Talk:List of British Jews/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Definition

What definition is being used for this list? I'm seeing names of people who had one Jewish parent but were raised as Christians, or Jack Straw, who had one Jewish grandparent. That's not what it is to be Jewish. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We're doing this as mostly an ethnicity-based list, just like we do every other xxx-American or xxx-British list. The criteria we use for the lists and for the categories are 1/4 and no less. This is the standard for every ethnic group category or list and I really don't think that "Jewish" should be an exception. Thus, I am restoring Straw. I honestly urge you to go to the Italian-Americans list and start questioning the listing of Robert DeNiro, who has just one Italian grandparent since no doubt you would only ever question the Jewish lists. Vulturell 06:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Vulturell, when you say "we" use the 1/4 principle for every ethnicity-based list, who are "we"? I've never seen this written down anywhere as a standard. This is not how Jews define themselves, so in using this principle, you're adding names of people who do not consider themselves Jewish and who are not considered such by any of the Jewish denominations. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

By Slimvirgin's logic, Jack Straw should certainly be included; since his mother's mother was Jewish, he is considered Jewish by even the most orthodox Jews. - RachelBrown 14:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Rachel, do you know why it says one grandparent was Jewish, if in fact his mother was? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I can only find that one of his grandfathers was a Jew. What is your source, Rachel? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The source that is usually quoted is [1] - RachelBrown 15:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That source says that he had a Jewish great-grandmother. So using the 1/4 principle Vulturell says WP ethnicity lists use, Straw should not be listed. This is a good example of what's wrong with these lists. No agreed criteria for entry, sources that contradict each other, inclusion of people who don't self-identify. It's not exactly encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Need for sources

I've just added an invisible note to the top of page saying that no further names should be added without supplying a credible source. The Jack Straw example, and the fact that an anon IP has just added three names without sources, convinces me that there's a need to be more rigorous about which names are added. These pages are subject to the same editorial polices as any other, and all edits have to conform to WP:NOR and WP:V. These policies are particularly important in the case of a page like this, which has the potential to cause someone a real-life problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm yeahhh if I hear the phrase "this is how Jews define themselves" etc. one more time I am going to puke. Excuse me, but you are not referring to ALL Jews, just certain religious denominations of Judaism. You are forgetting about secular Jews, etc. etc. AND we are not, I repeat, not using a special rule for Jewish people. We have to use the same standard for every ethnic group, otherwise it's POV. Are you sure that only his great-grandmother is Jewish? If that's the case than he should not be listed. But all news reports that mention his Jewish ancestry always mention a Jewish grandparent, not great-grandparent. Oh, and the whole "Self-Identify" thing is crap and not encyclopedic. How are we going to start measuring the degree to which people identify/not identify with something? What if some old hag actress doesn't "self-identify" herself as being born in 1900, and says she was born in 1910 despite it being a fact that she was born in 1900? Are we going to have to remove her from "1900 births" because she doesn't identify with being born that year? The only category where self-identification is important is religion. It's wrong to use it for ethnicity as ethnicity is a fact, regardless of what you think of yourself. Vulturell 19:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Here is the cache version (the article itself seems to be gone) http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=%22Jack+straw%22+jewish+grandfather&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=www.jewishtelegraph.co.uk/nat_1.html&w=%22jack+straw%22+jewish+grandfather&d=H-Rk6Y6CLwSO&icp=1&.intl=us

of an article about Straw's grandparent. Says here his grandfather was a German Jewish refugee. Sounds to me like he's 1/4. If you can find me a good source that he only has a great-grandparent I would be glad to de-list him, since I hate politicians and would much rather list actors anyway. Sorry, I just re-read it and it sounds like his mother is 1/4. You're right (about Straw that is, not the standards we should use for listing), Straw has been mis-reported as being 1/4 by most forms of media, he doesn't fit the standard here and I will remove him if anyone else adds him. Thank you for bringing it up.Vulturell 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, there's no need to be aggressive. Second, you write as though you don't understand what ethnicity means. It's not the same as race. Third, the article Rachel linked to is by Nick Cohen, a reliable journalist who spoke directly to Straw about this, and who says he has one great-grandparent who was Jewish; the article you linked to is consistent with this, where Straw's mother says her paternal grandfather was a Jew. So the 1/4 principle that you're advocating doesn't apply, according to both sources. Also, can you please show me where the 1/4 principle was agreed to?
As for whether Jews should be allowed to decide who is Jewish, Americans get to decide who is American, Brits get to decide who is British. Why should Jews be any different? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you missed my correction about Straw. Again you used this phrase "Jews should be allowed to decide who is Jewish" which is WRONG, WRONG WRONG WRONG. It refers to CERTAIN RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS OF JUDAISM, not even all of them and certainly not secular Jews. It's a POV sentence which really means we should let you and a few of your Wikipedia buddies decide who is Jewish. Why doesn't anyone ever say "We should let Italians decide who is Italian" on the Italian-American page? "Americans get to decide who is American" is such a crap POV sentence that doesn't mean anything, just like "Jews should decide who is Jewish". "Jewish" is not a nationalitty but an ethnic and a religious group. We should use the SAME STANDARD for every ethnic group otherwise it is INCONSISTANT and POV. 1/4 always seemed reasonable. If you want it cut down to 1/2 go ahead and try and propose it somewhere, but we would have to use that standard for EVERY ETHNIC GROUP again, not just Jews.Vulturell 19:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
No, in your opinion, it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. As I say, you're indicating that you don't know what ethnicity is. Are you arguing that someone with one Celtic grandparent, but who is otherwise African, should be categorized as a Celt? If yes, can you show me an example of this, or anything similar, on Wikipedia? I ask again: can you show me where this 1/4 principle was agreed to? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you trying to tell me that Jewish isn't an ethnicity, and neither is English/Irish/Swedish? That "ethnicity" is not a clearly-defined concept and only race - i.e. clear distinctions like black and white is verifiable? Are you thus trying to tell me that we should use a religious point of view because the Jewish ethnicity doesn't really exist on the level that I'm saying it is? I'm saying that person would be categorized under BOTH Celts AND Africans. If this was a list of Americans then certain people would be under a few (limited to 4) ethnic categories. I proposed this 1/4 thing on the List Of Jews in August and a few people found it reasonable. Since then I've cut down and cut up most of the ethnic-American (and the British Jews) categories and lists to fit this standard. This is not a formal policy but it s commonly accepted whenever I bring it up. If you don't like it, fine, but EVERY ETHNICITY BASED LIST AND GROUP would have to be altered, not just Jewish ones. And, are you also saying that it is only "my opinion" that the phrase "Jews should decide who is Jewish" is the worst piece of crap POV sentence ever said? Yes, it is. What does "Jews" in the context of that sentence refer to? Religious Orthodox Jews? Reform Jews? Secular ethnic Jews who don't practice the religion? You? Me?Vulturell 20:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that most Jews regard themselves as members of a nation, which includes people who identify as Jews in virtue of ethnicity and in virtue of religious observance.
Your having mentioned the 1/4 principle on a talk page in August isn't what's meant by it being a Wikipedia standard, I'm afraid. I'm sure there are people who would disagree with the phrase "Jews should decide who is Jewish," but you may be the only one who believes it's the "worst piece of crap POV sentence ever said." I suppose my argument is if I had to choose between you deciding who is a Jew, and the Jewish people deciding, the latter would be marginally preferable.
I notice elsewhere you wrote that you are "sick, sick, sick, sick" of seeing the Jewish lists and categories singled out, which must mean you hear these objections a lot. You should therefore pay them some heed. Your argument here and elsewhere that "the same standard has to be used for every ethnicity and religion" is, again, an invention of yours. This is not written down anywhere. We publish what reputable sources publish, according to our editorial policies, particularly WP:NOR and WP:V. We don't publish your original research regarding what you believe membership of an ethnicity is. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Again you use this phrase "the Jewish people", but the problem is there is not a clear-cut defintion. You're saying we should use different standards for ethnicities? Isn't that POV? This isn't research, this is a statement. I am telling you that it's taking a particular point of view to use one standard for one ethnicity, and a different standard for another. Isn't that correct? If not, why is it incorrect? I never said that the 1/4 is an official Wikipedia policy, though it probably should be in order to avoid all this confusion and endless discussion. I'm saying that that is the standard that the editors who work on these and other category and ethnicity-based lists usually agree to, and those who don't know about it say it sounds like a good idea when I bring it up.Vulturell 20:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Different ethnic groups have different standards of membership, and we should reflect those, because all we're supposed to do on Wikipedia is publish what other published sources say. We're not allowed to insert our own opinions or make up our own definitions. The definitions used by the major denominations say you're Jewish if (a) your mother was a Jew and you don't practise any other religion, (b) either parent was a Jew and you practise Judaism or in some other way self-identify, or (c) you convert. There are other definitions: for example, those used by the Israeli government. My point is that we should use the definitions of third-party authoritative sources, not your definition or mine. Or else change the name of the page to "List of British people who have Jewish ancestry," then you can include someone who had a great-great-great-great grandparent who was a Jew (though you'd still have to include a source).
As things stand, with your 1/4 principle for being a Jew and for being a Brit, a Muslim from Pakistan born and raised in Islamabad, whose parents were Muslims born and raised in Islamabad, could be entered onto this list if his father's father was Jewish and had briefly been married to a British woman giving him British nationality. And you know what? Adding that person's name to this list could get him killed. That's how, as you might say, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG this is. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, really? It's funny but what exactly is the rule for Armenian-Americans? Or Italian-Americans? I know the Italian mafia has a rule that you can only be made if you're 100% Italian, does that mean we're going to be using that rule from now on? The Italian mafia rule and the Jewish religion rule are both NOT ETHNIC RULES, they are either cultural (for the Italians) or religious (for religious Jews rule). Like I said this is ethnicity-based therefore NONE of the rules you just mentioned apply here because they are both DISTINCTLY religious rules. And if you're worried for that poor fellow's life than I am happy not to include him! (smiles) BUT THINK ABOUT IT LOGICALLY - if having a Jewish grandfather could get him killed WHY WOULD HE TELL ANYONE?? And if he doesn't tell anyone than HOW THE HECK DO WE KNOW ABOUT IT AND PUT IT ON THE LIST?? We only know about the 1/4 ancestry of whichever people because they've CHOSEN TO REVEAL IT TO THE PRESS. We don't hire private detectives to follow people around and find out their ancestry before we put it on. Every 1/4, 1/2 and 100% person on here is from a media source, and if they aren't I wish you would point someone out and I will be glad to see them removed if we can't confirm they are 1/4 Jewish or whichever, like Straw (who I thank you for). Vulturell 21:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition of a Jew?

If we use the definition that Orthodox Jews use, it's whether you have a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother or maternal great-grandmother or ... Thus you can have three grandparents or seven great-grandparents who are Jewish yet not be Jewish; conversely, you can be 1/8 Jewish and undoubtedly Jewish.

I believe that British Liberal Jews say that you have to have one Jewish parent and be brought up Jewish (whatever that means). Thus whereas Olivia Newton-John would be regarded as Jewish by Orthodox Jews because she had a Jewish mother's mother's mother (and mother's father), she would not be regarded as Jewish by Liberal Jews.

No doubt you could get many other definitions by doing a poll of different denominations or groups. - RachelBrown 20:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, exactly right. And we can't use ANY of the above definitions if we are dealing with this as an ethnicity based list, because we don't use an Armenian-great grandmother law for Armenian-Americans. We have to use the same rule for every group. I think we need to pool together and write a policy that will be on every ethnicity based list and category, once and for all. I propose having a grandparent of whichever ethnicity for inclusion. 1/8th is too distant and 1/2 sometimes doesn't tell the whole story. 1/4 influences you, in some ways, ethnically, culturally, etc. How about it?Vulturell 20:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Where does it say we have to use the same rule for every group? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Because we're not supposed to be POV. If we use a rule for one group different than the rest, wouldn't that be taking a particular POV?Vulturell 21:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
No, exactly the opposite. We're supposed to publish the published POVs of other people and groups. You, on the other hand, want to impose your POV on all ethnicities, regardless of what those communities say about themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"The definitions used by the major denominations say you're Jewish if (a) your mother was a Jew and you don't practise any other religion, (b) either parent was a Jew and you practise Judaism or in some other way self-identify, or (c) you convert." This isn't the half of it. To an orthodox Jew, a Jew who practises another religion is still Jewish - just a sinner. Beyond doubt, different groups will have different rules, and of course they may not recognise each other's conversions. Do we need to put after each name "Recognised as Jewish by Orthodox/American Reform/British Liberal/B'nai B'rith" or whatever? - RachelBrown 21:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We're supposed to be using particular group's POVS? That's news to me. Maybe in that case we should use particular Muslim groups' POVs on the Ariel Sharon article. The whole point of Wikipedia - or ANY encyclopedia - is that we don't use a POV for any group. We write articles, lists, categories, etc. from a neutral point of view. I propose a 1/4 for inclusion on ETHNICITY - not RELIGION - ETHNICITY based lists. If you agree great, if you disagree then you also disagree on using this rule for EVERY OTHER ethnic group.Vulturell 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't keep replying here because this conversation is too depressing. I'm starting to feel as though I'm in Nazi Germany. All I can do is encourage you to review WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. These state jointly that we publish majority and significant-minority views that have been published by reputable sources. We don't insert our own opinions. We don't invent our own definitions. We don't publish tiny-minority views. And any edit challenged by another editor has to be backed up by a reputable source or it may be deleted by anyone. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
What edit are you talking about? And again with this Nazi Germany crap. The problem here is that you're limiting this discussion to Jews only, while I am talking about EVERY ETHNIC GROUP, which you don't seem to care about. Don't you realize that Ethnic Jews have NO criteria for inclusion? That the Jewish mother/etc. rules are RELIGIOUS laws? That Armenian-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans and indeed secular ethnic Jewish Americans have NO previously-published press-released criteria for ETHNIC inclusion? I am saying this and other lists like it are primarily ethnicity based, in which case there are no press-released POV's by these groups on inclusion. We have to use the 'same standard' for every ethnic group and what I am trying to do is to make a decision - right here - right now - on a policy that we can copy-and-paste on every ethnic group list and category page once and for all. Help me make this decision if you want to - agree with my 1/4 proposal for every group or disagree with it - but don't pointlessly stir up trouble.Vulturell 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We need some definition. SlimVirgin's proposal to use the definition that Jews themselves use fails because she can't say what it is - there are several different definitions, depending on whom you ask. What is wrong with Vulturell's proposal? - RachelBrown 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The criteria for right of settlement in Israel is one jewish grandparent. Arniep 22:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. That's the argument I used in August, it's Israel's own law of return for ethnic Jews - the 1/4 criteria. Same rule for every other ethnicity. I had no clue that SlimVirgin was a she. Also, I am going to be bold and try and alter the definition on List of British Jews. I am going to create a separate section for converts, in order to push the idea that it's an ethnicity-based list.Vulturell 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
There. Done. Only 3 converts! I am surprised there weren't more.Vulturell 23:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Vulturell, regardless of which definition you're use, you have to abide by our policies. WP:V and WP:NOR, both of which are mandatory, say that reputable sources must be provided. I'm asking that you provide reputable sources from now on, or the edits will be removed. I've restored the disputed tag, as we're not allowed simply to delete it once someone has added it, and I've added the OR tag. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page, but please post here so others can join in if they want to. I'm requesting sources. We may tag so long as we suggest changes that are consistent with our policies. Providing sources is consistent with, and in fact mandated by, our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. I'm not questioning the need for sources, but I am asking you sources for what, and in which way do you want to present them? I am also asking you what you are referring to specifically when you say "original research". Vulturell 08:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Original research is an unverified claim, opinion, or argument, or your own synthesis or analysis of verified information, put forth to create or bolster a particular position. For example, the claim that Jack Straw is a Jew is original research, because it had no source and because whoever added it was using their own made-up definition of "Jew" (in Straw's case, that he had one great-grandparent who had been Jewish). To avoid original research, you have to provide reputable sources for your edits in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:V, which are policy, and preferably also use one of the agreed definitions, rather than inventing one of your own; and then make clear what that definition is, and link to a reputable source supporting it, at the top of the page, so that all entries are consistent with it.
As for how to present the sources, see WP:CITE for some guidelines. The easiest would be to provide an embedded link after the name to an online source, or a Harvard reference to an offline one, then add a full citation in a References section. Or you could use footnotes. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's stretching it a bit. Whoever added Jack Straw did not claim that he was Jewish. They just claimed that he had a Jewish grandparent, and that was reported by a lot of media sources around the time they were writing about that anti-Semitic politician who claimed that Blair had a Jewish cabal or whatever. So Straw was neither original research nor even incorrect information, because a lot of reliable media sources made that mistake as well. And I still thank you for pointing it out but you can't claim it's all "original research" when all of it is reported in media sources. Next, are you saying that there has to be a footnote beside EVERY SINGLE PERSON LISTED HERE?? I hope you realize that the large majority of these people are mentioned as being Jewish in their Wikipedia entry. Click on any random section of names and you'll see that. It would be awkward and going too far to have a citation beside every person, and it would be singling out this article from all other lists, articles, etc. for such abuse. You can't just claim that this article is "original research" and "can't be verified" without citing specific examples. Otherwise people could just go around Wikipedia, pick any article that they don't like, and call it unverifiable since obviously there isn't a single Wiki article out there that cites every single fact that they mention about the person in the article. You have got to be specific. Vulturell 20:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I just noticed you had reverted all my edits when you added the tags? Why on earth did you do that for? I didn't even add any names then, I took out red links and I tweaked the list a bit to make it better. Check before you revert, and don't revert it again or I'll just revert it back.Vulturell 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway

Ignoring this whole bloody mess, I was starting a discussion and proposed we use the 1/4 - granparent rule for all ethnicity-based categories and lists. Arniep and RachelBrown seemed to agree, I don't know what the heck SlimVirgin thinks since she only talks about religious Jewish laws that have got nothing to do with this. So, what does everyone else think? We need to have some sort of official, or at least commonly accepted, policy that we can paste around these kinda lists and cats.Vulturell 20:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

We can't make up rules for who is a Jew or who is not - that's original research, and we've already had this discussion at Talk:List of Jews, where you made the exact same proposal, to little agreement. Articles must follow Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE. The only people on these lists should be people who have either publicly identified themselves as Jews, or who have been publically identified by reputable sources as Jews. For now we could also include those people who are listed in their own articles as being Jews, but eventually those claims will need to follow Wikipedia rules as well. I think we're going to have to work through these lists person by person, removing the un-cited chaff. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you understand - these people do fit your criteria (i.e. reputable sources or publically identified, etc.). The proposal on List of Jews is the way that list has been managed from then on as far as I can tell, and the way all the other ethnicity-based lists and categories have been as well. Also, can we please stop discussing Jews specifically, I would like a common rule for all ethnic group lists.Vulturell 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jay that "the only people on these lists should be people who have either publicly identified themselves as Jews, or who have been publically identified by reputable sources as Jews." However, we're not allowed to use other WP articles as sources, so if they're identified as Jews in their own articles, that isn't confirmation enough for these lists: whatever sources those articles used should be used here too. It's just a question of sticking to WP:NOR and WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Vulturell, you miss the point: in coming up with your own definition, you're engaged in original research. You can only call someone Celtic, Jewish, or whatever, if a credible publication has already done so, and then you cite that publication. There's no need for your own definition. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
If these people do fit Wikipedia's criteria, then it should be quite easy to find reputable sources for them. And these rules certainly should apply to all Lists, but I'm focussing on these ones. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Vurturell, please don't move comments around on the page after people have responded. I've reverted your edits again, because you changed the invisible comment adding that people have to provide a source when removing an edit, which is absurd and not what the policies say, and also because you added your own definition to the intro, which is a violation of NOR. I strongly encourage to read our policies. If you want to change them, feel free to try to do that on the policy talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. What I am saying is that I've edited every list to include a person of 1/4 that ethnicity, and of course I've only used reliable sources. I'm not sure if you're aware of this. Are you challenging - the accuracy? Or the 1/4 rule? For Jewish people, that is Israel's own Law of Return. The rule seems reasonable for other ethnicities. I hardly think it's fair to list someone like Christina Ricci, who has an Italian great-great-grandfather, under Italian Americans even if that anestry has been acknowledged in an interview. Just tell me exactly what you're object/agreeing to here. And remember I'm talking about ethnicity based lists, not religion, so don't talk about any of the Jewish religious laws please.Vulturell 21:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The Law of Return doesn't define who is Jewish, only who is entitled to citizenship under that piece of legislation. This page is for discussing List of British Jews, so please stick to that topic. You can't come up with your own definitions, religious or otherwise. You can only list someone as Jewish here if a reputable publication has named them as such regardless of the definition they use. Please understand and accept that. You can't claim policy exceptions for these pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
We've talked about the 1/4 rule before - even if it were relevant, it is not used by Israel to define who is a Jew, and it is a distortion to continually repeat that it is. More importantly, Wikipedia can't make up rules, 1/4 or anything else. I will repeat, it must cite reputable sources which state that a person is a Jew (including the person themselves). "1/4" is entirely POV. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"1/4" is an ethnic distinction. And again you've cornered this subject into Jews. We have to have the exact same rule for every ethnicity based list. I would like to hear what exactly is your definition for, say, "List of Italian-Americans"? What would be the criteria for inclusion?Vulturell 21:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You should discuss that on the appropriate page, but it should be the same i.e. if already published by a reputable publication. NOT your own preferred definition. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"1/4" is your own made-up rule, which goes against Wikipedia policy, and as this is the Talk: page for List of British Jews, it seems entirely reasonable to "corner this subject into Jews". However, in answer to your question, they should all follow Wikipedia policy, which insists on proper citation for claims. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, you haven't my question and frankly I don't care anymore. You two enjoy throwing various Wikipedia policies at me as if they directly support what you're saying, but they don't. "Original research" would involve claiming someone is Jewish or part Jewish based on private research i.e. information that doesn't appear in an online or written source, etc. I.e. if I said I know someone personallly and they're Jewish.

