Talk:British Jews

Daniel Radcliffe
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Removal of Miliband
Why was Ed Miliband removed from this article without any discussion? Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He was added without any discussion -  You  really  can  22:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think Ed Miliband should have been removed from the photo-box. Sources:


 * 1. ) "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense."


 * 2. ) "Their childhood was unusual, being the children of Belgian-born Marxist Ralph Miliband and his Polish Jewish wife Marion Kozak, which meant their home was dominated by political discussion."


 * 3. ) "Ed Miliband’s Jewish intellectual heritage could not be more impeccable. His father, Ralph Miliband remains a colossus of the British left, who lies buried in Highgate cemetery within sight of Karl Marx himself. His mother Marion Kozak, is a feminist thinker and human rights activist of considerable renown. Both parents were Polish Jews who came to Britain as refugees from fascism."


 * 4. ) "'My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am,' he said."


 * To say that Ed Miliband is not Jewish should also require sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Well then, it appears we have consensus. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As there are good sources, there was no good reason to remove Milliband, certainly not without discussion. I think it's clear there's no problem with including him here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've got no dog in the fight, maybe the solution is to note in some way that Miliband comes from a multi-ethnic background. —Carrite 22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Most of us come from multi-ethnic backgrounds. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not clear that he should be included. He acknowledges the heritage and its importance agreed.  However underpinning this whole debate is the degree to which Jewishness is an ethnic or a religious identity for the purpose of making it a major feature of someones biography as opposed a a part of the history.  That needs more discussion  Snowded  TALK 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is under debate here at all. Clearly, Milliband's ethnic "identity' is Jewish, as stated by himself.  His parents were Polish Jews and he's a British Jew.  What exactly is there to discuss?  Are there sources disputing Milliband's identity?  If not, there's nothing to talk about. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * .... and is not a notable British Jew - brought up in a secular enviroment n- he is also a Marxist atheist and it seems undue to include him here in the infobox without any clarification of that -  You  really  can  22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A "Marxist atheist" is not an ethnicity. His parents were Polish Jews and he self-identifies as a British Jew, and he's notable.  The absence of a religious belief is not a religious belief.  If you don't have sources supporting your original research on this matter, then I'm afraid we can't use your contributions. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * .... and is not a notable British Jew - brought up in a secular enviroment n- he is also a Marxist atheist and it seems undue to include him here in the infobox without any clarification of that - The living person is categorized with sensitivity as a British person of Jewish descent rather than a British Jew-  You  really  can  22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC) You  really  can  22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most Jews are brought up in secular environments, so your statement is ridiculous. Look at the stats. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF please. We don;t say that someone is a Christian because they were brought up in a Christian background.  Ok it may be different but it needs discussion and some evidence that Jewishness is somehow different from other religions/ethnicities.   Snowded  TALK 23:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Christianity is not an ethnicity, and there's nothing to discuss. Go read Jewish ethnic divisions.  Ed Miliband is of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage.  The largest members of the Jewish community are secular. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)He acknowledges the heritage, that is not the same as self identification. He has to be notable as a British Jew to be included here, not notable + having a jewish heritage  Snowded  TALK 22:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * YRC, there is no contradiction between being a British Jew and a Marxist atheist. I suggest being careful with any contrary assertion -- it will merely demonstrate (again) that you don't know what you're talking about.  Snowded, he is notable as a British Jew for being the first Jewish leader of the Labour Party.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * and he self-identifies as a British Jew, no he doesn't - .... and is not a notable British Jew - brought up in a secular enviroment n- he is also a Marxist atheist and it seems undue to include him here in the infobox without any clarification of that - The living person is categorized with sensitivity as a British person of Jewish descent rather than a British Jew-  You  really  can  22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC) You  really  can  22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First leader of the Labour Party from a Jewish background. Sorry its not the same thing.   Snowded  TALK 22:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you see the post above, "obviously I'm Jewish"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I read the whole statement Snowded  TALK 22:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If he's the first leader of the Labour Party from a Jewish background, then that makes him notable as a British Jew. Why is it not the same thing?  I think your reading of the category is just wrong.  Most Jews are secular, so according to you and Rob, most Jews can't be categorized. This is a good example of how Wikipedia editors get it wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please show me a source which shows that Jewishness is treated differently from being a Christian or a Muslim or whatever. Most people of a Christian background in the UK are now secular, so we don't list them as British Christians.  You need to provide evidence not your opinion for your assertions.   Snowded  TALK 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Jewish ethnic divisions and ethnoreligious groups. Are you not paying attention? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats fine, go add some dead or clear supportabl person - You  really  can  23:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, we've already shown, with source evidence, that Ed Miliband is considered a British Jew. What sources can you offer otherwise? I really don't think original research from Snowded and Youreallycan is a "supportabl" source. