Talk:Benjamin Disraeli/Archive 1

message: IsarSteve 19:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy 200th Birthday 

message: :Is it factual, gentlemen, that he was offered (but declined) a dukedom in 1878? --Anglius 18:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, after the Congress of Berlin. Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I thank you, Mr. Mackensen. --Anglius 04:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dukedom

message: Hello, 
Should there not at least be some mention about Disraelis part in the great famine of India?
best regards
:I confess I'm not familiar with Disraeli's role (or lack thereof) in an Indian famine. Could you please elaborate? --Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disraeli and the famine in India 

message: Is it really necessary to have so many pictures of other people? There's a picture of his father, a picture of Edward Bulwer-Lytton (not even mentioned in the text), a picture of Robert Peel, a picture of John Manners (also not mentioned in the text), a picture of the Earl of Derby, a picture of William Gladstone, a picture of the Marquess of Salisbury, and a picture of the Earl Cairns. This seems excessive, but I'd like to get other people's opinions before I just remove some. --Angr/ 12:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Manners and Bulwer aren't mentioned in the text because I haven't featured my re-write of the article. I've been working on getting the article up to featured status, and one requirement (generally) for a featured article is an abundance of pictures. Bulwer, Manners, Peel, Gladstone, Salisbury, and Cairns are all pretty important in Disraeli's life, which the article will reflect in the not-to-distant future. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, featured articles should have pictures, but in my opinion this is a superabundance of pictures. Even once the text is expanded to mention Bulwer and Manners, I think it's unnecessary to have pictures of everyone Disraeli ever came in contact with. If I were considering this article for featured status, I'd want to see three or four pictures of him and maybe a picture of a place particularly associated with him, not eight pictures of other people in addition to the pictures of him. But that's just my opinion. --Angr/ 19:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vote to remove pictures -- leave, say, three at the most. -- Writtenonsand 03:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Many other pages about people who have changed their names have "(born X)" after their names. Perhaps it should be "Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC (born Benjamin D'Israeli 21 December 1804 – died 19 April 1881)"
:I'd say not, only because it's uncommon for him to be referred to as D'Israeli. Rather, it was common in his youth, but not during his political career. If it's not mentioned in that section it should be, but I'm not sure it merits mention in the intro. Mackensen (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should his name-change be mentioned at the beginning?

message: Disraeli's ancestry goes beyond claiming to be Spanish–he claimed to descend from the Lara family, a claim thoroughly debunked by Cecil Roth, Lord Blake, and just about everyone else. The matter is complicated yet by itself not hugely important–I'm not sure if it need be covered more than it already is. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: Given that we in the UK don't use the term 'administration' to refer to the group running the top level of Government, what term should used in the titles 'First Administration' and 'Second Administration'?
:"Government" would be better usage, I think. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I've just read a great article in this week's New Yorker by Adam Gopnik on Disraeli - very entertaining & enlightening. I'd be interested in anyone's comments on it. I'm new to Mr. Disraeli but have just become a big fan.
--Judesobol 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to post a link to the New Yorker's on-line edition (assuming they have one & it is there) it may be a useful source for the article. AllanHainey 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the cite:  schi talk 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life of the Party, The New Yorker 7/3/06 

