Talk:List of British Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of British Jews article.
List of British Jews falls within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a project to improve all articles related to Jewish culture. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to:

Category:WikiProject Jewish culture articles
Project Jewish culture To-do:

Am I the only person to find the title of the page somewhat distasteful and also misleading. It should read "List of Prominent British Jews" surely ?

Please read before editing A credible source must be provided for each name, showing that the person is or was Jewish and a British citizen (subject). If the source is online, you can add an embedded link like this [1] after the name, or if it's a book, a Harvard reference like this (Smith 2005). Then ideally, a full citation should be added to a References section, but if you can't do that, do please at least add the source after the name.

Note that the following criteria for inclusion have been agreed:

  1. Someone is Jewish ONLY if there is a reputable source saying explicitly that they are Jews. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  2. There must be a source saying explicitly that they themselves are Jews.
  3. It is not sufficient to cite a source saying they are of "Jewish ancestry".
  4. It is not sufficient to cite a source saying a parent or grandparent was Jewish.
  5. It is not sufficient to cite popular beliefs or stories (e.g. like belonging to the Kabbalah Centre) that could supposedly "make" anyone Jewish.
  6. Anything that does not meet the above criteria most likely violates Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Verifiability and should be deleted.

Archives of past Talk pages:

Contents

[edit] JYB references

There are a number of references given in this article to "JYB", often "JYB p. 212". As I'm sure everyone is aware, the Jewish Year Book, is, in fact, a Year Book. That is, it publishes a new version every year. Could proper references for these please be provided, listing the specific year? Also, could someone explain why there are so many references to that specific page, 212? It looks a bit odd. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that when the JYB was first cited, only the (then) latest edition, 2005, was cited, so all references without a year are to 2005. I'll check. There is a section in every recent edition that lists current Jewish MPs, members of the Privy Council, Fellows of the Royal Society, etc, and most references to the JYB refer to that. There is also a "Who's Who of British Jewry" that is referenced occasionally. Since people are removed when they retire or die, it is also necessary to refer to older editions. - Newport 12:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to check yet? Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, everywhere where the year is not stated, it's 2005. - Newport 11:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to be antagonistic, could I ask how the Year Book phrases these lists? Does it say "List of Jewish foos"? Are there individual bios on the people as well? Does it anywhere state its criteria for including people? Would you be willing to post those here, "Newport"? Grace Note 04:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

deleted personal attacks. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind remarks. I hope I'll have the opportunity to talk with you further before you are banned from editing here. Grace Note 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
An open note to the editors of this page: why doesw Gracenote get to decide a) the qualifications for listing here; and b) which sources are reputable enough for sourcing purposes. The Jewish Yearbook is widely considered a highly reputable authoritative source. How does Gracenote get to unilaterally decide that it no longer qualifies? Did I miss the section in the Wikipedia rules that Gracenote is the final authority on all things Jewish? And who is Gracenote, what are his qualifications, what are his biases. This is getting downright ridiculous.Incorrect 06:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Newport, you didn't bother replying to my note. Consequently, in a couple of days I am going to remove all names that are sourced to the Jewish Year Book. Simply appearing in a book whose name includes the word "Jewish" does not make a person Jewish. Grace Note 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