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't show that, you have show that he identifies with the ethnic background, acknowledges its profound influence etc. etc. I don't anything in your links that establish that Jewishness should be treated any differently from any other ethnic or religious identity (and would strongly object to any such attempt).  Now do you have a source which says it does?  And in the meantime please deal with content issues rather than commenting on editors.   Snowded  TALK 00:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Snowded—you say "We don;t say that someone is a Christian because they were brought up in a Christian background" and you say "Please show me a source which shows that Jewishness is treated differently from being a Christian or a Muslim or whatever." Reliable sources can be understood to be knowledgeable about these matters. Reliable sources can be understood to be aware of the differences between Judaism and Christianity. And reliable sources have a reputation for fact-checking. All sources that address the question at all provide affirmation that Ed Miliband is Jewish and no source has been presented suggesting that Ed Miliband might not be Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have reliable sources that he has a jewish heritage which he acknowledges, you can't derive from the sources quoted above that Jewishness should be treated differently from other religions and ethnicities. As to your statements about the nature of reliable sources, I am sorry you cannot make assumptions like that.  Poor research, a source is a source, you can't derive additional meaning just 'cause it suits your position.   Snowded  TALK 05:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Snowded—should reliable sources define Jews by a definition applicable to another identity? We assume that reliable sources have done their homework in this regard. It is axiomatic that each identity has its own definition. We assume that a multitude of sources have not overlooked some aspect of the definition of a Jew and we assume they are applying the criteria pertinent to Jews. All information at Wikipedia is filtered through reliable sources. Why aren't there any sources saying that perhaps Ed Miliband may not be Jewish? Don't any reliable news outlets or biographers want to get the scoop on that piece of information? If there were any reason to think that Ed Miliband were not Jewish would not some source have conveyed that piece of information by now? Yet neither you nor any other editor is showing us any source suggesting that the individual might not be Jewish. I suggest that we adhere to the findings of those reliable sources that are available to us. Bus stop (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We should always adhere to reliable sources, but you are failing to grasp the point. The sources you quote above establish clearly that he has a Jewish heritage, but also that he is not practicing. If you have a source that says that Jewishness is somehow different to being Christian then please show it. Your speculation about the background of the sources is original research or synthesis or both. We use sources for what they say, not for what editors think they might imply. I have provided links to the relevant policies to help you out here  Snowded  TALK 13:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at this discussion I have sympathy for both views. It's certain that he says he's Jewish, but not a practicing one, Just as I am Christian but a non practicing one. I would say that the title does not give the full story here and that if i wondered who out there where Jewish but non practicing ones I would probably like to have a seperate article on that. If the seperate article where to be written that might be solve the problem. I would leave him out of this article until such a time someone deems it a good idea to have a seperate article and include him there. Clay More47 (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Snowded—you say "If you have a source that says that Jewishness is somehow different to being Christian then please show it." We don't have to show that. We don't have to show that Judaism is different from Christianity because it is axiomatic that they are different. They are not the same identity. They are different identities. No two identities are alike. In some instances one can find correspondences between two different identities—an aspect of one identity may correlate with an aspect of another identity. But even then there are aspects of one identity that do not correspond to aspects of another identity. Christianity and Judaism are two different identities, despite any similarities that one may be able to point to. We do not have to sort through comparisons between various identities. Reliable sources do that for us. If a source is considered "reliable" its qualifications generally include knowledgeability and fact-checking. Consider this source: "Ed Miliband has described the importance of his Jewishness to his own identity, saying it is 'intertwined' with his Britishness." The preceding sentence makes a reference to Ed Miliband's "Jewishness". Is that because he is not Jewish? Or another source: "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." How could Ed Miliband "become the United Kingdom's second Jewish Prime Minister" if he is not Jewish? Yes, you can argue that Ed Miliband is not Jewish—but the primary means that would be accomplished, in my opinion, would be by bringing sources. The absence of sources weakens your argument. Also, to move this discussion forward, I think you should respond to the sources presented. The two above sources would seem to me to accomplish the purpose of establishing that Ed Miliband is Jewish. Is there some reason that you would feel that my above two sources fail to accomplish that? Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last I heard Christianity and Judaism were both religions. Your sources clearly provide his origins, and clearly state he is not practicing.  End of argument unless you prove that Judaism as an ethnicity overrides nationality in a way that Christianity or Islam doesn't.  There are some bad historical precedents for that position mind you.  Now you might want to argue that in the US media (your Huffington Post stuff)  Jewish origins is enough to use the label "Jewish" but I think we need something more serious to rely on that.   Snowded  TALK 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Snowded—you express concern that The Huffington Post is an American news website. But British sources are also available confirming that Ed Miliband is Jewish. Sources need not be British but all British sources concur with all American sources on this point. You have yet to bring any source of any nationality suggesting that Ed Miliband might not be Jewish. This is a photo-box for the article "British Jews". It seems to me Ed Miliband would be one of the top choices for such a photo-box. He is Jewish according to all sources and he holds a high position in British government according to all sources.


