Talk:British Jews

message: With regard to the inclusion of Daniel Radcliffe's photo here (which I support), I offer the following: the name of this article is British Jews, not British Judaism, and that the lede of the article explicitly notes that secular Jews are a growing part of the community. From my point of view, the point of those pictures is to show diverse examples of the subject, and in context, Radcliffe, who the sources indicate to be a non-believing child of a mixed marriage who nevertheless is "proud" to self-identify as a Jew, makes an excellent representative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should have a detail that explains the Jewish status of the people in the infobox - as in , mother Jewish, father catholic, subject is atheist and that such is the scope of the definition British Jew at wikipedia. I am British and as I understand it, (not how a Jew understands it, or how the many different branches of Jewish groups understand it) A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage. People of mixed heritage are just that and do not belong in the infobox of this article unless you explain why they are there in the lede. Is there a shortage of British people with two Jewish parents to add their picture to the infobox, you only need nine ? -  Radcliffe is not a British Jew, in Britain he's a British person with a Jewish mother and an Irish father and nothing (including wikipedia) will change that reality. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite your extremely distasteful insistence that Radcliffe is not a "full jew" and that we need a "better jew", Wikipedia actually goes by what reliable sources say, not the prejudices of editors. The fact that he says he's "very proud of being Jewish" is more than enough, and Wikipedia does need to "explain why" he's Jewish to anyone, no matter what their personal opinions are about who is or isn't as a Jew. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Off2riorob—I would think we would go by reliable sources. Do reliable sources say he's British? Do reliable sources say he's Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I've seen any reliable sources described him as "half Jew", as Off2riorob has done. I didn't know people were still applying the Mischling Test. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his picture should be replace with that of Labour Leader Ed Milliband as the leader of the opposition is more important than an actor I made this change myself but it was reverted. Dont want to start an edit war so I want your opinions on whether Ed Milliband deserves to be on there and who he should replace. I would have replaced Amy Winehouse, she's a mere musician, but she died and now she's a martyr or something. Eopsid (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Miliband is reasonably well known in England, but he's never even been Prime Minister. On the other hand, Radcliffe is internationally famous, far more so than Miliband - I daresay he's better known even in England than Miliband. I have no objection to having both, but given that the montage already has a politician (one much more famous and accomplished than Miliband), Miliband shouldn't be substituted for Radcliffe. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Radcliffe

message: So let me be clear on this:
* He acknowledges his Jewish Heritage but specifically states he are not practicing 
* We would not list someone as a prominent British Christian if they said they were an atheist
* No one has established that Jewishness is different from Christianity or other religions, so that needs to be proved by reliable third party sources, not just the causal use of the word in some newspapers.
* Even if some choose to use the label, this article is about prominent British Jews so the burden of proof for inclusion is higher and (again) he is not practicing
So can we less of the judgemental statements and accusations and a little more engagement with the arguments please. ----Snowded TALK 11:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know anything about Judaism?  Have you studied about it, perhaps?  I find your third point troubling (and the phrase "causal use of the word" incomprehensible).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded—you say "We would not list someone as a prominent British Christian if they said they were an atheist". Jews should be defined according to the definition applicable to Jews; Christians should be defined according to the definition applicable to Christians. But I don't think we need to engage in a quagmire of discussion over this when we are talking about sourced information. I think we can presume that sources are aware of these two important religions. By the way, you are asserting that he is "not practicing".  If this is so would not sources be aware of this? Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked the pair of you several times to find a reference to support your assertion that the definition applicable to Jewishness is in some way different (and I find your assertion worrying by the way).  If it is so self evident it should be difficult for you find an academic source which states it.  However even if you establish that, then you need find some reason to argue that someone who has specifically said he is not a practicing Jew and is at least the second generation of his family to be an atheist,  belongs in an article on British Jews. This is not an article on people in Britain of Jewish origin.  ----Snowded TALK 13:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's explained in detail at who is a Jew?. Being a 1) secular 2) Marxist 2) atheist does not change his status as a British Jew in any way, and the subject still self-identifies as a British Jew.  It is original research on your part and on the part of Youreallycan to repeatedly claim that Jewish people cannot be 1) secular 2) Marxist and 3) atheist. You don't have a single source nor any justification for removing the image. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded—You say "I've asked the pair of you several times to find a reference to support your assertion that the definition applicable to Jewishness is in some way different (and I find your assertion worrying by the way)." The definitions applicable to Judaism are different from the definitions applicable to Christianity. You don't have to take my word for it. You can look into the matter on your own. But that isn't the purpose of this discussion. We are looking to see what reliable sources say. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are dead right, I don't have to take your word for it.  