deleted personal attack. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There seemed no need to reply, as I have already given the relevant information. The JYB has a section with lists of Jewish privy counsellors, peers, MPs, etc. Obviously, the inclusion of a name in such a list is a statement by the editors of the JYB that this person is Jewish. The JYB also has a "Who's Who" section with brief biographies of some notable British Jews. Many people are in more than one list; for example, Lord Moser is both a life peer and a Fellow of the British Academy. He is also in the "Who's Who" section, but not everyone in the lists is. Conversely, Eric Moonman is in the "Who's Who" but not currently in any lists, though he was in the list of Jewish MPs while he was an MP. There is no requirement in any policy that sources have to provide biographies of Jewish people, or that they have to state the crireria they use. On the contrary, to query the criteria of a reputable source would be original research. - Newport 11:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Do the lists say, specifically, "List of Jewish privy councillors"? I am not querying their criteria, you'll note; that's a strawman. I am simply asking whether they do meet our criteria. Grace Note 06:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is Jewish Privy Counsellors, Peers, MPs, etc. The individual lists are not so headed, but that is not necessary. The question of the criteria for inclusion was raised, so I answered it. - Newport 11:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand. You are saying that the lists are not "list of Jewish foos"? But the section is headed "Jewish foos"? Or are you saying that there is nothing in there to say that the lists are of Jews and one just assumes it from the fact it is the "Jewish Year Book"? Could you please give the explicit wording a/ of the lists that you are relying on as sources and b/ of the part of the year book that you claim meets the criteria for inclusion? Please read the criteria given at the top of this page so that you are quite sure that these lists meet them. Grace Note 01:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain again. The section is Jewish Privy Counsellors, Peers, MPs, etc. The individual lists within this section are not so headed; for example, the first one is headed "Privy Councillors". However, obviously we can rely on the overall section head. Were this not the case, then within this article, since the individual sections just say politicians, scientists, etc. and not Jewish politicians or scientists, we would not be saying that anybody listed here is Jewish, so there would be no need for sources. - Newport 10:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have vexed you and to continue to do so but could you please supply the exact wording of the section heading? Unfortunately, I'm in Australia so I can't check in the library for myself. But given that you have added references to many disputed names from the source, you can understand why it's necessary to be certain that the criteria are met. Grace Note 07:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Newport, does the book say anywhere what its criteria for inclusion are i.e. whether it is saying the people listed are "Jews," or "of Jewish ancestry," or what. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
deleted personal attack. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Unfortunately, you can't be taken seriously because you weren't smart enough to note that I said I'm "in Australia" not I "am Australian". Grace Note 03:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note: I have answered the question twice already and will not keep repeating myself. The inclusion of someone on this list should not be disputed unless there is a source that says explicitly that he or she is not Jewish; the inability of other editors to find sources doesn't make for a dispute, still less the fact that an anti-Semitic source says correctly that they are Jewish. Who is in dispute? SlimVirgin: as you say, "How the person or publication defines that is up to them, not Wikipedia. We just report." - Newport 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, because you will not properly answer the question, I am going to remove all of the names sourced to the Jewish Year Book as inadequately sourced until you do. You have not demonstrated that the source you rely on states that the people concerned are Jewish. Your answers are evasive and I'm of the opinion that is because the source does not in fact state that the people you are including are Jewish. Grace Note 03:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with removing it. I'm at a loss as to understand the fuss over this. I initially supported it as a reliable source when it was first questioned months ago, but since then it's been used many times without even giving a year, questions about it don't get answered either at all or for days and weeks, and now no one will tell us what it actually says. Enough already. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


So the offspring of felons and his chief groupy have ganged up on valid editors to destroy their work; this felon and his co-conspirator have decided that they know more than the Jewish Year Book; in the real world the two of them would be in jail for offenses against humanity.Incorrect 07:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The thought that a woman of the quality of SlimVirgin should be my groupy will keep me warm through the upcoming winter nights, Incorrect. I thank you for your contributions to this page, but so far they have amounted to no edits and several personal attacks. May I though advise you that with less tolerant editors you'll find the former much more welcome than the latter, and if you talk to others the way you have to me, you will find yourself in hot water. Grace Note 07:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

I have to say that the criteria for inclusion here seem somewhat odd. I think that someone should be regarded as a Jew if their parents were Jews if there is no evidence to the contrary. Not for nothing are Jews considered to be a race under the UK's Racial Hatred Bill - it is a cultural thing as well as a religious one. For example, my father's family are Jewish, but my mother's family are not. I am not Bar Mitzvah and never go to shul. I do not believe in God. And yet, if I were notable, I would still want to be listed on here - the culture of Judaism is passed down over generations. --David.Mestel 19:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you were notable and wanted to be included in this list, all you'd have to do is be interviewed by a reputable news organization and tell them that you're Jewish (or regard yourself as such), or include it in one of the books you were notable for having written. :-) We're editing strictly in accordance with WP:V and WP:NOR, because people were adding names to the list who were neither Jewish nor British in some instances. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC) See previous discussion for more details. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names removed

I have removed several names from the list. Some are not sourced. Some do not meet the criteria. Some are sourced to websites, which, as discussed previously, are not acceptable as sources. Some are sourced to the Jewish Year Book, whose reliability as a source is in doubt. A list follows.

Arnold Weinstock, Lord Weinstock, Chairman of GEC - JYB 2002, p211

[edit] More removals to come

I was too short on time to do it today but I'm letting interested editors know that I am going to be checking out the entries on this page, particularly those that are sourced to websites. I saw quite a few in passing that did not look like they would pass but as I say, I didn't have the time to look into it. We have discussed this already. In keeping with our policies, it is not acceptable to use personal websites as sources on Wikipedia. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reputable sources if you are not clear what is allowable as a source. Lists of Jews on some guy's website are very unlikely to be reputable enough. Editorials on fly-by-night chatsheets are also very much below the standard we demand. These standards apply to all articles in Wikipedia. We don't have lower ones for lists. The following websites clearly do not meet the standard:

www.jinfo.org -- "JINFO.ORG has no outside organizational affiliation or sponsorship." Which means no oversight. www.jewsrock.org -- "It was born from a joke". Two guys with a website. www.jewishprblog.com -- Blogs are disreputable, almost by definition. www.televisionheaven.co.uk -- at best borderline. www.somethingjewish.co.uk -- two guys with a website.