 * You say "Last I heard Christianity and Judaism were both religions." That is the last I heard also and that is presumably something that reliable sources are aware of. Reliable sources are saying that Ed Miliband is Jewish and they presumably are aware that Christianity and Judaism are religions. Below are four more sources supporting that Ed Miliband is Jewish:


 * "If Ed Miliband, leader of Britain's Labor Party, emerges victorious from the country's next general election, he will become the first Jewish Prime Minister to inhabit Number 10 Downing Street since Benjamin Disraeli renovated the innards of that venerable residence in 1877."


 * "Ed Miliband has become the first Jewish leader of the Labour party."


 * "Is it increased tolerance or mere indifference that allowed Labour to elect a Jewish atheist as its new leader without any outcry?"


 * "Labour's first Jewish leader has paid tribute to his religion by smashing a glass at his wedding." Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how many more ways there are to explain this to you.  He is of Jewish background, he is not a practicing Jew.   This is an article on British Jews.

We might well include some variants of those statements in commentary on his user page,. Oh and I am not challenging huffing post as a reliable source. Please try and think about what tho sources say in the context of this article. Snowded  TALK 08:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowded, you needn't try to explain it further, because your explanation is flawed. One need not be a "practicing Jew" to be a Jew.  Your apparent belief to the contrary shows the limits of your knowledge on this matter.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * and the great Nonoskedasticity speaks and all other mortals are flawed, sorry I hadn't realised Snowded  TALK 22:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are all in agreement that Ed Miliband is a British Jew, considers himself a British Jew, and is described as a British Jew by reliable sources. With that said, there doesn't appear to be anything left to discus and the photo should be added back without delay. To repeat, there is no good evidence to the contrary other than IDONTLIKEIT and that isn't a valid argument for removal.  Original research and commentary by Youreallycan and Snowded is interesting and appreciated, but cannot be used to argue against inclusion.  As far as I can tell, we have consensus to include the image, consensus supported by good sources and arguments based on evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don've have consensus for change, opinion is roughly even on both sides. The statements you make above about original research etc. are your opinion.  You are not responding to arguments, just restating your view which I for one thing is a misinterpretation.   Snowded  TALK 10:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the editors and arguments on this page, I see a clear consensus for restoring the image, an image that was removed for no reason. What reason do you offer for removing it? The sources call the subject a British Jew, the subject self-identifies as a British Jew, and according to who is a Jew?, the subject is classified as a Jew.  What else is there to discuss?  Do you have sources contradicting the sources offered? No?  Then this discussion is over and the image will be restored. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject does not self identify as a British Jew at all - he recognizes his Jewish heritage only - You  really  can  13:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He self-identifies and recognizes his heritage, and there is no difference at all. Please keep your original research to yourself.  IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to remove the image.  Based on the sources and the classification in use at who is a Jew?, and the established consensus on the talk page the image gets added. Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary
So let me be clear on this: 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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

{{Bus Stop, he specifially said he is not practicing. His parents were not practicing. That does not quallify him as a prominant British Jew, if the list was one of prominant people of Jewish origin then it might Snowded  TALK 05:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

Consensus issue
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)
 * 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)
 * 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 -  You  really  can  14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * - @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 -  You  really  can  14:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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 - You  really  can  14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * matrilineal descent ? Miliband has two genetically Jewish parents - that is not the issue is it? - You  really  can  14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 &sdot; contribs) 03:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The same sources are also very specific in that he says he is not practicing. This article is about British Jews, not about people of Jewish descent Snowded  TALK 05:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment Snowded, the comedian David Cross has as part of his routine the joke that no matter what he does he's still Jewish. The reason being that his mother's vagina was Jewish and he came out of it. In that regard, it is treated as different from other religions in that it uses criteria based not on practice or belief to label you as Jewish, it uses ancestry as the largest contributing factor to being a jew. I cannot cite sources, but it is in common knowledge enough for a comedian to use it as a skit. 83.70.170.48 (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to move forward
OK we have two separate issues here: 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)
 * 1) 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?
 * 2) 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.


 * Comment Snowded, the comedian David Cross has as part of his routine the joke that no matter what he does he's still Jewish. The reason being that his mother's vagina was Jewish and he came out of it. In that regard, it is treated as different from other religions in that it uses criteria based not on practice or belief to label you as Jewish, it uses ancestry as the largest contributing factor to being a jew. I cannot cite sources, but it is in common knowledge enough for a comedian to use it as a skit. 83.70.170.48 (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * and there is another skit "once a catholic always a catholic" and so on. I've heard the same thing about working for IBM.  If its true there must be a source somewhere which says it. that's all I am asking for on point one.   Point two would still stand  Snowded  TALK 09:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If what is true? You've already been given the sources and the articles many times.  Objecting for the sake of objecting is disruptive.  There's consensus to add the image and it is not disputed by any reliable source, therefore anything you say or do here is disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

The articles do not make the point, they may imply it but that is not enough. Even if they do then the question about whether he should be in is one to be determined by consensus. At the moment there are four editors who think he should be, three who think he shouldn't.  That is not a concensus and its not overwealing. If you think I am being disruptive make an ANI report. If you carry on edit warring without a conesnsus then I may do it for you. Snowded TALK 10:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Cause they are practicing Bus stop Snowded  TALK 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- J N  466  22:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoever is counting, I am also against inclusion of Miliband in this article. Also, I must note that his name hasn't even been spelled correctly, at least in the current version of the article! Yworo (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


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

I am against inclusion too at this time. -- J N  466  21:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Huge debates over a simple label? labing someone christian for example dont stir up much trouble at all. at least not the british articles does. I suppose it is indeed relavent when labeling people jewish or not when said person are indeed Anti-non jewish (or Anti-semitic such as those shouting "deathtoArabs", "deathtoPalestinians or other semites in the area close surrounding israel") but other then that, just like every other label it should not stir up so much controversy over such a simple thing? I supose its done for political purposes and what stance this jewish guy has rather than a simple label definition79.138.2.52 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Halakha, Jewish law, defines a Jew as someone who is either the child of a Jewish mother, or a person who converts to Judaism in accord with Jewish law. This standard is mandated by the Talmud, the record of Oral Law that explicates the Torah, the text on which Jewish law is based. According to the Talmud, this standard has been followed since the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai some 3500 years ago. Non-Orthodox Jewish historians claim that this standard has been followed only for the last 2,000 years. Mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence by one who is Jewish to Jewish principles of faith does not make one lose one's Jewish status." &#34;Pij&#34; (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion Miliband doesn't bring to the image anything that Disraeli doesn't bring. Disraeli was also a head of a big party, and unlike Miliband was also a Prime Minister, so why do we need Miliband in the selection if we have Disraeli? Think about it. 94.7.154.72 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Some sources to take into account
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/9880/

Quote: The Jewish Telegraph in Manchester has reported that reaction to Ed Miliband's election as Labour leader was greeted by "stunned faces", noting concern over whether he may become the "first prime minister in recent history who could not be described as a friend of Israel".

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2010/10/01/miliband-not-a-friend-of-israel

Quote: ''The Jewish community have reportedly offered a mixed reaction to the election of Ed Miliband to the Labour leadership.

''The Jewish Telegraph, based in the North of England, expressed a lukewarm image of Mr Miliband, who is from a Jewish background.

''Its leading article argued that he had "nailed his colours to the Palestinian mast" during a fringe event at the Labour party conference.

It also claimed that he "has rarely publicly associated himself with... the Jewish community".

'http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/30/ed-miliband-north-jewish-reaction

Quote: ''There is also recognition that for all the fame of his family's name he has "never identified with the British Jewish community". [...]