If you want to assert it then its your responsibility to provide a source which says it.  Its not legitimate for you to say the newspapers you quote must have researched it.  Even if you do by the way, it is far from clear that two generations of non-practicing an ancestral religion qualifies you to be listed as a representative of that religion.  ----Snowded TALK 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded—you say "…it is far from clear that two generations of non-practicing an ancestral religion qualifies you to be listed as a representative of that religion." It is perfectly clear. You are failing to understand Judaism. It is different than Christianity. Reliable sources are aware of this. That is why they say that Ed Miliband is Jewish. He is representative of Judaism. Many Jews are nonobservant. This is not as unusual as you seem to be purporting it is. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point.  Supposing you provide a source (still waiting, its not enough to say other sources are aware of it) which establishes that Jewishness persists even if practice is abandoned (dangerous that, but I leave that to you) then the fact that in this case it has been abandoned for two generations does not justify the insert of Milibrand into this article.  Now please stop telling me that things are self evident and find a source to back you - not an implied one, an actual one please ----Snowded TALK 16:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded—you say "find a source". The sources are listed above. The sources which are listed above are considered reliable. Do you consider the sources above not to be reliable? Do you have a source that suggests Ed Miliband might not be Jewish? I believe the sources above establish that Ed Miliband is Jewish, do they not? You have argued the following: "Even if some choose to use the label, this article is about prominent British Jews so the burden of proof for inclusion is higher and (again) he is not practicing". What does prominence have to do with whether someone is Jewish or not? Why would the "burden of proof" be "higher" if the individual is "prominent"? And furthermore, aren't reliable sources aware that Ed Miliband is prominent? We have a source literally saying: "Ed Miliband could become the United Kingdom's second Jewish Prime Minister, following in the footsteps of Disraeli, the Victorian statesman who led the country from 1874 to 1880." Would such a source be unaware that that this individual is prominent? Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Snowded—I'm not sure what you mean by "prominant British Jew". Could you please give me a few examples of people that you would consider prominent British Jews? Bus stop (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Three editors against two is not a consensus, the fact that you think you are right does not give you any special authority to override others.  If you don't like this then raise an RfC or similar.  There are alternatives to edit warring, please use them  ----Snowded TALK 13:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with how many editors but how many arguments, of which you have zero.  Original research combined with IDONTLIKEIT does not an argument make.  Claiming that a Jewish person cannot be a "Marxist atheist brought up in a secular family" is simply not supported, nor do you have a single source supporting that claim in regards to the subject.  Consensus is based on arguments which are in turn based on sources.  You have none of those. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: not - no consensus - and i dont like it - that it is clearly still disputed and about a living WP:BLP  Marxist atheist brought up in a secular family being tagged and promoted as a notable British Jew when we do not catagorise him as one on his wiki biography - is the argument - Youreallycan 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, you haven't disputed a single thing.  Disputing something means providing evidence, sources, arguments—all of which you lack.  There's consensus for inclusion because there isn't a single valid argument for exclusion.  Being a secular, Marxist atheist does not exclude you from being Jewish.  Is this making sense yet?  Obviously, you haven't read Jewish atheism.  Perhaps you should?  The reason we don't categorize the subject in his biography is solely because you removed the category.  It's your little POV pushing campaign you're waging under the false rationale of "BLP". Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How much experience do you have of Wikipedia?  Telling other experienced editors that they have no evidence etc. etc.  is just your argument, its not truth just because you say it.   I interpret the evidence presented differently from you.  Sorry about that, but it happens.   I've asked you for some evidence to support your claim about the nature of Jewishness.  It should be easy for you if it is as self-evident as you think.  ----Snowded TALK 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You were given the evidence, multiple times from multiple editors, and you're still ignoring it.  Here it is again: who is a Jew?  Please read it.  I'm telling you that you have no evidence because—you have no evidence.  You have not produced a single shred of evidence supporting an argument for excluding this image.  You just keep making baseless assertions.  Baseless assertions are not evidence. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have given clear evidence that he has a jewish heritage, and that same evidence says he does not practice.  To that you counter that the definition of Jewishness does not require this.  I have asked you for a source to establish this.  Please so as baseless assertions are not evidence.  ----Snowded TALK 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All Jewish religious movements agree that based on matrilineal descent Miliband is considered Jewish by birth.  Are you disputing this?  You've already been given the sources for it.  What notable source disputes Miliband is Jewish?  If you can't name one, then you must concede the argument. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me a third party reliable source which says that.  I haven't been given any such sources, just ones that reference the heritage.  If you can show a source then you still have to make the case that a second generation atheist is a notable British Jew.  ----Snowded TALK 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're in IDHT territory now. You've already been given sources yet you keep repeating the same debunked nonsense. There's no reason the image can't be added back into the article. