![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Vwlam.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The first external link, http://www.israelshamir.net/english/blood.htm, is now 404. 207.93.211.184 21:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
you need to add more sources; having only Jewish links is making this article very biased. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.237.67.62 (
talk)
17:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "Saint Simon was disbanded by Pope Paul VI and the shrine erected to him was dismantled. He was removed from the calendar, and his future veneration was forbidden." - But our template doesn't make it clear that he is no longer a saint. ← Humus sapiens ну? 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a saint? Since when can somebody be made 'no longer a saint'?
"The actual cause remains a mystery" is unnecessarily mysterious. Why not "is unknown", or "was never found out"? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.167.52 ( talk • contribs)
"The actual cause of Simon's disappearance and murder remains a mystery." The article does not mention evidence he was actually murdered. Tim Long 01:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the article so skeptical against the fact that it was members of the Jewsish community responsible for Simon's death. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.237.67.62 (
talk)
07:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense. So Jewish communities are exempt from any sort of crime? because of the fear it gets connected to blood libel?
There's no evidence to suggest the Jews family was framed, nor is their any evidence to suggest it wasn't a murder. No one is saying it's the whole community, but it was in fact certain members who were involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.67.62 ( talk) 17:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
A Chinese prof. from Taiwan? The article is biased, inconsistent and demonstrates a perfect example of propaganada. Thank you folks, I'll use this as example for my class regarding "controlling information on the internet". Your agenda has become to obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.130.4 ( talk) 21:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
++You got that right! It IS useless to argue against prejudice and bigotry. And that is the very reason why Wikipedia is so widely known as a poor source for honest information regarding subjects such as these. 70.184.166.35 ( talk) 01:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
No one is arguing that no Jewish person or persons could possibly have killed the boy, it's that the murder was immediately blamed on "the Jews" as a people and the motive for the murder was "explained" in terms of blood libel. Imagine if in a modern neighborhood a non-Jew was killed, one of the suspects was a Jew, all the non-Jewish suspects and/or leads were ignored, and the Jewish suspect was accused of acting on behalf of the Jewish community in order to ritually sacrifice Christians simply because non-Jews thought this is something Jews actually do. It would be a travesty of justice. -- Ismail ( talk) 18:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Ronnie Po-chia Hsia is mentioned twice in the article; his mention does not seem to be warranted except as an external source. Who added his name, R. P.-C. Hsia himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejo13 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"A Chinese prof. from Taiwan? The article is biased" <- The reasoning here is unclear. It sounds like the commenter asserts bias because the professor cited is Chinese? Anyway, Professor Ronnie Po-chia Hsia's credentials with respect to the Catholic world of the subject's period are easily validated. He's an American historian and an Edwin Erle Sparks Professor at Pennsylvania State University. Professor Po-chia Hsia authored "Trent 1475. Stories of a ritual murder trial" (Yale University Press, 1996). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
His real name was 'Simon Unverdorben'. This detail was omitted from the original entry, so I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Article is almost completely incoherent, without citation, and reports the description of one man, Vitale, as though it were objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberrosidus ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@ יניב הורון: @ Historiograf: Just look at the state of the article history. Edit warring like this is not acceptable. Discuss the two images here, on the article talk page. Further edit-warring on the article, reverting one another incessantly, will result in blocks. Fish+ Karate 12:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there any evidence for the claim the Jewish leaders only reported to body because they had to? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The line added in regards to this is based on this source, [1] page 37. The line reads "It did not play in favor of the Jews that the place where the body was discovered also served also served as the community's synagogue." Edit5001 ( talk) 14:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources make it clear there was a second search made my the Jews themselves (of their homes) as a response to the rumours. Why should we not mention this? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit5001, are you willing to assume the good faith of those who can read the modern study of the trial documents? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I have now figured out which source contains a reference to the following day, [ [1]], abut I agree it may not be a great source. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an exhaustive study of the trial documents by a modern historian but we can't edit the article in line with it because some people can "only see it in preview". This is a new and interesting take on WP:RS. Also, information that is sourced in the text of the article has been removed from the infobox because somebody regards including it as a "sweeping change". An explanation of that would be welcome. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 16:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