''"It's an aspect of the Miliband brothers which hasn't really come up in all the many discussions we've had with friends during the election. There have been plenty of opinions one way or the other, and I think quite a few people wonder if Labour has made the right choice. But their Jewishness hasn't really figured."

One reason, suggests Neil Roland, an artist and photographer related to the Laski family, one of Manchester's great Jewish dynasties, could be that "Ed has very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things. He and David would not be where they are today without their Jewish background, but it is often the case that the ones from the community who make good in England, which really means making good in the secular world, are those who have given up the religious aspect."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-reveals-agenda-for-power-with-labour-and-a-personal-insight-6508358.html

Quote: ''"Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous. My parents' community was the Left community."

''He does not think Britons mind whether politicians are religious or not, in contrast with America: "I think that's rather a good thing and it speaks well for us as a country."

''He does not regret having no faith to draw strength from. "No, because my belief comes from a set of values about the kind of society I believe in. It's a very strong part of who I am. Different people come to their politics from different vantage points. I think you can have equally strong politics."''  J N  466  21:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those sources amount to a hill of beans when it comes to Jewishness. The points about views on Israel are particularly irrelevant -- all sorts of Jews are rather less than keen to be thought of as "friends of Israel".  It doesn't even matter that he might not see eye to eye with the organizations representing British Jewry -- as with views on Israel, there is a great deal of diversity of opinion among people who are unquestionably Jewish.  As for faith -- have a look at Secular Jew.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only question is how Miliband self-identifies, and there are strong indications above that he has rejected self-identifying culturally and religiously as a Jew, or at least only considers that a part (and perhaps not the major part) of his identity. That's his freedom—ours to respect, and not yours to take. Period. -- J N  466  22:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no such "indication" at all, and continuing attempts to "interpret" the sources to say what they don't mean is indicative of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the only question, then perhaps you could stop muddying the waters with questions you consider irrelevant (particularly when adding misleading implications). I've made plain my disagreement with your interpretation the sources regarding how he self-identifies.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As for faith -- have a look at Secular Jew. Why when this article links to Secular Jews in the lede, and your link isn't about Secularism at all? John lilburne (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * JN seems to be saying that because Miliband speaks of having no faith he can't be considered Jewish. That's a misguided argument, because many Jews -- secular ones -- do not embrace a faith, something the article I linked to makes clear.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The real question that needs to be asked is where are these disputes coming from? We don't create disputes in our heads and then argue about them on Wikipedia.  The primary disputant,Youreallycan, appears to imply (and I'm liberally paraphrasing here) that he had "remote viewed" the BLP subject and personally determined based on his "psychic" link to Miliband, that not only could we not claim that Miliband was Jewish, but there was no such thing as a "British Jew".  Are we really going to keep entertaining this kind of delusional thinking? Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jayen—you say that the "…only question is how Miliband self-identifies…" He "self-identifies" as a Jew:


 * "There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous."


 * The above is an intact, whole paragraph from a reliable source. It contains, from Miliband, a clear statement. Miliband is saying that he is a nonobservant Jew. I think we need to take care not to misconstrue a phrase such as "I'm Jewish." It is a phrase which means "I'm Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what JN 'seems' to be say but I'll reiterate that for a start Ed Miliband is not an Israeli citizen, in fact I don't think that any of the people you have pictures of in the infobox are/were, which is what the links in the lede imply. Secondly the link you provided as an explanation is about Atheism not secularism. John lilburne (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the intended link is Jewish culture. Yworo (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at ANI, a few weeks ago, Miliband wrote at some length about his complex relationship with his Jewishness: To me, that article is a clincher and shifts the balance in favour of inclusion. So I for one would no longer object to it. The article is quite detailed and really essential reading for anyone wishing to contribute to this discussion. -- J N  466  18:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I read it when it came out and I agree its essential reading. I am less sure its conclusive.  It shows the complex relationship that many people have with a religious/ethnic background of which (as the article clearly states) they were never a part.  The self-identification in that article is heavily qualified.   There are however two issues here.  The first, is the non-practicing issue on Jewishness in general, and there is a stronger argument there for self-identification, although I think it would have to be unqualified.  The second is the criterial for inclusion in this article - its not automatic that someone who .  If the article was about British people from a jewish background I would be in favour, but its about British Jews.   Editors have to reach some form of agreement there about who qualifies to represent the community as a whole by being chosen for one of the pictures.    I think that requires something more than the New Statesman article.  Personally I think given the title of the argument it requires practice, or at the least a very strong and clear identity not a very mixed one.  Snowded  TALK 22:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the article itself fails to make clear what its subject is. Is it about British people who consider themselves ethnically Jewish - in which case Miliband is a clear candidate for inclusion, given the recent NS article - or is it about something else. As I've said in the discussion at AN/I, Miliband should be included here. And then the article must make clear that it is about people who are Jewish by ethnicity (self-defined for those who are living, per WP:BLP policy), and not restricted to those of the Judaic faith. If the article isn't about this group, I fail to see how it can comply with policy. I suggest that discussions of how to make clear what the scope of the article is are continued in the thread below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

'Most' in lede
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)
 * 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. -- J N  466  18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Population 'decline', and how not to write about it...
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)

British people of Asian descent
As Jews are an ethnoreligious group of whom the vast majority trace their origins back to Israel (as genetic studies and other evidence has demonstrated), I included them in the British people of Asian descent.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The genetic studies don't actually demonstrate that - they show that the majority of Jews have a genotype suggesting a significant proportion of Middle-Eastern ancestry - there are no genes specific to 'ethnoreligious groups', for obvious reasons. However, Jews of the diaspora may also show evidence in their genotype indicating some ancestry from elsewhere, as a result of intermarriage with other populations - though exogamy rates may have been relatively low, the genetic evidence for it is there. All this is rather beside the point for this article though. Geographically, the Middle East is part of Asia Minor, but it certainly isn't the norm to describe people with Middle Eastern ancestry as 'Asian'. If you want to add the category 'British people of Asian descent' to the article, I suggest that you provide a reliable source which indicates that this is a description normally used regarding Anglo-Jewry. Alternately, it may be that a category 'British people of Middle Eastern descent' might be more appropriate here - though frankly I can see no particular logic to including that either, and of course it would also require a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. There is more than just genetic evidence for a Middle Eastern origin, though. Historical and archaeological consensus also agrees that modern Jewry traces its roots back to the Hebrews of the Fertile Crescent. You are right that there is also a non-Semitic Mediterranean component in Jewish ancestry, which is mostly attributed to proselytism during the early Roman period. However, the same studies have found that the various Jewish ethnic divisions are much more closely related to each other, and to other Levantines, than they are to anyone else.


