Talk:List of British Jews

ĢĢ

What about a category for doctors?

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 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)

---

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)

---

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

---

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?

• Hermione Gingold (Hermione Ferdinanda Gingold), 1897 - 1987 Already in the list, very Jewish φ(~.^)
• David Samuel Margoliouth Well, there are a few sites that say he was active as a Minister in the Church of England.
• Rothmans
• Rothensteins
  • John Rothenstein
  • William Rothenstein - Jewish. http://www.chrisbeetles.com/pictures/artists/Rothenstein_William/Rothenstein_William.htm
  • Michael Rothenstein
• Hersch Lauterpacht Most assuredly Jewish. (http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol8/No2/art6.html)
• Jessica Mann
• Sulamith Ish-Kishor(Sulamith Ish-kishor, Sulamith Ishkishor)
• founder of Berman and Nathan, London
• Reginald Howard Wilenski
• Louis Rothman, founder of Rothmans(ja)
• Herman Finer (1898-1969)
• David Rudkin usually described as "Anglo-Irish", a description almost never given to Jews
• Sir Joseph Prestvich/Joseph Prestwich (1812-1896) actually spelled Prestwich. Based on the brief note about his family and a little of their history here (http://www.broseley.org.uk/Docs/felons.htm) I am pretty sure he wasn't Jewish. I think "Prestwich", spelt that way, is an English name, btw.Vulturell 03:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Andre Deutsch Jewish (http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,158496,00.html)

Thank you for the answerer User:Vulturell! see also Talk:List of Jews, etc

--User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 13:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

test Joseph Prestwicz Joseph Prestovicz Joseph Prestvicz Joseph Prestowich Joseph Prestovich

Really Jewish??

• Ringo Starr Nope.
• Naomi Watts I would be very surprised.

--User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 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! --User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig 11:26, 26 September 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)

Yea that was me who made that comment. I didn't question the other Greens because I was familiar with them (except Brian Green, the physicist). I was assuming whoever put that name as maybe thinking he was Jewish because of his last name "Green" which everyone assumes is Jewish but is in fact originally of English origin. Didn't think you wouldn't catch that. 72.144.103.25 07:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, seeing how negatively and cynically edits are taken on here one would think this page's editors were all assholes. 72.144.103.25 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you referring to exactly? Which names are you questioning the factual accuracy of? I think I should remove the neutrality tag by you until you mention specifically why you put it down in Discussion.Vulturell 07:39, 28 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)

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)