At the risk of being accused of copyright infringement, here is my transcription of the relevant passages. But if good faith cannot be assumed, how will anybody know that this transcription is accurate? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 17:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Used for multiple functions, the house consisted of three spatial divisions: private quarters for household members; public space where Samuel talked business, loaned money, and redeemed pledges; and areas for the Jewish community including a hall that served as the synagogue and a water cellar that served as the ritual bath for the women. The trial record gives us a detailed description of the synagogue. (Hsia, p. 18)
on 26 March 1475 (Easter Sunday) [...] Brünnlein sent the cook, Seligman, down to the cellar to fetch water. Connected to an outside ditch, the cellar, where water was stored, also served as the monthly ritual bath for the women. As recently as the previous Thursday, Passover, Sara had taken a ritual bath, with her with Brünnlein and a Christian woman, Anna, the wife of Bertold. In the cellar, Seligman saw something in the water. To his horror, he recognized the body of a small boy. (Hsia, p. 26)
For a couple of days, rumor had been circulating around Trent suggesting that the Jews were responsible for Simon's disappearance. After the podestà had searched Samuel's house on Friday, the Jews discussed ways to avoid the evil that might befall them if someone threw a dead child into one of their houses. [...] Engel ordered Isaac to check his cellar; still anxious the next day, he told Isaac to close the windows there so that no one could throw a dead child into the cellar. […] They [the Jews] thought some Christians must have killed the boy, thrown his body into the ditch, and let the water carry it into Samuel's cellar. Tobias' advice was that they report the dead child to the authorities. Perhaps trying to reassure everyone, Samuel said he was glad the body was found; now, the matter would come to a close. It was resolved that the three householders would go to the podestà to report the discovery. Tobias first went home to tell Sara the bad news. She had just finished cooking and asked him whether he wanted dinner. Tobias said he would first go to the podestà and report on the missing child. Together the three men set out for the Buonconsiglio, only a short walk away. The Jews had little choice. Living under official toleration, they were completely dependent on the good will of the authorities for their livelihood and legal status. (Hsia, p. 27)
The authorities arrived at Samuel's house between eight and nine in the evening – the podestà, Giovanni de Salis; the captain, Jakob von Sporo; and their men, bearing torches. The podestà ordered his servant, Ulrich, a big man, to carry the body to St. Peter's Hospital. The Jews present – Samuel, Israel, Tobias, Engel, Isaac son of Moses of Bamberg, Joaff, and Seligman the cook – were placed under arrest. (Hsia, p. 29)
According to Hsia's study, the chronology is as follows:
Hopefully this clarifies things.-- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 21:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.Historians writing about primary source documents are writing secondary sources. -- JBL ( talk) 18:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Without overlapping the above discussions, I made what I feel are some grammar and clarity changes. Since it looks like this is a pretty contentious article right now, let me explain before the flames descend:
Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 20:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Due to the two main sources we've been using for the timeline of events being in conflict, I'd like to see exact quotations from Hsia's book in question (in particular, claims in regards to the cook). I'd be fine with some type of compromise in which both sources' accounts are given mention, but I disagree with the edit that attempted to give Hsia's source the only weight. I prefer the current wording of the page. Edit5001 ( talk) 03:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"The events themselves have been the subject of some debate f Ronnie Hsia has constructed one timeline from the trial records. Simon, aged almost two and a half, went missing about 5 p.m. on the evening of Thursday, 23 March 1475. The following day, Good Friday, Simon's father approached the prince-bishop to ask for help in finding his missing child.[5] The podestà, Giovanni de Salis, had his men spread a description of Simon through city. Over the following couple of days, searches were carried out by Simon's family and neighbours, by the servants of the podestà, and also by the Jewish community, who had been alerted to a rumour that they had taken the child and were concerned about the possibility of being framed.[5][4] On Saturday, 25 March, Simon's father appealed to the podestà specifically to search the houses of the Jews, saying he had been advised they might have taken his child.[5] Despite these searches, no sign of the child was found. The property of Samuel was large, including a hall that functioned as a synagogue, and a water cellar that was also used for ritual bathing and was supplied with water from a channel that ran beneath the property.[6] According to the trial record, on Easter Sunday, 26 March, a cook named Seligman went to Samuel's cellar to fetch water to prepare the evening meal and found Simon's body in the water. Samuel himself, accompanied by two other Jews, went to the podestà to report the discovery.[4] Later that evening, the podestà and some of his men retrieved the body, with his servant Ulrich being ordered to carry it to the hospital.[7] The narrative summary based on the trial documents, drafted in 1478-1479, omitted the fact that the Jews had themselves reported finding the body, stating only that Ulrich had found Simon's body in a ditch next to Samuel's house.[5] However Jeanette Kohl claims that the body was found during a second search of Jewish homes, on the Sunday, in a sewer that ran under their houses."