message: As an uninvolved editor, I've decided to pass this as a good article. It seems to meet all the criteria set out in WP:WIAGA:
#Reasonably well written – Check.
#Factually accurate and verifiable – Check. Sources seem reliable.
#Broad in its coverage – Extensive coverage of political and literary career and private life, in appropriate context. Check.
#Neutral – no bias or NPOV violations that I can see. Seems to describe political disputes of that era in an appropriate encyclopedic manner. Check.
#Stable – no major disruptions except vandalism reversions, which don't count. Check.
#Images have appropriate licensing info – they're all PD due to age. Check.
<TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield → Benjamin Disraeli — This is what he is most commonly known as and so is the most appropriate title for the article. Although having the earldom in the title is what happens with a few other Prime Ministers, this is normally because those PM were known by their title and not their name, this is not the case with Disraeli. —Philip Stevens 14:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support: He is generally known by his name only, and referred to without a title. Oren0 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
I'm conflicted. The only rub is that he really was referred to as Beaconsfield during most (four of six years) of his second premiership, especially by Gladstone during the Midlothian campaign. I don't feel strongly but I don't think the matter is clear-cut. Mackensen (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support: He is generally known by his name only, and referred to without a title. Oren0 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
I'm conflicted. The only rub is that he really was referred to as Beaconsfield during most (four of six years) of his second premiership, especially by Gladstone during the Midlothian campaign. I don't feel strongly but I don't think the matter is clear-cut. Mackensen (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There are one or two additional pieces of information that I can add, not, I think, fully covered by the Wikipedia article.  Disraeli, the Jewish-born outsider who made his way to the top of the 'greasy pole' of the aristocratic Tory Party, and from thence to the very pinnacle of British politics, has long been viewed as a cynical and unprincipled manipulator: a charlatan in charlatan's clothing.  However, an examination of both his published work, and his political conduct, reveals another side to his character altogether.
The first and greatest influence in his life was Isaac Disraeli, his father, who inspired in him a reverance for all of England's ancient institutions-the crown, the landed aristocracy and the established church.  These, Disraeli came to believe, were a vital source of both English identity and social cohesion.  In 1835 he published a pamphlet entitled Vindication of the English Constitution, intended to show the origins and purpose of the elements that made up the constitution.  For Disraeli, the Whigs were parvenus, who came along in the eighteenth century and established an 'oligarchy of self-interest', monopolising government for purely selfish ends.  The Tories, in contrast, were the true national party, and the guardians of the real England.  Looking at contemporary political life, he concluded that the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832, introduced by the Whig government, was a piece of political gerrymandering, intended to arrange the electoral systemm in such a way as to perpetuate an 'unholy alliance' between Utilitarian Radicals, Protestant Dissenters and Irish Nationalists.  
After he became an MP in 1837 he identified with the nascent Young England movement, developing his ideas still further in a trilogy of novels: Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred.  Sybil, in particular, deals with the so-called 'Condition of England Question'.  Published in the same year as Fredrich Engels' Condition of the Working Class in England, it is also a sustained attack on the forms of laissez-faire liberalism favoured by the Whigs, though from a different perspective altogether.  Disraeli hearkens back to a mythical Arcadia, in which a paternalist aristocracy and a caring church protected the poor.  The Whigs, whose ancestors had plundered the monastic lands, were again to blame for the dissolution of this ideal, organic social order, introducing a rapacious individualism and harsh legislation, such as the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.  Holding such beliefs, and hating the Whigs, goes much of the way to explaining why Disraeli later became such a bitter critic of Sir Robert Peel, the leader of his own party, after he started to adopt measures favoured by the opposition.
The ideas of Young England continued to inform Disraeli's actions throughout his political life.  Although he himself was later to be responsible for a further extension of the franchise in the Second Reform Act, it was fully consistent with his beliefs, reaching beyond a constituency of self-interst, towards a much more widely based electorate.  Although not initially successful, it marked the beginning of a process of political engagement between the Conservative Party-as the Tories were now called-and the British working-classes, who had little to gain from unrestrained free market liberalism.  In a speech of 1872 Disraeli repeated the assertion that he had made in 1867 that there was a natural affinity between the Conservatives and the working class, on the basis of shared 'national principles.'  The working classes, as he put it, 'were English to the core' and proud of their country.  In the Parliamentary election of 1874 the Conservative Party, under Disraeli's leadership, began to move out of its traditional rural heartlands into the urban areas, particularly in London and Lancashire.  It is perhaps due to Disraeli, more than any single man, that the working-class in Britain were well on the way to becoming the most 'bourgeois' in Europe, to the dismay of Marx and Lenin.  Clio the Muse 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it be related to the fact that he refused to accept a title himself, so the it was offered to his wife?--Crestville 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His wife became Viscountess Beaconsfield earlier, yes, but he was later Earl of Beaconsfield in his own right. The real question is why his wife didn't become Viscountess Hughenden. To that I don't have an answer. Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Clio the Muse]] on [[WP:RD/H]] for 30 May 2007 