Just because your website is flash, and you've got a designer in to make it look nice, does not make it any more than a personal website. We should keep that in mind. Consequently, if you want someone kept on the list who is sourced to one of these, or other similar, websites, start looking for other sources. These would not be acceptable sources for an article on, say, "Jewish culture", or on any of the people concerned, so they should not be acceptable for listing people here. I welcome comments, but please, if you just want to insult me, could you direct them to my talkpage? This page is for discussing the article's content, not your beliefs about my ancestry, criminality or whatever else. Grace Note 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The recent deletions

The recent deletions are either an indication of a bad policy or one that is being poorly applied.

  1. Why on earth is the Jewish Year Book not considered a good source?
  2. Some of the removals seem downright bizarre. Is there even the slightest doubt that Clement Freud is Jewish? Michael Epstein of Epstein-Barr fame? Georg Solti (born György Stern, name Magyarized to deflect anti-Semitism, but come on).

I could understand that if someone thinks the citations are weak they might add {{citationneeded}}, but removing obviously prominent British Jews from a list of British Jews does not do our readers any favors. And, again, why is there any problem with how these are sourced? At most, if there is some reason to doubt the Jewish Year Book as a source we should add a caveat to the article about why there might be some limitation on the value of the source, but that seems to me like exactly the sort of work one would normally go to in a library when trying to compile this sort of information. - Jmabel | Talk 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I read through all of the previous comments and still do not see the problem with citing from the Jewish Year Book. If the citations are not absolutely clear as to what edition, fine, lets clean the citations, but, again, we do not do our readers any favors when we remove obviously true information just because someone was slightly sloppy in their citation. If we followed that standard consistently, we would have to remove most of Wikipedia. If it weren't for WP:POINT, I'd be inclined to track down your "favorite" articles and go at it with equal lack of mercy, or even decency.
And just to be clear: no, I am not one of the authors of this article, and personally it's not an article I particularly care about. I just think that what Grace Note is doing here is a terrible approach in terms of improving Wikipedia.
Again, if there is a generally reliable source that may have some issues, we can explain those issues in a footnote, or in the references section. We have to do that sort of thing often with things like census data. But to say that it is "original research" to say that the Jewish Year Book is about Jews is to carry the concept of WP:NOR to the point of absurdity. This is like saying that it is original research in the Israel article to say that the land that is now Israel "was ruled by various Muslim states (interrupted by the rule of the Crusaders)" prior to becoming part of the Ottoman Empire. Has someone tracked down the names of each of those states and, for each found a citation explicitly calling each state "Muslim"? Of course not. Nor should they, unless there is some reason to doubt it. Compelling authors to cite for the obvious at every turn is a waste of everyone's time.
If there is actually reason to doubt that some individual mentioned in this article is a Jew, then absolutely ask for rock-solid citation. But where there is no reason for doubt, a routine level of citation should suffice. - Jmabel | Talk 12:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joe, the situation is more complicated. The accounts that mostly use the JYB have been determined to be multiple accounts operated by the same person, who has been using the JYB for several months while resisting almost all enquiries from several editors about the precise years being used (often, no year is entered) and what exactly the criteria for entry into the JYB are (it presumably says somewhere in its introduction). The same person has engaged in serious (i.e. defamatory) personal attacks against some of the editors making those enquiries. There is therefore a justifiable suspicion about the way in which the source is being used. For example, it could be the case that the names are identified as having Jewish ancestry without being Jewish themselves. After waiting several weeks for an answer to his last query about this, Grace Note decided to move some names to the talk page for alternative sourcing. He didn't delete them, but moved them to talk, per V and RS. The job now will be to find a good source for each name that shows the person in question has been identified as Jewish by a reliable publication, and not just as someone who has, say, a Jewish grandfather, because many of the names on this list have turned out to be along those lines; some of the names have even explicitly said in print that they are not Jews, yet were added here nevertheless. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of random removals of names simply because there is no source. {{citationneeded}} is your friend. Eric Moonman is president of the Zionist Federation and writes in the London Jewish News. Raymond Dwek went to Carmel College (only admitted halakhic Jews). Etc. In the vast majority of the above examples only the most superficial Googling is required.