The whole point of this part of the discussion was to agree on a policy pretaining to EVERY SINGLE ETHNICITY BASED LIST, i.e. the SAME RULES for every list since that is the only fair way to do it, and making an exception for a particular ethnicity is POV, since it would be taking a particular point of view different than the ones we use for the other lists. I am making a new section for this discussion below and I am asking you to only answer it in general terms, not referring distinctly to British or Jews. We need to have a stable policy in order to avoid this kind of brain-numbing discussion.Vulturell 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did answer your question. All Lists should follow the policies listed above, which is simply Wikipedia policy. Almost nothing on this list uses proper sources, it's all original research as far as I can tell. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed

I've removed "for reasons of completion, the list usually includes people who are of one quarter or half, but no less, Jewish ancestry, in which case that distinction is noted," from the intro, as a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The list should include names already published as Jews, regardless of any preference individual editors may have for a particular definition.

I've also removed Ludwig Wittgenstein. Could anyone who wants to re-add him please supply a source showing he was (a) a Jew, and (b) British? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The guy is not really British, but ethnically speaking he is 3/4 Jewish. Check his Wikipedia article under "Early Life".Vulturell 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
"Ethnically speaking"? Let's stick to Wikipedia policy; which encyclopedic source describes him as a "Jew"? How did he describe himself? Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The people who worked on this page put in a lot of people who only lived in Britain for a few years, something I do not agree with doing. But ethnically speaking he is 3/4 Jewish. Yes, his parents converted, etc. etc. etc. but if he was Italian ANY and I mean ANY reasonable list of Italians would list him if he converted from, say, Catholicism to Islam - he would still have been an ethnic Italian. Ethnically speaking, he is Jewish and I would have restored him, and kept restoring his name to the list until my fingers bled dry, if he was actually British in a significant way. Who cares how he described himself? In an ethnicity-based list, only the facts matter. If I describe myself as "French", it doesn't make me French. If some old hag actress says she was born in 1928, it doesn't mean she still wasn't factually born in 1918. His religion no doubt is Christian and I would expect to see him on a list of Catholics (I believe) just as I would expect to see him on a list of ethnic Jews par his ethnicity. Ethnicity is fact, just like a birth date - and in fact it is a fact of birth. You don't have to identify with your birth date to be born on it. "Wikipedia policy" - well, if this is an ethnicity based list, than how is Wittgenstein incorrect since I can give you two dozen very reliable sources that he was an ethnic Jew? Vulturell 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide reliable sources which describe him that way? Great. But don't go on about how many of his ancestors were Jews, that's irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Is this a good source? "He was the youngest of eight children in a wealthy secular Jewish family in Vienna." http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/ludwigwittgenstein.html

There were a lot more if you don't like it.Vulturell 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The Knitting Circle? It looks like someone's personal webpage at a university. Could you produce one of his biographers, for example, saying he was a Jew? But as you're admitting you know he wasn't British, there's no point because he shouldn't be on this page anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You have to find a credible source who calls Wittgenstein a "Jew," because that is the word you're using for him, and also one showing that he's British. If you know there are people on this list who aren't British, why aren't you removing them? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Gee, maybe I would be removing these (mostly mid-European refugees) from the list if I wasn't busy talking with you. I am not even answering that bloody stupid comment about Wittgenstein. I found you a solid source and frankly every in-depth article about Wittgenstein mentions his Jewish ethnicity. I am not going to waste my time looking for articles that match your particular word choice.Vulturell 22:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
They don't say he was a Jew, which is what you are calling him. Nor that he was British. So the only place he was a British Jew is in your imagination. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK fine. He was an Irish Catholic from Belafast. You got me there. Real name was "Leroy Limerick".Vulturell 22:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic Criteria Discussion

This section should only be used for GENERAL discussion about the criteria for inclusion in all ethnicity-based categories and lists. Any suggestions for criteria will apply to every ethnic group. Please do not bring up religion-based rules of various denominations, as this is an ethnicity-based discussion. Also, do not bring up policies of Verifiability, as it is implied that the information presented in these lists would obviously have to be factually correct in order to be presented in the first place. My proposal: "I propose having a grandparent of whichever ethnicity for inclusion. 1/8th is too distant and 1/2 sometimes doesn't tell the whole story. 1/4 influences you, in some ways, ethnically, culturally, etc. How about it?" Vulturell 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the place for it, and your proposal violates policy, as it is original research. If some reputable source says someone is a Jew (or Italian, or Armenian-American), then Wikipedia can say so. If no reputable source says so, then Wikipedia cannot say so. You can't make up your own rules for deciding who is Greek and who is Nigerian and... Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
All pages must conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You're proposing original research. It's not allowed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Nonononono I distinctly said don't bring these up. We know that if someone is listed as fully Italian on a list of Italians, then a reliable source said that they were Italian, etc. Jez...Vulturell 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You don't appear to understand these policies, though, since you keep on proposing criteria that violate them. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Real Ethnic Criteria Discussion

This section should only be used for GENERAL discussion about the criteria for inclusion in all ethnicity-based categories and lists. Any suggestions for criteria will apply to every ethnic group. Please do not bring up religion-based rules of various denominations, as this is an ethnicity-based discussion. Also, do not bring up policies of Verifiability, as it is implied that the information presented in these lists would obviously have to be factually correct in order to be presented in the first place. My proposal: "I propose having a grandparent of whichever ethnicity for inclusion. 1/8th is too distant and 1/2 sometimes doesn't tell the whole story. 1/4 influences you, in some ways, ethnically, culturally, etc. How about it?" Vulturell 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the place for it, and your proposal violates policy, as it is original research. If some reputable source says someone is a Jew (or Italian, or Armenian-American), then Wikipedia can say so. If no reputable source says so, then Wikipedia cannot say so. You can't make up your own rules for deciding who is Greek and who is Nigerian and... Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
All pages must conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You're proposing original research. It's not allowed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Nonononono I distinctly said don't bring these up. We know that if someone is listed as fully Italian on a list of Italians, then a reliable source said that they were Italian, etc. Jez...Vulturell 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You don't appear to understand these policies, though, since you keep on proposing criteria that violate them. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
How exactly do they violate them? I would looove to know.Vulturell 22:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
You're trying to decide who is a Jew (or whatever ethnicity) based on your own made-up critera, which is original research. Quote some reputable source which explicitly says they are a Jew. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, that's it. Bye.Vulturell 22:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you can't just say "I distinctly said don't bring these up" of our policies. ;-) What you're doing is inventing a definition of who is a Jew, one that you like (as opposed to one that I like, say) and compiling lists on the strength of it. In other words, you're inserting your own opinion into Wikipedia in violation of the policies we're not allowed to "bring up." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I told you, I'm not talking about this anymore. This is so incredibly dumb and you're just naming these policies that in no way seriously apply to this or any related discussion. I am not answering on here anymore but if you remove any accurate names (Wittgenstein was not British in any sense so I have no problem with that removal) I will restore them, with a citation if you insist.Vulturell 22:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
These policies very definitely do apply here, and please review WP:NPA and WP:CIV. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Waitaminute here

Wouldn't ANY List of Jews be COMPLETELY original research unless we copy and pasted the whole bleedin thing from somewhere else? The way you and your buddy are using these terms like "Original Research" indicates that placing ANYONE, even the grand high Rabbi of Israel, on a List of Jews is wrong unless someone described the guy as a "Jew" or noted that he "belongs on a List of Jews". The whole concept of List of Jews is an ORIGINAL CONCEPT in a sense and obviously any good encyclopedia requires some private thought, i.e. obviously if Wittgenstein is descibred as having three Jewish grandparents than he is 3/4 an ethnic Jew. It might not be stated directly but obviously that's the case. Calling that or anything similar "Original Research" is out-right misleading and wrong. Either the whole list is Original Research, in which case you can nominate it for deletion or something under that claim, or none of it is if there's a source that mentions the ethnic Jewishness of a person, even if it doesn't call the person outright a "Jew".Vulturell 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the original research policy. It is not original research to create lists of related items (though people do debate whether or not they are useful). However, it is original research to claim someone is a Jew when you don't have any reliable sources claiming that person is a Jew, and have instead decided to use your own unique criteria to make that determination. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
You are stretching the definition of Original Research to make your point. I gave you an article that said Wittgenstein was ethnically Jewish - this is a fact mentioned in every single in-depth profile of Wittgenstein. And yet you didn't seem to accept it unless I found something that outright went and called him a "Jew".Vulturell 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The article is called List of British Jews, not list of British people with Jewish ancestry. Why not take Arniep's suggestion up and change the titles, then perhaps these problems would disappear? Anyway, in the case of W, it's a moot point as you know, because he wasn't British either. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well ok, let's change the name to "List of British People of Jewish descent". Howabout it? We should still use the 1/4 criteria and not any less.Vulturell 03:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed you put "Citation needed" on Rosen and I cited it. I had no clue who Michael Rosen was and I still don't really care, but I cited it to make the point that you, that's right, you, can make this list better by doing the same thing I just did, which is going on Google and searching for "Michael Rosen"+Jewish and adding the citation. Why just criticize a page instead of making it better? I'm not saying I minded doing the research, I'm just saying you can do it, too in no great time.Vulturell 03:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The people who add it, or who want the name to stay, should be doing it, but thank you for adding it. I agree with the name change, but we can't limit it to 1/4, because that's us imposing our own POVs. However, the reality is that very few people with distant ancestory will have it mentioned in print, so in fact the 1/4 thing will be a de facto principle, if not de jure. BTW, how do we decide whether someone counts as British? Apart from W, I see another academic who didn't have British citizenship. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it will be POV. It's our/my/your article, we decide on its name, description, inclusion criteria - that's the point of Wikipedia. What we don't decide on are the facts presented, nor the wording with which the information is presented. When I went over the list yesterday there were plenty of foreign-borns who didn't live in England for long. Maybe if they had British citizenship they're British, but otherwise they aren't? I'm sure we know for most of them if they became naturalized citizens.Vulturell 03:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
If someone wasn't born in the UK and has no British citizenship, then it's hard to see in what sense they're British.
Regarding the 1/4, we really can't restrict it, unless you call the article "List of British people who have mininum 1/4 Jewish ancestry" but you see how silly that starts to look. Why not just change the title, insist on good sources, and see what happens? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's the thing though. If I can call it "List of British people who have minimum 1/4 Jewish ancestry" why couldn't I just call it "List of British people of Jewish descent" and have a 1/4 rule? See, both ways and in fact every list, category (yes, even something like People from New York City can be seen as POV in your sense because they are created by us/you/me and not some source - in fact, the very format, style, and language and every rule of Wikipedia falls under this too. It's all chosen, created and decided upon by Wikipedia or the people working on it, not by the sources they use. That's why I don't think you can call the 1/4 rule "Original Research" if, say, we have a vote on it and it is voted as Keep or something. However, forgetting all about that, indeed let's change the title (How? Btw? Do we have to nominate it for title change?), let's insist on good sources or find them ourselves, and let's see what happens, though if I accidentally take out Jack Straw or someone like him if he is added call it a Freudian slip.Vulturell 04:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
We can move the page ourselves because we seem to be in agreement. If others object, we can always move it back again. I take your point that it's impossible to be completely NPOV, but I think you'll see that we end up with very few people with distant ancestry, so it'll all be pretty academic in the end. List of British people with Jewish ancestry then? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Welllll that kinda seems to indicate the people have really distant ancestry. I was hoping for "List of British people of Jewish descent"?? Vulturell 04:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Go for it.Vulturell 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Do you get to change page names because you're an administrator or something?Vulturell 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether everyone can do it or not. I can see a "move" button at the top of my page. I think non-admins see it too. Between history and watch? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh. Never mind. Just kidding. I can see that button too, I just didn't know that was the one. Now I do so if ever I need to use it, I know what is now. By the way, what now? Do we look up every person and put in a citation like the one I used for Rosen?Vulturell 04:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's a lot of work, which is why I put up the sign saying from now on, please add sources. We may have to just leave the ones that are there, unless you can be bothered going through them. I was thinking of taking a look tomorrow and looking up any that seem obviously questionable. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. Well, maybe I'll start on some sections and we can eventually work through them all.Vulturell 05:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a reasonable compromise. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Lynne Featherstone - Is she Jewish? I just haven't found a source. She's still listed. And Stephen Lander of MI5 - all I've found is Anti-Semitic sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Anyone have a good source? Vulturell 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

How's this for Lynn Featherstone? [2] - 194.200.241.36 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I can only see the first part of it as I don't have a subscription. The headline is suggestive but I'd prefer to see a clear reference in the text. Can you see the rest of it and if so can you quote what it says about her being Jewish? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It says "Linda Grant is trying to make up her mind between two Jewish women candidates" and states clearly that in the Hornsey and Wood Green election, both the then incumbent, Barbara Roche, and the Liberal Democrat, Lynne Featherstone, are Jewish. - 194.200.241.36 18:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind quoting the actual sentence that says she is Jewish, or any sentence that strongly implies it of her? Sorry to keep asking but most of the article is behind subscription, so the context of the headline isn't available, and a google search turned up nothing. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help - if it's OK for a Hindu to butt in - as I can see the whole article although I'm not a subscriber. It begins "Here in the north London constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green, I am looking forward to election day as the clash of the Jewish women candidates". She then talks about Barbara Roche and Lynne Featherstone, and nobody else. I'd call that a strong implication. - Taxwoman 20:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Category for doctors?

What about a category for doctors?

Tom Baker

I removed Tom Baker as he is not Jewish. I realise that his father was Jewish (though I don't think that in itself is enough to call Baker a Jew), Baker's father was very rarely present during his childhood and he was raised by his mother, a staunch Catholic. He himself was an alterboy and attended a Catholic boarding school.. I see little reason to keep him on this list as he himself is clearly not a Jew. Rje 03:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is that Jewishness can refer to two different of things. One, of course, is religion – by which standard Baker is not at all Jewish. The other is cultural ethnicity, where Baker's mixed heritage does makes him partially Jewish. Simply knowing his father's Jewish origins is likely to have had some effect on Baker while growing up, which is why he was listed here.
A good example is Salma Hayek, which is universaly listed as half-Lebanese (or half-Arab) due to her Lebanese father, despite having chosen to be completely detached from Lebanese culture.
For this reason, I've readded Baker, but with a longer comment emphasising his religion.
Makes sense? -Juko 09:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to why the details (that it was his father who was Jewish) has been removed. As a matrilineal culture / religion it is fairly important to know which parent was Jewish.
I realise there was probably an aspect of making his entry in the list conform to the format of the other entries, but perhaps that format is wrong, and the other entries should say which parent was Jewish? sheridan 14:07, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Baker isn't Jewish at all. His father wasn't Jewish either. I read his biography, he even mentions his mother was anti-Semitic.

Charlie Watts

Charlie Watts admits to being Jewish in Stanley Booth's "The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones" (1984)

Do you have the exact quote or page reference? Sorry for being so paranoid – it's just that most major figures tend to be spotted by websites such as www.jewhoo.com (who explicitly claim that "No on in the Rolling Stones was Jewish") or some other reputable online source (and I can't find any). Juko 12:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also there is no mention of this in Alan Clayson's biography of Watts, or in other biographical Stones references I've checked. Juko 01:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

The previous correspondent Rje raised a good point. These lists do raise the question: who is a Jew? Is it anyone who would be regarded as Jewish by rabbinical law? Anyone who would be entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship under the law of return? Anyone who would have ended up in the gas chambers if they had been around during the Third Reich? Or who? I was thinking of raising Helena Bonham Carter anyway, I was aware that her mother came from a family of Jews who had converted to Roman Catholicism, which would make her technically Jewish, but this is the first time I have seen her described as such, and this could come as a surprise to some people in view of her "English rose" image. Another problematic case I suggest is Muriel Gray, whose maternal grandmother was a Jew by birth who converted to Christianity, she made a TV programme dealing with her Jewish identity (or lack of it). What about Catriona Grant, co-chair of the Scottish Socialist Party, whose father was a Polish Jew, but him and her mother only had a brief fling and lost contact, and she was brought up a Catholic (she's gone public on this)? What about the Karaites? PatGallacher 03:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This point is discussed extensively on the List of Jews page. General consensus seems to be that due to the various different definitions of Jewishness, having one Jewish parent is of sufficient interest to be listed, but that anyone with only partial Jewish origin should be clearly marked out as such. Weaker Jewish connections (e.g. only one grandparent) are only rarely mentioned – even for people with inherited 'Jewish' names, such as Andrea Levy and Ben Cohen. In my opinion, it is precisely Bonham Carter's aristocratic "English rose" image that makes her, admittedly weak, Jewish origins interesting. Juko 06:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As User:PatGallacher asked - 'Anyone who would have ended up in the gas chambers if they had been around during the Third Reich?' isn't as simple a question as it would appear. Hitler didn't make proclamations like 'all Jews (by whatever definition) should go to the camps', rather he left it up to regional governors. Some were more strict than others. Myself I would have been safe in some areas (not having been raised a jew) but in peril in others (having a patrilineal great-grandmother who was jewish). As far as judaism is concerned I wouldn't 'make the grade', as it was my father's mother, but some people would consider my jewish (even though in terms of religion and culture I'm not). sheridan 17:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

How distant is distant?

I see 2 recent additions of mine have been deleted, on the grounds that "people of unproven or distant Jewish heritage belong to list of Jews only" (or words to that effect). That begs the question of how distant is distant? Do we have a consistent policy to include or exclude people with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers? Do we have a consistent policy on people like Muriel Gray and Helena Bonham Carter, who are technically Jewish according to rabbinical law, but whose Jewish heritage is in practice rather limited? PatGallacher 13:20, 2005, Jan 26 (UTC)

First, sorry. I shouldn't have removed the entries without a proper justification.
In reply to your question: in general, figures with one Jewish parent (or equivalent) tend to be included while those with just one grandparent don't. (The reasoning is that having a Jewish parent is likely to influcence one's upbringing and worldview regardless of religion, particularly since Jewishness is also an ethnic identification. Such partial heritage, though, should always be explicitly noted unless the person clearly identifies primarily as Jewish.)
People with more remote Jewish heritage tend to be listed only if they're particularly prominent and/or have made positive statements regarding their Jewishness. So, for example, Gavin Rossdale is stricly only a quarter-Jewish, but was raised by his half-Jewish father, and sang a Jewish prayer at a recent concert in Austria. Likewise, David Beckham is quoted as saying "I've probably had more contact with Judaism than with any other religion" and is so famous that his Jewish heritage would probably have been of interest anyway. I don't believe Muriel Gray falls into this category.
In the case of Catriona Grant, I don't think she is prominent enough to warrant a listing (she's not even an MSP and in the 2001 elections she came 5th in her constituency with just 4% of the vote). Additionally, I have been unable to confirm her Jewish origins since almost no biographical material exists on her on the Web. Unfortunately, I have the memory of a fish. Your comment from earlier in the month (above) makes it clear that Grant's father is indeed Jewish.
I hope that answers your questions. If not please reply. -Juko 14:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PS Regarding Helena Bonham Carter, I think it is both the fact that her entire maternal family was originally Jewish, and that she is often viewed as the quintessential 'English rose', that make her (foreign) Jewish origins worth noting. Juko

David Crystal

Is there any reason to suspect that David Crystal is Jewish? I couldn't find anything online. Juko 17:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing Crystal as I suspect he is most probably not Jewish and couldn't find anything to suggest he might be. If anyone does the please readd him. Juko 11:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert Simpson (composer)

Was he Jewish?