message: Anyone know why he became Earl of Beaconsfield, rather than Earl of Hughenden? I'm assuming he couldn't become Earl of Wycombe as the Marquess of Lansdowne was already. I just can't find any connection with Beaconsfield at all. Petsco 08:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it be related to the fact that he refused to accept a title himself, so the it was offered to his wife?--Crestville 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His wife became Viscountess Beaconsfield earlier, yes, but he was later Earl of Beaconsfield in his own right. The real question is why his wife didn't become Viscountess Hughenden. To that I don't have an answer. Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: A bot  has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article.  If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic addition of "class=GA"

message: I removed the antisemitic tirade somebody had added in the beginning of the article.
Jukka Kemppinen
Porf., Finland  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukke (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning 

message: first the article states:
"In this duel, Disraeli was aided by his warm friendship with Queen Victoria, who came to detest Gladstone during the latter's first premiership in the 1870s."
then later it states:
"Disraeli was elevated to the House of Lords in 1876 when Queen Victoria (who liked Disraeli both personally and politically) made him Earl of Beaconsfield and Viscount Hughenden."
can both these statements be true? 81.100.103.39 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: contradictions on relationship with Queen Victoria

message: Is there any reason why this section is called 'Disraeli's Jewishness' rather than 'Disraeli's Judaism'? Surely, Judaism is the preferred word.  Oliver Fury, Esq. messagecontributions 21:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Oliver Fury, Esq. messagecontributions 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Perhaps there should be a subject added to the end regarding references to him in various media. Two things come to mind for me: 1 there's an aside in Family Guy where Peter says "now I understand how Benjamin Disraeli fealt", and it cuts to an irate Disraeli saying "you don't even know who I am" to the camera. 2 he's mentioned repeatedly in John Fowles' novel "The French Lutenient's Woman" Snowboardpunk 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in fiction and other media 

message: Google Disraeli is commonly quoted as saying, "A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy" in a debate in the House of Commons.  Usually Conservative is capitalized.
Disraeli being a Conservative, maybe that should have some explanation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.83.120 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ==

message: It is worth mentioning in an "Influences in Popular Culture" section that Benjamin Disraeli was the subject of a Family Guy cutaway scene where he turns to the audience and says "You don't even have any idea who I am." Or is Family Guy not notable enough? 203.211.77.193 (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Guy 

message: I think this is a very important point that is not really touched upon. Disraeli is considered the father of a distinct class of conservative due to his writings and his actions as PM. He is as influential in that sense as Margaret Thatcher is with New Right Conservatism. In fact he is probably more so, coming up with most of the ideas himself.--Willski72 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: His legacy as the father of "one nation conservatism" should be explained but I think historians now agree that his administration was less the implementation of his earlier "Young England" ideas and more of a broadly bipartisan approach to social reform.--Britannicus (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Nation Conservatism 

message: Would it not be better to say he was the first prime minister of Jewish birth, as that is considerably more precise than saying he was of Jewish heritage? (and anyway how do we know in reality that there was no Jewish heritage in all the preceding prime ministers? These sort of things tended to be kept quiet) I had to check his father's article to confirm that DIsraeli was, in fact, born a Jew. This article should make that clear. 86.42.71.111 (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, why not question the entire concept of being born into any religion? Seems absurd to me. No one is born into religion, humans are born into the planet Earth.12.233.18.194 (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the most ignorant posts I've seen on Wikipedia. Jews are a nation too, and Jewishness played a big part in Disraeli's life.--Britannicus (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish birth