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument and that's all you've got. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text:  - @Viriditas - this is not the  Jewish atheism article which Miliband doesnt identify as either - Not really - if you are looking for someone to add to the infobox of this article without a disclaimer then chose someone clearer and less contentious - Youreallycan 14:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To recap: you claimed that Miliband cannot be considered Jewish because he's an atheist.  And, I have just shown you and provided you with evidence demonstrating that Jewish atheists are considered Jewish.  Since this debunks your argument, there is nothing further to discuss. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Marxist atheist brought up in a secular family" - clearly needs clarifying - I don't dispute Miliband's Jewish history in any way - just as a living person under the circumstances noted - his inclusion in this article is clearly disputed and contentious enough to warrant his exclusion - We have after lengthly discussion him classified as a British person of Jewish descent rather than a British Jew and we should be as sensitive here - Youreallycan 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All Jewish religious movements agree that based on matrilineal descent Miliband is considered Jewish by birth.  What exactly is in dispute here and what else is there to discuss?  Please name the noted authority or source that says that this is in dispute.  "Youreallycan" is not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: matrilineal descent ? Miliband has two genetically Jewish parents - that is not the issue is it? - Youreallycan 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded—you say "I've asked you for some evidence to support your claim about the nature of Jewishness." We aren't even discussing the "nature of Jewishness". We are discussing whether reliable sources say that Ed Miliband is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, whether reliable sources say that Ed Miliband identifies as Jewish. All the quibbles about matrilineality or how often he goes to shul are beside the point. BLPCAT doesn't cease to apply when it doesn't conform to particular users' personal beliefs about Judaism or Jewishness. And multiple reliable sources are extremely clear that Miliband identifies in this way. That the discussion has continued on so long is indicative of the ridiculous way in which the community permits POV-pushing editors to do anything they want as long as they claim it's in the name of BLP. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: You appear to be confused.  This article, British Jews is about all British Jews, whether practicing or not.  We don't have an article about "people of Jewish descent" because a British cultural Jew is a British Jew.  Are you getting it yet?  You also appear to be confusing a category with an article. Please stop doing this. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: And those same sources still call him Jewish because he was born Jewish and remains Jewish regardless of whether he practices it or not.  Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded—we are expected to adhere to the findings of reliable sources. Nonobservant Jews are Jews. Reliable sources know this. That is why they unhesitatingly refer to Ed Miliband as Jewish. That is also the reason you have not been able to find any sources suggesting that Ed Miliband might not be Jewish. You haven't presented even one source on this page. Bus stop (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Look guys, just think about this a bit will you.  The statement that "nonobservant Jews are Jews" needs direct sourcing, it can't be implied from the use of 'Jewish' by newspapers.  If you think this is self evident then you must be able to provide a source (ideally academic) which says this is a characteristic of the use of the word.  If you establish that, then yes he is Jewish.  You then have the second issue to deal with, is it right to list someone as a prominant Jew if they have specifically said they do not practice (and the same was true for their parents).  ----Snowded TALK 08:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IDHT, again?  You were already given links to sources.  Nonobservant Jews are considered Jews.  We've been over this already.  If you believe they are not considered Jews, then it is you who needs to provide sources.  "Snowded" is not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making the assertion you are.  The sources you have might imply the statement but that is not good enough.  Hence the reasonable request.  Also please note (as you keep missing it) two points are being made here.   I make no claim to be a reliable source, I'm just asking for one --Snowded TALK 08:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're doing it again. The assertion you just made (and continue to make) is "nonobservant Jews are not considered Jews".  That's funny, because every official count of the number of Jews in a community, in a country, and in the world, counts nonobservant Jews.  Furthermore, nonobservant Jews are recognized as Jews due to their birth.  Is this making sense yet?  Again, you are not a reliable source so stop acting like one. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is so self evidently the case then give me a source, should be simple for you.  You seem to think that if someone does not agree with you that there is no burden of proof on you.   Also you persistently ignore the second point,  this is an article about prominent British Jews, a second generation non-practicing Jew does not count. --Snowded TALK 09:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been given dozens of sources and pointed to many articles with even more sources.  What is it exactly I'm supposed to be giving you a source for here?  I don't even think you know what you are asking for.  You're just objecting for the sake of objecting and disagreeing for no reason.  You say you do not agree with me, however, I have not said anything at all.  I've only repeated and reported what the sources say, the very sources we base our articles on. Sorry, but you are not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus issue

message: OK we have two separate issues here:
# Firstly, if someone has a Jewish heritage does it mean that they are a Jew even if they are non-practicing.  If so how many generations does that apply to?  I have some Jewish ancestry on my material side but its over 4 generations back (I think).  Does that make me a Jew?  