 * Theoretically, if there is a 'British people of Middle Eastern descent' category, I would be more than happy to supply some sources. The reason I added 'British people of Asian descent' was because I saw that British Arabs and Levantine people were included there as well. I removed it earlier because it was inaccurate, as many Arabs actually come from North Africa.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It would appear that there is no 'British people of Middle Eastern descent' category. There is only an Asian one. In light of this discovery, it would seem that the most appropriate thing to do would be to include all of these groups under the Asian bracket. The Arab category would be placed under both the Asian and North African categories. I am also thinking of doing the same for the category pages themselves. I will provide some sources if need be, but I am not entirely certain how I can attach them to the category listings themselves. Let me know what you think.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The last thing we need is another bunch of useless ethnic categories for tagging crap with. John lilburne (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Me and Evildoer had long discussion on my talkpage regarding similiar edits of his about who's Asian and who's European and who's Middle Eastern etc and why such edits are problematic. He seems to not fully understand the difference between Israeli and Jewish. Evildoer there's an article here called Israelis in the United Kingdom, maybe you need to check it out instead. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said Israelis and diaspora Jews were categorically the same. Related? Definitely, but not the same. However, Jews are by definition an ethnic group with roots in the Middle East. That is fact. Whether or not this means they should be classified as "Asian" is a matter of dispute, depending on how you define Asian.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Jews are generally considered an ethnoreliguous rather than ethnic group, if for no other reason than that converts to Judaism of non-Jewish ethnicity are accepted as part of the Jewish community. As with all such things though, there are few 'definitely's involved. Anyway, this isn't yet another forum for 'who is a Jew' debates. Getting back to the subject, if whether Jews should be considered Asian is a 'matter of dispute', and you can't provide a source that states that this is the norm for Anglo-Jewry (or for that matter, that it is applied at all), I'd say that the case is pretty well closed here: we can't include a disputed category without a source that suggests that it is applicable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What defines the scope of a Wikipedia article?
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)

Andy, given no response, I have reverted to the broader scope.

I'm curious as to which recognized authorities you would argue define a British Jew as being necessarily someone who participates in organized Jewish community life.

As you know, adherents of Halachic law do not impose any such requirement, even recognizing converts to other faiths as Jews. The Board of Deputies does not envisage any narrow definition either. Their 2010 report on Jewish community statistics pointed out that their figures, although ' indicative of actual demographic trends, only represent those Jews who have chosen, or whose families have chosen, to associate themselves with the Jewish community through a formal Jewish act, ie circumcision, marriage in a synagogue, dissolution of marriage by a beth din, or Jewish burial or cremation. Consequently, Jews who have not chosen to identify in these ways do not appear in this report.' The import is that there are no specific narrow criteria of religious involvement for those  who would self-identify as Jews. Identity and active, explicit membership of a community are not logically equivalent propositions.

Your own opinion is one thing, but if you're going to narrow the scope of a Wikipedia article on an historically enduring community, I feel you ought to cite relevant authorities representative of the views of the community in question --- although you were perhaps just seeking to establish some semblance of common sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VEBott (talk • contribs) 23:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Scope, which is an essay, says the scope of articles should be the topic as defined in reliable sources. (The actual guideline is Disambiguation.)  The means academic texts rather than religious writings.  TFD (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Nomo, I accept the need to try to reach some kind of consensus on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines. I cannot, however, see that an article on British Jews has to be restricted to those who "maintain a connection to the Jewish community" or who are of Jewish descent - but perhaps we can compromise. First, can you cite authorities that would exclude converts to Judaism from being Jewish, as your reversion does? Secondly, can you cite any authority that demands that a person born Jewish needs to maintain anything at all in order to remain Jewish? The authorities I would cite to the contrary include the laws of the State of Israel, most scholarly interpretations of the halachic tradition, and the usual description in scholarly literature of non-practicing individuals, even converts to other religions such as Disraeli or the philosopher Simone Weil, as Jewish. VEBott (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Jews are ethno religious group, which means someone can be ethnically Jewish and be an atheist (based on origin/ancestry), or even consider themselves an ethnic Jew and be a Christian (converting doesn't change your origin and make you Anglo-Saxon). Jews are also a religion and someone can consider themselves Jewish after converting to Judaism regardless of ethnicity. I think the definition is wide and largely based on self definition! 94.7.154.72 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion of a new image
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)

I implemented the new image, please give your suggestions to improve it! The three differences from the previous image are:
 * The new one is more organized.
 * 4/12 people in the new image are women, in the previous one it was only 3/16. Higher female representation!
 * Sephardi Jews were underrepresented in the previous image! Even though Ashkenazi Jews form the large majority of British Jews today, there is still a Sephardi community and also until the 19th century Sephardi's were the majority. 4/12 are Sephardi in the new image, while only 3/16 in the previous image.

