "How about listing notable cases only?" Is there anybody else who thinks there are non-notable cases in that section, or can we remove the tag? Debresser (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No. I added: "accusations? How about listing notable cases only?".--TMCk (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the Kovner section is fine, but it should be shrunk down with a "see main article." Right now it's a copy paste from the main article. Also, the acronym is different than what it says on the main Nakam article. Dam Yehudi Nakam. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@TMCk What is the difference? What accusations? Debresser (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think those vague allegations as though Israeli settlers poisoned wells, are not notable. Not compared to a state leader making allegations in the EU. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed above at the "Coat rack" section.--TMCk (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That section went on with a lot of childish stuff. I asked editors to stick to the point. If they won't I'll close that discussion, and come back here. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Contemporary example

An antisemitic cartoon by A. Wyatt Mann depicting (non-literal) well poisoning can be found here: [4]. Perhaps it should go in the article? 97.116.72.212 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war

@Zero0000, continuing from here, should well poisoning by IDF/Zionist militias be mentioned in this article? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I wouldn't, but others might make an argument for it. Zero^talk 09:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it seems @Iskandar323 added/restored it[5]. If the claims are solidly backed, then I'd be in favor of including them in this article. I'd also be in favor of merging the whole Abbas speech / Israeli settler poisoning Palestinian water in a single section that discusses both the hoax and actual instance of poisoning recently.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)