Talk:British Jews

Daniel Radcliffe

With regard to the inclusion of Daniel Radcliffe's photo here (which I support), I offer the following: the name of this article is British Jews, not British Judaism, and that the lede of the article explicitly notes that secular Jews are a growing part of the community. From my point of view, the point of those pictures is to show diverse examples of the subject, and in context, Radcliffe, who the sources indicate to be a non-believing child of a mixed marriage who nevertheless is "proud" to self-identify as a Jew[1], makes an excellent representative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a detail that explains the Jewish status of the people in the infobox - as in , mother Jewish, father catholic, subject is atheist and that such is the scope of the definition British Jew at wikipedia. I am British and as I understand it, (not how a Jew understands it, or how the many different branches of Jewish groups understand it) A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage. People of mixed heritage are just that and do not belong in the infobox of this article unless you explain why they are there in the lede. Is there a shortage of British people with two Jewish parents to add their picture to the infobox, you only need nine ? - Radcliffe is not a British Jew, in Britain he's a British person with a Jewish mother and an Irish father and nothing (including wikipedia) will change that reality. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Despite your extremely distasteful insistence that Radcliffe is not a "full jew" and that we need a "better jew",[2] Wikipedia actually goes by what reliable sources say, not the prejudices of editors. The fact that he says he's "very proud of being Jewish" is more than enough, and Wikipedia does need to "explain why" he's Jewish to anyone, no matter what their personal opinions are about who is or isn't as a Jew. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—I would think we would go by reliable sources. Do reliable sources say he's British? Do reliable sources say he's Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen any reliable sources described him as "half Jew", as Off2riorob has done. I didn't know people were still applying the Mischling Test. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think his picture should be replace with that of Labour Leader Ed Milliband as the leader of the opposition is more important than an actor I made this change myself but it was reverted. Dont want to start an edit war so I want your opinions on whether Ed Milliband deserves to be on there and who he should replace. I would have replaced Amy Winehouse, she's a mere musician, but she died and now she's a martyr or something. Eopsid (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Miliband is reasonably well known in England, but he's never even been Prime Minister. On the other hand, Radcliffe is internationally famous, far more so than Miliband - I daresay he's better known even in England than Miliband. I have no objection to having both, but given that the montage already has a politician (one much more famous and accomplished than Miliband), Miliband shouldn't be substituted for Radcliffe. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Miliband

Why was Ed Miliband removed from this article without any discussion? Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

He was added without any discussion - Youreallycan 22:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

To say that Ed Miliband is not Jewish should also require sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Well then, it appears we have consensus. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As there are good sources, there was no good reason to remove Milliband, certainly not without discussion. I think it's clear there's no problem with including him here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Its not clear that he should be included. He acknowledges the heritage and its importance agreed. However underpinning this whole debate is the degree to which Jewishness is an ethnic or a religious identity for the purpose of making it a major feature of someones biography as opposed a a part of the history. That needs more discussion ----Snowded ^TALK 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that is under debate here at all. Clearly, Milliband's ethnic "identity' is Jewish, as stated by himself. His parents were Polish Jews and he's a British Jew. What exactly is there to discuss? Are there sources disputing Milliband's identity? If not, there's nothing to talk about. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• .... and is not a notable British Jew - brought up in a secular enviroment n- he is also a Marxist atheist and it seems undue to include him here in the infobox without any clarification of that - Youreallycan 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • A "Marxist atheist" is not an ethnicity. His parents were Polish Jews and he self-identifies as a British Jew, and he's notable. The absence of a religious belief is not a religious belief. If you don't have sources supporting your original research on this matter, then I'm afraid we can't use your contributions. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• .... and is not a notable British Jew - brought up in a secular enviroment n- he is also a Marxist atheist and it seems undue to include him here in the infobox without any clarification of that - The living person is categorized with sensitivity as a British person of Jewish descent rather than a British Jew- Youreallycan 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Youreallycan 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Most Jews are brought up in secular environments, so your statement is ridiculous. Look at the stats. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF please. We don;t say that someone is a Christian because they were brought up in a Christian background. Ok it may be different but it needs discussion and some evidence that Jewishness is somehow different from other religions/ethnicities. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Christianity is not an ethnicity, and there's nothing to discuss. Go read Jewish ethnic divisions. Ed Miliband is of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage. The largest members of the Jewish community are secular. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)He acknowledges the heritage, that is not the same as self identification. He has to be notable as a British Jew to be included here, not notable + having a jewish heritage ----Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC, there is no contradiction between being a British Jew and a Marxist atheist. I suggest being careful with any contrary assertion -- it will merely demonstrate (again) that you don't know what you're talking about. Snowded, he is notable as a British Jew for being the first Jewish leader of the Labour Party. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• and he self-identifies as a British Jew, no he doesn't - .... and is not a notable British Jew - brought up in a secular enviroment n- he is also a Marxist atheist and it seems undue to include him here in the infobox without any clarification of that - The living person is categorized with sensitivity as a British person of Jewish descent rather than a British Jew- Youreallycan 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Youreallycan 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

First leader of the Labour Party from a Jewish background. Sorry its not the same thing. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you see the post above, "obviously I'm Jewish"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I read the whole statement ----Snowded ^TALK 22:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If he's the first leader of the Labour Party from a Jewish background, then that makes him notable as a British Jew. Why is it not the same thing? I think your reading of the category is just wrong. Most Jews are secular, so according to you and Rob, most Jews can't be categorized. This is a good example of how Wikipedia editors get it wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please show me a source which shows that Jewishness is treated differently from being a Christian or a Muslim or whatever. Most people of a Christian background in the UK are now secular, so we don't list them as British Christians. You need to provide evidence not your opinion for your assertions. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