Feel free to suggest any improvements! 94.7.154.72 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Bias?
"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)

Rosalind Franklin
I find it really strange that a Wikipedia editor has decided to remove the name of DNA pioneer, and possibly the best UK female scientist, (i.e. Rosalind Franklin) from the main pictures of prominent British Jews. I think her picture and name should have not been removed, especially when there are only 2 women pictures left (out of 12 pictures). Please could someone reverse this edit and add the late Rosalind Franklin's picture to the list of prominent British Jews.92.19.104.50 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion about who are the right people that should appear in these collages. I'd completely remove them from all the articles about ethnic groups, as they are a source of endless arguments. So I don't care very much whether Ms. Franklin appears here or not.
 * That said, I am reverting the unexplained edit that changed the design of the infobox, because the old view with the captions on each photograph looked much better aesthetically, and it's unclear to me why was it changed to bulk all the captions at the bottom.--Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the image File:Rosalind Franklin.jpg from the article. This image is a non-free image and therefore it must satisfy all 10 of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria in order to be used in any Wikipedia article. The image does not satisfy have the specific, separate non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC it needs to be used in this particular article and therefore it has been removed per WP:NFCCE. Moreover, even if such a rationale was provided it is unlikely this image would satisfy WP:NFCC because, unlike the article Rosalind Franklin, this image is not really needed at all for the reader to understand the topic matter of the article "British Jews". The image is one of many being used in the infobox as sort of a gallery/list of similar persons; Non-free images are not allowed to be used this way per WP:NFG and WP:NFLISTS. This removal has nothing to do with Ms. Franklin or her accomplishments. There is no mention of her is the article except for the image. If there is a desire to include information about her in the article then her name should be added to the text and Wikilinked. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

RfC on 'Communal institutions' section
Is the section entitled 'Communal institutions' (a partial list of communal institutions) helpful and compliant with WP:LISTCRITERIA? Amisom (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it should be removed. There is no logic to this list. Why is the Movement for Reform Judaism (a religious denomination) included when the United Synagogue (a larger religious denomination) and Liberal Judaism (a smaller one) are not? Why is the London Jewish Forum included when Jewish Care isn't? Why is Jewish Human Rights Watch, an organisation without a Wikipedia article, included for (apparently) the sole reason of promoting its website, when larger and notable organisations such as the Jewish Council for Racial Equality are not? It's not sufficient to say, as has, that this list could be fixed by expanding it. The problem is that it is not compliant with WP:LISTCRITERIA, in that there is no clear rule for which organisations are to be listed and which are not. What is the rule? There is none. It is a disordered mishmash of some randomly selected denominations, some randomly selected charities, some randomly selected pressure groups etc. See also WP:INDISCRIMINATE: think about whether or not this list is useful to readers. I don't see how it is. Amisom (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on nom RfC started before discussing on talk above per WP:RfC, after nom Amisom edit warred with two other editors (User:Philip Cross and I). Nom is not neutral and attempts a !vote (which could be struck IMHO). It is also confused: this is an embedded list: WP:LISTCRITERIA is for standalone lists, which doesn't apply to embedded lists, but Manual of Style/Embedded lists does. Widefox ; talk 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You were so rude (including giving me a template warning, apparently just for the sin of disavreeing with you) that you clearly weren’t interested in discussion. Hence an RfC to draw in input from better people from elsewhere. Amisom (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (general behaviour to be taken up at ANI per issues on user's talk). Point is, when reverted by two editors in 24hr and still don't discuss on the talk, then taking straight to AfC with a non-neutral nom (even !voting) may give the impression of going against consensus and WP:FORUMSHOP. When the RfC is about something that doesn't apply, then it appears disruptive. Widefox ; talk 12:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to re-read FORUMSHOP because holding a discussion about an article on the talk page of that article is not considered forum shopping here. Reminding yourself of AGF and BATTLE probably wouldn’t hurt either. Amisom (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep all specific issues above have been addressed since nom (including inclusion criteria in hidden comment), the general point of the usefulness (and WP:WEIGHT etc) can be addressed by normal editing in the article, and is OK per WP:NAVLIST. Other similar articles have links to list articles, so can always be spun out if too lengthy, all of which can be done outside this RfC as normal. Widefox ; talk 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. To be a list, the criteria needs to be: "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources."-WP:LISTCRITERIA. The Comment is "more specific inclusion criteria useful: include only Jewish orgs based in UK that have articles (no redlinks or EXT), sorted alphabetically, these can be found in Category:Jewish organisations based in the United Kingdom (and sub cats), and other cats"
 * Is it unambiguous? ✅ (Clear-cut wording. Could easially determine if something fits in the category or not.)
 * Is it objective? ✅ (Does not determine inclusion based on feelings or own personal POV.)
 * Is it supported by reliable sources? (Inclusion criteria does not cite any sources, but does have a catergory link.) Cocohead781 (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove I think it adds little to the article and is very subjective list. The article is better without it. --G (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove I think WP:NOTDIR applies here, I don't see how this list adds anything to the article and as noted it seems a bit randomly selected. Seanbonner (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Central Orthodox (United Synagogue etc)=Modern Orthodox : sources
As requested by Okay to start with:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/subdivisions/modernorthodoxy_1.shtml
 * Described United Synagogue as British Modern Orthodox in sidebar link to United Synagogue official website. Text statements: "The Jewish community within the United Kingdom has remained largely orthodox but with a modern outlook." "The United Synagogue had developed a modernist outlook by the end of the 19th Century. "


 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/matchmakers-are-back-in-demand-v9rdf57gk
 * "Because the United Synagogue is an Orthodox (albeit known as “Modern Orthodox”) body with 64 individual synagogues, men and women sit ...


 * http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk441
 * "central Orthodoxy – broadly understood as the United Synagogue, the Federation and various independent modern Orthodox synagogues"

Examples of synagogues and other community institutions equating United Synagogue with Modern Orthodox:
 * http://www.goldersgreenshul.org.uk/our-community/
 * "Golders Green Synagogue is a modern orthodox synagogue, member of the United Synagogue."