I may have got this wrong, and if so apologies, but I understood that his father was an eminent Jewish surgeon, whose own father founded the legendary menswear store of Simpsons in Piccadilly. Anybody know anything about Robert Simpson's father? RachelBrown 21:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Afraid you are wrong. I know of the surgeon you mean, and his initial was L while Robert Simpson's father was also called Robert Simpson. I'll amend the article. - HF

Charlie Chaplin

Extensive research on Chaplin's ancestry has failed to find any Jewish ancestors. All of his great-grandparents appear to have been baptised in the Church of England. True, Chaplin intermittently claimed to be Jewish, though he also denied it ("I am not Jewish; I am a citizen of the World"). However, his elder brother, Sydney Chaplin, whom he idolised as a youngster, was not the son of Charlie Chaplin Snr (he was born before Chaplin's parents married). It has been speculated that Chaplin knew that Sydney's real father was Jewish and therefore he wanted to be Jewish too.RachelBrown 12:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

New category - religious leaders

Bit preposterous not to have people who were distinguished because they were eminent Jews - Rabbis or administrators RachelBrown

Why is that there? I take it the point is that these lists are there because they are famous or well known for something, whats the point of having people famous or well known for being jewish, in a list of famous jews? Cokehabit 02:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
If the idea is to have a list of people who are famous or notable, and who are/were Jewish, I see no contradiction in including people who are noteworthy mainly for their contribution to their fellow Jews. And clearly Immanuel Jakobovits, who was a life peer, or people who have articles in the Dictionary of National Biography, have a good claim to being notable. "famous or well known for being jewish" is rather belittling of such people. It might better describe people like Lionel Blue, who although a Rabbi is listed under broadcasters. RachelBrown 12:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

65.10.37.127

Please note that this user vandalised by removing several names (has now been blocked) but I can't do a straight revert due to later edits. TigerShark 22:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

It is well known that some time in the 1990s (I think) Hitchens discovered he had some Jewish ancestry. I know that he has written about this, probably in several articles and books. I don't know the specifics: which of his forebears were Jewish, how far removed they are in the family tree, etc.

I also don't know if he should qualify for inclusion in this page, considering the concerns raised about others with similar mixed ancestry on this page. Please review this addition and consider removing it.

Olivia Newton John

Max Born and his wife were Jewish so their daughter is (edit comment by User:RachelBrown)

Not quite. According to biographer Nancy Greenspan, Born's wife was only half-Jewish, and made Born convert to Christianity after marriage. ONJ's mother was therefore ethnically 3/4 Jewish (and religiously even less).
The Jewish Year Book lists Born's son Gustav Born as fully halachically Jewish, so Gustav's sister (ONJ's mother) must be too. I assume therefore that Born's wife's mother was Jewish. The family's degree of observance is regarded as irrelevant in this list. RachelBrown 21:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List should be only of British-born Jews

It makes no sense to put Jews who spent a bit of there time in Britain in this list. Those people are ALREADY on other lists. About 3/5ths of this list is of foreign born people. What is the need in repeating names? It's ridiculous and nonsenical!

Also, is Daniel Kessler a jewish name?

Profoundly disagree - where do you draw the line? For example, Michael Marks was foreign born but made no impact till he came here. Something to be said for avoiding duplication, but in that case delete them from their country of birth list, not the British one. RachelBrown 10:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Jewish? List

Are they Jewish? Or, Listed in?


Thank you for the answerer User:Vulturell! see also Talk:List of Jews, etc
--Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 13:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

test Joseph Prestwicz Joseph Prestovicz Joseph Prestvicz Joseph Prestowich Joseph Prestovich

Really Jewish??

--Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 22:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Gingold was Jewish, yup. I believe both parents. Starr, not at all, though he is married to a half Jewish American model. Watts, I don't believe so.

Thank you! --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 11:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein was born in Austria and served in the Austrian army during WWI. He fled to Britain during the 1930's to avoid Nazi persecution but I don't think he ever became a British citizen. Should he be in this list? Conch Shell 10:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Red Links

Do we really need all these red linked people mentioned? If they don't have a Wiki entry it probably means they A. aren't famous enough to be mentioned or B. should have an entry. Would people mind if I remove all red links?

From LazarKr to user 72.144.150.50 : Bohm in List of British Jews.

  • 1. I've included In List of British Jews physicist and philosopher David Bohm. You have deleted him from list, becouse his major contribution to science was in the United States. Perhaps you are right. But David Bohm lived in Great Britain from 1959 up to 1991 (his death). He is a

Fellow (not Foreign Member!) of Royal Society of London.

  • But the private case of Bohm is not for me the important point.
  • I understand that you don't like that any person will appeear in Lists more than one time. I think that your position is simply inpracticle.
  • Let us assume that You have organized some appropriare forum which came to dicision to put all people that deserved to be in Wikipedia only in One List (perhaps according to country of his main activity). In present situation there a lot of people, that appear in several Lists.

How are you going to inforce such decision ? Users of various Nationalities have a very big motivation to include any Famous Personality in Lists that are close to them emotionally. So they will do all what they can in order not to allow to anyone to reduce presentation of such person to only one List. They will even try to include them on a new lists, (especially by Country). So, what I trying to say, that in present situation there is no choise, but to include Prominent persons at least in all Lists in countries, where they were (country of birth and countries of their presence}.

  • 2. There is another important point which I want to present.
  • A lot of users are against multiple represantation of Persons in Wikipedia and are against too much Lists (listomania). I want to present Wikipedia in rather different light.
  • Wikipedia actually is a Data Base. Various lists one can compare to Keys for Information Retrieval. When Data Base Users think that Creation of New Key (List) is Useful to more efficient information retrieval, they actually don't care that it couses to duplication of names of items in Data Base. Why should users of Wikipedia to bother about Duplication of names, if Such Duplication improves Information Retrieval in Wikipedia?
  • 83.130.63.24 13:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • LazarKr 13:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish names?

What do people make of the extraordinary edit comment by User:72.144.147.76: "provide evidence for Green as Green is a typical English name, not of Jewish origin"? Firstly, anyone who doesn't know that Philip Green is Jewish shouldn't be attempting to edit this page. Secondly, I'd have thought that Green is quite a common Jewish name. There are other Greens listed here, yet this anonymous user hasn't queried them. And since when does every entry on this page have to come with evidence? Does anyone think that Edwina Currie or Barbara Roche or Lynne Featherstone (to take three names from the first section) should be queried because they don't have "Jewish" names? Finally, what is a Jewish name? That's been discussed at length elsewhere; see Kohen and Levin for example. 194.200.241.36 18:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I can just imagine when the late Cyril Harris was interviewed to be Chief Rabbi of South Africa. No doubt the first question was whether he could prove that he was Jewish, given that Cyril Harris is a typical British name, not of Jewish origin. 81.153.41.72 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Name of the article

I have two problems with this new name, though I appreciate the strange politics that led to it. Firstly, the many practising Jews (including eminent Rabbis) on the list might find it rather insulting - they will regard themselves as Jewish, not people of Jewish descent, or don't their views matter? Secondly, converts are in general not of Jewish descent! - 194.200.241.36 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, point taken. The situation arose because Vulturell wanted the list to be about ethnicity only (as he understands it) and not religion, so converts shouldn't be listed. Calling it a list of "British Jews" included converts but should have excluded people who only had, for example, one Jewish paternal grandparent, who wouldn't be regarded as Jews by the Jewish community. It also meant we were naming as Jews people who didn't see themselves as such, which was inappropriate. So for all these reasons, List of British people of Jewish descent was seen as the least bad option. My own view is that it should be deleted entirely because of these inherent problems, but that's another issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This leads to the whole question of how people perceive themselves. Clement Freud doesn't see himself as Jewish either, though he can scarcely deny that both his parents were Jewish. [Cue long discussion?] - 194.200.241.36 18:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a rule of thumb on WP that we don't call people things they don't call themselves, unless there's good reason to e.g. a public-interest reason, and/or lots of sources using the other name. For example, there's a debate on whether we should call white racists "white supremacists" (which is what they are) or "white nationalists" (which is what they call themselves). We usually call them supremacists, because to do otherwise is to accept their whitewash. But if it's a group that isn't controversial and nothing hangs on what they're called, we run with what they say about themselves. As nothing hangs on whether Clement Freud is a Jew, there's no reason to say it. But that speaks to the issue of whether these lists should exist. I find them inherently unencyclopedic and pointless, not to mention objectionable, but I'm not about to pursue it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Celebration of the Jewish people

This article/wiki page is a beautiful celebratory shrine that reminds the reader of the talent and passion for life gained after their miserable past history; that is of the great Jew. To delete this could be deemed as prejudice and I think the thought is utterly absurd.

  • (A) Sign your posts
  • (B) As quoted from another user 'Wikipedia is not a vehicle for boosting ethnic pride'

Antidote 20:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

TOTAL NONSENSE --213.121.207.34 16:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I see there's reverting over the inclusion of Max Born and Waldemar Haffkine. Could anyone wanting to add them please supply a good source saying they were British citizens? I can see why someone might think Born was British, but I can't see any reason to add Haffkine. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Born and Haffkine removed

  • Haffkine: Haffkine is about as British as he is Indian - plus he's not on the British list so what qualifies him for this list
  • Born: This guy has already been on 3 other lists: American, German, and Czech - which in that case should put world-record holder for country visits on every single nationality page on Wikipedia -- having a position in a certain country makes you no more part of that nationality.
  • Gabor: Dennis Gabor also lived in Germany and Hungary - I've seen the Hungarian list and he's in there but for some reason he's missing from the Germany list AND the British list ---- although he magically appears here. Seeing as he qualifies to being British as much as Sigmund Freud does and considering his Jewish ancestry is still in debate - he might be a valid candidate for removal. I'm keeping him though because of possible allegiances to Britain.

Antidote 21:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Born clearly deserves to be here and in the German list - he lived and worked in Germany and Britain for many years. There is no rule that says you can't be in more than one country list, is there? I can't see any reason why he should be in the Czech and American lists, so remove hom from those, but not here. - Newport 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The rule is clearly unwritten when this person doesn't even exist on the main lists for the nationality. This list just tries to get as many people on it no matter how strenously thin their connection is. Antidote 19:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Well add him then! It's a strange world if living here for decades, teaching at two top British universities and winning a Nobel Prize while living here doesn't qualify you for being British. He's more British than King George I. We're not talking about Sigmund Freud, who only lived here a short time. - Newport 19:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If there's an edict that we can't add names here without credible references, shouldn't it also say that we can't remove names without credible references? Max Born is not listed under either East European Jews or Jewish Americans that I can see. He is listed as a Jewish member of the (American) National Academy of Sciences; that seems an odd reason to query his Britishness. - Poetlister 19:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor who wants to add the information to supply the source. Anything unsourced may be removed by anyone. Please see Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"In 1933 Born fled the Nazis and became Stokes lecturer at the University of Cambridge. He was elected to the Tait chair of natural philosophy at the University of Edinburgh in 1936, becoming a British subject in 1939." - Encyclopedia Britannica article on Max Born - note that he was a Fellow, not a Foreign member, of the Royal Society. - Poetlister 20:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetlister, any names added from now on must have a source next to the name in the article. Sources on talk pages are no use to the general reader who probably won't look at the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I did not add Max Born - he's been on the list for ages. I merely reverted an incorrect attempt to remove him. I shall reinstate him with references - what possible grounds could you have for removing him. - Poetlister 21:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for removing him, but I didn't know you had found a source: all I saw was the name re-added. By all means put him back, and thank you for tracking down a reference.
We should probably decide what citation system we want to use. I'm quite happy with embedded links and Harvard referencing, but I see someone added a footnote. They're fiddly and I think not so good for the reader, but they look nicer. Does anyone have a preference? I'll go along with whatever everyone else is happy with. See Wikipedia:Cite sources for more details. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Antidote, I see you've removed Born even though Poetlister found a source. You can't do that, just because you feel he wasn't British. If he had British nationality, then he was, and the source says he did. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Antidote, could you please address the point above. What do you mean by saying he wasn't British even though he was a British national? Please say exactly what you mean. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Having a source doesn't automatically confirm he is allowed on this list. Having him would make it necessary to add people like Sigmund Freud and Stanley Kubrick - making this list utterly unmaintanable. If he is so "British" as you claim --- why is he not in the British people list or EVEN category???!? Antidote 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The List of English people seems to be for people born in England; certainly, it excludes several kings and queens of England (such as George I and George II) not born here. - Poetlister 22:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Antidote, perhaps you're getting nationality and ethnicity mixed up? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Not at all. Besides, Born is neither ethnically English, nor is he English-born, nor does he have anything to profess of his "Englishness" except that he happened to live there. Well so did infinite amount of important people (plenty of them Jews too) - but we're not adding them here. There has to be a line to be drawn. Antidote 02:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Who are these important Jews who lived here for decades and became British citizens yet aren't in the list? Give us the names and we'll add them. - Newport 20:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
British is a nationality, Antidote, not an ethnicity. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You're dwelling on specifics that are irrelevant to the discussion - yes British is the compoundment of the Scottish, Welsh, and English - and has been considered that for centuries. Antidote 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish mother

The abundance of parenthetical jewish mothers in this list strikes me as very odd. I don't want to get involved in the debate on criteria for inclusion on the list. But (unless they have definitely renounced Judaism or converted to a different religion), anyone with a Jewish mother is 100% Jewish by any standard (outside of Wikipedia) of which I am aware. RMoloney (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that 99% of people would agree with you. However, different standards seem to apply for this list, which is why its name was changed to List of British people of Jewish descent, putting it out of line with all the other lists like List of French Jews, List of German Jews, etc. - Newport 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
They would be "100% Jewish", so to speak, ONLY by religious standards. Obviously, ethnically speaking, they wouldn't be. Since we don't go around calling people "100% Irish" if they have an Irish mother only, I hardly see why we have to make an exception here. Vulturell 22:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's not get too dogmatic in regarding Jewishness as purely an ethnicity (after all, one cannot usually convert to an ethnicity). IMO, the extent to which someone is "of Jewish descent" is only noteworthy if said person is not (or is not considered to be) a Jew. RMoloney (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The list was changed to ethnicity only because people were adding names with one Jewish great-grandparent and calling them "Jews." So the list was renamed to "... of Jewish descent." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Rename

While I question the need for this article and what it's relevance might be to an encyclopedia, I think the article should be renamed to 'List of famous British people of Jewish descent' or 'List of notable British people of Jewish descent.' I don't think anyone wants to include every British person of Jewish descent do they? I can see that only notable people have been added, perhaps it's time to rename/move the article? (Bjorn Tipling 18:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Sources and converts

Could we have sources for any more additions, please? Also, what is the view regarding converts? They're not of Jewish descent, and if we include them, we're back to it being a list of "Jews," which would exclude people with one great grandparent or whatever. What's the view of other people about this? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This one had a source, but I can't get the link to open, so I removed it. I'll look for an alternative source: Edith Bulbring, pharmacist (half Jewish) [3] SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm completely baffled - the link opens fine. The relevant passage starts

Dr Edith Bulbring

German part-Jewish (Mischling) doctor, Berlin

I qualified as a doctor in 1928 and had a position in the Virchow Krankenhaus (hospital) in Berlin at the time when Hitler came to power. There was a well-known Jewish professor there, Dr Friedmann. He was an expert on infectious diseases. After 1933 Dr Friedmann and his Jewish staff were dismissed. I was the only one left because I wasn't fully Jewish. - Newport 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the link and replaced it 13 minutes before you said you were baffled. ;-) It doesn't say she had a Jewish mother or even father, so I left that out. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Could I again ask why people won't supply sources for their edits? I see LondonEye has restored a name on the grounds that it's "obvious" from his Wikipedia article that he's Jewish, and it may be: I haven't even looked. But the point is that WP articles are not allowed to be used as sources, for obvious reasons of self-reference, to avoid mistakes in one article being mirrored all over the site. I admit to being bewildered by the refusal of some editors to supply sources. Surely, however you know that X has Jewish ancestory, it would be very easy to enter that source at the same time as entering the name. Then anyone wanting to question it could simply check out your source, which would avoid a lot of discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see Londoneye, Newport and User:Poetlister, who have all been adding names to this article, as well as Taxwoman have been blocked as sock puppets of RachelBrown. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Londoneye wrote above that she restored Laurence Baxter because it's "obvious" from his Wikipedia article that he's Jewish, and yes it is, but unfortunately Londoneye wrote it, and also used no sources there. I can't find anything online indicating that he is. If anyone has an offline source, could they re-add the name with the source? I'll remove it in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears his mother was the sister of Sidney Hart who was definitely Jewish, and he was born in Bearstead Jewish Maternity Hospital, Stoke Newington. Arniep 02:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Arnie. Do you have a source we can cite? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No, but I'm sure User:Londoneye has. Arniep 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then how do you know what you wrote above? Londoneye wouldn't add a source; if she had one, I'm sure she would have done so. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, if the Meyer link doesn't work for people, here it is again http://www.jssgallery.org/Paintings/Mrs_Carl_Meyer_and_her_Children.htm . Considering Meyer's grandmother's father was someone named Julius Levis, I would rightfully assume that the original notation about his father, not grandfather, being Jewish would be correct. Vulturell 06:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Vulturell. The source given on the page said grandfather. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yeah, they do that sometimes, just mention "a Jewish immigrant grandfather" and don't really talk about the person's other ancestry. I think Stephen Fry was the best example of this, we had one article that just mentioned a great-grandfather who was Jewish, but most articles elaborate on his mother being "all Jewish". Vulturell 06:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Vulturell, I agree, so thanks for finding the better source. I've removed the tag that was recently added saying that the following is a list of Jews, because it's a list of people with Jewish ancestry only. Let me know if anyone disagrees with the removal. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the other Lists of Jews by country don't have that template; they just use the JewsByCountry one. But if I can go back to an earlier point, I think that we should certainly include converts in this list. If people are intent on retaining the unwieldy title for this article, we can simply have a different section for converts. At the very least it can be regarded as information related to this list. RMoloney (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue previously was whether this was a list of Jews, which was the orginal title (List of British Jews) or a list of people of Jewish ethnicity. I would have preferred the first (or actually I would have preferred List of notable British Jews), but then it would have had to conform to some agreed definition e.g. that of the major denominations. Others didn't want that, and wanted instead to be able to add anyone with even very remote Jewish ancestory. So for that reason it was changed to List of xxx of Jewish descent.
I don't think we can have it both ways. It would be odd to include someone with one paternal grandparent in a "list of Jews," and equally strange to include converts in a "list of xxx of Jewish ancestry." You see the difficulty. My own view is that these lists are fundamentally wrong-headed, but that's another story again. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I do understand the problem. But it seems to me that we should really bring this into line with the other "List of Jews" articles. This is, after all, linked to from List of Jews by country. In my view we should err on the side of inclusivity (accompanied by the appropriate caveats). So what I think should really be done is to go back to the idea of a "List of British Jews". We note where people are converts or are only part Jewish by ancestry. After all, for some people (Ben Kingsley and pre-Scientology Beck spring to mind) one Jewish grandparent is enough for them to feel quite Jewish, for others it's not. The way we avoid these problems is simply to report the facts. As well as bringing the article into line with similar lists, we avoid what is in my view an even more problematic title than the original was. RMoloney (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with RMoloney. We don't claim someone like Ben Kingsley is just "Jewish", all we're saying is that he had a Jewish grandparent, and we are specifically saying that with the little notations by each person. So basically, yes, present the facts and let people make up their own minds based on what they think. I think this is neutral - we're just presenting accurate information, making it POV would be to list Kingsley or whoever and not have a "Jewish grandparent" notation, but the fact that the notation is there balances it out. Vulturell 19:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You both make good points, and I partly agree, partly disagree, but can't see a way to reconcile the two positions. First, I agree that all the Lists of xxx should be brought into line and made consistent. But calling this list List of British Jews is problematic without a definition of "Jew." If you had one great grand-parent who was Mexican, it wouldn't make any sense to put you on a List of Mexicans. Because some people wanted to add very distant ethnicity, the title was changed to reflect that it's entirely ethnic and not to do with whether the person is considered "Jewish" by themselves or by anyone else. But the problem with the ethnicity-only list — and I want to stress that I mean no disrespect to anyone here by saying this — is that it's the kind of list the Nazis would have kept: one drop of Jewish blood and you're included on the list, whether you want to be or not. I see it as deeply problematic for that reason, and my own view is that these lists shouldn't be kept because they're potentially offensive, and even dangerous in some circumstances, and because I feel we shouldn't label people with labels they themselves might reject. The exception would be where there's a public-interest angle e.g. we don't want to call white supremacists "white nationalists" just because that's the whitewashed name they've adopted for themselves. But where there's no issue like this at stake I feel we should only include people if they're described as Jews by a credible third-party publication and they self-identify. (Having said that, there are problems with using self-identification as a criterion for inclusion too.)
None of the above deals with the issue of how to keep the list accurate, whatever definition we agree on. People must provide sources, but they don't, and it's a lot of work to keep on finding them for edits that other people make. Vulturell's been the one to do most of the source finding so far. Then there were alleged copyright violations on one of the other lists, where apparently lists were being copied wholesale from another publication.
All in all, it's a bit of a mess. Does anyone have suggestions as to what the least-bad solution would be? ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Civility

I have changed the comments that were included in many sections referring people to WP:V and WP:NOR as this is controversial and may not be correct. To be correct, we should instead say that there is a dispute about Verifiability, and to do this we should include {{fact}} next to the name of the item that is disputed. According to WP:CIVIL, using large capital letters, as were used in these comments, and making insulting edit summaries is not conducive to Wikipedia, and it is much more important to work towards coordination of all editors involved in the project than it is to worry about interpretation of rules such as Verifiability. Indeed, some of the disputes about Verifiability are merely an opinion - book sources are generally regarded as more accurate than internet sources, and the onus is on the person disputing their reliability to prove that they are unreliable. Under no circumstances should an entry be removed when there is dispute about whether it should be included or not. To do so is uncivil. It also should not be commented out.