message: The absence of any reference in the article to the D'Israeli and Basevi families Italian origins is odd at best. Instead, reference was made to largely unsubstantiated claims to Iberian origins, claiming as factual that they "originally from Portugal." Many Jews, during the Spanish Inquisition, settled in Sicily and other areas of southern Italy well before moving northerly. Also, the Italian origins (of which of all Disreali's grandparents, it appears) and the debate over the more ancestral Iberian origins are well noted in the biographies of Blake, Hibbert, and Kuhn. Also, please explain the value of the statement: "One modern historian has seen him as essentially a marrano." First, what is the 'essence' of a marrano? Second, in no way were the Disraeli's marranos - or better, "anusim" - because the conversion of Disraeli and his siblings was by choice of their parents, which came centuries after the origin of "marrano." 94.175.125.87 (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honourable Gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the Temple of Solomon."
This quote (which, doubtless thanks to its appearance on this page, is now all over the internet) seems to be apocryphal. The two references do not themselves give sources. Safire is certainly not reliable enough in himself. Lord Blake in his massive biography of Disraeli does not quote Disraeli as such in his handling of the O'Connell affair, nor does Adam Kirsch in a more recent book. My guess is that this quote is a bastardization of a passage from Disraeli's Tancred:
"Your bishops here know nothing about these things. How can they? A few centuries back they were tattooed savages."
Unless anyone can show me an authoritative source for this quote (and it's hard to get more authoritative than Lord Blake), I think we should either 1) delete the quote or 2) rewrite the sentence to make it clear that the quote is probably apocryphal.
Stealstrash (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A good resource is the recent Yale Book of Quotations p 208 which tracks these matters down. see  I recommend option 2; we should tell people what we know -- its provenance is uncertain but it has not been fully disproven. Rjensen (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also worth mentioning is the fact that this quote sees Disraeli referring to O'Connell as the "Right Hon," a prefix that would not have been used of him (he was not a member of the Privy Council of Ireland). Also, opened my copy of the Yale Book (which I think not a very good source, as the editors are open about the fact that many attributions are dubious at best) and found two versions of it there there, neither identical to the one appearing on this page. No reference was made to any of Disraeli's books or speeches. It is amusing to me that the sources for both are American newspapers; a British newspaper editor would recognize that O'Connell was not a "Right Hon" gentleman. I have also checked Hansard: nothing, which means that if he ever said it, he certainly did not say it on the floor of the House of Commons.Stealstrash (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Connell "Reply" 

message: Had Disraeli been to the field? I believe, at 31 years old, in 1835 he challenged the 60 year old Daniel O'Connell, who had dueled and killed a man, but refused all challenges anon, including Disraeli's. O'Connell's son, Malcolm, also an experienced duelist, refused to take up the challenge. Was Benjamin fierce or lucky?Bostoneire 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judaism is a religion.  The fact that Disraeli was ethnically a Jew is not the same thing, as many Jews have converted from Judaism to Christianity or are Jews who've been raised in the Christian faith by parents who converted. When referring to the nationality/ethnicity the proper term is Jew. If someone is Jewish that refers to practicing Judaism, to be clear. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duelist?  

message: Benjamin Disraeli was born in  "Massachusetts" Not only is he the first Jewish Prime minister, he was also the first prime minister born outside the UK.
Could you also tell the guys that do the Prime minister page , that this makes David Cameron the 2nd as yes he was born in Canada!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.110.215 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. He was born in London. Your facts are uncoordinated. I suggest a medical purgative.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Birth Place 

message: It's claimed in the article that he was "ethnically J77.185.207.201 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with Hitler?  Of course Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion.  Or rather, I should say, there are several different Jewish ethnicities (Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Falasha, etc.) Does anyone dispute that? john k (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Jewish identity or Who is a Jew? for anwsers to the ethnic, religious, and cultural definitions of Judaism. It doesn't belong here.--Tim Thomason 08:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  jewish race? 

message: I'm impressed with the scope and quality of this rewrite. One brief suggestion: Disraeli's dislike of Robert Lowe was both well-known and unusual (for Disraeli), and should probably be mentioned. It steemed from the 1867 Reform Bill, inflamed by the Suez purchase, and culminated in the Royal Titles Bill. I should have time in the next day or two to add this, though my prose should be rewritten to match the article's new tone. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, though my efforts pale besides Tim Riley's.  Put it in and I'll deal with it.  If I forget or you don't like the result, let me know. I haven't quite gotten there yet but I will make a note to myself of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Lowe 