 * http://www.theus.org.uk/sites/default/files/1%20_RUS_Community_profile__2014.doc
 * "... Radlett United Synagogue is a thriving and well-established modern orthodox community..."


 * http://www.shulinthewood.com/the-shul/history
 * "... a prominent and flagship member of the United Synagogue. We are a modern Orthodox community ..."


 * https://reshetnet.com/organisations/radlett-united-synagogue-learn2lead/
 * "Radlett United Synagogue is a modern orthodox, Zionist and politics-free community"


 * http://www.hjps.herts.sch.uk/about-us/the-ethos-of-hjps-a-united-synagogue-school/
 * "Hertsmere Jewish Primary School (HJPS) is a Modern Orthodox (United Synagogue) Jewish primary school. "


 * http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/about-us/vision-and-ethos
 * "OUR VISION: JFS is a co-educational inclusive, modern, orthodox Jewish ... JFS's foundation body is the United Synagogue and its religious authority is the ..."

That little lot good enough for you? 95.148.20.9 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll check it later - a lot of material for which thanks. However on the two linked articles there is no mention of this as a uniting group.  The first two references I read above are not specific which makes it look a little like original research or synthesis.   But as I say that is a lot of material to wade through and some of it is behind paywalls. If any other experienced editors with specialist knowledge care to advise .... -Snowded TALK 05:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well The Times quote seems pretty direct to me and I can't see any other way of interpreting the link label on the BBC page than that the United Synagogue is the British version of Modern Orthodox (or at least a version - cf the slightly more frum Federation).
 * It does strike me we're into slightly WP:SKYBLUE territory here. We're basically talking the folks who keep strict Shabbat and strict kashrut (but not glat kosher) but have TV/internet/phones and are mostly clean shaven and do not wear payot nor the whole Haredi uniform of black coat/hat and the women have no problem with wearing their own hair uncovered away from synagogue (or a nice hat for synagogue)  and the men wear a kippah but otherwise wear what Christians would call "Sunday best" to synagogue and maybe a suit to work smart casual or just plain scruffy the rest of the time.   The men tuck their Tzitzit out of sight under their clothes. They've got some nice looking religious books on the shelf in their lounge (printed by Artscroll and probably a bar mitzvah present), but generally they would rather spend their out of hours watching sport on TV than studying Torah.  They are more likely to live in Hampstead than Stamford Hill and if there isn't a good Jewish school locally, they will happily send their kids to a non-Jewish school (with a kosher packed lunch.)  They sit separately in synagogue but have no hang-up about using a gender-integrated beach or swimming pool, which is where they will spend most of their time on an Israel trip, just like most non Jewish families would do on the Costa del Sol.  Basically the UK equivalent of the "knitted kippah" types in Israel. 95.148.20.9 (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes and you can verify The Times for yourself despite the paywall by feeding the quote into Google. It will quote the quote back at you as a found item. Old trick. 95.148.20.9 (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ -  has concluded "what these journalists are calling the Central Orthodox institutions should definitely be linked to Modern Orthodox "  That sounds to me like a vote in favour of putting the wikilink back in.  I'll give you a couple of days and if I don't hear back, I'll assume you're OK and put the wikilink back in. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I read the discussion that you initiated here differently. It basically said that some people interpreted it that way, but it wasn't universal and some might not like the label.  I don't see how you can avoid breaking WP:OR by inserting the link.  So you have heard back, I am not OK.  If you want to carry on with it then raise a RfC -Snowded TALK 19:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC "'Central Orthodox Judaism'=Modern Orthodox Judaism? - To Wikilink or not?"
Should "Central Orthodox" on the British Jews article be wikilinked to Modern Orthodox Judaism? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Perspective User u|Snowded disagreed with my Wikilinking thus. He requested sources so I supplied him with references to the BBC website and The Times website clearly labelling the United Synagogue (defined as Central Orthodox on the British Jews page) as Modern Orthodox.  Snowded was unsatisfied with these sources so I bounced the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism.  User  agreed with the wikilink, user  said that "Central Orthodox" was a neologism but gave no comment on whether or not to wikilink.  User  commented on Central Orthodox being more commonly rendered "Centrist" in America but again gave no opinion on the wikilink.  Snowded reckoned this was a split opinion, therefore, he still opposes the wikilink.  What do other people think?  Yes or no? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An RfC ie meant to be worded neutrally if you check the guidelines and this is far from that. The link given contains a discussion which indicates that the question using this label is far from clear, and it use is not really supported by the references.  I'm not sure  agreed with the wikilink and the other two editors you mention by the nature of their comments did not support it.   I didn't reckon "this was a split opinion" I said the position was no clear enough for us to use the link with Wikipedia's voice - please don't make false statements -Snowded TALK 21:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've renamed the "background" comment as "perspective" as it was not meant to be part of the RfC, just an opening comment. My reading is that supported the wiklink and the other two editors commented on the term Central Orthodox without giving any opinions either way on the actual Wikilink.  But of course the three of them can explain their positions re Wikilink Yes Or No themselves. 2.28.124.67 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling it perspective does not make it a properly formulated RfC I'm afraid. You are not stating the issue but arguing your perspective.  This is also a trivial issue - if the term you prefer becomes mainstream then it will appear, properly referenced in the articles you are seeing to categorise - I doesn't -Snowded TALK 05:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The RfC is "Should "Central Orthodox" on the British Jews article be wikilinked to Modern Orthodox Judaism?" The bit below that is just the first comment.62.190.148.115 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Light oppose due to these tentative observations of an outsider. Casale Mashiah & Boyd 2017, pp. 11–12, which is used as the defining quotation, does not capitalize "modern Orthodox synagogues" but calls them "Central Orthodox", using the term 190 times. Since this article is the source of the quote, and quite thorough in its analysis of British Jews today, I would keep the term and duplicate the reference to Casale right after the quote marks. Jzsj (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that's the term they use so it is quite properly used in the article. Question is whether or not to put a link in to this page (which I would argue was the intended meaning on a worldwide level.) 