The Jewish Year Book is fairly well researched. I have access to a recent copy and would be able to verify a short list of otherwise unverifiable people. I'm fully aware of the RB situation, but the behaviour of one editor should not mean that all her information is automatically discredited. JFW | T@lk 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jfd, it would be extremely helpful if you could check your copy and see whether it says anywhere (for example in the introduction) what their criteria for entry are. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why there is a problem with the Jewish Year Book as a source. It is edited by the president of the Jewish historical society and they would never put anyone in there who was not Jewish. Jayjg has agreed with this. It was stated above that all the JYB refs without a year were 2005 (and just to clear this up, Newport is RachelBrown's flatmate Lisa which is why they had the same ip address, Rachel left after she was bullied on this very same issue of the JYB). Arniep 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Another flatmate? Well, there's no problem with the JYB as such, Arnie. The problem is only that we can't get Newport or anyone else to tell us what it says, and in particular what its criteria for entry are. I'm not sure that Jayjg has agreed with any of this. I seem to recall him asking the same question somewhere, or perhaps it was the year he asked for. The point is that questions about the source go unanswered for weeks on end. I'm assuming by all the attention that Newport/Poetlister has been doing the usual e-mail thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)g
Rachel only has one flatmate Lisa, User:Newport who took on watching Rachel's articles and went on to add articles that Rachel was intending to create before she was driven away back in December because of bullying by other users in relation to the yearbook. Jayjg has specifically said above that if a person is in the Jewish Year Book that is an acceptable source for this list as he knows it is a reliable respectable publication. Arniep 18:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You have no idea how many flatmates someone in England may or may not have, Arnie, and it's anyway irrelevant; so long as the various accounts aren't posting together on the same pages as they used to, I don't care. I've also said the JYB is a respectable publication, by the way, but I'd still love to know what the criteria for entry are. I may e-mail them to ask. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have my own eyes and ears and I am quite sure that these people were all different, but as you say it is really irrelevent to this discussion. There is a description of the Year Book on the Vallentine Mitchell website:
"Updated annually, edited to provide the latest, up-to-date information, it includes contact details for Jewish institutions, local and international organisations, details on leading Jewish personalities, obituaries and major events as well as principal festivals and fasts." It doesn't say people of Jewish descent or anything else, it just says Jewish (as far as I am aware no people referenced with the JYB are not Jewish under Halakha). Arniep 22:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's very helpful, Arnie, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking at the kinds of publications that use the Jewish Year Book as a source and they're all respectable, including academics. I also came across a talk given by Israel Shahak, in which he says that Karl Popper rejected an approach to be included because he didn't believe in the concept of race and didn't practise Judaism. [45] If that's correct, it speaks well of the Jewish Year Book as a source because it means they're basing their entries on self-identification. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I hate to throw a spanner in the works here but I thought the rules that were agreed on specifically did not mention self identification, but just said a person must have been described as a Jew or Jewish in a reputable source. Insisting on self identification would be problematic for people considered Jewish under Halakha but who had converted to another religion for example. Arniep 01:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right; we don't require self-identification. I meant only that it's an extra thing in favor of the source because it indicates they check their entries carefully. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
So would you be OK in including Clement Freud even though he was in the JYB but asked to be removed as he is an Anglican (of course he is still considered Jewish under Halakha)? Arniep 01:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's a conflict: under WP:V, we need a source saying explicitly that he is Jewish (not of Jewish heritage, ancestory, whatever, but that he himself is Jewish) and you may be able to find one other than the JYB. However, under WP:BLP, we're expected to show extra sensitivity toward living persons, particularly regarding private issues that don't affect their notability. Clement Freud isn't famous for being Jewish, so that's regarded as a private matter. If he has expressed a strong view about it, and doesn't want to be identified as such, then we shouldn't go against that. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
OK (note his brother Lucien Freud hasn't expressed a wish to not be identified as Jewish/is not Anglican) [46] [47]. Arniep 02:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is none of the people who want to use the JYB as a source will do the following:

  1. State what the lists they are using have as headings.
  2. State what the sections the lists are in have as headings.
  3. State what leads them to believe that the JYB includes people on account of being Jewish and not of "Jewish ancestry" or being connected with the Jewish community in some way. I am concerned that an almanac might consider the "Jewish world" in a broader sense. We require sources that explicitly state that a person is Jewish, not ones from which we can infer they are.

It is of absolutely no account how certain you, I or any other editor is that someone is Jewish. I don't care if they're your own brother and you go to the synagogue together.

And I do not care how many "flatmates" Poetlister/RachelBrown/Newport claims to be. I treat their edits with the utmost suspicion, not least because they have been so evasive over a source that is not easily available to all here. They need only have typed in what the book says, after all. -- Grace Note.

GraceNote please try to be civil. If you look at the conversations above everyone except you now agrees that the JYB is a reliable source. SlimVirgin has agreed that they even remove people who do not wish to be identified as Jewish but are still Jewish under Halakha. I will restore any further removals that cite the Jewish Year Book. Arniep 02:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I am being perfectly civil. Until you or another of your faction provides the material I ask for, I will remove any names cited to the JYB. You have tried just about every argument under the sun to add unsourced names to this list and now you are wanting to do so by fiat. You'll have no more success with that than you did by claiming that we should include people who like smoked salmon.Grace Note 01:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Grace Note, the JYB's criteria for inclusion are no concern of ours. If there is a reliable source, like the JYB, to say that they are Jewish, then we should accept that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It would be OR to discuss the JYB's criteria. --David.Mestel 13:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