message: Robert Blake wrote an entire book on Disraeli's "Grand Tour" (the 1829-30 trip to the Middle East) which could be incorporated here, though it's not essential. I think most biographers would agree that Disraeli's time there influenced his views on the Eastern Question 40 years later, but we don't make that link yet. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if we don't have the book we can get that conclusion from a journal review of Blake's book?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can get access to that book fairly easily, and there might well be enough in Disraeli itself to make a go of it. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He really doesn't (page 59 of my edition, which is the 1967 first US edition).  He dances around the point, saying that historians underestimate such youthful experiences and Disraeli's tour was a formative experience for him, and he mentions that the Eastern Question dominated Disraeli's second premiership, but doesn't truly get down to cases.  The closest is "The significance of the Eastern tour lies rather in the way that it affected his attitude on critical issues of foreign and imperial policy, which, as chance would have it, were to dominate public affairs during his premiership forty-four years later".  If you send me an email, I can send you an image of the page if you don't have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Before we go to FAC I'll make sure to have a look at this other Blake book at the British Library, and will report back. Tim riley (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I have same edition. Blake circles back to the theme on 579 (in the opening to "Foreign Affairs"). I admit the he says less than I remembered, but I have the other book on request over inter-library loan so we'll see if there's more there. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, must have missed it.  I'll let you and Tim handle it between you, then (lazy me).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Tour 

message: The author's name "Conacher" is misspelled throughout as "Conancher". In addition, the article cites "139 Conancher, p. 177". The page number is not within the range of the 1958 article. I suspect that the 1971 book is intended. This is currently included in the Further reading section. I haven't easy access to the book and thus cannot check this. Aa77zz (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much obliged for this. I will toddle down to the British Library next week and check all. This is a most valuable steer - thank you. Tim riley (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. You were spot on, Aa77zz. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conacher 

message: I understand that as per the MOS titles are not to be unnecessarily bolded. AlecOostmalle, could you please stop edit warring and discuss why you think otherwise? - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of titles 

message: The box for this article is so long that on my various screens it runs on into the main text. The recent addition of Disraeli's details as Lord Privy Seal hasn't helped in this respect. I'd like to prune a bit. Any thoughts on this? Tim riley talk  08:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm with Tim on this one - it makes it very long, and I don't think the average reader is going to want to know the detailed succession of some of these posts "at a glance" when they look at the article, which is the key purpose of an infobox. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  All this info is at the bottom of the article anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so. Duly trimmed. Tim riley talk  20:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the liberty of putting Disraeli's second leadership of the opposition (1880-1881) back in - not to be obtuse or to ignore this discussion, but if the top infobox is going to include the leadership of the opposition, both of Disraeli's spans in the post should be recorded, not just the one. Either put both in or leave it out altogether. I note Gladstone's infobox records all three of his spells as leader of the opposition. I agree however the Lord Privy Sealship/leadership of the Lords should be left out. 86.186.161.232 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info-box 

message: The lede states that Disraeli was "...a British Conservative politician, writer and aristocrat who twice served as Prime Minister."  I think this an inaccurate usage of "aristocrat".  That term refers to an elite caste of which he was never a member, as his parents were middle-class commoners.  It would be more accurate to amend the statement to read "...a British Conservative politician and writer who twice served as Prime Minister, and who was elevated to the peerage."  Any objections to my doing so? Bricology (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea. Rjensen (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if we need it at all in that position. I agree that "aristocrat" has overtones (I bet Salisbury didn't think Disraeli was one). I'd be inclined just to drop it rather than adding "was elevated etc" which is unmissably obvious from the info-box alongside. Tim riley talk  08:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Tim riley.  He really isn't best known for being an aristocrat.  I'd cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. It's interesting to note that Disraeli considered himself aristocratic, but that rested in part on some inaccurate beliefs he held about his connection to the Lara family. Certainly (per Tim) that belief was not shared by his contemporaries. Mackensen (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be at one. I'll wield the secateurs. Tim riley talk  18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't absolutely swear to it, but I think pretty confidently that when doing the pre-FAC research for the article I read that though this saying is often attributed to Disraeli, no reliable attribution has been found for it. It's a brilliant line, but I can't find it in Blake or Bradford. It crops up elsewhere but not, as far as I can see, with any plausible attribution. Tim riley talk  17:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall that specific one.  Both Disraeli and Judah Benjamin are credited with a quote to the effect that "It is true that I am a Jew, and when my ancestors were receiving their Ten Commandments from the immediate hand of Deity, amidst the thunderings and lightnings of Mount Sinai, the ancestors of my opponent were herding swine in the forests of Great Britain."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Am happy to accept it may be apocryphal or misattributed. On a slightly different note, I see that the article already covers how Disraeli exaggerated the social status of his own Jewish ancestry.Paulturtle (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you're happy on the second point, Paul, and good to have the quote discussed here too, even if only to rule it out for use in the article. Best, Tim riley talk  20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find a source "debunking" the quote, it might be worth adding - one thing Wikipedia is actually very good at is debunking popular myths.Paulturtle (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a reassuring thing to read, and thank you Paul, but of course proving a negative is never going to be easy. Tim riley talk  22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aristocrat"? 