#Secondly, for any of these list articles there is always a question over who should or should not be included.  So even if Ed qualifies under the first, should he qualify from a long list of candidates.   I would content that someone who is a non-practicing Jew would be automatically excluded from such a list.  
Now the first of these can be resolved by a reliable third party source which diretly addresses the issue.  The second requires concensus between editors, its not a matter of sources.  
So maybe we can move forward in a more structured way -please ----Snowded TALK 09:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded—there are a multitude of sources listed above, but they are sources supporting that Ed Miliband is Jewish; they are not sources supporting that "nonobservant Jews are Jews". You say "The statement that "nonobservant Jews are Jews" needs direct sourcing…" Of course it does not. I am explaining to you, to the best of my ability, how the multitude of reliable sources listed above reach the conclusion that Ed Miliband is Jewish. But I am not privy to anything but what I read at these reliable source's web sites. I don't have to provide a source for what a reliable source writes on its web site. That would be impossible. But what we do know is that all of the above sources support that Ed Miliband is Jewish. Are there any sources suggesting that Ed Miliband might not be Jewish? No, there are not. Bus stop (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but no.  Your primary thesis can be summarized thusly: "nonobservant Jews aren't considered Jewish".  That's completely wrong, and it's the same thesis Youreallycan has been promoting for a year or more.  When asked for evidence supporting his theory, Youreallycan responds with "I'm thinking of what is best for the BLP" and "it is my personal opinion".  For the last, final time, neither Snowded or Youreallycan are reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are getting locked into a response to an another editor.  I have asked for some evidence for the statement that observance is not necessary to be jewish and also over how many generations that applies.   I have also said, that even if that established that he is Jewish then I don't think its approopriate to have a non-practicing jew on a list of prominant British Jews.  The latter is a consensus issue.  At the moment there is no agreement, so its either stalemate or you raise an RfC on that issue.  Please don't confuse the two questions.  ----Snowded TALK 11:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confused again.  This article is not a list of British Jews and this article is not a category.  There is overwhelming agreement based on actual sources, actual arguments and actual evidence to include the image.  You have not offered a single valid reason for removal, and you don't even seem to be aware that this is an article, not a list or a category.  Your statement, "I have asked for some evidence for the statement that observance is not necessary to be jewish and also over how many generations that applies" is representative of your own original research and personal pet theories on this issue.  You're not a reliable source, so we don't need or require you to analyze who is a Jew?—as the sources already do that for us. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about British Jews and we are debating who is included in a list of the most prominent - i.e. the photographs.  You do not have overwhelming agreement to include the photograph, you have four editors for and three against.  You are making a fundamental error.  If he is legitimately designated as Jewish (I stand by my request on that issue by the way and your protestations indicate you cannot find a source) it does not follow that his picture should be included.  If that is the case then anyone who is Jewish (which by your definition includes anyone of Jewish descent which means a large portion of the human race) should be included.   That gets us down to the question of criteria for inclusion.   Prominence is one of them,  I am suggesting that actually being a practicing Jew is another.  That issue is one for editors to discuss and agree.  Its not overwealming because you think it is the case, it is over wealming if lots of editors by a significant majority think so.  Got it yet?  Prepared to stop making silly accusations yet?  ----Snowded TALK 12:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not going to edit this article by deferring to your lack of knowledge about Jewishness.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded—you seem to be favoring "practicing" Jews over "non-practicing" Jews for this photo-box, and you have said "…it is far from clear that two generations of non-practicing an ancestral religion qualifies you to be listed as a representative of that religion." My question to you is: why would a Jew that is nonobservant and removed from observance by generations be unrepresentative of that religion? Can you provide a source that may serve to support your response? This may not be the most fundamental question in the discussion on this page—I think the most important question concerns what sources have to say about Ed Miliband specifically—but I was wondering if you had a source in support of your apparently very strong preference for "practicing" Jews for this photo-box. Regardless of your answer, we already know that all reliable sources thus far examined on this Talk page confirm that Ed Miliband is Jewish. But I am just trying to address your apparent preference for "practicing" Jews for this photo-box. So my question would be: why should preference be given to "practicing" Jews? You may ask follow up questions if I have not made myself clear. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause they are practicing Bus stop ----Snowded TALK 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I note that British Muslims redirects to Islam in the United Kingdom ... if we redirected this to Judaism in the United Kingdom, then Miliband would be gone straight away. Alternatively, if we were to move the article to Britons of Jewish descent, I'd have no problem including Miliband. --JN466 22:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I corrected it, and credited you in my edit summary! Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Which makes it four editors for inclusion, four against.  Under no definition is that a consensus. Hopefully ANI will resolve the issues of people who think it is ----Snowded TALK 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  No consensus on Wikipedia is determined by numbers, only by arguments, of which you and three others seem to have none. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't want to misconstrue what you are saying so let me check.  In your opinion there is a consensus for the inclusion, because those opposed to you have no arguments?   If not would you elaborate please the basis for your claim that there is "over welling consensus".  Thanks ----Snowded TALK 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the best argument you can offer for excluding the image?  I've looked on this page and I haven't found one. Please briefly restate it here.  IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clearly stated my reasons above.  At this stage I am happy to accept that you don't like the argument, or even that you can't see one.  For the moment I am addressing the issue of a consensus.  You have after all reinserted his picture on the basis of "overwhelming consensus".  Your comment above implies that the logic behind this statement is that you believe those who oppose its insertion have advanced no arguments and that you are thus justified in your actions.   Have I got that right? ----Snowded TALK 02:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, I just asked to state your argument for exclusion and you refused.  Therefore, I must conclude that you have no argument. Why else would you refuse?  You said you've stated your reasons, but I'm not seeing any "reasons", I'm seeing "I don't like it because I don't like it because I don't like it, because I don't like it."  Are you serious? Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK if you don't want to address the issue of consensus I can't force you.  I assume by the way that, given your behaviour on this article, you will be reversing this edit on your user page?  ----Snowded TALK 02:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't address your non-existent arguments.  According to reliable sources, Ed Miliband is Jewish and self-identifies as Jewish.  You have not been able to show otherwise with any reliable source, only your personal opinion.  We don't edit Wikipedia based on personal opinions.  As for my user page, you apparently need to work on your reading comprehension, as it clearly says "this user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war".  You're not the first person to make this mistake, nor the last.  I suggest you stop concerning yourself with my user page (which evidently you don't understand) and start worrying about your lack of arguments and persistent POV pushing against what reliable sources say and report.  That's very concerning. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to move forward

message: From the lede: "Most British Jews adhere to Judaism, although there are an increasing number of secular Jews". Would it perhaps be possible to be a little more precise? The article later states that "it is estimated that 74 percent of the country's Jews are affiliated with [a synagogue]", which is a start, though being 'affiliated to a synagogue' doesn't necessarily imply 'adhering to Judaism' (or vice versa?) Then again, if by 'British Jews' one means persons who are Jewish by ethnicity, 'adhering to Judaism' and 'secular' aren't the only possibilities either. Expanding on problems with the lede a little, as I've pointed out elsewhere,  I think that some of the more heated debates over this article might have been avoided were it a little more obvious what its subject is - people who are both British by nationality and ethnically Jewish, regardless of faith. Making this clear in the lede is the obvious place to start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. At the moment the lede (and much of the article) reads more like a lede for Judaism in the United Kingdom, except that we include people in the infobox who are definitely not followers of Judaism. --JN466 18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the crux of the problem. As I pointed out above the lede is atrocious, I've seen stupid rows about whether Jews have divided loyalty to their country of birth/adoption and Israel, and in the lede here we have links to Israeli society. Otherwise the lede is casting British Jews mainly in the context of Judaism with a passing reference to Jewish culture. There is no allowance in the lede for inclusion based on ethnicity. Which is the problem with Miliband, we all know that he has a Jewish background via his parents, but he does not have a Jewish religious background, and neither, apparently, does he