2.28.124.67 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am strongly in favor of the wikilink to Modern Orthodoxy. But I am skeptical of the strength of the term Central Orthodox as a defining term for British United Synagogue. It is a new term and while it is indeed used, it does not override prior terms.--Jayrav (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed it is a new term, but it is the term used in the source so we're kind of stuck with it as far as the actual article goes - all one can do is explain it. 2.28.124.67 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned in one source is not sufficient to make it a united category -Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 04:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the reason the original author of the article used that wording was because that was what was in the original source. A Wikilink to an article named for a more standard term is a common method of explaining idiosyncratic terminology.  That way, one can explain what the source meant.62.190.148.115 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * More doubts are being expressed on this subject here, my original concern was that the edit was designed to make a statement and that seems more evidenced as this discussion goes on -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 05:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Invite User first input the term "Central Orthodox" on this page in 2008.  He/she is therefore invited to contribute on whether or not to wikilink said term to Modern Orthodox Judaism 62.190.148.115 (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Goodness, that diff was a long time ago! It was an edit based on this report from the year 2000, a report that might be considered the immediate predecessor to last year's paper by Mashiah and Boyd, and similarly included numbers for the balance of synagogue memberships.
 * The term "central Orthodox" (with a small "c") was taken from that earlier report. I am happy enough for people to use "Central Orthodox" with a capital "C", and I can understand Mashiah and Boyd using it, writing a whole paper, simply as a less fussy choice to maintain.  But we should understand the limitations of the phrase.  It may be a useful ad-hoc label to broadly group together particular synagogues and organisations for the purposes of analyses like these two papers; but (to the best of my awareness) it is not a self-identification used by any of these bodies, nor a more broadly recognised movement (unlike, say, the term Modern Orthodoxy), nor any named formalised association that the bodies in question would consider themselves as in some way signed up to.  It is merely a grouping of convenience, for the purpose of the analysis.
 * (Qualifying note to the above -- over time I think there may have sometimes been a degree of association between the Feds and the Uniteds that has ebbed and flowed between one period and another, for example whether the Feds got any input or veto on the selection of the Uniteds' Chief Rabbi. But my understanding is that they are pretty separate ("younger movements not officially recognising the Chief Rabbi as their representative" ), and for example maintain distinct Kosher authorities and Beths Din, as of course do the Spanish & Portuguese).
 * Is it fair to associate this grouping with "Modern Orthodoxy" ? Pretty much, I think.  "Modern Orthodoxy" is not the term Mashiah and Boyd used, just as they preferred "Strictly Orthodox" to Charedi.  Defining their own term avoids questions as to whether every last person would necessarily self-identify as "Modern Orthodox".  But I think it's a useful broad link to give people, in the same way that we are linking "Strictly Orthodox", to give a reasonable approximation as to what sort of distinctions underlie this place on the congregational spectrum. Jheald (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I should also add that the shul I go to would not be in the "Central Orthodox" grouping, so I should perhaps defer to others closer to that stream as to how accurate or not any associations conveyed to readers by a link to "Modern Orthodoxy" would be for readers. But the observations of both User:Dweller and User:Jayrav in the WT:JUDAISM thread seem accurate and on-point to me.  Jheald (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment "Central orthodox" for me is an inappropriate neologism and should be removed, not linked. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so what do we put in its place? Bearing in mind that it is the term that appears in the source. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Orthodox". Which is how the US describes themselves. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How do we distinguish that from "Strictly Orthodox" (currently wikilinked to Haredi Judaism in the article)?
 * "Orthodox" by itself generally tends to be a blanket term for both the Haredim and the Mods. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It has the virtue of accuracy and the problem you raised is overcome because we have the Haeidim covered by the word "Orthodox" prefixed by a modifier. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You want the Strictly/Haredi categrory relabelled as "Ultra Orthodox" then? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm not being clear. We currently have "Central Orthodox" and "Strictly Orthodox". I propose not changing the latter and deleting the word "Central" from the former. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Okay, I make the scores so far:  Three in favour of the wikilink (me, Jayrav "strongly in favour", Jheald), two opposed to the wikilink: (Snowded, Jzsj "light oppose") one alternative proposal (Dweller wants Central Orthodox changed to just Orthodox) 62.190.148.115 (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As a lay reader, this is my understanding. It seems like "Modern Orthodox" encompasses a large variety of people that try to stick to traditional rules but also adapt to modern life at the same time. One factor that introduces additional confusion is that the United Synagogue page says it's "central Orthodox", while the Modern Orthodox page uses the term "centrist Orthodox", which is apparently somewhat synonymous with "modern Orthodox". Therefore I don't think it would be misleading to wikilink it, though it would be helpful to have a source that shows they identify with that label. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 05:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would either of these suffice, ? :
 * BBC website article on Modern Orthodox Judaism with hyoerlink alongside article to United Synagogue site, labelled "United Synagogue, British Modern Orthodox"
 * Article from the Times containing the following quote: "Because the United Synagogue is an Orthodox (albeit known as “Modern Orthodox”) body with 64 individual synagogues, men and women sit ... 62.190.148.115 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Education section? OCPHS?
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)

Hi everyone! I plan on adding a section titled "Culture" and then having a sub-section for "Religion" which is already in the article and then adding some additional information in a "Food" sub-section. The reason I want to do this is to add an extra layer of depth without messing with any previous editors work. My source is which has credibility since the author has taught European History for the last 33 years and the article is peer reviewed. I also only plan on adding a few sentences to the page in total. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. BKster24 (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)BKster24BKster24 (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)