message: I'm not convinced by this. It's sourced to Weintraub's biography, page 658. Now I don't own the book, but I've looked the relevant passage up on Google Books here. Firstly, this book seems to report another story that Disraeli might have summoned a Jesuit to receive him into the Catholic Church on his deathbed. Secondly, it seems that the rumour we reference is not that Disraeli actually said the shema—shema Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai ekhad, or in English "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one"—but that, to quote Weintraub: "another story was that at the end, Disraeli held the hand of Philip Rose [a friend and adviser] and murmured, 'There is—one God—of Israel!'—the traditional Shema Yisroel declaration that is the central statement of Judaism. More likely, Disraeli died as he had lived, a confirmed skeptic in the tradition of his father."
Beside anything else, even if this story about him saying "There is—one God—of Israel!" is true, I'm somewhat dubious about describing this as saying the shema. On all my previous readings of our article I'd always presumed the rumour was that he actually said the shema in Hebrew, which would have been rather more of a statement. Granted, he was on his deathbed so it probably would have been difficult for him to speak and he may have forgotten how to say it—but I still feel it is somewhat misleading of us to describe this simply as saying the shema, even if Weintraub rather generously identifies it as that. I'm also somewhat dubious about the wording "there were rumours that his final utterance was"—rumours among whom? When? What did Philip Rose have to say about this (the statement itself or the rumour)? Weintraub doesn't go into any of this. So far as I can see he doesn't even explicitly say the rumour was that this was the very last thing Disraeli said.
If someone who has the book could have a quick look so we could clear this up I'd be grateful. Thanks, —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and put this into the footnote along with the Jesuit rumour and Weintraub's conclusion that probably neither story is true. If anyone can clear this up further I'd still appreciate it. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumour of ''shema'' supposedly being final utterance 

message: I've added Disraeli's nickname in the infobox in "other names". (N0n3up (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. As soon as I clicked the review I saw that it didn't show up. Anyone knows how to put it there? (N0n3up (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave it out. "Other names" doesn't seem to be used for nicknames in other articles. It's not key information so far as Disraeli is concerned, I'd say. Tim riley talk  19:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dizzy, Disraeli's nickname in infobox 

message: There is little mention of Disraeli's large reputation as a debater, and none at all of his comparable reputation as a phrase maker, a creator of quips and epigrams, many of them off-the-cuff. Some examples of these should be included, if they can be sourced, or even sourced as being widely attributed to Disraeli, even if further research renders such attributions dubious. After all, if such phrases were widely attributed to him, either during his life or afterwards, that is part of his reputation, of his public persona, and as such deserves mention. Similarly his ongoing feud with Gladstone should be more detailed, and perhaps should have ma section or sub-section of its own. I mention these together because many of his most celebrated quips were aimed at Gladstone. For example:
"Can you tell us the difference between a misfortune and a calamity?"  / "Oh there is a vast difference. If Mr Gladstone, say, were to fall into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. If someone were to pull him out..." (http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/gladov.html cites this to Anne Fadiman, Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader, 140)
There are many other such quips and sayings commonly attributed to Disraeli. No doubt many of these attributions are inaccurate, but a number will surely stand up, and the general reputation for such wit should be mentioned, I would think. DES (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputation as debater and phrase-maker; long-term hostility with Gladstone 

message: The infobox has Disraeli being succeeded by Gladstone - surely this should be Salisbury, or at a pinch, Northcote ? RGCorris (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I think it should be removed entirely.  As the situation after Disraeli's death showed, there really wasn't a single office at all times then.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader of the Opposition 

message: From "He is, at 2016, the only British Prime Minister of Jewish birth." to "He has since been the only British Prime Minister of Jewish birth." or something along the lines, in order to make it more general rather than having to change the year number every 12 months. Anyone agree or object to this? (N0n3up (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the year.  It seems unnecessary.  If there is a Jewish PM, people would certainly look to update the Disraeli article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tweak Wehwalt. (N0n3up (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing last sentence in the first paragraph in lead 