have a Jewish cultural background either. Thus including him in an article as a representative figure within British Jewry is  misleading. John lilburne (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that in a sense, Miliband is a very good example of a 'representative figure within British Jewry', in that he 'represents' a significant proportion of them in recognising his ethnicity, acknowledging his 'roots', and then actually living his life without considering the issue very often. As for the link to Israel -or more precisely, to our Hiloni article - I can only respond with a resounding WTF! Truly deranged. Or was it vandalism? It sure as hell shouldn't be there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Note: I've replaced the misdirected link to Hiloni with one to our Secularity article for now, as though it is less than ideal (see my first post in this thread), it is less misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So we change the title to make clear its about ethnicity?  That is fine with me.  In those circumstances there is no objection to his inclusion----Snowded TALK 07:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't think you can do that. The problem being that "British Jews" is a synonym of "British Jewry" and whilst that may encompass people that are Jewish only on ethnic grounds, that is not normally how the term is used. If one looks at say the Board of Deputies who say that they represent British Jewry but I'm not seeing anything there that is about people that might be ethnically Jewish but not part of the religious or cultural community. It is very hard to find any such acknowledgements within the mainstream organisations, although it does appear to be an issue within the community at large. Miliband may represent that trend, but the article, as written, does not elucidate those issues within British Jewry. John lilburne (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally the article pointed secular to Reformed Judaism (which is some POV in itself), later Bus Stop removed that along with the links to other denominations, and edited the lede to downplay culture and ethnicity. Later 'secular jews was added with a link pointing to Secular Jewish culture which has since redirected to Jewish culture, later Secular Jews was redirected to Jewish atheism (which Nomoskedasticity linked to here) and then later redirected to the Hiloni article. Whilst this is a major problem where redirects end up pointing to things that the original editors did NOT originally intend, it is clear that a number of editors here are, despite protestations, referencing Jewry in relationship to the religion rather than to a shared culture or ethnicity. John lilburne (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the present definition, "Jews who live in, or are citizens of, the United Kingdom" is absurd (to take an obvious example, Daniel Taub lives in Britain, but nobody would call him a 'British Jew', given that he is the Israeli Ambassedor) and that the text previous to Bus stop's ridiculous edit for 'crispness' seems a perfectly adequate summary of what the article is about, I'll restore it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now reordered and tweaked the lede for clarity and flow, per WP:BRD. It probably needs more work, but it seems to me to be a starting point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Most' in lede 

message: From the article: 
:From 1990 to 2006, the Jewish population showed a decrease from 340,000 Jews to 270,000. According to the 1996 Jewish Policy Review, nearly one in two are marrying people who do not share their faith. From 2005 to 2008, the Jewish population increased from 275,000 to 280,000, attributed largely to the high birth rates of Haredi (or ultra-Orthodox) Jews. Research by the University of Manchester in 2007 showed that 75 percent of British Jewish births were to the Haredi community. Ultra orthodox women have an average of 6.9 children, and secular Jewish women 1.65.
We can do better than this. A lot better. Multiple sources giving overlapping and sometimes contradictory figures for population, interspersed with material on marrying out, and on differing birth rates. I fully understand that this raises contentious issues amongst British (and other) Jews, but that is no reason for clarity of prose to suffer. I think that we need to (a) either pick a single source for population figures, or (b) make clear that data from differing sources may not be consistent. We also need to point out the obvious here - that the 'decline in population' is almost certainly down to a 'decline in identification as Jewish' - this is elementary demographics. We then need to separate the demographics from the explanations - and think about the relevance of the explanations given to the subject of the article, which may not always be obvious to a casual reader. Given that the article is about 'British Jews' regardless of whether they are followers of the Judaic faith or not, how is 'marrying people who do not share their faith' an issue here? I know the answer, or at least I hope I do (having somehow acquired a Bsc in anthropology, which should equip me to understand such issues), but it needs proper sourcing - from a source that is actually directly discussing the subject matter at hand. The Telegraph article is clearly written as an explanation for a decline of Judaism in Britain. It is unquestionably relevant - but its relevance needs to be explained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 'decline', and how not to write about it... 

