Talk:History of the Jews in England

message: I'd be interested in the UK's stance of offering immigration to persecuted Jews on the continent during the Nazi regime and WW II. That would fit in to the last section "modern times". Any plans for that issue? --Freeatlast 21:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to sign your comments.  Some of the text is taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which can be a bit pedantic at times when it comes to place recognition.  As for the immigration issue, let me see what I can do. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Goodoldpolonius2 for the info on WWII and immigration (as you can see, I now have an account as you can see). The reasons for the British reluctance to take on more persecuted Jews during WW II would be interesting to know. --Freeatlast 21:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What about Jews with the Roman Armies? --Son of Paddy's Ego 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not a shred of evidence of Jews in England (or more accurately, Britain) in Roman times although there is anecdotal evidence of trade between the West Country and South Wales with Marselles and Rome where there were big Jewish communities.Gaptech (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Romans

message: Is there a reason this article is exclusive to Jews in England?  Would there be any objections to expanding the article into an history of the Jews in Britain, including Scotland and Wales?  aliceinlampyland 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. The story of Jews in England misses out the the rest of Britain, which should be included. It would also be interesting to see a history of the jews in Ireland. --Dumbo1 16:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 'with about 350,000 Jews currently living in England'- England or the UK? The article contradicts itself (starts off describing the census in England, but then gives the same figure for the whole of the UK (despite the fact that Glasgow is particularly mentioned as having a large Jewish population). Which is it? Badgerpatrol 17:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Then we ought to be clear in the use of statistics and other facts. 'England' and the UK are not interchangeable- as you may be aware. It would be one idea to clarify material currently in the article and set up linked stubs to e.g. History of the Jews in Scotland/Wales/etc. (especially given the quite considerable differences in the historical extent and pattern of anti-Semitic discrimination between the home nations). Unfortunately, I don't know exactly how to do this and nor do I want to proliferate a bunch of articles which are of potentially questionable significance. I personally feel it would be far better to retitle and revise this article as e.g. History of the Jews in the British Isles or similar. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with Badger's proposal. Arniep 00:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are History of the Jews in Scotland and History of the Jews in Ireland articles so renaming this one is not needed, however the article should still clarify the numbers of Jews in England rather than the whole of the UK. According to the 2001 census there were 6,400 Jews in Scotland, this could be subracted from the UK figure to give a better estimate of the number of Jews in England? I would also suggest removing Glasgow from the list of cities with Jewish communities.Benson85 04:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The title is fitting: in the period prior to the late 17th Century Jews were mainly in England, not the other areas you mentioned (Scotland, Wales).  The histories of England for that period refer to England, not Britain.  So, the title is fitting.  (And as is generally acknowledged by this and other references, there is no recorded history of Jews in the British island until the 17th century. Dogru144 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are published works about Judaism in Wales; I know of at least one by Dan Cohn-Sherbok.  Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of time to throw put together an article (exams, etc.).  Anyone up for it?  aliceinlampyland 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Jews in *England* 

message: There needs to be some reference in this article as to where they went after expulsion:
Spain? ... Where? Dogru144 14:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expulsion of Jews, 1290

message: Jews in the Court, Raphael Mostel | Fri. Oct 06, 2006:
:it seems, the majority of the court musicians of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were of Jewish heritage. It is a complicated, fascinating tale of historical excavation, one that involves a series of discoveries, from the identity of the mysterious “Dark Lady” of Shakespeare’s sonnets to the startling hypothesis that the whole grand European tradition of string music was born directly of Jewish hands.
There were no Jewish musicians in the court of King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I did not have a Jewish physician. 76.92.210.222 (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite mistaken. Leslie Howard did not survive WWII. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry VIII's musicians 

message: Usury is used a bit too much in this article. The definition of usury as simple money lending is archaic; the modern definition is lending money at an illegally or abnormally high interest rate. I'm going to change some of the usury references to other terms. Dragonsscout (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaic Use of Usury 