David, I simply do not care what the JYB's criteria for inclusion or anyone else's are, as I've stated several times. Others are saying "JYB removes people who do not want to be identified as Jewish" and draw conclusions from that, but I have said no such thing and I draw no conclusions from it. I only care what it says. Does it say "X is Jewish" or doesn't it? Until the editors who want to use it as a source provide clear information that it does, I will remove the names. I consider it a weak source to begin with and I'm very suspicious of those who want to use it but will not justify its use. Grace Note 01:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are you going so meschugge about British Jews? We don't need proof beyond reasonable doubt. Inclusion in the JYB provides evidence for inclusion, and, unless you can find evidence to the contrary, should stand. --David.Mestel 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria in article

Should a modified and shortened form of the criteria listed on the talk page be listed in the article as well? I believe so, and would add it, but I have very little knowledge of the issues behind the criteria. While the link to Who is a Jew? is interesting, it does not state which view is used in these lists. In fact, this particular list seems to be one of the few, if not the only, to give explicit criteria.

Also, to explain my addition of 'most likely' to the criteria: I believe that interpreting WP:NOR as not allowing the addition of anything not explicitly stated in a reliable source would create problems in a wide variety of other situations. For example, it would be very difficult to label pseudoscience and crackpots as such. There may be an unlikely situation where a person does not satisfy the criteria but should be included, but this should be discussed on the talk page first. --Philosophus T 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the criteria should not be included in the article, because they are precisely the same as the criteria for including anything in any article.

Philosophus, your problem is easily solved. Do not label people "crackpots" or "pseudoscientific" unless you can provide a reputable source that states that they are. Grace Note 06:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Cohen

I have removed Nick Cohen from the list, as he states explicitly that he is not Jewish: 'Although readers may have assumed he was Jewish because of his surname, he has written that, in fact, "there hasn’t been a Jewish member of [his] family for 100 years".' (Cited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cohen ). Like other editors, I cannot understand the logic of excluding the Jewish Year Book as a source. It strikes me as bizarre to remove someone like Eric Moonman. And many of the others removed are members or representatives of Jewish organisations, or otherwise publicly identified as Jews. In fact, the source cited for Nick Cohen's inclusion (http://www.bilderberg.org) is far less acceptable than the JYB, and hardly "reputable". How can you justify accepting their criteria, but not the JYB's, for determining whether someone is Jewish? RolandR 23:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plea for consistency

The policy at the top of this page says that someone should be included if there is a reliable source that he/she is Jewish. We have removed Clement Freud and David Aaronovitch, despite the presence of good sources, apparently because they say that they don't regard themselves as Jewish. Nick Cohen is possibly in the same camp, though RolandR regards the source as dubious. On the other hand, Christopher Hitchens has been deleted although he clearly regards himself as Jewish, presumably by an editor whose POV is that he's not Jewish enough. Following the policy for this article, we have to go by what the sources say, so presumably Hitchens should be restored. Comments? --Newport 13:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Year Book

I stopped editing here because the stupidty of those claiming the JYB wasn't a valid source got to be too much (particularly when an adminstrator temporarily banned me from further edits); after giving this further consideration, I realize the Wikep. should not be under the control of an "owner" of an article- I'm back, and I have no intention of letting this article be ruined by those who don't understand the rules of editing.Incorrect 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Hitchens