message: User AndytheGrump justifies a revert by asserting that Halachic law does not, in the context of this article, define who is a Jew.  That is, in itself, debatable;  in any case it is not the sole relevant definition. Self-identification, however, certainly does come into play when deciding if an individual fits into the relevant Wiki category, and that self-identification need not involve active participation in community institutions. On that basis, the opening phrase is overly restrictive. It excludes many who can justify their claim to a Jewish identity on the basis of their heritage and  their sense of cultural continuity.  If the article were about British Jewry as a religious community, user Andy's revert might pass, but like all Wikipedia articles, this one should not  artificially or unnecessarily restrict the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area, even if it is the most popular POV, and should aim for the most general scope possible, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scope.  The onus of showing that the narrower definition is NOT overly restrictive therefore falls on those proposing that definition, and they should hold off reverting until that case has been made. VEBott (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we may have got at cross-purposes to some extent here. As I read the existing text, it certainly implied self-identification - "cultural and historical affiliation" - and my objection to your edit was that it appeared to remove the need for such self-identification. Your references to Halachic law (both here and in your edit summary) seem to imply that self-identification is not necessary. Perhaps you could clarify what you think the scope of this article should be. Are you saying that it is 'all British persons who self-identify as Jewish', are you saying that it is 'all British persons who are of Jewish descent', or are you saying that it is 'all British persons recognised as Jewish under Halachic law'? The last two definitions are not always compatible, and it is certainly not Wikipedia's job to define an individual's ethno-religious identity according to laws not recognised by all within the relevant ethno-religious community - which is what applying the 'Halachic law' definition would seem to imply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Scope, which is an essay, says the scope of articles should be the topic as defined in reliable sources.  (The actual guideline is Wikipedia:Disambiguation.)  The means academic texts rather than religious writings.  TFD (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, I seem to have been a bit confused about your intent too, Andy,  not having read your contributions to the talk thread properly.  I'm saying that Jews are all persons who self-identify as Jewish on grounds recognisable to if not necessarily endorsed by the major Jewish communities. That includes those  who are of Jewish descent without being particularly concerned about the fact as well as all those who identify as heirs of a Jewish cultural experience - including members of multi-generational atheistic families who are aware that they would be treated as Jews by others in certain circumstances.  Disraeli ( a Jew and a Christian)  or Miliband come to mind.  The genealogical component is pretty essential except in the specific case of conversion to Judaism.  VEBott (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  TFD I'm sure you're right, but no reputable academic source would tackle an issue of this kind without invoking the definitions adopted by relevant communities, be they the narrow ones of the more orthodox religious groups or the very broad one adopted by the State of Israel. In all of these, genealogy plays a major role.VEBott (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously they would take into account various definitions, and form a judgment.  But that is something we ourselves cannot do, because it would be original research.  So we need academic sources.  TFD (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. We could hardly do better than to refer to Ben-Gurion's famous and very extensive consultation with Jewish scholars of all sorts, orthodox, liberal and secular, on this very subject. It is well covered in pages 50-60 of Jewish Survival: The Identity Problem at the Close of the Twentieth Century edited by Krausz and Tulea.  The phrase I have proposed seeks to preserve the necessary ambiguity on matters of intermarriage which is where the main differences arise. If somebody can come up with a more precise alternative that does justice to the huge variety of possible responses and yet doesn't run to several paragraphs, good for them.   As Professor Eliezer Ben Rafael says   "For all respondents (to Ben-Gurion's question as to who is a Jew), individuals born of a Jewish mother or who have converted to Judaism according to halacha are Jews. These individuals make up the large majority of Jews even according to the most liberal formulations". VEBott (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is just one definition and we need academic sources, i.e., books and articles written by social scientists.  All Ben Gurion tells us is who the state of Israel would consider Jewish.  TFD (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm sorry, I disagree. Ben_Gurion's request for responses sought to cover the whole spectrum of Jewish intellectual thought.  Texts about Jewish identity were invited, in 1958, by Ben-Gurion from 50 intellectuals - rabbis, writers, scientists and lawyers -, from the Diaspora and Israel, representative of the principal streams of contemporary Jewish thought. See here . Professor Ben Rafael has sought to draw together what they had in common, not to express Ben Gurion's own conclusion.   See extracts here VEBott (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