message: The statement..."By July 1945 228,000 troops of the Polish Armed Forces in the West, including many Polish Jews, were serving under the high command of the British Army..." is undoubtedly true. What percentage of them were Jewish, or more simply, how many were serving in this contingent? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your query - I'd like to know the precise numbers too. I do know there are many graves of Polish Jews alongside Polish Gentiles who fought under the Polish flag (and British high command) at Monte Cassino - they're still lying next to each other, Jews and Gentiles, at the vast war cemetery in Italy. John Geller, an assimilated Polish Jew from Krakow, has a self-published biography named 'Through Darkness to Dawn' and you might like to track it down FYI. It is an account of him seeking refuge in Soviet-occupied eastern Poland in 1939, his deportation to Siberia (because he was too pro-Polish), his joining the Anders Army as a military doctor, and his tour of duty with the Polish Army as it moved west from Iran (Persia), Iraq and Palestine (Israel). He chose not to desert there and was posted to British East Africa, missed out on the Polish Army's Italy campaign, then settled in London after the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 and continued to practice as a doctor. Just one man's story - but as useful as any data IMO.Chumchum7 (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all the information you've presented. However the answer to my question remains unanswered. Perhaps someone else might have an idea about the numbers and/or percentages of Jewish members of the Polish Armed Forces in the west, under the high command of the British Army. This is necessary to know before concluding that an entry in the article called, History of the Jews in England, stating..."By July 1945 228,000 troops of the Polish Armed Forces in the West, including many Polish Jews, were serving under the high command of the British Army. Many of these men and women were from the Kresy region of eastern Poland..." is undue. This is an encyclopedia article which should make attempt to be pertinent to the subject. I'd rather just know the numbers before pursuing the matter with a request for a source. Perhaps its true, perhaps it's undue. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's a start at documentary evidence about the Polish Jewish graves at Monte Cassino: http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/15/1/184. Still, no data, but there will have been survivors. You probably know the majority of Poles who survived Monte Cassino settled in the UK after the War for fear of persecution in Soviet occupied Poland. If Polish Jews fell in battle in the fight against Nazism, I think we shouldn't delete any mention of their journey to the UK and their contribution to British Jewish life.Chumchum7 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Neither link worked for me. Just the same there has to be some figure of the numbers somewhere. That would settle the question, much more than a hypothetical possibility of casualties at the Battle of Monte Cassino. I'm not trying to be difficult. You made the edit. It's not a question concerning how many Jews were in England either. Only how many were "Jewish members of the Polish Armed Forces in the West, under the high command of the British Army". Dr. Dan (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps Undue 

message: The claim that jews could not own land in England is beside the fact that most all of the gentile people could not own land in england. Only the king and/or queen could own land. The royal families owned the land because they had armies who would fight for them. If jewish people had an army that would fight and win the land for them they would have owned land in england just like the royal families owned land in england. Does it need to be pointed out for shame of antisemitism that jews could not own land whenever 99.99999% of the gentile population could not own land? Technically it is not antisemitism that caused jews to not own land in england but the jewish people's military weakness.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.141.183 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  could not own land! - not many could 

message: notice in the section ""Statutum de Judaismo", 1275" someone wrote that the jews original profession was orgenized crime, and claim all the jews of england became criminals (no sources at all and sounds fabricated) 
now this seemed wierd enough , but then came the section "Expulsion of MIBZ, 1290"  of mibz?! 
this goes on in all the section ,all "jews" changed to "mibz" , even the sources of one citation  Reference (num 7) was changed (instead of jews ,the book name include "mibz") 
and in the end of the section , the peculiar 'historian' even adds a "meow"...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.2.191 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing those unsourced insertions - they've been fixed. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Apparently it's a direct copy of a Jewish Encyclopedia article: see here. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very outdated information, I'll try to find time to check and fix it. Jacobs seems to have got this incident quite wrong, which is relatively unusual for him. Jim Killock (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this was fixed; but without reference to good history books! Jim Killock (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok someone wrecked the article 

message: Parts are copied from a 1906 book Jewish Encyclopedia published in New York--its copyright has expired and there is no copyvio. (It should be cited the way EB 1911 is often cited) Rjensen (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio? not

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The lead should be a summary; currently, it is too detailed and has information not in the body of the article. According to MOS:LEAD, 'The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents....The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies....Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.' Jontel (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead does not follow Manual of style 

message: The intro to this article says:  This is not great encyclopedic writing: it's ambiguous as to whether England (the subject of this article) is even being referred to, given the Irish context. It is also not made clear whether Jews were legally required to wear certain clothes up until 1846, or if the law was long since unenforced but just happened to still be on the books. Despite appearing in the lead there is no further mention in this article of special dress for Jews at any time, other than mention of the yellow patch centuries earlier. It appears from a search that "De Judaismo" refers to the Statute of the Jewry of 1275, but again, in that article there is no mention of clothing other than the yellow badge, nor of anything to do with Daniel O'Connell or repeal. I don't seek to downplay the significance of the yellow patch/badge, but it is not obvious to the reader whether references to "special dress" refer to it or to something else. This factoid thrown into the intro needs to be contextualised or removed. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel O'Connell and "De Judaismo" 

message: In “Henry VIII and Judaism’ it says ‘ and in 1549 Henry allowed Hebrew to be used in private worship.’ That’s not possible 46.208.12.95 (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: He died 1547 46.208.12.95 (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up. There was an error during the edit process. I have corrected it using the source. Danial Bass (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry VIII in 1549? 

message: Would anyone mind if I changed the format of the sources to contain all sources as a final list, and use notes within the text eg  or ? 
I feel this would make it easier to do some rewrites / source clarifications on the basis of a handful of good sources; for instance atm some of the medieval stuff relies on newspaper articles! Not that the content is wrong, just that there are better sources, which in the current format, would be repeated a lot. Jim Killock (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganising sources?