A more conducive thing that should have happened is for the person disputing the item's inclusion to add {{fact}} next to the item's name. Then if it can be proven 100% that they do not belong in the list, then they can be removed from it, or alternatively if it can be proven 100% that they do belong in the list, then the fact tag can be removed. This is the civil way to handle things, and would avoid the hostility that has been prevalent in this and related topics.

I am going to ask for everyone involved in these disputes to please work towards civility and coordination as the major aim in resolving these disputes. Also, please can people try their best not to get themselves involved in massive reversions. It is much more conducive to include their point of view with your point of view and try to come up with a compromise. The fact tag is much more conducive to good editing thn to wipe out entries.

I hope that everyone involved can work together from now on, and try to resolve disputes more conducively. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Jewish? List

Can someone source the following, since I know for a fact that they are Jewish and belong on the list: Davina Billings, successful film and television producer; Peter and Marc Samuelson, of the Samuelson family, successful film producers (not to mention their father who was the head of the British film commission and has been knighted? Thanks Are they Jewish? Or, Listed in? Please answer me or add on the list:

Thank you for the answerer User:Vulturell! see also Talk:List of Jews, etc
--Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 13:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Alex Carlile

I'm in the process of trying to locate sources for some of the names that were added without sources and removed. Does anyone know of a reputable source (online or offline) for Alex Carlile? So far I've found only Stormfront and Islamist sites. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a Libertarian Alliance report here which mentions the fact that he's Jewish. They've definitely got a point of view on the case they're reporting but they seem to be very scrupulous in reporting their facts. RMoloney (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Richard, thanks for finding that. I saw the article earlier on a Holocaust denial site and didn't want to use it in case it had originated with them. If the author is with the Libertarian Alliance, it should be fine to use, but if it started with a neo-Nazi or revisionist site, we shouldn't use it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for some time at least. I must admit that I find it offensive and don't particularly enjoy making edits to it. However, I know you don't all agree with my views, and I also know you're all editing in good faith, so I don't want to obstruct any good ideas that you might have for how to make progress with it. Therefore, I'm going to bow out gracefully (I hope) at least in the short term. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move

I have renamed the article notable British Jews as SlimVirgin suggested. Arniep 18:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that anyone who has expressed a wish not to be identified as Jewish not be included in this list. Arniep 18:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any examples of these people? Vulturell 07:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe Clement Freud has said this, but logically we should only omit him if someone can provide a credible reference. By the way, presumably Lord Carlile will be in the Jewish Year Book if someone can check it. - 213.78.86.198 16:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Arniep raises an interesting point, and I must confess to being conflicted over it. On the one hand, I understand the spirit in which it was proposed, but on the other hand it seems to be counter to Wikipedia policies, especially NPOV. However, it doesn't seem to be a problem we will encounter much. If someone (e.g. Bobby Fischer) publicly denies their Jewishness or converts, this is likely to be noted in their wikipedia article. The issue then is whether to list them here; I would say yes, with the appropriate notes, as, according to at least one POV (traditional Halakhic law), a convert is still Jewish. RMoloney (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, these "Fischers" are rare and it is usually the rare ones that cause long, annoying discussions on Wikipedia List of Jews Discussion Pages. So, let's just focus on the majority and we can frankly debate every person who is listed individually if the situation arises. Once in a while I add sources to certain section, and I usually remove anyone who doesn't at least have a Jewish grandparent (this grandparent thing is the system I like to use for ethnicity lists/categories). I think a better question may be in what way should we represent the source citations. I.e. the way I'm doing it now (see my recent additions) or some other way? Vulturell 08:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems fine for online sources. Any offline sources can use the {{ref|}} {{note|}} system. Incidentally, for Carlile, the source I cited above comes from the Libertarian Alliance website, and carries their copyright. Is that a good enough source? I'm not familiar with the organisation, but they seem good enough to me. I certainly don't believe they're anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers. RMoloney (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rose Heilbron

Here's a happy trio of sources for Lulu. The first (already presented to him in Talk:List of Jewish jurists) is Myrella Cohen's 2002 obituary in the Times which described Cohen as "the second Jewish woman to [take silk] following Rose Heilbron". The second is Heilbron's inclusion in Elinor & Robert Slater's "Great Jewish Women" (ISBN 0824603702, p.327; on p.viii the authors note that they communicated with Heilbron during the writing of the book). The third is a mention in Kenneth O. Morgan's "Britain Since 1945 : The People's Peace" (ISBN 0192802259, p.107) which notes that "the admission of a (Jewish) woman lawyer, Rose Heilbron, as a QC in 1949 and later to the judicial bench caused widespread comment, if not astonishment." Happy new year, 82.35.45.214 22:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rose Heilbron being Jewish is not that hard to find out. Luckily for us, the Guardian just published a nice little obit [4] "She was born into a Jewish family in Liverpool, where her father Max had a boarding house for immigrant refugees".

End of story. Vulturell 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

People who need to be Sourced

OK, this is the deal. I have now sourced every single person who is currently listed. All the ones that I was unable to find sources for (I didn't look all that hard, though) are now here, waiting to be sourced before being put back in. Thanks, everyone. Mind you, the sources HAVE to, and I mean absolutely HAVE TO, come from outside of Wikipedia or its clones (i.e. I removed Leon Mestel - his Wiki entry says that his father is a rabbi, but I need a non-Wiki source because how do we know the entry is correct?) OR from an otherwise reliable source (i.e. tempting as they are to use, no weirdo anti-Semitic websites as sources). BTW, I did not source anyone under "Religious Leaders" because I refuse to have to provide a source that a Rabbi is Jewish. Vulturell 07:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Other

The evidence is against her being Jewish - several refs to Domino Harvey refer to her having a Lithuanian Jewish father (Laurence Harvey) and an English supermodel mother (i.e. Paulene). Delete? - 20.138.246.89 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
any supermodel with even an iota of Jewish blood running through her veins should be listed as Jewish! Incorrect 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Law

Ben Aaronovitch, Journalist - his father was Jewish but mother was not. He was brought up ins a secular home due to his father being a communist. Unless he has converted to Judaism its hard to justify having him on the list.

Cricket

  • David Collier, chief executive of The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB)

Military

Trouble

For anyone seriously working on this page - please check out Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession. User:IZAK is rallying to mass-delete these lists, so feel free to vote if you've worked on them and want them kept (or even if you haven't worked on them and want them kept). Vulturell 20:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter Sellers It says on this page that Peter Sellers was raised Jewish, but in his biography it sttes he was raised a catholic. Can anyone clear this up ?

You mean his Wiki? It just says he went to a Catholic school, but neither his father nor mother were Catholic. He was raised mostly Jewish, his mother was a big influence on his life. Vulturell 06:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan Rickman?

Some websites of famous jews includes him, but neither his IMDb nor his WP bio makes any mention of jewish ancestry.--Anchoress 08:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, he isn't Jewish at all. Check his Wiki entry - half Irish Catholic, half Welsh Methodist. Vulturell 20:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Yes I did check his Wiki entry - as stated in my original post. But, as I said other online sources differ. I don't credit IMDb or WP as being the definitive answer to every question, I thought it possible that - since there is conflicting information out there - those two sources were wrong.--Anchoress 04:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I hadn't noticed. Yeah, some of these purpoted "lists of Jewish actors" are mistaken a lot of the time. The info comes from here [5] (scroll down for the highlighted info). Most of the similar background info on Wikipedia is indeed correct (ummm, all modesty aside, you can probably thank me for that, I was the one who added the Rickman info, btw). The IMDB, however, is no longer a reliable source for info. The post up any piece of info whatsoever and never check sources. That's why Adam Brody's IMDB info now says [6] that he is the brother of Adrien Brody, and will no doubt contribute to this stupendous's rumour spread. Vulturell 05:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply and the link. Good work on the AR bio.--Anchoress 07:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Baker

Just posting this note here in case anyone brings up Baker again - it's almost certain that his father was not Jewish. A couple of quickie web bios, including his own official site's (not written by him) say that his father was Jewish, but Baker mentions no such thing in his autobiography. This website tracks his geneology back generations [7] [8] and there's not even a single vaguely Jewish surname on any of his paternal ancestors - some were even born in Scotland with the surname "Stewart". That site does say that his father was Jewish, but I believe they're repeating the same-old web errors. Vulturell 02:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of halachah definition of Jewishness actually used by Jews: Whether or not his father's line is Jewish is irrelevant in defining Jewishness, because Jewish law (halachah) clearly defines that Jewishness passes down through the mother. This law dates all the way to Abraham -- descendants through his wife Sarah are Jews, those through Hagar are not. So, if the father is Jewish and the mother is not, then the person is not Jewish by Jewish law. The only major Jewish group that accepts patrilineal descent where the mother is not Jewish is American Reform, and then only in the last couple decades as a concession to their high rate of intermarraige. And this is strongly disputed by more traditional Jews. So the question of whether or not he was a Jew should not be about his father's surname, it should be whether or not his mother was Jewish. Rooster613 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
I do have to admit that the site doesn't track his paternal grandfather, John Baker's ancestry, back any, but it's clear that his paternal grandmother was completely non-Jewish (her ancestry is posted back for generations). I suppose it's possible that his paternal grandfather was Jewish, though I doubt it - he was the son of a "John Baker", who was a farmer - there were very few Jewish farmers in England in the 18th century when John Baker was around - most Jews lived in the big cities and were not named "Baker". Also, Baker's paternal uncle was named Thomas Victor Baker - which was his paternal grandfather's name. European Jews almost never name their children after living, and this kind of a "Jr" thing almost never happens. Vulturell 02:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on the "Jr" point. And if his maternal grandmother was not Jewish, then his mother wasn't either, and therefore he was not a Jew, period. Rooster613 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

Why are you having an inquisition into Tom Baker? If you have a reputable source that says he is Jewish, you may add him. If you don't, you may not. It's of no consequence whatsoever what his granddad was or wasn't. We do not set criteria for including people on lists. That would be original research.Grace Note 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Say what? We have semi-reliable conflicting sources that his father was Jewish, i.e. that he was half-Jewish. But evidence seems to indicate that his father wasn't Jewish. That's why he wasn't on the list. If we knew for a fact that his father was Jewish, makes no question about it that he would be on this list. Vulturell 04:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
If you added him on to this list on that basis, I would remove him. I will remove any person you add who you do not source to a reputable source that says that person is or was Jewish. Not had a Jewish father. Not had a Jewish grandpa. Not once went to Israel or any other thing that you personally believe makes someone Jewish. Is or was Jewish. Grace Note 05:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That's lovely. But that's not going to happen unless, again, you implement that policy on every other "list by ethnicity". Start with List of Irish-Americans if you'd like. Vulturell 05:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Vulturell, I see this issue keeps being raised by multiple people. Regardless of what's decided, can I ask you please to stop referring to other lists? It is this page that's being discussed. If people are making mistakes elsewhere, that doesn't mean they can be made here too. NOR and V apply and all edits have to be in accordance with them. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
As it happens, Slim, I fully intend to apply this approach to all lists of foos. It's time that they stopped being repositories for people's original research and started conforming with the policies that we all agree to abide by when we edit here. And Vulturell is entirely wrong. He is not going to add Tom Baker to this list unless he finds a reputable source that states that he is Jewish. Grace Note 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Standards for sources when "certifying" Jews

Main article: Who is a Jew?

The following criteria for sources about anyone's Jewish identity, proposed by User:Grace Note and endorsed by User:SlimVirgin are noteworthy and should be supported (and, the same standards should be applied in all articles, lists, and categories where ethnicities and religions are attributed to famous people.) IZAK 11:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC):

  1. Someone is Jewish ONLY if there is a REPUTABLE source saying explicitly that they are Jews. See Wikipedia:Citing 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 violates Wikipedia:No original research and should be deleted.

Support

  • IZAK 11:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC) for above reasons.
  • These are the only criteria permitted by Wikipedia's policies and I support those policies and these criteria without reservation. Grace Note 11:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • --Hersch 12:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC) but only because this operates appropriately within the perameters set forth by Wikipedia. I, however, fail to see the immediate importance of such a list's existence. Feel free to educate me.
    • Hersch: Once upon a time, when the lists were very, very limited, they may have had some value as EXAMPLES of famous Jews. But then some users decided that Wikipedia should become an international "telephone directory" of EVERYONE with the slightest links to the Jews in all of history and since then there has been no end to the additions into Category:Lists of Jews. Recently there was a proposed a policy with merits to it. In the meantime, hopefully this discussion will lay down criteria to require better sources if some insist on "naming names" of people as Jews. IZAK 12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Leifern 14:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC) and Comment: The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that categorization or characteriziation of notable individuals by their ethnic or religious background is something to avoid altogether, unless that is part of what makes them noteworthy. That is not to say that we should avoid mentioning their nationality or citizenship. I'll give an illustrative example: Jan Garbarek is a Norwegian jazz musician. Some time ago, someone tried to characterize him as Polish, presumably based on an assumption that since his last name is Polish (?), he should be characterized that way. But Gabarek is born in Norway, describes himself as Norwegian, and any Polish ancestry is not relevant to his work as a jazz musician. There must be thousands of articles on notable individuals that (rightly) do not mention their religion or the composition of their ancestry. As another example, I recently wrote Robert Levin (Norwegian pianist) and debated whether I should even mention that he was Jewish. I did, but only because his being Jewish figured prominently in his autobiography. But I did not categorize him. --Leifern 14:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As I noted above, the definition of Jewishness actually used by Jews is not patrilineal descent as in European naming systems. In fact, until the late Middle Ages, a lot of Jews didn't even have surnames. A lot of what we commonly think of as "Jewish names" are made-up Germanic names adopted under government requirements around the time of Napoleon. Also, Judaism does not recognize "half-Jews." If the mother is Jewish, the person is 100% Jewish even if the father is not, even if the surname doesn't "sound Jewish." And if the mother is not Jewish, then person is 100% non-Jewish, even if the father is, even if his name "sounds Jewish." Any other types of definitions of "Who is a Jew" border on racial theories, IMHO. So the only criteria we should be using is if the person in question identified him/herself as Jewish in some sort of documentable public way. Anything else is original research and/or mere guesswork. Rooster613 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
  • Support. However, I would add that there are certain other (limited) criteria that I would find reasonable for inclusion. For example, if they have received Rabbinic ordination from a recognized movement of Judaism, or have held leadership positions in recognized Jewish groups, that would be sufficient in my view. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - this is simply complying with our NOR and verifiability policies. I do take Avi's concern seriously, and agree with Rooster613's response: that beyond having a published source claiming that the person is Jewish, we ought to include the criteria used by that source (if provided) for identifying that person as Jewish. The main issue here, I think is simple: it is not for us editors to decide whether someone is Jewish or not. period. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Somewhat Meek Support because I can see the utility in the new list and that it conforms with wikipedia rules, but I don't exactly believe it is as big of a deal as others here.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose. Let's take the above policy, expand it to explicitly apply to all lists (using the exact same conditions as stated in the proposal), and post it where everyone can vote. If so I would vote "strong Support". Vulturell 00:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That can be done once these lists are sorted out. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

  • What criteria are you using for being Jewish, matrilineal descent, as is the Orthodox tradition, including patrilineal descent, or even including "self-claiming." For example, if in John Does's autobiography, he claims he is Jewish, but admits to having Roman Catholic parents and never undergoing a conversion, what would you do? What about father Jewish mother not? What about mother Jewish father not? -- Avi 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, however, this could be handled by citing the source where the person claims to be Jewish under whatever criteria they claim. I voted to support it because at least this would eliminate guessing based merely on hearsay or surnames or whatever. I don't see a way to keep Wikipedia 100% halachic in its defs. (sigh) Rooster613 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
In John Doe's case I would think it should just say something along the lines as he claims to be Jewish although this is not supported by any sort of Jewish Law or culture.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir Matt Busby

Unlikely to be Jewish - certainly not mentioned in his obituaries. His parents were Alexander Busby, a coalminer, and Helen Greer; neither sounds Lithuanian-Jewish. Incidentally, while checking Busby, I found that George Best played for a South African Jewish team! - 20.138.246.89 14:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, if we can't confirm that he was part Jewish, then he's staying off the list. If we find a good source, he will be back on (Grace Note's ridiculous edit summary implication that the word "Jew" does not constitute an ethnic background aside, obviously). Vulturell 03:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You will not put Matt Busby back on the list unless you find a reputable source that says "Matt Busby was Jewish". You will not put him back on the list if you find something that says he was descended from Lithuanian Jews. That would constitute original research and I would remove it on that basis. Grace Note 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, obviously if his ancestry is distant, there's no need to mention him here. But I'm sorry, if something explicit and reliable says that say, his father was Jewish, then guess what? It makes him half Jewish ethnically, and grounds to be on this list - Wikipedia's article for Jew mentions it as being an ethnic background. Unlike religion, ethnicity is something you are born into. I am not going to play a word game with you where, say, "full Jewish ancestry" doesn't mean "is Jewish". Just like when something says someone is of "full Italian ancestry", it makes that person Italian ethnically. This is the way this list and other such lists for all ethnic groups are organized. It doesn't get any simpler than that. I refuse to accept any claim that when something says "full Jewish descent" I can't put down "is of Jewish ethnicity". That's dumb, pure and simple. If that's original research, then calling someone who was described as "having graduated Harvard" a "Harvard graduate" is original research as well. Or "someone who was eating ice cream" as "someone ate ice cream". None of these word tricks will work. Vulturell 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You are quite right. You will not play word games with me. You will find a source that says precisely what you are claiming, which is that he was Jewish, or you will not add him. You will not apply your own criteria. If you do, I will remove the name from the list. I will in fact remove any new name you add to the list that is not sourced to a reputable source that states that the person in question is Jewish. I do not care what Wikipedia's article on Jew says. I do not care what you are using as the basis for your thesis at all. That you are setting your own criteria for entry is original research and I for one will take the policy over your criteria. Grace Note 04:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, I don't think you understand. "Jewish" is an ethnicity. Are you saying that if you had a parent of a certain ethnicity, you wouldn't be half of that ethnicity? This isn't exclusively a religion we are talking about here, like that list of Catholic actors you're working on. Anyway, this is stupid. Either go apply your weird attempts to bend Wikipedia policy on other lists, like List of Italian-American actors or List of Irish-Americans, or bug off. I'm tired of this kind of stupidity. If I find a good source that Busby had significant Jewish ethnicity, then obviously he is coming back on the list (thought I doubt he was Jewish). No question about it. Oh yeah, and instead of waving policy my way, explain to me how "someone who graduated Harvard" being called a "Harvard graduate" is not the exact same thing as this unholy bending off "Original Research" that you describe. Vulturell 04:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever you think "Jewish" is is of absolutely no account. You will find sources that say that X is/was Jewish, not any other thing that you personally thinks makes them Jewish. My views on whether I'd be Jewish if I had a Jewish parent are entirely moot. I'm saying Wikipedia would say I am one only if a reputable source says I am. Consult this policy before making further replies, because I am not going to respond to rudeness. Grace Note 05:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, I demand - I mean simply demand - that you reply to my questions or queries instead of repeating yourself. I don't think anything of Jewish, what I know is that the Wikipedia article on Jew mentions it as being an ethnic background. You are welcome to change it. As for my queries:
  • Please go around and implement these requests on List of Italian-Americans and List of Irish-Americans, as well as every other list by ethnicity (I will be happy to give you a list of lists, of sorts). Believe me, all those people with an Italian grandparent listed on the Italian page have probably not been described as "Italian-Americans"
  • Please explain to me how "graduated from Harvard" = "Harvard graduate" is not original research in the way you describe it.