message: There is little direct criticism of Disraeli in the article, especially from later commentators?  In his 1935 Legitimacy Versus Industrialism 1814–1848, Bertrand Russell describes Disraeli, alongside Coleridge, Carlyle and The Tractarians as “a medievalist”. He says "Disraeli, who dreamed the same dreams, was powerful enough to twist reality to his fancy: he saw our Indian Empire, not merely as a market for cotton goods, but as a revival of the splendours of Solomon or Augustus. But by lending a romantic glamour to imperialism he encouraged tyranny and plunder on the part of those he persuaded to share his self-deception.” Some may consider Russell to be only an amateur popular historian, but I think this is an illuminating and incisive comment that might be worth adding. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did a google search and none of the hundreds of history scholars have seen fit to quote Disraeli. So I'm negative.  Russell shows little familiarity with Disraeli--the same page denounces a variety of authors and religious leaders for their cruelty.  Rjensen (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you mean "quote Russell on Disraeli"? I can see what you mean, maybe Russell's own agenda is just too strong here. He's outspoken throughout the whole book - I think that's why it's so entertaining! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, as someone brought up in the household of a Whig prime minister, it would be asking a lot to expect Russell to be dispassionate about Disraeli. I boggle at the coupling of the gruesome author of Sartor Resartus with the incomparable author of "Kubla Khan". Still this book sounds fascinating and I shall seek it out. Tim riley talk  14:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yes there is that, I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bertrand Russell's appraisal 

message: Even if this detail has "stood for a long time", I don't see that it's very relevant to the life of Disraeli himself. Surely his baptism, encouraged by Sharon Turner as godfather, is the more relevant detail? I think it's also misleading to say that his father "left Judaism". I thought the link to "Sephardic Jewish family" was quite useful, but mention of the dispute with the synagogue really not so. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think, without laboriously checking, that I wrote that bit of the lead, but it seems pretty much spot-on to me in concisely placing Disraeli in the socio-religious terms of his day. I'd be inclined to leave it. Tim riley talk  18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Would linking "Judaism" to "Sephardic Jewish" work, or would that be seen as a wrong turn  by people who would expect to jump to the more general "Judaism" page? - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure his father's dispute with a rabbi at his local synagogue informs us much about "the socio-religious terms of Disraeli'a day", but I'm not going to fight against a long-standing consensus. No-one should care who wrote what, of course, so you can be spared your laboriously checking task, Tim. I guess "Sephardic Jewish family" can just stay in the Early life section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it helps establish motivation as to why it occurred.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see that. I just seems to be more about Isaac than Benjamin. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the father's the moving force here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father's dispute with synagogue 

message: An IP has been trying to force some POV wording onto the talk page. Such wording, in my opinon, needs to be backed up with some very strong references, which have not been provided. IP, the thread is now open for you to discuss the matter. If you continue to edit war, a report will be filed, and there may well be repercussions. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The cited sources don't support the IP's somewhat dramatic interpretation of events. This is a featured article and it really doesn't benefit from the insertion of uncited personal points of view (any more than non-FAs do, for that matter). Tim riley talk  12:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Dear Dimitar, Regardless of what you believe about the circumstances or situation (which is classed on Wiki as WP:original research), do you have solid, reliable sources in the form of published academic works, etc, that specifically states that Disraeli's action "led to the destabilisation of the Balkans". We can't string together a series of events to fit our own point of view, we are here to reflect what the sources say - or rather what the balance of sources reasonably say. - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dimitar, I must agree with SchroCat. It isn't that anyone disagrees or agrees with your take on the Congress and its outcome: it's that we are all here to present a scrupulous summary of what reliable published sources say, and to include citations saying where any of our statements is taken from. As you can see from the list of sources for the article, we have drawn on a wide range of distinguished historians and cited their statements. It seems to me that the article as it stands does that in re the Congress. Have you a reputable source that states clearly that the Congress led to war in the Balkans? If so it can be taken into account in the text – after wide discussion, preferably. But do bear in mind that to reach the status of Featured Article, this article has been reviewed by multiple editors at peer review and featured article candidacy, at both of which stages, particularly the latter,  the quality of the sources is scrutinised. Tim riley talk  15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