From the Observer, April 14, 2002: "He insists that he is Jewish" (from an interview with CH). Case closed!Incorrect 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I edited before checking in here. Can you provide a link to the article so everybody can read it?? I see no mention of his background in his main space and his biography makes him appear to be an atheist?? What gives?? Thanks! --Tom 17:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Here it is (and since it meets all the rules above, I have reversed your deletion)"http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,683899,00.htmlIncorrect 17:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a bit of controversy here, I quote the rule at the top of the article: "Someone is Jewish ONLY if there is a reputable source saying explicitly that they are Jews." We have an article in the mainstream media (the Observer) saying of CH: "He insists that he is Jewish" Any attempt to look at other articles, etc. to try and devine what CH "really" thnks is original research, supposedly verbotten here. According to rules, it doesn't make any difference if CH says he is Jewish because he admires Jews and always wanted to be one; because his mother was Jewish; because he saw in a dream that Disraeli was an ancestor; because he believe in reincarnation and thinks he is the reborn Moses - it makes no difference, once there is an identifycation of him as Jewish in a reputable source, he may be listed here. If you disagree, then that means you disagree with the rules this site seems to have established (against the will of the majority) and we need a new criteria for determining who should be listed (something I think actually should be done), but if the current rules are in effect, CH must stay on the list!Incorrect 18:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The article says that he is 1/32nd Jewish, whatever the heck that means. If the guy wants to say he is Jewish, I don't really care. What is the reason/agenda it is important to have him on this list or not?? My opinion, where is InShaneee when you need him (inside joke), is that we should be 110% certain the person fits into the category of the list before they are included?? Does somebody thinking/saying they are X qualify them for inclusion in "List of X persons"? This is one article where his descent is discussed and it remains vague imo. Also as an aside, not to offend my fellow Wiki Englishmen, I find the guardian to be a rag, even though I was told it's the equal to our NYTimes? They did a real hatch job on Philadelphia Eagles fans awhile back that still leaves a bad taste in my mouth to this date. Thanks! --Tom 19:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Tom appreciates what a ludicrous policy has been foisted on this page, a policy that differs from every other ethnic and religious list and category. Incorrect's summary is 100% correct. I don't like it, and would be delighted if Tom would e-mail me, formulate a more rational policy and substitute it for the present one. I tried and failed to do so on WP:VPP but would be happy to try again. The Guardian may be anti-Zionist, but it is scarcely a rag; it is not going to say that Mr Hitchens considers himself Jewish if he doesn't. --Newport 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Peter Hitchens refutes brother Christopher's claim and thus Peter should not appear in this list.--Zleitzen 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Z, you are correct, that's why I didn't.Incorrect 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see, it is claimed that his maternal grandmother's original surname was Levin. If that is true and Peter Hitchens claims that they are only 1/32 Jewish, then it must have been the paternal great grandfather of the Hitchenses grandmother who was originally Jewish so really not very Jewish at all, certainly not Jewish under Halakhah. David Cameron is coincidentally the same amount Jewish through his Levita ancestors- I'd imagine that a large percentage of European, N. African and mid east populations have at least that level of "Jewishness" so I'm not sure its listworthy. Arniep 23:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If the list Nazis prevent us from listing those we absolutely know are Jewish because we can't find a citation that says so, we sure as hell should list those who do fit the straight jacket qualifications.Incorrect 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
And regarding Halakhah law, Stella McCartney's daughter (if she has one by a non Jewish man)is just as Jewish as the Chief Rabbi , though by blood the daughter would only be 1/4 Jewish - and if the daughter had a further daughter by a non Jewish man, while the further daughter would only be 1/8 Jewish by blood, the further daughter would be 100% Jewish under Jewish law - so the % of "Jewish blood" is irrelevant under Jewish law as to whether someone is a Jew or not.Incorrect 02:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I know that but Hitchens still wouldn't be Jewish under Halakhah as it was the father of his grandmother who had Jewish ancestry not the mother/maternal line. Arniep 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewishness

Please note that under the rules that control this site (with which I disagree), the listing of CH has NOTHING to do with his having 1/32 Jewish blood, or 0 Jewish blood - all that counts is that a reputable source says he is Jewish. Since the Observer article says CH says he is Jewish , that is all that matters. I would be happy if a concensus were reached on a new definition of who to include on this list, but that seems to be what we are stuck with (and btw, why are we assuming Peter Hitchens, who is from his articles a firm, believing Christian, is truthful about the amount of Jewish ancestry in the Hitchens family - he wouldn't be the first part Jewish person to deny their Jewish background cf. Madelyn Albright).Incorrect 02:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is of absolutely no account what your, my or anyone else's view of Hitchen's ethnicity is. If you have a reputable source that says he is Jewish, which you do, you may include him, which you may. This is exactly the same condition for including anything in any article in this encyclopaedia. Please let me remind those who believe that because it's true that person X is Jewish he or she should be included that the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We report what others report, that is all. Grace Note 06:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note is right. If the result seems odd, it's not the fault of the editors, but of the policy. 20.138.246.89 09:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
As I have discussed before, I do not think what people say about their own ethnicity can be considered a reliable source unless it is clear they have researched the matter or referenced some other detailed research. Many things people say are published in reputable sources, but that doesn't mean what they said was reliable. Most people who do not actually research their family themselves don't know anything reliable about their own ancestry. As it appears Peter Hitchens has said he has researched their ancestry thoroughly, and they are not in fact Jewish I think we should consider this a more reliable source than C. Hitchens claim to be Jewish just because his maternal grandmother said her surname was originally Jewish (note she did not say her mother was Jewish). Arniep 13:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I am still wondering why its so dam important that this guy be listed in this "article/list". I hate these lists for this exact reason, its SUBJECTIVE. A list of "the 50 States of America" or "the Prime Ministers of UK" ect leave alot less wiggle room. This list is like the list of "Anti-semetic people", it's open to interpretation no matter what the definition/policy at the top of the list says...IMO, oh course :) --Tom 13:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think people are mistaken in thinking that anything published in a reputable source can be considered a reliable source unless it is clear that source has some kind of expertise or reputation for reporting those kind of facts accurately. I do not believe the Guardian/Observer or any other newspaper check statements made about people's ancestry for reliability, therefore I do not believe that they can be considered a reliable source in this context. Only sources that have some kind of expertise and are known to do detailed research should be considered reliable for such purposes (i.e. the Jewish Year Book or Jewish Chronicle- if Hitchens really was Jewish he would have been listed in these by now)). Arniep 14:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
A, following your logic I can no longer consider myself Jewish because I'm not listed in the JYB? Hmmm, guess all my Torah study classes are really part of a comparatve religion project I didn't know I was working on.Incorrect 14:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
And GN, you have missed the whole point of the argument regarding who should be included on this list - no one (except perhaps A) is arguing for original research, we are all willing to only list those who are "identified" in a reputable source on this list - the argument is over what that "identification" must consist of - you have single handedly bullied this site into only allowing the "identification" to be "xyz is a jew [or Jewish}." Most of the rest of us, in a manner consistent with other lists on Wikipedia, want to accept the "identification" to be xyz has Jewish parents...or grew up in a Jewish family, etc. There is nothing in the Wikipedia rules to prevent a list that is identified this way - but you continue to interpret them in a way that's unique to the site.Incorrect 14:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It isn't "dam important" that Hitchens in particular is included. However, given that he was listed, and it appears that under the rules it is correct to list him, it is wrong to remove him. Arniep: the Jewish Year Book cannot purport to list every Jew in the country. It does not, for example, list my local Borough councillor, who is Jewish. How do you know that the Jewish Chronicle has never mentioned that Christopher Hitchens is Jewish? Can we please now drop the subject; we're all on th esame side here, trying to improve this list within the straitjacket we have.--Newport 16:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, obviously the Jewish Year Book doesn't list everyone who is Jewish, just notable people, and Hitchens is notable. I think the main problem here is people thinking that everything in a reputable source has to be considered a reliable source on all subjects which is obviously not the case. Arniep 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Newport, you say "and it appears that under the rules it is correct to list him" has that been decided, 110%?? The discussion is over?? Using a rambling interview from the guardian where CH says he always knew he was Jewish or had a dream about being Jewish or a grandmother saying she came from Jews or however it went just doesn't seem to make it 110% certain he should be listed here. The point that he was on here so now taking him off would mean, err, what?? I added/changed/deleted/revised stuff all the time after having time to think about it and research it more. That's one of the nice things I find about Wikipedia. Anyways, it seems like this is SO subjective so please leave him on. I am going over to the List of Greeks to see if Pete Sampras has been added back on..AGAIN :) Cheers! --Tom 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems correct to me, under the rules here. There is certainly no rule, here or anywhere on Wikipedia, that things have to be proved 110%. Is it claimed that an exceptional standard of proof is needed before we can say that someone is Jewish, a higher standard than for other facts? If so, why? --20.138.246.89 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, no higher standard for ANYBODY, be they a POLE, GREEK or JEW. The way I am working these lists is I am looking at the person in question via POP UPS (awesome tool). If it says "Joe Blow was a Greek tight rope walker" done, he is in the list of Greeks. If is says he was an American tight rope walker of Greek descent, he goes in the Greek-American list, and so on and so on. Now this list is a little more tricky because the bios here DON'T say Joe Blow was a British-Jewish whatever, and it SHOULDN'T according to WP:MOSBIO. So we/I/you/whoever needs to SOURCE that the person in question is CONSIDERED to be Jewish. How do we do that??? I GIVE UP!! :) And again the guardian NEVER EVER EVER said CH=Jewish. It was a RAMBLING interview with CH, no more, no less. Anyways, what were we arguing here in the first place??? Cheers!! --Tom 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
One more ramble now that I read the top definition again. If Christopher Hitchens says "I am Jewish, hear my voice" or whatever, fine, put him on the list. I am not of the camp to say he can't do that or can't be on this list no matter what, ect. OK, everybody had it with me now?? Good :) I am out! --Tom 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I assert that C.Hitchens is not a reliable source :-) Arniep 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
A, you're being ironic, right?Incorrect 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. Just because someone is respected in certain areas, it doesn't mean they are reliable in all subject areas (genealogical history in this case). Arniep 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dozens of Additional Jews

Charles Moore, in today's Telegraph, in a great article, lists dozens of addtional Jews (in the course of writing an article about the contribution of Jews to Britain); suggest those who enjoy this list read the article, start adding Jews! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/06/17/do1702.xml incorrect


[edit] craig david and gwyneth paltrow

http://www.nndb.com/people/449/000109122/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwyneth_Paltrow (jewish father) please edit that

[edit] Sam Mendes

Sam Mendes was recently removed with the comment "Sam Mendes Source does not say that he was actually Jewish nor does it state his religion. Furthermore source must comply with guidelines in WP:RS not a blog etc.

To address the latter point first: The New York Times is not a blog. I cannot imagine the relevance of this remark.