Feel free to answer in point form. Vulturell 05:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not reading what I'm saying. I do not care what documents you are basing your criteria on. I will remove any person you add to this list who is not sourced to a reputable source that says they are Jewish. I fully intend to apply WP:NOR and WP:CITE and associated policies to other lists of this type. Your analogy with Harvard graduates is flawed. "X is Jewish" + "X is British" = "X is a British Jew". I'm perfectly happy for you to synthesise your sources. You must not create a new thesis, that is all. Grace Note 05:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is my analogy flawed? I can think of a hundred different word combos. Let's start with "X practices Judaism", "X was born to devoutly Jewish parents and attends synagogue regularly". None of these phrases say, directly, "x is Jewish". That's why what you're saying is a trick of words, and I won't have it. You can point me to the policies all day and all night, but you're stretching their definition and I won't have it. Vulturell 05:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I will state it again for you, just so you're clear: for someone to be added to this list, you must find a reputable source that says they are Jewish. "X practises Judaism" will not suffice. Madonna can be said to "practise Judaism" but she is not Jewish, so far as I know. "X was born to devoutly Jewish parents and attends synagogue regularly" will not suffice. It is your opinion that this says they are Jewish. If they are Jewish and at the same time notable enough to be included on this list, it will not pose a problem to find a reputable source that says so. Grace Note 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful example with Madonna. She is, indeed, not Jewish. Not by ethnicity, and not by religion since she never converted. Yet, golly shucks o'blimy! She was named a "powerful Jewish American" by Forward or some paper. That's grounds for me to put her on a list, eh? - according to your policy. Common sense. I'm using it. I refuse to accept this absolute and utter perversion of the Original Research policy. It's not happening. You can stop reminding me, because I am not listening. This is not Wikipedia policy, it is your version of it. Vulturell 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a reputable source that says that Madonna is a Jewish American, you can include her on a list of Jewish Americans. I do not care what you do or don't accept. You will not add anyone to this list who is not said by a reputable source to be Jewish. Grace Note 06:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Arr...."Madonna has been named one of the most powerful Jewish Americans despite protestations from her spokeswoman that "Madonna is not Jewish."" [9]. So gee, Gracey, whose words to we take here? Madonna's spokesperson or the Jewish Forward's? This is such an obvious example of why absolutely everything you just said is utter nonesense and a reaaal stretch of Wikipedia policy. Madonna would not be on the list of Jews because she is not a formal member of the Jewish religion and is not of the Jewish ethnicity. This co-responds with Wikipedia's defintion of a Jew. You'd think that's what we'd use. Vulturell 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
When I last checked, this list contained people with one Jewish grandparent, which doesn't fit with anyone's definition of a Jew.
You've found an example of a publication making an error, Vulturell, but nonetheless, the policy says we have to use material already published. If we know for certain it's an error, as we do with Madonna because the error was made public, then of course we don't use it. But that sort of situation is unusual. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, it is entirely moot whether people fit a particular definition of a Jew. We can admit people to this list according to the policies of Wikipedia: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and not according to any definition, whoever supports it. That is what we do with other articles. I don't see why lists of foos should be exempt.Grace Note 06:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It fits a defintion of a partial ethnic Jew. Anyway, change the name to "List of British people of Jewish descent" if you want. Whatever the name is, the contents are factually accurate and present "the full story", which are the main requirements. This bending of Wikipedia Original Research policy is unacceptable, inaccurate, and out-right hammer-on-the-head stupid. Vulturell 06:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
"It fits a definition of partial ethnic Jew" is precisely the kind of original research I will not allow to be used as a reason to put names on this list. I don't care whether it fits whichever definition of whatever you choose. We will include further names only if a reputable source says they are Jewish. If it also gives its definition of Jewish, you are welcome to include that for the purpose of clarification. Grace Note 06:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not listening anymore. Use common sense. Vulturell 06:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Vulturell, the contents have to be compatible with the title, for obvious reasons. We've been through this before, and we changed the title, then as soon as I stopped editing, you changed it back again, and so now it's problematic again. You may believe that someone with a Jewish father is a Jew, but many don't. For you to choose to prioritize that particular definition over any other is a violation of NPOV and NOR. There's no getting away from that, and there's no reason these lists should be treated differently from any other articles. Therefore, either you have to change the title to reflect the contents, or change the contents to reflect the title (and the latter would involve what GN is saying: find a reputable source for each of them saying they are Jews.)SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As much as I don't like to communicate with SlimVirgin... I didn't change the title back. I have no problem with the title you changed it to. I have no problem with you or someone or whoever changing it back to that title. The beauty of these lists is that we can put down notes that explain whatever to whoever. So if someone is only Jewish on their father's side, we write that. This is what we do on those Italian or whatever lists. If we didn't, it'd be POV or non-factual or whatever. Since we do write it, it isn't, since certain people view people with a Jewish father as partial members of the Jewish ethnicity. If we excluded these people alltogether, then we would be POV because we would be ignoring that ethnicity-based POV. If we explicate the "story" of every person on the list (if there is one), then we are serving everyone. But Grace Note isn't even talking about that. You see, he claims that we can't even put an 100% practicing Jew on the list, unless that person is referred to as "Jewish" specifically (i.e. "born to devout Jewish parents" or "x is of full Jewish ethnicity" will not do for him.) This is nothing but wordplay. That example with the Sunday demonstration is off, because demonstrations change. Religion changes. Ethnicity does not change. That's why if you are born to Irish parents, you are ethnically Irish. Same for any other ethnicity. If this is his idea of original research, wonderful, he should experiment with a few other ethnicity lists and see how the editors like it. And especially because I am certain that between 90 and 95% of the people on this list do indeed fit his criteria - i.e. referred to as "Jewish", while I am also certain that the majority of people on other ethnicity based lists do not) Vulturell 04:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Disraeli may not be described as a Jew because he was an anglican convert, but would it really be reasonable to exclude him from the list on those grounds? Perhaps a title which would suit you could be List of people in Jewish British history? Arniep 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Arnie, please, think a bit about what you're saying and what I'm saying. "Disraeli may not be described as a Jew because..." We are not here to decide who can be described as what. That isn't what Wikipedia does. I'm tearing my hair out here. On a regular article, this would be so easy! The bottom line is we simply restate what sources say. If a reputable source says he was Jewish, then that is that. End of discussion. We don't need an inquest (that would be OR). We don't need to fight over it. You've sourced the thing you claim and we move on. The bottom line is "Disraeli may be described as a Jew because source X describes him as a Jew". Anyone can verify it by looking at source X. That is how Wikipedia works!
Imagine this: there is a group that has demonstrated on three consecutive Sundays in Zanzibar. You have a source that says so. It demonstrated last Sunday. You write in the article about the group: "Foo group demonstrated on Sunday in Zanzibar". You are asked to source it. The source says "Foo group demonstrated on Sunday". Now when you are further challenged, you say "Foo group has always demonstrated in Zanzibar on Sundays so I can deduce that it demonstrated in Zanzibar this time". But no, you cannot! You may not deduce anything. You can say "Foo group demonstrated on Sunday" because that is what you have sourced. You may not create the thesis that it demonstrated in Zanzibar. That would be OR. If you could find a source that said "Foo group demonstrated last Sunday and it has always done its demos in Zanzibar so it must have demonstrated in Zanzibar", then you could say what you want to say.Grace Note 02:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but you didn't address what I said. No sensible person would suggest that Disraeli does not have a prominent place in British Jewish history. However he was not Jewish by religion and this seems to be a reason you are opposing the inclusion of others. If no one objects I will rename this list to people in Jewish British history as I suggested as this does not explicity require them to have been referred to as Jews. Arniep 14:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disraeli described himself as a "Jew". I recall that someone in parliament once bad-mouthed him for being Jewish, and Disraeli replied with "Yes sir, I am a Jew, and when the lord gentleman's ancestors were cavemen, mine were High Temple Priests in Israel" or something of the sort. I'll find the exact quote later if we need to and source it. Vulturell 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

David Miliband

This debate over David Miliband seems silly. It is established that his brother and his father are Jewish. Mosaic law and common sense would seem to dictate that burden of proof is to show that he is not Jewish. David and Ed Miliband share the same parents, if Ed Miliband is Jewish, therefore David Miliband must be Jewish. To claim that one sibling is verifiably Jewish and the other isn't is quite silly and beyond any pale of reason or common sense. (68.85.220.64 07:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC))



I cannot find a source that says that Miliband is Jewish. Please present a source that states that he is. Grace Note 07:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Ed Miliband for the same reason. Grace Note 03:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple enough. Remove two people with Italian fathers from List of Italian-American actors and two with Irish fathers from List of Irish-Americans. Otherwise it's a double standard, especially since this list is sourced and those are not.
  • And for the record, if we used your method, we would probably have to remove 80% of the List of Irish-Americans, since almost no Americans are described as "Irish" or "Irish-Americans" in most sources. They are usually described as "of Irish descent" or "born to Irish parents". We would pretty much also have to delete Category:English Americans, since in all my time doing this I have never, ever, seen any American described as either "English American" or "English" (except for the rarity that were born in England).
  • Anyway, if you want to be pursuing this unholy perversion of the Original Research policy - go for it! But you are not going to be pursuing it exclusively here, especially since this is one the few sourced lists. Starts with the two lists (Irish Americans and Italian-American actors). Or do those and this one simulataneously. But no other way will do. Vulturell 03:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and btw. If you follow through with my request but your removals from the Irish and Italian lists are reverted by the editors there (I won't revert myself)< then I will revert your edits here. We are going to this, oh believe me we are going to do this equally to every page. This page is NOT getting singled out for this kind of treatment. And please keep discussion off my talk page, put it here for everyone to see. Vulturell 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to copy the discussion to any page you choose. Grace Note 03:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Why is Grace Note such a bully - and who gave GN veto rights over this page - does he think he's living in Saudi Arabia and he's the grand mullah? Incorrect 14:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Miliband's mother

Back to actual discussion, I guess. The Milibands' mother is mentioned as being one Marion Kozak - commonly a Jewish name, here [10]. On the new citation for Ed, it just mentions him as being "a member of the Jewish intelligentia". It seems based on these two sources - i.e. the Times Out reference to him being Jewish without further explication and his mothers' name - that his mother is Jewish, too. Not sure if I sure remove the "Jewish father" tag or wait on it. Vulturell 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely not going to add people to this list based on what you consider to be "Jewish" names. Thank you for providing the source for Ed Miliband (but if you write "Jewish father", I will remove that). I won't remove him again. You have not provided a source for David Miliband. Please try not to break the three-revert rule again. Grace Note 05:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going on last names and I don't. I'm saying that, with the Ed Miliband source not specifying that his mother wasn't Jewish, and added with her last name, it was likely that she was. I cannot grasp the logic where if you agree that one person is Jewish, you have doubts about their biological brother being Jewish as well. I'm sorry, but we don't live in a vacum and we can look up the article for Jew and see that it's an ethnicity, and we can use our brains and figure out that if a person is a member of one ethnic group, then their natural-born brother is a member of that ethnic group as well. You have no grounds for removing David Miliband from this page. He is listed and cited in precisely the words that the citation uses. Vulturell 06:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Trawling for Jews

You know Vulturell, as I read your comments again and again I cannot help but wonder about your motives for classifying so many people as Jews (even if they themselves would not want to be classed as such.) Have you ever contributed in some detail to articles that relate to the subject-matter of Jews and Judaism (see the choices available in Category:Jews and Judaism) besides displaying this obsession with naming and labeling all the Jews on planet Earth you keep trawling for? IZAK 12:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Vulturell, here is my concern with these lists. Imagine, for example, a journalist who has a Jewish relative. The journalist is not himself Jewish, either by self-identification or according to any of the denominations. You find out the journalist is related to the Jewish person, and you have a source confirming that the relative is Jewish, so you put two and two together, and you publish the journalist's name on one of the lists of Jews that you edit. He doesn't know you have done this. He is then sent on assignment to Pakistan to meet one of the newspaper's sources regarding a political story. Neither he nor his editor realize there is cause for additional concern, because they don't know you have named him as a Jew. Before the meeting, the source looks up the journalist's name on Google. He finds your edit. The journalist goes to the meeting and is kidnapped and killed.
When the journalist's family contacts Wikipedia to ask why we did this, what will we say? What would your answer be about your reasoning and motivation for having added his name? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That is why I suggested we only include deceased people or people who are well known as Jewish. I personally don't agree with listing people who just have a Jewish grandparent, imo all those should be removed for starters. But then you could also say that any censorship on our part would just fuel the conspiracy theorists who would say we are trying to "hide the Jews" and further fuel their paranoid ideas. Re: the risk question, I think Americans or LGBT people would also be at risk in a muslim country but I don't think we are going to remove lists of Americans or LGBT people for that reason. Arniep 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Americans and LGBT people are not as at risk as Jews in some countries. That is the point that many people have been trying to make over and over. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the point Vulturell is trying to make is that most secular Jews as well as many religious Jews do regard being Jewish not just as a religious thing but also a cultural and ethnic identity. We have many lists for people of different ethnic descent so Vulturell's argument is that we should not give in to bigots in censoring only the Jewish lists but allowing all other ethnic groups to have their own lists or categories. Arniep 17:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean about giving in to bigots. Perhaps you could explain? One thing I've noticed is that these lists are generally not edited by Jewish editors. Not that this necessarily matters, because anyone may edit these pages. But if I were editing Islam-related pages, and no Muslim editors were helping me, and in fact, most of the input from the Muslim editors was to express concern on the talk pages about what I was doing, at some point I'd have to sit up and take notice. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that Wikipedia is not in the habit of "outing" LGBT people. We only label them as such if that is part of their public personality. --Leifern 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I think that's an important point; it seems that a small number of non-Jewish editors are busy identifying and listing people they consider to be Jews. This is, well, at least odd-looking. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, to be honest I am not interested in listing living people if that is such a concern to people (in fact I'm not terribly interested in listing people at all). However I do feel it is of encyclopedic value to at least show Jewish people who died before say 1960 so I propose it be renamed List of Jewish British people in history or something similar with a note making clear that living people must not be added. Arniep 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That would make more sense, Arnie. It might also ensure that the people on the list were actually notable. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with living people being on this list, so long as they are clearly identified as Jewish in a reputable source. I do not consider websites as likely to be reputable in this context, I have to say. If we have an informal agreement that living people must be more tightly sourced than historical figures, I think that would be a good thing. I think the presumption with any list that can have real-life repercussions must be not to list. The desire for comprehensiveness, which is admirable, should not be allowed to descend into a witchhunt. Grace Note 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, listen to you people: "outing" - "risk" You'd think we were talking about revealing someone as a child molester - you non Jews are revealing a real streak of anitisemitism, and you jews are revealing a real streak of self denigration when you talk this way - is this the pathetic state that we now find ourselves in 2006? I love being a Jew, publicly will proclaim it from the hightest tower, and f... anyone who has a problem with that! Incorrect 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

List of British People of Jewish descent

The article now has a new name, "List of British People of Jewish descent". Aside from being an awkward name for a dubious concept, it smacks of Nazi racial views, or American "one drop" rules. Of what purpose or value is this list? And for those who constantly refer to other ethnicity lists, why would this specific ethnicity be categorized in this unique way? Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Vulturell moved it from List of British Jews to satisfy the objection that the people on the list weren't actually Jews (or hadn't been named as such by a published source), but instead were people who had a Jewish father or grandfather, for example. We had a similar suggestion a couple of months ago, which I agreed with at the time (as the best of a bad job), because it means at least that the contents accurately reflect the title, but as you say, it's an odd thing to put someone on a list for. Regardless of the title, putting someone's name on a public list because they had a Jewish parent or grandparent is worrying. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I intend to move it back. I am not keen on lists of foos but if we must have them, I plan to work to make them consistent with our policies. I cannot see how our deciding what does or does not make someone "Jewish" or "Italian American" or even "British" can ever be consistent with WP:NOR. I recall Jay's making that precise argument on this page and I found it persuasive. I will move it back when I am sure that I will not be breaking the 3RR in doing so. Grace Note 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note, if you are keen to make them consistant with your policies, then let's follow through on my proposal below and englarge IZAK's proposal to every list. Then when it is agreed on we can work to make sure every list follows it together. But there's no reason to start with a sourced list. Vulturell 23:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Izak's proposal is about what to do with the various lists of Jews. If you want to introduce something for other lists, you're welcome to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Again I don't understand. Why are we singling out Jews? I'm offering to take this proposal and expand it. If you're concerned about violating original research policies, this violation certainly extends to the other lists. You are certainly an active editor and I don't think that your qualm is not having time to do this, so in short - why not? Especially if it solves the problems here and kills the opposition to your proposal. Vulturell 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no value in personalising it, Vulturell. Slim has said she is interested in this page. IZAK has said he's interested in this page. They don't have to answer for the entire encyclopaedia. Please consider their answers final and move on. Grace Note 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes but the point is Wikipedia has to be consistant. One standard can not be applied to one list that is not applied to similar lists. That's the "singling out" I am talking about. Vulturell 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not singling out this list. I began with the Catholic American actors list as it happens. Some editors there are quite enthusiastic about it because they have been battling others who want to put people on the list for "having Catholic names" and the like.Grace Note 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Allrighty then, we'll meet up later at the Irish list, right? I think it's the worst of most of them. Vulturell 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have far, far too much work to do on this list before I can even consider another major list. Let's get this one straight first and then we can work on others. Grace Note 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Here's what I don't understand. It would be incredibly simple for you to take IZAK's proposal above and change the title to reflect all lists of all ethnic and religious groups. We could post it to a public place where the editors of these lists can vote on it. And then we can implement it everywhere. This would please JayG, IZAK and the others and it would please me, because my main complaint has been that we don't use the same standards.