text: The line in the lead as it stands represents what is written in the body of the article, where it carries citations. If you look in the relevant section of the article (rather than just the summary in the lead) you will find the relevant citations. – SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Dimitar, Please do not start insulting people. I have tried to help you by explaining where the citations were that you asked for. There was no need for you to suddenly personalise the discussion, which is only going to ensure that people start being personal to you, which is not going to help anyone. – SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I would have no objection to another opinion being inserted with in-line sourcing.  The article doesn't say long term peace and historians have their own opinions on such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd happily sign up for that. Would you be willing to provide an alternative form of words? Tim riley talk  07:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What quote are we using?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only got Blake, Bradford and Roberts (on Salisbury) to hand - none of them of the most recent vintage. If you or  can lay hands on a more recent source I'm happy to go along with that. Tim riley talk  08:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

text: About the same here, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Hristo Hristov? Which one? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  the Hristo Hristov quote represents the old communist historiography that was imposed by the Communist Party on professors, and has been abandoned by virtually every historian since the collapse of communism in 1989-91. Note the old favorite communist terms: progressive, reactionary, anti-feudal, etc. In any case we need to rely on Reliable sources about Disraeli.  Rjensen (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I see that two works by Hristo Hristov do appear under "Surveys" at History of Bulgaria, but the date given for his sole-authored work is 1985. Does he also say the same thing in that book? Two works by R. J. Crampton (1990) and (1997) also appear - what does he say, if anything, about the Disraeli? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balkan POV edit warring 

message: An editor keeps inserting a statement that is inadequately referenced: no page number and in a format incompatible with WP:CITEVAR. The information is inoffensive enough, but a featured article should not be devalued by substandard citations. I have removed the material. If the editor concerned wishes to add it as a footnote as he/she suggests, that will be admirable – but with page number and full bibliographic information, please, in conformity with the article's prevailing style. Tim riley talk  08:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the additional information is both correct, and makes good an inadequacy in the existing text, and that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, it would obviously be more helpful for improving this article's content if an editor, such as the one commenting above, would simply convert the edit to the format proposed (if that is required) than merely intrude critical remarks. Qexigator (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But, as I have said twice already – clearly, I thought, but evidently not – we must have a page number, and I haven't got that book in front of me. I could toddle down to the British Library and look at it, but as the information in question is so minor I am not much minded to exert myself to save you the trouble. Tim riley talk  14:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you need to go to any special effort.  It is the responsibility of the person adding the information to do it in a way that conforms with WP:V.  While I'm sure we all help as needed, the responsibility lies with the person adding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the section is headed "Prime minister", Tim riley's misguided undo inverts the rather week point he is now making. Not excessive detail, but corrective reporting, if the capacity of Disraeli's signature is being mentioned. This source was not available at the time when that first appeared in August 2013. But actually, to mention it here is excessive detail unless in full, to give due weight to the point, which the 2014 source has made available online. Otherwise, let it be trimmed away.  Qexigator (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be mentioned in a footnote. I think it a bit of a digression to mention it inline.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: See discussion at Talk:D'Israeli In ictu oculi (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cartoonist

message: (and anyone else), do you think it worth a mention that the Conservative leader in Trollope's Palliser novels, Mr. Daubeny, was based on Disraeli? See for example, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: yes that is relevant to popular culture portrayals.  Rjensen (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depictions 

message: * He co-wrote the novel Hartlebury with his sister Sarah, a fact "only comparatively recently" discovered by the editors of the BD Letters. This is according to William Kuhn's The Politics of Pleasure: A Portrait of Benjamin Disraeli, p. 146.  We need to add this to his bibliography.
* This is the same William Kuhn who is referred to at Talk:Benjamin Disraeli/Archive 1#Homosexual propensity totally ignored.  I recommend it for an eye-opening perspective on Disraeli's dandyism and clear interest in younger men.  There is a wealth of material presented, although Kuhn admits there is no smoking gun that proves Disraeli ever had sexual relations with other men.  But his emotional and romantic attachment to men is indisputable.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Hartlebury'' and homosexuality