There may be other versions, but these are the only tow I have seen. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that this is a false accusation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:D16B:270C:1B28:6683 ( talk) 04:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Vwlam.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The first external link, http://www.israelshamir.net/english/blood.htm, is now 404. 207.93.211.184 21:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
you need to add more sources; having only Jewish links is making this article very biased. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.237.67.62 (
talk)
17:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "Saint Simon was disbanded by Pope Paul VI and the shrine erected to him was dismantled. He was removed from the calendar, and his future veneration was forbidden." - But our template doesn't make it clear that he is no longer a saint. ← Humus sapiens ну? 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a saint? Since when can somebody be made 'no longer a saint'?
"The actual cause remains a mystery" is unnecessarily mysterious. Why not "is unknown", or "was never found out"? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.167.52 ( talk • contribs)
"The actual cause of Simon's disappearance and murder remains a mystery." The article does not mention evidence he was actually murdered. Tim Long 01:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the article so skeptical against the fact that it was members of the Jewsish community responsible for Simon's death. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.237.67.62 (
talk)
07:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense. So Jewish communities are exempt from any sort of crime? because of the fear it gets connected to blood libel?
There's no evidence to suggest the Jews family was framed, nor is their any evidence to suggest it wasn't a murder. No one is saying it's the whole community, but it was in fact certain members who were involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.67.62 ( talk) 17:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
A Chinese prof. from Taiwan? The article is biased, inconsistent and demonstrates a perfect example of propaganada. Thank you folks, I'll use this as example for my class regarding "controlling information on the internet". Your agenda has become to obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.130.4 ( talk) 21:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
++You got that right! It IS useless to argue against prejudice and bigotry. And that is the very reason why Wikipedia is so widely known as a poor source for honest information regarding subjects such as these. 70.184.166.35 ( talk) 01:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
No one is arguing that no Jewish person or persons could possibly have killed the boy, it's that the murder was immediately blamed on "the Jews" as a people and the motive for the murder was "explained" in terms of blood libel. Imagine if in a modern neighborhood a non-Jew was killed, one of the suspects was a Jew, all the non-Jewish suspects and/or leads were ignored, and the Jewish suspect was accused of acting on behalf of the Jewish community in order to ritually sacrifice Christians simply because non-Jews thought this is something Jews actually do. It would be a travesty of justice. -- Ismail ( talk) 18:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Ronnie Po-chia Hsia is mentioned twice in the article; his mention does not seem to be warranted except as an external source. Who added his name, R. P.-C. Hsia himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejo13 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"A Chinese prof. from Taiwan? The article is biased" <- The reasoning here is unclear. It sounds like the commenter asserts bias because the professor cited is Chinese? Anyway, Professor Ronnie Po-chia Hsia's credentials with respect to the Catholic world of the subject's period are easily validated. He's an American historian and an Edwin Erle Sparks Professor at Pennsylvania State University. Professor Po-chia Hsia authored "Trent 1475. Stories of a ritual murder trial" (Yale University Press, 1996). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
His real name was 'Simon Unverdorben'. This detail was omitted from the original entry, so I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Article is almost completely incoherent, without citation, and reports the description of one man, Vitale, as though it were objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberrosidus ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@ יניב הורון: @ Historiograf: Just look at the state of the article history. Edit warring like this is not acceptable. Discuss the two images here, on the article talk page. Further edit-warring on the article, reverting one another incessantly, will result in blocks. Fish+ Karate 12:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there any evidence for the claim the Jewish leaders only reported to body because they had to? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The line added in regards to this is based on this source, [1] page 37. The line reads "It did not play in favor of the Jews that the place where the body was discovered also served also served as the community's synagogue." Edit5001 ( talk) 14:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources make it clear there was a second search made my the Jews themselves (of their homes) as a response to the rumours. Why should we not mention this? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit5001, are you willing to assume the good faith of those who can read the modern study of the trial documents? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I have now figured out which source contains a reference to the following day, [ [1]], abut I agree it may not be a great source. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an exhaustive study of the trial documents by a modern historian but we can't edit the article in line with it because some people can "only see it in preview". This is a new and interesting take on WP:RS. Also, information that is sourced in the text of the article has been removed from the infobox because somebody regards including it as a "sweeping change". An explanation of that would be welcome. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 16:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