  • So why don't we? If you use the guidelines on the policy above (i.e. only people described as "Jews" or "Jewish", only people described as "Italian" or "Italian Americans" - as opposed to "of Italian descent", etc.). Most of you have said that you wish to do this for all lists. So let's do it. Take the above policy, extend it for everyone, post it somewhere. I would vote "Support" on it and help implement it everywhere. This takes care of all the squabbling and your biggest detractor would join your camp. I don't see how you can possibly lose, and we can resolve this almost year-old conflict. Vulturell 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I find this slightly pointless as it still doesn't reflect SV's concern about listing living people. Also, for example I might want to include Frida Kahlo on a list of Jewish people in art history as her Jewish heritage was clearly important to her, even if only her father was Jewish. Perhaps the solution is that I will make my own historical lists and you can all argue over these? Arniep 23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Are you saying that you'll make separate lists? SV's concern was listing people who have not been publically identified as Jewish. IZAK's proposal says it is ok to list people who have explicitly been identified as "Jewish" in reliable media publications. Well, excellent, that's what we'll do, but let's extend this to every list. If SV thinks this list is a violation of Wikipedia policy, then the other lists are even more so. Let's unite and make this a proposal to correct all of the lists once and for all. Again, your objection with Frida Kahlo - this website [11] calls her a "Jewish Mexican artist". I'm sure that's sufficient. You have to understand, Arnie, most people who are important in Jewish history have been identified as "Jewish" by Jewish publications and other. Vulturell 23:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Vulturell, I don't understand why you think there's an argument. I have expressed my view that these criteria are the only ones consistent with policy for every list of foos. I have every intention of applying them to "List of Italian Americans". I told you. Put a notice on the talkpage of that page, and start removing names in accordance with it, and I for one will support you 100 per cent. I am not picking on the Jewish page. I am not particularly concerned with Jews! (Although, for obvious reasons, it's rather more a concern to have a list of Jews that isn't sourced properly than a list of Canadian poets, say.) IZAK's proposal simply neatly states my proposed criteria. Replace "Jewish" with "foo" and that's exactly it. Let's do it. Let's make the lists of foos an adornment for Wikipedia, a model of how our model works, and not a total embarrassment. Grace Note 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but you ALWAYS start with Jews! I simply can not grasp why you don't want to - right now - copy the proposal above, change the title to say all lists of all groups, and post it somewhere. It would solve all problems and you would get my immediate help when the proposal is approved. I can even start with this list. And you said "IZAK's proposal simply neatly states my proposed criteria" - yes, your PROPOSED critera. Why are you acting on proposed criteria when it has not yet been approved? Let's get it approved for everyone. Heck, I'll post it. Where should I go to post IZAK's critera? Vulturell 00:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Vulturell 00:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
We or you can worry about other lists later. You've been doing this for months, Vulturell (saying we can't sort these lists out until we've sorted out the others) and it's starting to look obstructive. That's not how WP works. The editors are on this page, talking about this article, and this is the one we're starting with. In addition, the Jewish lists have the extra problem that who is a Jew is a complex issue, and that to identify someone as a Jew without it already being public knowledge is potentially dangerous. Lists of Spaniards don't suffer from these problems, so please stop trying to distract us from the issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
No. You've been doing this for months. It would take you 5 seconds to post this proposal for everyone somewhere. You've been saying "later" to me since the beginning, and this later has not yet happened. Why are we singling out Jews over all other groups? You think Italian-Americans don't have these problems? Irish-Americans with the Ulster-Scots and the Anglo-Irish, etc.? Honestly, SlimVirgin, you can solve this in under 5 minutes by posting the full proposal for all groups somewhere. Why don't you? Why? Vulturell 00:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping you from doing it, if you want to. My concern is with these particular lists. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
And where exactly should I go with this? Vulturell 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That's up to you. This is the talk page for List of British Jews. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, great. That means the above proposal by IZAK can not be used on any other "Jewish" list. No editors on those lists have been notified, so how could they possibly vote on it? This proposal stays on this page, then. Vulturell 00:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The editors on this page will apply it to other Jewish lists as and when they choose, and if they agree. This is a wiki. People edit where they want to edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is this editor not blocked? He is absolutely contemptuous of Wikipedia's policies.Grace Note 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been unblocked. But why are you acting on critera that has not yet been approved? Isn't that a break of Wikipedia policy? Vulturell 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't been 24 hours on my clock. I hope you are going to abid by the policy on reverting from now on. I am acting on criteria that have been approved. WP:V and WP:NOR are fundamental policies in Wikipedia. I am working to them and not some arbitrary criteria that you think should apply to this or any other page. Grace Note 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I was unblocked before the 24 hours, and especially since the "24 hour block" was induced by a POV'd third party. My original 8 hour blong expired. Anyway, as I've told you just now, I am agreeing to your criteria but it is criteria that needs to go beyond this page and be the general agreed on, on every list. Vulturell 00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


And let me just state, so there's no misunderstanding. I would like Vulturell's "approval" and I'd hope Arniep can get behind this too, but I'm going to be removing names regardless. I am planning to make this list an exemplar, which other lists can then be directed to. If we make the most contentious list the model, other obstructive editors can be pointed to it. That's why this one now and others later. It also gives me pleasure to make editors who have been upset by the slipshod nature of this list and its arbitrary (and to some unpleasant) criteria happy.

Arniep, re Frida Kahlo. If no source says she was Jewish, she need not be listed. Her article is the correct place for discussing the influence of her Jewish background on her thinking and art. If you want to write an article on "Jewish influences on art" and it doesn't already exist, go for it! New content is the lifeblood of the wiki. Grace Note 00:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did give a source where Kahlo was described as a "Jewish Mexican". That's certainly sufficient under your criteria. OK - you stick to this list and this list only. Do with it as you will - but after you are finished, you and me are going to write up a proposal for all lists, post it everywhere, and act on it. Vulturell 00:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am delighted that you've agreed that these criteria are correct. Grace Note 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no problem but you have to stick with me in the long run on all of these lists. Vulturell 02:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources vs safety

It seems that some clarification is required. Everything depends on the starting point one chooses, if the question is reliable sources then in Standards for sources when "certifying" Jews above (where I was not making any of my own proposals) I was summing up: "The following criteria for sources about anyone's Jewish identity, proposed by User:Grace Note and endorsed by User:SlimVirgin" which I too endorse (since "half a loaf is better than none"). However, if one is concerned about the possible personal safety aspect (as in what if these lists were used for nefarious purposes by all manner of anti-Semites?) then I fully support User:SlimVirgin's concerns that people may, God forbid, be harmed if Wikipedia provides information about anyone's connections to Jews in whatever manner. For this latter purpose see a proposal that is still relevant at: Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Thank you. IZAK 08:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Mandelson

Source does not say he's Jewish but has "a Jewish father". Removed. Grace Note 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you removing people, Grace Note? The proposal has not yet been agreed on. Vulturell 00:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this editor not blocked? He broke the 3RR and even when told he had done so, continued to revert. Grace Note 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been blocked and am now unblocked. That answers your question. But why are you acting on proposed criteria when it has not yet been approved? Vulturell 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You're the only person who opposed them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
So? These things aren't decided in one day. Vulturell 00:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Clement Freud

Sourced to biography of grandfather. Removed. Grace Note 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

John Silkin

Source says he has a "Jewish inheritance". Removed. Grace Note 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Silkin

Poor source that doesn't say that he's Jewish. Removed. Grace Note 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

David Miliband, Nick Cohen, Melanie Philips removed

Miliband I don't know (Jewish father is all that's known), Nick Cohen is not, Melanie Philips I don't know and there was no source. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, let's not get into whether people added are Jewish or not. Neither Cohen nor Philips was sourced. That's a no-no.Grace Note 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Names removed

Note: I am making no judgement whatsoever on whether these people are Jews. I am removing them solely because they are not properly sourced.Grace Note 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Silkin, 1st Baron Silkin

Source is a 404.Grace Note 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Keith Joseph, Baron Joseph

Source is a wiki. Not reputable. Grace Note 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Greville Janner

Source is not reputable. Seems to be an advocacy website. Grace Note 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nigel Lawson

Source is a 404. How can these sites be considered “reputable” if they come and go like this? Grace Note 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Meyer

Source does not say he is Jewish. Grace Note 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir Henry Drummond Wolff

Sourced to biography of Jewish father. Source does not say he was Jewish himself. Grace Note 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Gracenote most secular and reform Jews still consider people with a Jewish father to be Jewish. I don't mind you removing living people but please refrain from removing deceased people. Arniep 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I am able to, I will revert this. Read IZAK's statement of the criteria. You will not add people to this list who sources say have Jewish fathers. You may only add people who a reputable source says was Jewish. We do not decide who is or is not Jewish by any criteria: not those of "secular and reform Jews", not those that appeal to you, not those that appeal to me. Please consider reverting yourself because you're simply making it harder for me to edit this page. Grace Note 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

IZAK is a strict religious orthodox Jew, of course he doesn't agree with what secular or reform Jews believe but that doesn't mean we should just do what strict religious people say. Arniep 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
We should do what the policies of Wikipedia say. I've explained above at very great length why we will not add people who sources say have Jewish fathers. I can only assume you either did not read what I had to say or did not understand it. If there's something you're not clear on, I'm willing to discuss it. But I'm going to remove his name unless you source it to a reputable source that says Wolff himself was Jewish. Not his dad, not his grandpa, not anyone he knew or consorted with. Wolff. This is not a "List of people Arniep thinks qualify as Jewish". Nor a "List of people IZAK thinks qualify as Jewish". You'll note, if you read IZAK's statement closely, that he does not ask that we judge by his criteria (I'm guessing he'd go strictly with halakha but I can't speak for him). He specifically discounts that. Grace Note 02:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well if I renamed the list List of people in Jewish British history this problem of semantics would be cured. Arniep 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not a problem of semantics and if you do that, I will simply move the page back. Also, if you fork the page so that you can trawl for "Jews" and add them to lists, I will endeavour to have the fork deleted. Just find sources for the names you want to add. Grace Note 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, you don't understand. We can list anyone with a Jewish paternal grandfather, even, as long as they are described as, or described themsleves, as "Jewish". Anyone with a Jewish mother can't be listed unless they are described as "Jewish". That's the beauty of it. And that's why we can even delete "100% Jews" or "100% Italians". It's not about the specifics, but simply if they are described as "Jewish", "Italian", a "Jew", a "an Italian American", etc. Vulturell 02:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I do declare, the man's got it! We restate the sources. We do not apply our own prejudices or filters. Grace Note 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and we do it everywhere, too. (Sorry, just had to rub it in) Vulturell 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Names removed

Note: I am making no judgement whatsoever on whether these people are Jews. I am removing them solely because they are not properly sourced. I have allowed some small leeway for some names, for example Leon Brittan (“brought up in an Orthodox Jewish family”, which I am taking to mean that all in his family were Orthodox Jews). Grace Note 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The phrase "Orthodox Jewish family" is meaningless because to a secular historian, for example, if a Jewish family eats kosher food at home, or some such religious observance or ritual, then that family is thus "orthodox" which is total baloney (pardon the pun). Orthodox is not a loose description, it means something very specific, particularly in an encyclopedia, such as Orthodox Judaism, Modern Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Judaism, or Hasidic Judaism. Let's use more caution please. IZAK 09:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I think that's fair enough. I've removed his name. Grace Note 02:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sidney Stern, 1st Lord Wandsworth

Source does not say he’s Jewish. Grace Note 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alfred Mond, 1st Baron Melchett

Source not reputable. Grace Note 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, JInfo is considered a reputable source. I believe the people who originally created this list basically copy and pasted a lot of their stuff. I think the web master even came over here and complained. But again, I don't really care about chemists, scientists, or whoever they usually list, so I'm not going to insist on it being a good source in the bit. Vulturell 03:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It was a list. It really would be better to have something a bit more substantial.Grace Note 04:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Frank Goldsmith

Not sourced at all. Grace Note 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

that's because I haven't written his article yet. Arniep 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Add him when you've written it and found a source. Grace Note 02:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Kaufman

Sources says he is “pro Jew” and has faced “antisemitism” not that he is Jewish. Grace Note 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have re-entered him with a source which does say he is Jewish; this is from the BBC, who I hope will be acceptable. Actually, to simply remove Kaufman (and some others) from such a list without inviting comments from Wikipedians could suggest (to anyone not as nice as myself) either naivety, ignorance, or malice. There is a simple wiki pocedure to request verification - viz., {{fact}} , which comes out as {{Fact}} - why don't those who query people on the list use that in future? It would be polite, and would save a whole lot of hot air on the talk page.--Smerus 06:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It all depends whether people are deleting these names because they have proof that the person is not Jewish, really don't know and would like a reference, or just feel like deleting names. - Newport 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the names solely on the basis that they are not sourced to a reputable source that says that the person concerned is Jewish. Grace Note 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Smerus, this an the accepted method to query material that is not sourced. It's called editing. I am editing out names that I do not think should be on the list just as I would remove material from any article y say so, with your sarcasm ('It's called editing') - that in itself suggests that you are not very sure of your grounds. We should proceed on the basis that those who add names to this list do so with goodwill. If you are not satisified with their sources, it is simply polite to query first, before deleting - unless you are absolutely certain you are right. Otherwise you give the impression - whether you mean to or not - of carrying out an aggressive war, and also of being a bit silly with some obvious cases like Kaufman. This is particularly the case where your justification is your interpretation of the source offered, which is clear POVism. Knowledge is not just about rules. Wikipedia is not a Crusade, but a cooperative effort. With best regards, --Smerus 22:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
My response will have to do. It's in accordance with WP:CITE. If I dispute edits, that policy suggests removing them to talk and requesting sources, which I am doing, rather than littering the article with "citation needed" elements. I proceed on the basis that the motivation of those who add names to the list is entirely unimportant. I am entirely sure that I am right to remove the names I remove, because they do not meet the policies of Wikipedia. If I make a mistake, Smerus, I have no problem with you or anyone else pointing it out. My criteria for judging the sources are those laid out in WP:RS. If you don't like those criteria, please feel free to take up the issue on the talkpage of that policy. In the case of sites such as "Adherents", I refer you to this:
"At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."
My personal belief is that Jews do not hide their Jewishness, and anyone who is Jewish will be reported by a reputable source to be one. If a personal website is the only source for describing someone as one type of thing or another, that must be viewed with suspicion. How did they arrive at that fact? How did they check it? These are important questions to ask, in my view.
As for the sarcastic tone you perceived, Smerus, my apologies, but I'm at a loss to know how to respond to someone who accuses me of not inviting comments when I list the removed names (or in the case of musicians removed, made mention of them) on talk, and give reasons for removing them. I can only consider that remark needlessly hostile. I am, after all, simply editing the article just as I would any other. Grace Note 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I still feel more than a bit of aggression coming through here. But I am more interested in Wikipedia in general than in debating Wikipedia thought policing. I point out merely that it remains possible within Wiki standards to invite comments before removal (as exemplified, fop example by the procedures for deleting or merging articles), and suggest that it is possible to adopt the same attitude with smaller edits, especially perhaps in contentious areas such as this one. You must be aware that your attitude is seen by some as provocative, and perhaps you might wish to invite consensus instead.
Your personal belief, by the way, that 'Jews do not hide their Jewishness' is a fascinating POV in itself; it is a topic which could almost be worth an article by itself. You might like to take a look at Sander Gilman's classic book, Jewish Self-Hatred. Sincerely, --Smerus 06:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Louise Wener

Link went bad. Vulturell 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Taylor

Link says "Jewish parents". Vulturell 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Jewish parents equals Jewish, surely? I guess this comes back to 'Who is a Jew?'

Nancy Spungen

Link died. Besides, she's American. Vulturell 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ronnie Scott [12]

"a family of Russian Jewish descent on his father's side, and Portuguese antecedents on his mother's." Not good enough. Vulturell 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Osbourne

Link was about Sharon Osbourne being Jewish, not Kelly. Vulturell 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Her mum's half-Jewish, ergo she's one-quarter Jewish, which I think is enough. --MartinUK 18:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron Mael, Russell Mael

Dead link. Vulturell 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

David Knopfler & Mark Knopfler

Link doesn't really say they're Jewish. Vulturell 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning: jewwatch.com is posting articles about Jews based on Wikipedia articles

A recent review of Jew Watch (an antisemitic website that claims to "report accurate information regarding Jewish ownership and control over mass media and politics," and which describes its objective as "Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide") (Wikipedia) shows that they identifying Jews and linking to Wikipedia as THEIR "source", see for example "Jews on Stage, Screen, Musicians, Artists, Etc." at [13] This is a serious development that should serve as a warning to all that anti-Semites are riding on the back of all this public identification of Jews. IZAK 10:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, Izak. When you click on the blue links, you're taken to the Wikipedia article for that person. You're right that it's a serious development. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's the other way around. Because if they add blue links to every person on that ancient and wildly incorrect list, then people can click on say, Robert Redford or Leslie Nielsen, look at their Wikipedia entries, which state their non-Jewish background, and see that the website is full of crap and they aren't Jewish, thus hurting any credibility it might have had. This is already the case for the first person on that list, Rupert Murdoch. I made sure a long time ago that his Wiki entry stated his non-Jewish background and killed off the ancient rumor that his mother is Jewish. Vulturell 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I was think it was Jayjg who did that. [14] SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 3

March 2006 (UTC)

No, JayG re-added it in september, after someone must have removed it. I added it back in July, under my at the time anon IP address [15]. Vulturell 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ceasefire

GraceNote claims that the problem with the list is not a problem of semantics. He is saying only people described as Jewish should be included, which I think he knows would put an unfair slant on including only religious Jews not secular Jews. I regard Jewish people as equivalent in status to a nationality, so Jewish people should be allowed to have their own lists just as French or Italian people do. Frida Kahlo or James Goldsmith may not have had Jewish mothers or have been described as Jews but their Jewish background was certainly important to them. We should keep the lists of Jewish people in equality with all the other ethnicity lists i.e. African Americans, Native Americans, Italian Americans, Kurds etc. Arniep 16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Arnie, regardless of what any other pages do, the Jewish lists are going to stick to published sources, which means that if someone is publicly identified as a Jew by a reputable source, they can be added to the list. Not a Jewish father or grandparent, but as a Jew. How the person or publication defines that is up to them, not Wikipedia. We just report. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that in no list of Jewish people in art can I add Frida Kahlo, or that I cannot add James Goldsmith to this list even if they were considered part of the Jewish community? Arniep 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You can if you can find a source saying they're Jews. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, I don't understand why you keep ignoring what I say. I just told you - this website calls Frida Kahlo a "Jewish Mexican artist" [16]. I'm sure that's sufficient for her inclusion. If someone was considered a part of the Jewish community, believe me, you could find a source where they are referred to as "Jewish".Vulturell 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, slimmy, you just said "the Jewish lists", well, wrong. All lists are going to do that. Or I will rever this one. I can't believe you even said that, it's knocking on any principles you have claimed to have. Vulturell 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This has been explained several times. I wonder which part you don't understand. A group of editors has decided to sort out the Jewish lists, starting with this one. You are free to do the same elsewhere if you want to, or not if you don't want to. You will not revert this one. You're the only one causing trouble over it, and you've been allowed for too long to take ownership. Enough already. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, the one thing I'm wondering about is, it would have been incredibly simple for you to answer with one sentence - one - "Yes, those lists will also follow the same pattern eventually". So, why did you feel the need to type all that crap up there instead? Why, SlimVirgin, why? Obviously, Arniep above is also not in agreement with you. A group of editors do not set Wikipedia policy or the policy over a few lists. Dissent is a welcome and absolutely necessary thing. All the lists will follow the same pattern eventually, or none will. Consistancy is the aim of a good encyclopedia. I can't see how you could disagree, especially with your insistance on this policy and on no original research. Vulturell 01:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
"A group of editors do not set Wikipedia policy ..." Exactly, and that's what you've been doing. Now another group has come along and is going to edit these articles in accordance with policy, but we're limiting ourselves to the ones we're directly interested in, because we believe they may pose a special threat to the people listed. It's a wiki. We're allowed to decide which articles we're going to edit. I'm just repeating myself now, so this is probably the last time I'll respond on that point. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're allowed to decide what you're going to edit, but this is hardly confirmed policy. In any case, since it seems even I've agreed to it, if anyone gives me trouble on the other articles if I implement it there, I'll use your name as a reference. Thanks, SlimVirgin, I appreciate it. See you in the funny papers... Vulturell 03:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

David Miliband (2)

An IP editor has restored David Miliband to the page, apparently based on a letter to the editor by a "Norman Birnbaum" [17] describing him as a Jew. Is this really sufficient evidence? Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

He is a respected figure in academia [18]. Arniep 20:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Even assuming it were the same Norman Birnbaum, his expertise does not appear to be in Jewish genealogy. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure the Milibands are listed in the Jewish Year Book so hopefully this will be good enough as a source. Arniep 20:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That would be a fine source; is David Miliband listed in it? Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the letter from Birnbaum. I'd say it's very borderline as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It is totally unacceptable. A man who doesn't know that there's no such thing as a "Jewish citizen" clearly cannot be taken to be knowledgeable in this subject. In any case, letters to the editor are not reputable sources. Newspapers do not check assertions in letters because they are not considered to have the newspaper's imprimatur (most newspapers go so far as to disclaim the opinions in them.Grace Note 02:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Going over the rules again

Please note that having Irish/German/Jewish ancestry[19] does not make one a Jew, nor is it a suitable reference to identify someone as a Jew. We're not going by the "one-drop rule" here. Also, please note that eating a "Jewish diet", including "smoked salmon",[20] does not make one a Jew. We've agreed to use specific references to people being Jews, so let's go about doing that. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is all essentially a trick of words. The article does not say he has "Irish/German/Jewish" ancestry, the article says that he IS "Irish German Jewish". As such he can be included in all three categories (I believe his German ancestors are his Jewish ancestors, but that's irrelevant). Vulturell 19:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"Irish-German-Jewish" is a meaningless phrase indicating some sort of ancestry. People use it all the time, "I'm Irish-Scots-French-Cherokee-English". Please find a link that indicates he is Jewish. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well then, what we need to figure out is how much is enough. "I'm Jewish" works, "I'm half Jewish" also seems to be good, according to GraceNote. Where is the limit, exactly? If someone says "I'm Irish and Jewish", is that good for the list of Jews? Is it good for the list of Irish? That's the problem when you're dealing with specific word choices rather than facts. Vulturell 19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Vulturell, please follow the rules agreed to above (passed 9-1). They are:

  1. Someone is Jewish ONLY if there is a REPUTABLE source saying explicitly that they are Jews. See Wikipedia:Citing 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 violates Wikipedia:No original research and should be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for not answering the question. You are good at that. I'm going to repost my question here. And please note, a porposed policy less than 5 days old that has been voted on by 10 people - is not a policy. Anyway
  • Well then, what we need to figure out is how much is enough. "I'm Jewish" works, "I'm half Jewish" also seems to be good, according to GraceNote. Where is the limit, exactly? If someone says "I'm Irish and Jewish", is that good for the list of Jews? Is it good for the list of Irish? That's the problem when you're dealing with specific word choices rather than facts. Vulturell 19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The rules above look clear enough. If you have a reference saying he's a Jew, then that will do. This is a List of Jews, not "half-Jews" or "Irish-Jewish-Germans". Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Vulturell, my concerns about inclusion here may not match those of other editors. I'm not overly concerned about Nazis using the page to attack Jews, though I concede it could happen. Rather, my concerns are about Wikipedia policy, that is, that information that is challenged must verifiable and backed up by reliable sources. Even though I'm not keen on the kind of original research that has been going on up until now, my standards for inclusion here are fairly liberal. If the article said he had two Jewish parents, or was brought up in a Jewish home (assuming he wasn't adopted or a foster child), or was a Rabbi, or was on the board of some Jewish organization, or some other reasonable indication he was a Jew, then I'd accept it. I'm also fairly liberal about which Jews should be included; if the person has a Wikipedia article, or the link itself asserts his notability in some way, then that's good enough for me. On the other hand, when someone tries to include a link to, say, Leslie Grade, using an article about Lew Grade, that's hardly good enough. Yes, Leslie Grade was Jewish, but so far his "notability" seems to consist of being the brother of Lew Grade and Bernard Delfont, and the father of Michael Grade. Near brushes with notability don't count. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
See, you can't do that. Not with this proposal. A person mentioned as "born to Jewish parents" can not be on this list with the proposal. This has been made explicit to me by Grace Note. That's inserting your own views on who is or is not Jewish into the argument - like you did when you said "he can't have three parents" in the edit history. A person with a Jewish grandfater can be on this list if he is called "Jewish". That's why what you wrote above about "Irish Jewish German" is not correct with the policy. If a person is explicitly called "is Irish Jewish French" then they can be on the list (as opposed to "of Irish Jewish descent"). Because that person is explicitly called Jewish - even if they are also called other things. Being Irish and French doesn't mean you can't be Jewish. And this is the intrinsic flaw of this proposal - it really depends on the word choice of the writer. If they put in "born to Jewish parents" when they could have put in just "is Jewish" with as much accuracy, it changes everything. Now, I won't make a big deal of Terry Hall's exclusion, but you have to realize that this is the reality of the proposal you helped vote in for this page. "born to Jewish parents" won't do, while "is Irish Jewish" will. Vulturell 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, when I voted for it, I put caveats right in my vote. The link in question didn't say "Jewish", it said "Irish-German-Jewish", which is some strange sort of word, but it's definitely not "Jewish". As for "Irish Jewish", under your intrepretation it won't count, since it has to say "Jewish" alone. Seriously, I understand you're upset about the outcome of the vote, but I don't see any need to be obstructionist; I'm not trying to keep names off the list in general, just names that don't have good references, or evidence of notability. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, word usage. As long as it says "is" and "Jewish", it's good. "is Irish Jewish" is good. The proposal in no way says that the people in question can not be assigned other ethnicities and/or nationalities. In fact, many "fully Jewish" people are called "Hungarian Jewish" or "German-Dutch-Jewish" (referring to their national, if not ethnic and religious backgrounds) - does that make them any less Jewish? What if it says "gay Jewish"? Or "bohemian Jewish"? Or "gay-bohemian-French-Jewish"? TAgain, other descriptive terms do not cancel out the "Jewish" part. "is Irish-German-Jewish" is not some strange sort of word, it is three descriptions applied to a person. One description does not cancel the other one out. Anwyay, I have no problem with the notability/red links issue at all. I used to delete red links all the time - heck, the reason this list has no red links now is because I deleted them in my December clean up. And the #1 thing I am "upset" about is the singling out of this list. As I've expressed above, this kind of proposal should be applied to all lists of all groups, or not applied at all. I would even support it. In fact, this "one rule for all" argument is the one I've been branding about since August. In any case, what is clear is that this whole descriptive thing is up for debate, because the wording on the proposal either does not cover this issue, or covers it in a way that suggests as long as a person IS described as Jewish, it is fine to list them, regardless of what else they are described as in the same sentence. Oh, and I'm not sure how I can be an "obstructionist", considering this page is not controlled by anyone I can possibly "obstruct" to. All I'm doing is supporting the wording and terms of the proposal - "of Jewish parents" won't do, but "IS French-Dutch-Jewish" will. The difference lies between that crucial "is" and "parents". Vulturell 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No, actually, the rules says that the link must say they are "Jews", not "Jewish", and certainly not "Irish-German-Jewish", whatever strange amalgam that is intended to represent. "Irish Jewish" doesn't really make the grade, though "an Irish Jew" would certainly be acceptable. And it's quite clear that "Jewish parents" is a far stronger indication that an individual is a Jew than is "Irish-German-Jewish", which might, for example, indicate a single Jewish grandparent or even great-grandparent. As for your other examples, they're not particularly relevant; ethnicity and sexual orientation or philosophical outlook are unrelated. Regarding your issue about "singling out", you must accept that Wikipedia's 1,000,000 articles are never going to all be consistent, and that people edit in their own particular interest areas. Yes, it would be wonderful if all Wikipedia articles conformed to Wikipedia policy, but the fact that some other articles don't conform with policy doesn't mean that this article must also not conform with policy, and your claims that one cannot fix one article without fixing them all are, indeed, obstructionist. The real issue here is that most lists on Wikipedia are silly, and shouldn't exist to begin with, because they're usually subjective, unreferenced, unencyclopedic, non-notable, inevitably incomplete, and most importanly, impossible to maintain. Yes, a list of Nobel Prize winners, or Academy award winners, or Pulitzer prize winners, etc., is interesting, reasonable, maintainable, etc. But a "List of British Jews"? That's just stupid. Throughout history there must have been at least a million British Jews, perhaps more; if you try to extend it to British people with Jewish ancestry, you're talking several million. Of those, hundreds of thousands might deserve a Wikipedia article; can you imagine trying to edit or maintain a list a hundred thousand people long? However, given that AfD votes on these rarely succeed, we must deal with reality, and attempt to make the best of this silly list. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
"it's quite clear that "Jewish parents" is a far stronger indication that an individual". And there's the problem again. You're using your own criteria, saying what is or is not a strong indication of being Jewish. This is explicitly what Grace Note said we can't do. I gave him an example that a person described as having "Swedish parents" obviously belongs on a list of Swedish-Americans - but according to him, no. You can read his reasoning on my talk page. Like I said, the proposal as written leaves a lot of room for debate. To me, it indicates that if a person is described as "Jewish", even if "Jewish" is only one of a handful of nationalities or ethnicities that a person is described as, it is still good for the list (and for the other ethnicity lists, obviously). To you, it doesn't. So I can say "yah" and you can say "nah", and maybe you can get SlimVirgin and her ten good friends to say "nah" with you, and maybe I can find a few people who haven't been scarred for life and permanently frightened off from editing this page to say "yah" with me, but the point is there's still a huge discreprancy. Wikipedia does not have that many lists by ethnicity/religion. There are maybe 25 or so - most of them relatively small (and not for lack of trying) - of "xxx-Americans". Having them all fit a certain standard is not unreasonable, and especially since this is the only list out there that is fully sourced. Obviously, all of these lists also need their titles changed to "list of NOTABLE xxx's". I doubt anyone would disagree and obviously no one wants to list every single xxx.... What I've been saying all this time is that we need to just formulate a nice, short criteria that would apply to all lists. Believe me, I have both the time and resources to go out there and apply that criteria to every list if you don't. The criteria on this page is flawed because
  • A. It only applies to this page, not even to all lists of Jews (since it was only posted and voted on here, and obviously South Dakota does not elect North Dakota's governor so we can't apply this criteria elsewhere without voting on it there)
  • B. It was voted on by 10 people, including too many of the "usual suspects"
  • C. As I've said, it leaves a lot of room for intrepration. I can very reasonably say that "IS French-Irish-Jewish" is good and no argument can be made that "Jewish parents" is good (the proposal explicitly states it won't do, in fact). The proposal also relies on whichever magazine/source writer's intrepration or POV, as opposed to the facts involved.
  • So again, if you are really interested in cleaning up these lists (and as such, other lists), let's formulate some sort of proposal together, have it apply to all lists, and post it in a big public place where everyone can vote on it. Vulturell 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
BTw, I noticed you removed what was indeed a Wikipedia mirror as a citation. What my point is, is that is a Jewish web site, and lo and behold! They have a list of Jewish musicians, that was in fact copied from us. So obviously, some people, other than evil muslim terrorists from outer space, find these lists useful. This comment is for SlimVirgin and anyone who claimed these lists are evil. Vulturell 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That's because they trust us, Vulturell, and that's because they don't know any better. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
A. The information is accurate, so their trust is well placed and B. oh, well, I'm glad you think you know better than that web site. And better than Jinfo and Jewhoo... You should probably send out a warning letter to all Jewish celebrities who are thinking of mentioning the fact that they are Jewish in an interview or something, otherwise they may get into mortal danger... After all, never mind the dozens if not hundreds of Jewish people who work on these web sites and are proud and happy to post these lists. You know better. Vulturell 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm personally not aware of any Jewish editors who add names to these lists, much less are "happy and proud" to do so, though I daresay there may be some I don't know about, given there are so many lists now. As I've said before, maybe you should let that tell you something, but I suspect you know already. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I did say Jewish editors who work on "these web sites" - i.e. Jewhoo and Jinfo, etc., not Wikipedia. Needless to say, there are plenty of Jewish editors who work on the Wiki lists as well, including that fellow up there who posted a "Are they Jewish?" list (I think he's an Israeli, not sure). And needless to say, you do not know (and should not know) the ethnic background of every editor who works on this page, including my own (then again, I've never actually "worked" on this page in adding new names, I either A. protect it or B. source it), and I do not know yours. That's the way it is supposed to be, in Wikipedia. It's called "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" for a reason. Vulturell 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd stop trying to be such a pompous know-it-all, if I were you. You've revealed yourself with your posts to the Anti-Semites Anonymous Review. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, personal attacks aside, just because the Wikipedia Review has anti-semites posting on it, it does not make every person posting on it anti-Semitic, especially since Selina has been trying to clear it of that influence. However, I do hope you take in mind some of the criticism that has been written on that board. Oh, and as for me stopping being a pompous know-it-all - well, that's just not going to happen. Vulturell 07:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mention anyone else's posts. I said you have revealed yourself with your posts. I also didn't say you were a pompous know-it-all. I said you were trying to be one. You don't read sources very carefully, do you? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh really. Well, that's news to me. I would say my posts have been in the opposite direction (in fact, criticizing your alleged anti-Israel stance that someone brought up). Which of the posts would those be? (I am poster "vulchy", obviously) Vulturell 07:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As you've asked for an example, below is one from the thread "What should we call the alleged "Wikipedia Jews"?" SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Vulchy (User:Vulturell): "How about we call them a bunch of dirty c****? That's always been my favorite term for those who disagree with me...."
  • Dr Caligari (User:Amalekite, banned from Wikipedia for posting a list of perceived Jewish editors to the Stormfront website): "Sure. I guess it's preferable to call people "dirty c****" than to point out they're Jews."
What's the problem here? I'm referring to a bunch of Wikipedia editors that I dislike by a name I would really like to refer to them by. Just because some idiot is claiming that they're all Jewish has nothing to do with me. In fact, under either the same thread or a similar one, I said that these specific editors are not Jewish, just stupid. Vulturell 07:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From the same thread, to dispell this stupid accusation, since SlimVirgin brought it up:
  • Vulchy (User:Vulturell): "labelling people as Jewish and saying they're bad because of it ain't right either" Vulturell 08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't edit my posts. I'm not going to argue with you any further. You post on a board with anti-Semites. You post in a thread about what to call Wikipedia's Jews. You banter with an obvious anti-Semitic poster (whether you knew he was User:Amalekite of Stormfront/Vanguard News Network fame or not). You laugh about how you're going to cause chaos on Wikipedia if we continue to get these lists in order. You insult other editors. You say you're going to "win" by using sockpuppets. As I said, you have revealed yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't put two and two together. I made a joke about sockpuppets, and said I'm going to win in two absolutely separate posts. As I've already said, Selina is working very hard to clear up that board. Obviously, there are anti-Semites posting on it, but I think their days are numbered. I posted in the thread about Wikipedia Jews saying that they are not all Jewish and we should not bunch them together. I didn't say "I would cause chaos" (or anything involving chaos), I said I would go around implementing the same harsh standards you've been implementing here. If you call what you've done here chaos, well, then....

Vulturell 08:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can copy every one of your sordid little posts here if you like. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. As I've said, I believe there is nothing sordid or anti-Semitic about them at all. I never say anything that I don't stand by. Vulturell 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, let me repeat: I will remove any name that is not sourced to a reputable source (not a dodgy website) that says that the person concerned is Jewish. It is acceptable, of course, that the person themselves say in an interview "I am Jewish". Grace Note 02:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Too cryptic, or creepy, or something totally expected! Can I send the hated and hateful Igorlemite a message through this medium? El_C 07:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This is doubtless one of his favorite pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I got a fascistic idea: let's talk about the overrepresentation of Jews in finance, with no historical background whatsoever, because history is ... hard. Let's also talk about the overrepresntation of Jews participating in the Russian Revolutions, with no historical background. Then let's also talk about an Israel and Palestine in a vaccum (client state of whom? what's a client state?). Instead, let's make all of it sound ... mystical, or biological, anything to avoid an excess of critical thought. A certain degree of subservience is of utmost necessity when you've chosen hate and cowardice (power to do what to whom? what's power?). And so it came to pass that hating has never been so easy, becasue it has always been this easy. But your side is destined to lose, Igorlemite. El_C 08:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the Anti-Semites Anonymous Review board reminds me of Philip Roth's twelve-step program in Operation Shylock. Step One: "We admit that we are haters and that hatred has ruined our lives." :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I like: In roar of shell and shrapnel and in whine of machine-guns will our answer be couched. It has, and it will. We will win. El_C 09:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Count me in that cabal, bro. Grace Note 09:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a cabal I can join? I just have never been able to be invited to one, and I'd hate barging in. Vulturell 09:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Roche

Link is dead. Grace Note 02:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Hodge

Source does not say she is Jewish. Having a "Jewish-mother manner" does not in fact make one Jewish, btw. Grace Note 02:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Names removed

I make no judgement on whether any of the following are Jewish. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Benenson

Source does not say he was Jewish. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

New sources are a/ an elementary school website and b/ an obit that does not say he's Jewish.Grace Note 08:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The San Francisco Jewish chronicle obits are of Jewish people only. If they obit Benenson, that's what they're saying. Vulturell 08:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Please read the criteria at the top of this page and also WP:NOR.Grace Note 08:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Unclear to me whether he was. The World Jewish Congress describes him as "the grandson of a Russian-Jewish banker"[21] The Guardian obit says "Born in London to a mother from a Russian-Jewish background and an army officer father who died while he was young" and "In 1958, he underwent a conversion to Roman Catholicism"[22] Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicky Gavron

Source says “daughter of a Jewish refugee”, not that she’s Jewish. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Krystyna Skarbek

Source doesn’t even mention her that I can see and even if it did would not be acceptable. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

David Triesman

404. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

New cite is still a 404. Perhaps if you stopped trawling for Jews, and started sourcing to reliable sources, this wouldn't happen. Grace Note 08:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
What's with this "trawling for Jews" thing and all these comments? FindArticles is a good source, it's not my fault that they keep changing the URL. Anyway, I cached it. Vulturell 08:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
FindArticles is a means to find articles. Perhaps you could use the originals as your sources. And googling up names that you consider "Jewish" to see whether someone agrees is what I mean by "trawling for Jews". I'm sorry if you felt that's an overaggressive phrasing. I'll try harder to keep my distaste for it at bay. Grace Note 09:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Curious logic. A name is in the list. Someone removes it, claiming that the existing source is inadequate. Someone else then finds a better source, using Google. How is this "trawling for Jews"? - 20.138.246.89 17:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord Woolf

I’d like IZAK or Jayjg to review this one. I have left him in for now. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who granted either one of those editors final consensus. Vulturell 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking for their opinion. Your opinion is also welcome, although I believe that they will be better informed than you are. Grace Note 08:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
BBC News says Harry Woolf was born in 1933 in Newcastle into a close Jewish family. To this day, he will always stay in on Friday evenings "more out of feelings of family than any religious obligations".[23] That alone is good enough as far as I'm concerned, but here is more information; he was also apparently honorary president of the U.K. branch of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.[24] The Guardian says "Today, there is just one Jew close to the top in government (minister of state at the home office, Barbara Roche) and none in cabinet. But Lord Woolf is master of the rolls and the current lord mayor of London, Lord Levene, has been active in the community"[25] and apparently Woolf said Each and every one of us are faced with situations in our school lives, in our business lives, in our social lives, when it would be easier to hide the fact that we were Jewish. For the most part I have passed these trials - and have been proud of myself for having done so. I don't know what I would have done in Danny's situation. But should the occasion ever arrive, I hope that the fact that he did will make it easier for me and for others to die with as much pride as he did[26] Also his award from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research for, including a description of his "involvement with numerous Jewish causes, both in the UK and Israel"[27] and this site are also supportive. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir Michael Berry

Source not reputable. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Max Born

Ceased being Jewish. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

He may have, but I'm sure there's a reputable source out there saying that he's Jewish. I'll probably find it. Vulturell 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Adherents put him under the category "Famous Jews". This is most assuredly acceptable. Being a famous Lutheran does not mean you can not be a Famous Jew simultaneously. Do not remove. Vulturell 06:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and don't anyone tell me "source seems to say he stopped being Jewish". It says he converted to Lutheranism. It does not say he stopped being an ethnic or cultural Jew. If the site, regardless of his religion, puts him under "Famous Jews" then they have made the decision for us. Vulturell 07:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what category "Adherents" put him under. Websites that make lists of Jews are not reputable sources. Grace Note 08:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Adherents is a serious web site and cites its sources in this case. They make lists of everybody, and if they put him under the Jewish category then he belongs here, too. Vulturell 08:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree. If they source it, supply the source they used. If it says he stopped being Jewish, forget it. Grace Note 08:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it says he stopped being a member of the Jewish religion. If you think that means he stopped being Jewish, it's your POV and has no effect on this. The fact is, a reliable website that has posted and reviewed the facts, citing their sources, placed him under "Famous Jews". Vulturell 08:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
One, if this "reliable website" uses sources, we can use the same sources. It's always better to go to the original. Two, if the original source says he stopped being Jewish, then sorry, no, it's not a question of my "POV": it's a source that says he was not Jewish. You need to try to get away from your own POV about Jewishness. Grace Note 08:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the site in fact does NOT explicitly say he stopped being Jewish. It says he "was a Jewish-born convert to Lutheranism". If you think that makes him not Jewish, that's a POV. The original source makes no decision on whether he is Jewish in any way or not - Adherents did that. If a reliable source decide that he is Jewish enough to be in a category of Famous Jews, then he belongs on this list too. Vulturell 08:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not a list of Jewish-born converts to Lutheranism. I will not break the 3RR but I will remove Born at the first possible opportunity and will continue to do so as long as he is not sourced to a reputable source that says he was Jewish. I do not care, by the way, that some website has indulged in its own original research on the source.Grace Note 09:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey waitaminute there! "not a site of Jewish-born converts to Lutheranism"? If you think that his Lutheran religion makes him less Jewish than that is your POV. However, Adherents IS considered a reputable source. If they decided that he is Jewish, then that is good enough for us. As you said, we don't make these decisions and we also do not insert our own POVs. Adherents made the decision that he was Jewish enough to be a "famous Jew". Vulturell 09:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've said all I have to say about both Adherents and Born. I have absolutely no view on whether Born was Jewish but I do have a view on whether issue websites are reputable. Grace Note 09:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This list does not exclude people who are atheist or converted to another religion otherwise we would exclude Disraeli. We would not remove a person of Indian descent from a list of British Indians because they became atheist or converted to buddhism so we should not do that to this list. Arniep 12:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to exclude Disraeli if it is your contention that he ceased to be Jewish and you can find a source that says so. The source for Born makes it clear that he ceased being Jewish and this list will reflect that. In the case of Indians, Arnie, please try to get this clear: if your source said that X was born in India but renounced his citizenship when he became British, I would strike him out from a list of Indian foos. Grace Note 01:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is an ethnicity as well, and Born didn't cease being an ethnic Jew. Of course his name should stay. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Vulturell 04:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It's of no account what Jay thinks Judaism is. Grace Note 07:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources: A Jew, Born fled the Nazis in 1933, as a Jew, Born was forced to flee Germany in 1933, In 1933, with the rise of Hitler he, as a Jew, left Germany, Heisenberg wrote to Born, a Jew, in June 1933. Note, none refer to him as an "ex-Jew" or "former Jew". Jayjg (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the sources.Grace Note 07:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I agree, Adherents.com is not a reliable source. One of its own sources is Wikipedia's Lists of Jews. :-O Jayjg (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Adherents list of Jews, Catholics, etc. is indeed not reliable. However, their specific entries for a person are reliable, because instead of just copying us, they look up a person's religion somewhere and put them in a category based on it. Vulturell 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's currently a moot point, because better sources have been found. However, what makes you consider it to be a reliable source? Do you know the author's of those pieces, and their own sources? Is there editorial oversight? Is there a venue for getting corrections if information on the site turns out to be incorrect? Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Eisler

