![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jews make aliyah to the Land of Israel. In 135, Hadrian renamed Judea into Palestina, but an independent country under such name never existed. Today, the term Palestine carries very different political connotations. I don't understand the anon's insistence on using Palestine instead of Land of Israel. ← Humus sapiens ну? 09:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... Sounds fishy... Ilikefood 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
See below. -- Anonymous44 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
NPOV should be Palestine, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.235.42 ( talk) 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
the eyes of the people in the picture look photoshopped(to look goofy). is there a way that this can be fixed, and, more importantly, am i just halucinating? Ilikefood 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you are not. It's weird. -- Anonymous44 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does the Beilis case redirect to the individual, shouldn't there be separate articles on the individual and event? Nwe 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree about notability being dependent solely on the case/trial. Same thing for A. Yuschinsky and other figures. Suggest a single article Beilis Affair to which separate articles for Beilis, A.Y., etc. redirect.-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 03:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
His biography seems to imply that he was an observant jew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.119.7 ( talk) 02:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this needs a complete rewrite, because it gives no credence to the possibility that Beilis was actually guilty of ritual murder. The fact that most cases of Jewish ritual murder have been hoaxes does not mean that all have been, and this case was notable both for the credible witnesses (eg the lamplighter) and the extensive documentation the czarist government compiled. Stories as fantastic as [UFO] and [cryptozoology] are given a much more even handed approach in Wikipedia. People of all heritages, religious or non-religious, seem to have found heretical interpretations of teaching that justify ritual murder. Are the Jews the only exception in history? It seems unlikely that centuries of accusation are completely without basis, and the Beilis case is both modern and well documented. It would also be useful to consider the accusations of the murdered witnesses. I am not an anti-semite. I don't believe matzos is made of child blood, neither am I willing to believe that in 3000 years no Jew has ever been guilty of ritual child murder. Brechbill123 ( talk) 01:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
71.163.117.143 ( talk) 22:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No, not quite. Our standard is: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." It's certainly possible to find significant minority views on several of these ritual murder accusations that would suggest that Jews were involved in some way. It is especially true for sources contemporary to the events--and in the Beilis case it is particularly so. Just because we wince at the uncharitability of the mythology involved does not mean we should write biased articles. Brechbill123 ( talk) 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. Brechbill123 ( talk) 14:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
We are told that there was no single representative of the intelligensia on the jury. The intelligensia are a highly nebulous affair, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 11:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
108.56.212.179 ( talk) 12:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
So you have the ISBN and you have the title but where is the author or other attribution? The Beilis Case. Modern Research and Documents. 108.56.212.179 ( talk) 12:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll note this but it's up to the article author to decide if it fits Wiki guidelines. I have blogged an English translation of the complete trial transcript, not just excerpts as in Ezekiel Leikin's book. Which should be in the references along with the book by Jay Beilis and Mark Stein that discusses the case and Malamud's plagiarism. My blog is at pajheil.blogspot.com/p/mendel-beilis.html. There are lots of links there, too, to third-party material. 71.163.117.143 ( talk) 12:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The friends-partners.org website cannot be displayed. 71.163.117.143 ( talk) 01:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Menahem Mendel Beilis. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The Bible, in Ezekiel.34.31: [1] 'For you, My flock, flock that I tend, are ADAM; and I am your God—declares the Lord GOD.' Which a Talmud verse is based on. (Like the entire Talmud is, based on the Hebrew Bible, Tanakh). This was misrepresented by the prosecutor at the trial.
It's ludicrous to suggest that the Bible considers others supposedly "not human". This was part of what Rabbi Maze mentioned when replied to the antisemitic prosecutor.
Some Hebrew words have multiple/different meaning, depending on the context. So what is the specific meaning of ADAM in this case? [1] what it refers to in this case is Adam vs Ish, Adam as a unified one group of people. As opposed to many separate, unconnected individuals. [2] [3] [4]
In fact, the Talmud includes Gentiles specifically, twice. Tmurah 2b Sanhedrin 56a and more. [1]