text: So if a pagan Roman woman had converted to Judaism minutes before giving birth, then returned to paganism minutes after, a child born 100 generations later through matrilineal descent would be Jewish, although they would be unaware.  Certainly God would be aware, but I doubt any social scientist would consider them to be.  TFD (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A social scientist would have to know that this was the case to have an opinion about it. How, in your example, would he be aware that there was anything to consider? That's the trouble with counterfactuals and purely hypothetical arguments. They're either meaningless or of entirely formal interest. They certainly have little or no bearing on social science issues. You're assuming that 'being Jewish' is some kind of essence.  Few social scientists would be so Aristotelian these days. In practice, descent implies recent documented  forbears.  Maintaining a record of the judaicity of a distant forbear, especially a matrilineal one, would be a deliberate act, and one would have to ask why it had been chosen. The sense in which such a descendant was Jewish would depend on that context, but in any case has little bearing on the more general question of who is a Jew today, in practice and as a social or demographic issue. VEBott (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any point to the first sentence. That sentence should be completely eliminated. I think the lead should begin with what is now the second sentence. Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent suggestion, I'll second that, since this whole discussion more properly belongs to Who is a Jew? . VEBott (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

text:  The religious view is that it is a form of essence, which is why we should use academic sources.  With mitochondrial DNA testing, it is possible to determine if someone is a matrilineal descendant of a Jewish woman, even if she lived thousands of years ago.  TFD (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Mitochondrial DNA can determine the ethno-religious affiliation of someone who has been dead that long? I doubt it very much. It may be possible to state e.g. that this woman was probably from the middle east, but there is no way that it could be that specific - DNA doesn't respect cultural divisions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: DNA testing of someone long dead cannot determine their religion, but it may be possible to determine their religion from records or the method of their burial.  If a mitrochondrial sample is taken from an individual it is possible to trace direct matrilinear descendants.  40% of Askenazi Jews are matrilinear descendants of just four women, who while unknown were presumably Jewish.  Some people have been proven to share mitochondrial DNA with Cheddar Man, who lived 9,000 years ago.  TFD (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Anyway, since Zionism was a secular movement, Ben-Gurion developed a form of jus sanguinis nationality law.  All it tells us is who is Jewish according to Israeli nationality law.  TFD (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What defines the scope of a Wikipedia article? 

message: The current selection doesn't look esthetic and looks overloaded! I suggest to do a smaller selection and which will include some notable people which were left out.
I suggest:
:Sacha Baron Cohen (present in the current) - Amy Winehouse (present in the current) - Peter Sellers (present in the current) - Vidal Sassoon (not present in the collage)
:Benjamin Disraeli (not present in the current) - Celia Franca (not present in the current) - Krystyna Skarbek (not present in the current) - Yehudi Menuhin (present in the current)
:Daniel Mendoza (not present in the current) - Rosalind Franklin (present in the current) - Isaiah Berlin (present in the curren) - Alan Sugar (not present in the current)
The look is influenced by the Russian Jews and Russians in the UK 3 lines of 4.
I find it strange right now in the image people like Celia Franca and Mendoza are not in the selection and that women are so few in the selection, what are peoples opinions? 2.124.21.47 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I restyled the collage making it more tidy, as on the other similar pages (Ashkenazy Jews, French Jews, German Jews, Russian Jews etc.). I implemented some of your suggestions. I think one should make the selection cover as many different occupations as possible. E.g. having Peter Seller one should not include Sasha Baron Cohen, but choose someone from a different field. For Krystyna Skarbek there is no free image, therefore I included Peter Stevens. Isaiah Berlin was already removed for the same reason. --Off-shell (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brilliant! I love the new style, and the selection of people looks great, there is really nothing  I can add to it. The style of 5 lines of 5 makes so much sense. The pictures look larger, the selection looks more neat, way better than the over crowded lines of 4 style (and I am not having a go at the creator of the original collage, the selection of people was great). Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion of a new image 

message: "Although in the aftermath of the Holocaust far right extremism became marginalized, Holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories remain core elements of far right ideology. Nevertheless, contemporary anti-Semitism is to be found as well on the left of the political spectrum. Criticism of Israel, especially from the left, has been fuelled further by the second Palestinian Intifada and by the invasion of Iraq in 2003." This implies that criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, which I completely disagree with, which isn't neutral obviously, but I'm not sure that characterizing any Israel criticism as anti-Semitic is, either? Shiningroad (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on British Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222092245/http://www.jewishireland.org/history_2.html to http://www.jewishireland.org/history_2.html
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5uUETyGni?url=http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf with https://web.archive.org/web/20130822190807/http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf on http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/2001_census.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/Synagogue%20membership.pdf
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/60Mp64H71?url=http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/JPR%20Israel%20survey%20report%2015.pdf with https://web.archive.org/web/20110606073450/http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/JPR%20Israel%20survey%20report%2015.pdf on http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/JPR%20Israel%20survey%20report%2015.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should there be mention in #Education of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies? (and JDC International Centre for Community Development maybe?)
- SquisherDa (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:   Education section?  OCPHS?