I think this source is at best borderline. Would other editors please review? Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsure. Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Gabor

Source does not say he was British. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

William Herschel

Source specifically points out that he was claimed spuriously to be Jewish! Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to be kidding with that new source! Please source to reputable sources. That does not mean "do a google search and source to anything that vaguely fits". Grace Note 08:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what's wrong with this source. Just because they're a Jewish Christian website it doesn't mean they're unreliable. Vulturell 08:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
"Issue" websites are per definitionem not reputable. Grace Note 08:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Peter Hirsch

Source not reputable. Please source these people to solid reputable sources, not lists on some website. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about JInfo, it IS considered reputable, but I don't really care either way, considering it only lists scientists (not my field, as a personal bias) Vulturell 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not consider websites that simply list Jews to be reputable, nor to meet the criteria as expressed by IZAK, and I will remove people for whom they are the only source. Grace Note 08:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I am not going to argue about JInfo - if you think it isn't good enough, that's fine. But Adherents makes lists of everybody and cites their sources. They are a reliable web site. Vulturell 08:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Then cite to their sources, not to them. It's easy. Go to the source. It's always better to have things firsthand, not second, third or no hand at all. Grace Note 09:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Kurti

Source not reputable. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Herbert Brown

Source not reputable and does not say he was British either. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please source to a reputable source that says he was Jewish, not his parents. Grace Note 08:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the source? Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Klug

Not Jewish, not British. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ludwig Mond

Source does not say he was Jewish. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you already remove someone named Mond? I guess they get around. Vulturell 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there was and is a whole family of them, including some also known as Lord Melchett. - 20.138.246.89 17:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Max Perutz

Source not reputable. Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Source does not say Perutz is Jewish and specifically notes that some of the people the book is about were not Jewish. Grace Note 08:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No, the paragraph gives a list of physicits and points out anyone who is not Jewish. Vulturell 08:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Find another source that doesn't require the use of deduction to work out who is and who isn't Jewish. If he is, it should prove no problem. Grace Note 08:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Polanyi

This source is not readily accessible. Could someone please post here what it says about Polanyi? Removing him in the meanwhile. Source follows: http://pos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/3/26Grace Note 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't use just put a fact tag on them rather than deliberately trying to dismantle the list? Arniep 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What difference would it make, Arnie? People can see either here or in the edit summaries which names are being removed. If they (or you) want to find a good source saying the person is a Jew, then they should do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've explained why. Why don't you help instead of harassing me? I have to ask why you're so keen to add "Jews" to this list, so much so that you want to add people who did not wish to be considered Jewish.Grace Note 03:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think arniep can probably answer his own question. lol. Vulturell 06:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The polite thing to do would be to place a note on this page otherwise it just makes a lot of work for other people putting the person back in the right place. Arniep 12:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a note on this page. This section is headed by the note. It's easy to put the person back on the list if you find a reputable source. Are you asking that I cut and paste the description so that you can put it back in? I'll gladly do that if it makes it easier. But I won't cut and paste the sources for the obvious reasons. Grace Note 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


New source does not say he was British. Grace Note 08:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Piratin

404. Source to something reliable please. Grace Note 08:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I cached it now. It is a reliable source. Vulturell 08:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.

Mael Brothers

No website to which passers by can submit "Jews" is ever going to be "reputable" by the standards of Wikipedia. Grace Note 08:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

People can't actually "submit" Jews to Jewhoo. They can certainly submit people who they think are Jewish to the editor, and he would look for sources, etc. The site in the version you saw is run by Nate Bloom, who is a credited and reliable celebrity Jews writer for several Jewish newspapers. See his credentials here for example: [28] "JWR contributor Nate Bloom, writes on column on popular culture and "celebrity Jews" for the Detroit Jewish News, Baltimore Jewish Times, Cincinnati American Israelite, New Jersey Jewish Standard and JWeekly (San Francisco). Comment by clicking here. 2006, Nate Bloom. Substantially similar versions of this piece appeared in the print edition of the Baltimore Jewish Times on Feb. 10, 2006 and) will appear in the print edition of the Detroit Jewish News on February 16, 2006. Bloom is also the editor of www.Jewhoo.com, a Jewish biographical site that will be re-launched in the next two months. Bloom wishes to thank the Jewish Sports Review newsletter (www.Jewishsportsreview.com) for their help with this article. The Review, a non-profit labor-of-love, is a terrific resource for those really interested in "who is Jewish" in sport." Vulturell 08:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The link points to an entry page for the site. If this guy has said "Ron Mael is Jewish", why aren't you pointing to that? Grace Note 08:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the site is a database created by Bloom (and a huge one, at that). Search for "Mael" in the search engine - or you can scroll to the huge "Music/Rock n Roll" section where the same entry is listed. Vulturell 08:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I searched for "Ron Mael" and got a bunch of crap. Find a reputable source, please. Grace Note 08:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

They're Americans. Jigsawpuzzleman 15:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
While the Mael brothers are Americans born in California, both of their parents were born in the UK and they lived in London for a large part of their career. They do seem to be a borderline case of whether they should be included on this list or not.

Musicians

I've removed a bunch of musician types who the list itself claims to be of Jewish parentage rather than being Jewish. Gavin Rossdale is claimed to be "half-Jewish". Please see criteria about this. Grace Note 08:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wellll..... just because the list says they are of "Jewish parentage" does not mean there isn't a reliable source out there. You should at least post the names here. Vulturell 08:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you did say that "half Jewish" can be acceptable, Grace Note. Vulturell 09:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


They are listed as not meeting the criteria. The names are clear from the history. Grace Note 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And read what I actually did say about "half-Jewish". Grace Note 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you said it was up my intrepration. "No one is asking you to remove people you think fit the criteria." Although you can make a good case for Rossdale's removal (because I believe he is in fact only "one quarter" Jewish, despite his comments), it does not mean every person called "half Jewish" will be removed. Vulturell 09:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I said exactly that. No one is asking you to remove Rossdale. I'm doing it. And I'll remove anyone else who is described as "half Jewish". Grace Note 09:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Names removed

Ambrose (bandleader)]]

[29] Does not say he is Jewish. Grace Note 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

===Nicole, Natalie Appleton & Melanie Blatt=== [30], members of All Saints (Appletons Jewish mother)

Source not reputable. Some website a guy set up to label people Jewish on is not reputable. This is just one guy’s say so and he doesn’t become an expert just because he has a website. All “Challah Fame” sources are not reputable for this reason.Grace Note 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Elkie Brooks

[31] [32], singer

Neither source says she is Jewish. Grace Note 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd accept this one as being well-enough sourced. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Neither source says she is Jewish. Which part of which source do you think meets the criteria? Grace Note 08:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The second; "Elkie Brooks was born and raised in a Jewish family which encouraged and nurtured her inborn love of music. Her earliest singing lessons were received from her local Rabbi" is good enough as far as I'm concerned. Saying someone is "born and raised in a Jewish family etc." is not the same thing as saying "Jewish mother" or "Jewish father" or "Jewish origins"; in this case it is the whole family which is Jewish, and she is certainly part of that family. Jayjg (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm borderline on this (when thinking in the context of the this page's policy, that is). "Jewish family" is probably good, although technically it doesn't strictly follow the "proposal". Vulturell 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Green

[33], member of Fleetwood Mac

Challah Fame not reputable. Grace Note 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Note, I've returned Peter Greenbaum of those fabulous Klezmorim, Fleetwood Mac, to his rightful place as per his authorised biography. -- JJay 21:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

=== Jason Kay=== [34], member of Jamiroquai

Challah Fame not reputable. Grace Note 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what? You can't just say every source is disreputable. Both Adherents and Jewsrock are not some amateur websites. They are both professional sites with accurate information. I understand why a list would not be good source, but I don't understand why these two sites, which offer full information and not a list, would not be acceptable. This isn't just "some guy's website". I'm restoring them. Vulturell 17:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS. I will be removing these names as soon as I am able. I quoted the relevant section of the policy for Smerus above. Let's take "Jewsrock" as an example. It is created by "Jeffrey Goldberg is currently the Washington correspondent of The New Yorker. Allen Goldberg (who is not related to Jeffrey Goldberg, except in the sense that all Jews are related) is an executive at XM Radio and founding member of the Hope for Henry Foundation. And David Segal writes for The Washington Post’s Style section out of the paper’s New York bureau." I don't see any reason to consider these people as experts in the field of Jewish ethnology. Their standards for considering people Jewish are interesting too: "Q. Do you people have rigorous halachic standards for admittance into the Challah Fame? A. No. We’re not, after all, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Jews in rock can be people whose parents are Jewish, or have one parent who’s Jewish, or a grandparent, or a gastroenterologist who is Jewish. And Bruce Springsteen. We’ve decided that Springsteen is Jewish." Now, Vulchy, I have to ask, is this truly a "reputable source"? Are you so keen to say that the guy out of Jamiroquai is Jewish that you will source it to someone who is willing to claim Bruce Springsteen is Jewish? Grace Note 01:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely you understand that they were kidding with Springsteen? Jewsrock, like many similar sites, is a web site with a sense of humor. The thing is, your main point throughout all of this has been that "we" don't decide who is Jewish. Fine. We let others decide. This is not a third-rate website and as you yourself have just shown me, it is run by people with credentials in the entertainment industry, not random people off the street. If the fact that they don't use rigorous halachaic standards to decide who is Jewish disturbs you, then that is your POV. What standards they use has nothing to do with us - as you've said, we just report. And as Jewsrock is not an anti-Semitic website or a website with a political agenda, there is no reason to believe their intentions are wrong. Therefore I simply can not see how this website would be unacceptable. Vulturell 04:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and another thing, you said "I don't see any reason to consider these people as experts in the field of Jewish ethnology". Well, why would you see a reason to consider any of the writers for the Guardian, BBC, etc. as experts in the field of Jewish ethnology? At least we know that the web masters of Jewsrock are Jewish. Oh, and I don't know what Jamiroquai is. In fact, I don't know who any of these people we've been talking about are, and I don't particularly care. I'm not even British. I've never even added anyone to this page or any similar ones who wasn't an actor. sigh, I always get into these big conflicts because I know that if you start deleting politicians, etc. you're eventually going to get to actors, which is my sole area of interest, and I mainly don't want to see different standards used in this list then in the other actor lists. But anyway... Vulturell 04:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
What you seem to be saying is you know nothing about the subject matter but you're happy to go on editing the page regardless. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that's about right. However, for example, one can be a kindergarten student and still edit Wikipedia if you know what you're doing, right? Also, SlimVirgin, you may note that despite this admitted lack of credentials, I have
  • Increased productivity and standards by sourcing everyone and enforcing the citation system (I mean in December, not this travesty)
  • Kept you and your deletionist friends at bay fairly successfully
  • and of course, most importantly, have added a few actors to the list that were previously unmentioned
  • What have you done in comparison? (though I've heard you are a fellow Canadian, not a Brit either, so maybe you can be forgiven) Vulturell 07:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You must cease immediately from making personal remarks, Vulturell, this isn't the Wikipedia Review. El_C 07:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I would say that SlimVirgin crossed that border a long time ago. Yesterday's accusations by SlimVirgin (and her comment about me being a know-it-all) and delvings into something that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion (the Wikipedia review), but has everything to do with what I do in my time off, for example. Not to mention that what you're commenting on is in response to this sentence by SlimVirgin "What you seem to be saying is you know nothing about the subject matter but you're happy to go on editing the page regardless.". I'd say compared to all that, one little "What have you done in comparison?" is sufficient. Accost SlimVirgin about her personal remarks if you want me to listen to you. Remember, I'm a proponent of equal treatment. Vulturell 07:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to volunteer information on where you live, that is your prerogative, but don't WikipediaReview other editors' locations. El_C 07:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

This list is a list of Jewish people. If a person is of Jewish parentage they are Jewish even if they are not religious or have converted to another religion. If we had a list of British Indians I doubt you would remove people who had only been described as of Indian parentage so please do not do this here. Jewish people are a people equivalent to any other ethnic group so should not be singled out and discriminated against in this way. Arniep 12:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, this is a ridiculous twisting of Wikipedia's original research policy, that has been given a quickie approval by the usual suspects. Vulturell 17:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


This is purely Arnie's POV and I totally refute it. Please see Who is a Jew? for a discussion of why. I do not see why we should permit your POV, or mine, or anyone else's to prevail. We have simple criteria, which clearly align with the policies of Wikipedia. I take it very amiss that editors simply ignore those policies to reinsert people they have personally decided are Jewish. Grace Note 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Arnie, I think what's confusing you is that you believe you need only prove someone is a foo. But the criteria we are working to -- those demanded by Wikipedia's policies -- are that a source must say the person is a foo and that source must be reputable. It couldn't be simpler. There's no real need for debate. If you have a reputable source that says Frida Kahlo was Jewish, then so far as Wikipedia is concerned, she is Jewish. What you cannot do is say "if someone has Jewish parents, they are Jewish". That's your opinion, your position, your thesis if you like. Our positions may or may not be the positions shared by sources; they may or may not be the position prescribed by halakha; they may or may not be the positions accepted by reform Jews, by your aunt Sally, who is Jewish, or by the Nuremberg Laws. They may or may not be the positions we would take with any other "ethnicity" or description that a person could have. None of that matters. We're not here to judge which position is correct, to fight over whether people actually are Jewish or any other thing. We are simply here to report what our sources say. I will strike out anyone who is included outside of that process, and if you reinsert the person, as you and Vulchy insist on doing, count on my striking them out again. I ask again that you defer your editwarring until I have completed the task of removing the names that do not meet the criteria. It's difficult for me to keep track of who has been readded with good sources (and I appreciate that Vulchy has done that in some cases), who has been readded with the same, nonreputable sources and who has been added with no sources at all, which could lead to error on my part when I strike out people who have been re-sourced within the criteria. Please allow me to finish. It will take only a short while and will involve the least conflict. I'll undertake to list all names with their adjoining text to make re-adding them easier, but please try to restrain yourselves until I'm done.Grace Note 01:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


I actually don't understand the above. If an reputable source says a person is jewish, they will often do that on the basis that one or both of the parents are jewish, and to the best of the knowledge of the source, they haven't disclaimed their jewishness. Under the rules set forth above, that statement, based on that heritage, makes the person acceptable for inclusion in the list of jews. yet if the source only states that the individual has jewish parents, the individual may not be listed as jewish. And how many people go around declaring "I am a Jew"; if asked maybe, what if they are never asked? What if they are interviewed at a Jewish event, their parents are jewish, they have married a spouse who seems to have a jewish name - they still can't be included as jewish unless some paper SAYS they are jewish? None of this makes any sense. There are two possibilities, either of which work: accept traditional judaism's definition of a jew (anyone with a jewish mother or a convert); or accept a more general definition, anyone who has some jewish ancestry, is active either in jewish secular or religious life, and who has never disclaimed being jewish. To rely on even a reputable third party source without knowing the criteria upon which that source determines that someone is jewish seems far worse than drawing that judgment on some rational basis. ag

Please familiarise yourself with the policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not set criteria, make judgements or find "rational bases" for drawing up lists. It restates what its sources have stated. Grace Note 08:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but you are playing a game on words here. If there was a list of British politicians, but some had only been described as M.P. or an English politician, would you refuse to allow them on the list? Arniep 00:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you're beginning to understand the difficulties of making lists in encyclopaedias that are bound by policies such as ours. Grace Note 01:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you're stretching the Original Research policy. As I've told you before, we are allowed certain freedoms as editors. The existence of a "List" in itself would be original research under your definition unless we either A. copied and pasted said list exactly or B. made sure every person on it has not only been described as a "foo", but has been explicitly stated as "belongs on a list of foos". The fact in itself is that not a single similar ethnicity/nationality list out there in Wikipedia has ever been done this way and the fact that the logic here is questioned so repeatedly. Of you course you are going to reply that you are in fact, not stretching the Wikipedia OS policy and that I should have another look at it. But that's A. predictable and B. again, open to a lot of intrepretation. Vulturell 03:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sellers and Kingsely

Peter Sellers described himself as "half-Jewish"[35], not as "Jewish" or "a Jew". That certainly trumps any link from the dubious source "SomethingJewish". Similarly, Ben Kingsley himself only states that he mother had "Russian and Jewish ancestry"[36], not that he himself was or is a Jew. This certainly trumps any claim by the rather ridiculous "Jew-O-Meter" at Eye Weekly. Also, please try to use civil edit summaries. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, one source does not trump another when we're dealing with this kind of word game. If a good source calls someone "Jewish" then we can repeat that here, that's what Grace Note says we do. Unless you have some quote from either which explicitly states that "I am not Jewish" or something similar. Otherwise you're using your own standards, etc. because you think "Jewish ancestry" doesn't mean Jewish, etc. etc. Anyway, point is, we've got sources that say both Sellers and Kingsley are "Jewish" - in whichever sense - in what sense that is, is not up to us to decide. Vulturell 21:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
When I wrote that I was "restoring Jayjg's deletions," I didn't mean restoring the edits he deleted, I meant restoring his version with the deletions (or without the edits). :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope that by "actually Jewish" you don't mean that they practice Judaism or something. The sources explicitly call both Sellers and Kingsley "Jewish". That fits the policy. I can't grasp how you can put up an argument to that. Vulturell 23:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
There are conflicting sources here, and the better ones call them something else. The relevant policies here are Wikipedia's policies, specifically WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
We aren't looking for the source that makes "the least" of their Jewish background. If you want a list of people who are "fully Jewish" by ethnicity, that should've been your criteria. Your criteria was people who are described as "Jewish" in a reliable source - regardless of their full background. Kingsley, Sellers, and certainly Sid James (the source calls him a "South African Jew" - I guess you removed him on principal) all fit this criteria. If two Jewish websites saw fit to describe Sellers and Kingsley as "jewish" - wonderful - we are taking their material. And both the sites are reliable and not just "some guy's site". Vulturell 01:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
To begin with, I don't have any personal criteria for this page, nor does anyone else. The only criteria for this page are standard Wikipedia policy. I know you have complained that many other Lists do not follow policy, and consider it unfair to single this one out and insist that it does follow Wikipedia policy, but Wikipedia is not always consistent, and it is better to have at least one List follow policy than have none of them follow policy. Second, contrary to your edit summary claim, WP:RS is quite clear that some sources are better than others; when we have better sources contradicting dubious sources, we go by what the better sources say. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding Sid James, with all the complex reverting you have been doing it was hard to figure out what is going on. However, I looked at the source, and you are correct, it is unambiguous and quite reliable. Thanks for providing it. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Rudd

Although definitely Jewish, he isn't really British by any standard. Vulturell 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you edit while I'm in the middle of removing names, we'll only get edit conflicts. If you want to add new sources, please add them when I'm finished, instead of reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. You shouldn't even be removing them in the first place - but looking for sources yourself. I am restoring them with new sources as soon as you delete them. Vulturell 01:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The sources do not say they are Jewish, not even remotely. They talk about Jewish roots, Jewish ancestory, and phrases like "Jewish on the mother's side going way back, having converted to Catholicism at various points." This is exactly what we're trying to avoid. You are being very disruptive by continually reverting when you know I'm in the middle of an edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
And the burden of evidence is on you, not me. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The burden of evidence is on everyone. I'm not talking about restoring the ones you mentioned, I'm talking about restoring people who are described as "Jewish". I haven't disrupted anyone - I've restored names with good sources. You're the one removing names, not putting them on here, not putting "Citation needed" and keeping them, and not looking for sources yourself. Vulturell 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The burden of evidence is on people who wish to add something to an article; that too is Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain... If the article or information is about a living person, remove the unsourced information immediately." Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a few names today because many of the sites weren't reliable, and often said only "father of Jewish origin" (not even Jewish himself). Also, quite a few of them didn't seem to mention the person they were being used as a source for. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront

I see that Stormfront has copied this page. [37] SlimVirgin (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow. Would you look at that. Back in September even. --66.112.124.217 21:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What difference does it make when they did it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)