To address the first point, as I understand it, this article is about people who are Jewish by ethnicity, not about religiously practicing Jews. If his mother was a Jew (which the article says), then he is a Jew. Jewish ethnicity is matrilineal. - Jmabel | Talk 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Furthermore source must comply with guidelines in WP:RS not a blog etc." Where does it say New York Times is a blog? New York Times says Mendes mother is Jewish. We do not have a source calling SAM MENDES himself as Jewish. We only have a source calling his mother Jewish. We need a reference that says Mendes is Jewish in order to add him. See more information here: Talk:Alexander_Grothendieck by User:Jack O'Lantern. Please read "Welcome to Famous Jews Interactive - the world's most entertaining and accurate resource of its kind. Why 'interactive'? Because YOU add new names, YOU vote for your favorites, YOU make this site special!" According to WP:RS, such site is not a reliable source any more than an interactive forum or blog or a wiki mirror. Also one should read the mission statement on this site [48]. We don't use Jew Watch as a source either and for similar reasons. In order to add Mendes we need something that outright calls him "Jewish" and complies with WP:RS. 72.144.183.128 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above is correct (as everyone who has worked on this page knows from what is outlined at the top of the page anyway, and hardly needs it explained again). Also noting - Jewish ethnicity is not matrilineal. Ethnicity/genetics are simply the same everywhere. Jewish religion is, however, matrilineal in some of the demoninations (i.e. unlike other religions, if you were not raised Jewish but your mother was Jewish, you are free to join the congregration without formally converting, while, say, if your mother or father were Catholic you have to convert to Catholicism if you were not raised Catholic), but that has nothing to do with anything but the Who is a Jew? article. As for Sam Mendes, we need sources that directly call Mendes Jewish. This, [49] is one. Mad Jack 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the last Mendes reference; it's not a site that votes on whether people are jewish, but a site that lists Jews and asks people to vote on them. Coupled with Mad Jack's new ref, that's pretty conclusive. On Ian Buruma, there's no need to flag him just because the old ref has gone; WP:AGF, it was good enough. However, I have found another.--20.138.246.89 09:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just where did those criteria at the top of the page come from? If I read them correctly, the phrase "was raised in a very traditional Jewish family" would not be sufficient to identify someone as a Jew, nor would "is a member of Congregation B'nai Israel". In fact, I suppose one could make a case that someone being a rabbi would not suffice. This seems truly bizarre. There is such a thing as carrying WP:NOR to the point of absurdity, where one can do nothing but quote other sources verbatim. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I suppose so, but that's not even the case this time. We were clearly in a situation where the source just said "Jewish mother" and nothing else although, of course, we have since found a source that said Mendes himself is Jewish. In general, I haven't really seen any cases like the one you suggested where there wasn't a source somewhere that explicitly called the person Jewish. Mad Jack 05:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria were devised by User:Grace Note, not otherwise a regular editor of this article, and adopted after a vote, where again most of the contributors were not users who had otherwise contributed to this article. It's in the talk archive.--20.138.246.89 09:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this "criteria" is used in every list and article on Wikipedia. It's basic Wiki policy. There's not even, really, a point in having it at the top of this page. Mad Jack 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Most lists of Jews explicitly include people of Jewish descent, though obviously a source still needs to be produced.--20.138.246.89 17:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why have this section at all?

I am fascinated by the more-heat-than-light discussions that are attached to this page (and indeed many other pages with Jews/Israeli/anything-to-do-with-the-Middle-East content).

Why do we neeed this page at all?

We don't have a 'List of British Christians' or 'List of British Atheists' (do we?!)

I'd prefer the energy consumed on this page to be devoted to other articles. (But if you really enjoy the debates, then please keep enjoying them!)

One other odd thing I noticed was several pages which are in this category, but the fact that they are Jewish is not even mentioned in the article! (Some of these people I know quite well - the fact that they are/are not Jewish is completely irrlevant to the reason they are in Wikipedia.)

Johnbibby 11:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Mainly, we have pages like this on minority groups. In general, the assumption when someone is described as "British" is that they are Celtic or Germanic ancestry. So it can be interesting to quite a few people to list Britishers who are not. - Jmabel | Talk 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husserl

Was he really British? I cannot find any source where it says that he lived in Britain.

Settembrini 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I'll move him to the List of Czech Jews.--20.138.246.89 08:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Sandor

Sandor is British? She was born in Hungary and lived in Canada, now US. When did she live in the UK and for how long? And since when are all "Holocaust survivors" Jews? 141.213.212.16 23:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British, British Citizen

Given that this is a list of British Jews, personalities who spend some time in Britain, even a significant part of their life, cannot be added unless they can be defined as British through the British_nationality_law#Acquisition_of_British_citizenship. Therefore, for every personality who is born outside of Britain, and doesn't fulfill some method that could qualify for an acquisition of British citizenship, a reliable source must be given which refers to them as "British." List of British Asian people seems to be using this standard pretty well; it should be used as a guide, though I'm sure there may be some questionable entries there too. 141.213.212.16 00:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two more?

I couldn't find sources for these, but maybe someone else can. 82.45.203.48 10:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_British_Jews_9377.html"