At the risk of being accused of copyright infringement, here is my transcription of the relevant passages. But if good faith cannot be assumed, how will anybody know that this transcription is accurate? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 17:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Used for multiple functions, the house consisted of three spatial divisions: private quarters for household members; public space where Samuel talked business, loaned money, and redeemed pledges; and areas for the Jewish community including a hall that served as the synagogue and a water cellar that served as the ritual bath for the women. The trial record gives us a detailed description of the synagogue. (Hsia, p. 18)
on 26 March 1475 (Easter Sunday) [...] Brünnlein sent the cook, Seligman, down to the cellar to fetch water. Connected to an outside ditch, the cellar, where water was stored, also served as the monthly ritual bath for the women. As recently as the previous Thursday, Passover, Sara had taken a ritual bath, with her with Brünnlein and a Christian woman, Anna, the wife of Bertold. In the cellar, Seligman saw something in the water. To his horror, he recognized the body of a small boy. (Hsia, p. 26)
For a couple of days, rumor had been circulating around Trent suggesting that the Jews were responsible for Simon's disappearance. After the podestà had searched Samuel's house on Friday, the Jews discussed ways to avoid the evil that might befall them if someone threw a dead child into one of their houses. [...] Engel ordered Isaac to check his cellar; still anxious the next day, he told Isaac to close the windows there so that no one could throw a dead child into the cellar. […] They [the Jews] thought some Christians must have killed the boy, thrown his body into the ditch, and let the water carry it into Samuel's cellar. Tobias' advice was that they report the dead child to the authorities. Perhaps trying to reassure everyone, Samuel said he was glad the body was found; now, the matter would come to a close. It was resolved that the three householders would go to the podestà to report the discovery. Tobias first went home to tell Sara the bad news. She had just finished cooking and asked him whether he wanted dinner. Tobias said he would first go to the podestà and report on the missing child. Together the three men set out for the Buonconsiglio, only a short walk away. The Jews had little choice. Living under official toleration, they were completely dependent on the good will of the authorities for their livelihood and legal status. (Hsia, p. 27)
The authorities arrived at Samuel's house between eight and nine in the evening – the podestà, Giovanni de Salis; the captain, Jakob von Sporo; and their men, bearing torches. The podestà ordered his servant, Ulrich, a big man, to carry the body to St. Peter's Hospital. The Jews present – Samuel, Israel, Tobias, Engel, Isaac son of Moses of Bamberg, Joaff, and Seligman the cook – were placed under arrest. (Hsia, p. 29)
According to Hsia's study, the chronology is as follows:
Hopefully this clarifies things.-- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 21:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.Historians writing about primary source documents are writing secondary sources. -- JBL ( talk) 18:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Without overlapping the above discussions, I made what I feel are some grammar and clarity changes. Since it looks like this is a pretty contentious article right now, let me explain before the flames descend:
Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 20:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Due to the two main sources we've been using for the timeline of events being in conflict, I'd like to see exact quotations from Hsia's book in question (in particular, claims in regards to the cook). I'd be fine with some type of compromise in which both sources' accounts are given mention, but I disagree with the edit that attempted to give Hsia's source the only weight. I prefer the current wording of the page. Edit5001 ( talk) 03:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"The events themselves have been the subject of some debate f Ronnie Hsia has constructed one timeline from the trial records. Simon, aged almost two and a half, went missing about 5 p.m. on the evening of Thursday, 23 March 1475. The following day, Good Friday, Simon's father approached the prince-bishop to ask for help in finding his missing child.[5] The podestà, Giovanni de Salis, had his men spread a description of Simon through city. Over the following couple of days, searches were carried out by Simon's family and neighbours, by the servants of the podestà, and also by the Jewish community, who had been alerted to a rumour that they had taken the child and were concerned about the possibility of being framed.[5][4] On Saturday, 25 March, Simon's father appealed to the podestà specifically to search the houses of the Jews, saying he had been advised they might have taken his child.[5] Despite these searches, no sign of the child was found. The property of Samuel was large, including a hall that functioned as a synagogue, and a water cellar that was also used for ritual bathing and was supplied with water from a channel that ran beneath the property.[6] According to the trial record, on Easter Sunday, 26 March, a cook named Seligman went to Samuel's cellar to fetch water to prepare the evening meal and found Simon's body in the water. Samuel himself, accompanied by two other Jews, went to the podestà to report the discovery.[4] Later that evening, the podestà and some of his men retrieved the body, with his servant Ulrich being ordered to carry it to the hospital.[7] The narrative summary based on the trial documents, drafted in 1478-1479, omitted the fact that the Jews had themselves reported finding the body, stating only that Ulrich had found Simon's body in a ditch next to Samuel's house.[5] However Jeanette Kohl claims that the body was found during a second search of Jewish homes, on the Sunday, in a sewer that ran under their houses."
There may be other versions, but these are the only tow I have seen. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that this is a false accusation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:D16B:270C:1B28:6683 ( talk) 04:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)