See Jewish ethnic divisions and ethnoreligious groups. Are you not paying attention? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine, go add some dead or clear supportabl person - Youreallycan 23:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, we've already shown, with source evidence, that Ed Miliband is considered a British Jew. What sources can you offer otherwise? I really don't think original research from Snowded and Youreallycan is a "supportabl" source. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You haven't show that, you have show that he identifies with the ethnic background, acknowledges its profound influence etc. etc. I don't anything in your links that establish that Jewishness should be treated any differently from any other ethnic or religious identity (and would strongly object to any such attempt). Now do you have a source which says it does? And in the meantime please deal with content issues rather than commenting on editors. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—you say "We don;t say that someone is a Christian because they were brought up in a Christian background"[3] and you say "Please show me a source which shows that Jewishness is treated differently from being a Christian or a Muslim or whatever."[4] Reliable sources can be understood to be knowledgeable about these matters. Reliable sources can be understood to be aware of the differences between Judaism and Christianity. And reliable sources have a reputation for fact-checking. All sources that address the question at all provide affirmation that Ed Miliband is Jewish and no source has been presented suggesting that Ed Miliband might not be Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You have reliable sources that he has a jewish heritage which he acknowledges, you can't derive from the sources quoted above that Jewishness should be treated differently from other religions and ethnicities. As to your statements about the nature of reliable sources, I am sorry you cannot make assumptions like that. Poor research, a source is a source, you can't derive additional meaning just 'cause it suits your position. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

We should always adhere to reliable sources, but you are failing to grasp the point. The sources you quote above establish clearly that he has a Jewish heritage, but also that he is not practicing. If you have a source that says that Jewishness is somehow different to being Christian then please show it. Your speculation about the background of the sources is original research or synthesis or both. We use sources for what they say, not for what editors think they might imply. I have provided links to the relevant policies to help you out here ----Snowded ^TALK 13:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion I have sympathy for both views. It's certain that he says he's Jewish, but not a practicing one, Just as I am Christian but a non practicing one. I would say that the title does not give the full story here and that if i wondered who out there where Jewish but non practicing ones I would probably like to have a seperate article on that. If the seperate article where to be written that might be solve the problem. I would leave him out of this article until such a time someone deems it a good idea to have a seperate article and include him there. Clay More47 (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—you say "If you have a source that says that Jewishness is somehow different to being Christian then please show it."[5] We don't have to show that. We don't have to show that Judaism is different from Christianity because it is axiomatic that they are different. They are not the same identity. They are different identities. No two identities are alike. In some instances one can find correspondences between two different identities—an aspect of one identity may correlate with an aspect of another identity. But even then there are aspects of one identity that do not correspond to aspects of another identity. Christianity and Judaism are two different identities, despite any similarities that one may be able to point to. We do not have to sort through comparisons between various identities. Reliable sources do that for us. If a source is considered "reliable" its qualifications generally include knowledgeability and fact-checking. Consider this source: "Ed Miliband has described the importance of his Jewishness to his own identity, saying it is 'intertwined' with his Britishness."[6] The preceding sentence makes a reference to Ed Miliband's "Jewishness". Is that because he is not Jewish? Or another source: "Ed Miliband could become the United Kingdom's second Jewish Prime Minister, following in the footsteps of Disraeli, the Victorian statesman who led the country from 1874 to 1880."[7] How could Ed Miliband "become the United Kingdom's second Jewish Prime Minister" if he is not Jewish? Yes, you can argue that Ed Miliband is not Jewish—but the primary means that would be accomplished, in my opinion, would be by bringing sources. The absence of sources weakens your argument. Also, to move this discussion forward, I think you should respond to the sources presented. The two above sources would seem to me to accomplish the purpose of establishing that Ed Miliband is Jewish. Is there some reason that you would feel that my above two sources fail to accomplish that? Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Last I heard Christianity and Judaism were both religions. Your sources clearly provide his origins, and clearly state he is not practicing. End of argument unless you prove that Judaism as an ethnicity overrides nationality in a way that Christianity or Islam doesn't. There are some bad historical precedents for that position mind you. Now you might want to argue that in the US media (your Huffington Post stuff) Jewish origins is enough to use the label "Jewish" but I think we need something more serious to rely on that. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

You say "Last I heard Christianity and Judaism were both religions."[8] That is the last I heard also and that is presumably something that reliable sources are aware of. Reliable sources are saying that Ed Miliband is Jewish and they presumably are aware that Christianity and Judaism are religions. Below are four more sources supporting that Ed Miliband is Jewish:

"If Ed Miliband, leader of Britain's Labor Party, emerges victorious from the country's next general election, he will become the first Jewish Prime Minister to inhabit Number 10 Downing Street since Benjamin Disraeli renovated the innards of that venerable residence in 1877."[9]

"Ed Miliband has become the first Jewish leader of the Labour party."[10]

"Is it increased tolerance or mere indifference that allowed Labour to elect a Jewish atheist as its new leader without any outcry?"[11]

"Labour's first Jewish leader has paid tribute to his religion by smashing a glass at his wedding."[12] Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

We might well include some variants of those statements in commentary on his user page,. Oh and I am not challenging huffing post as a reliable source. Please try and think about what tho sources say in the context of this article.----Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, you needn't try to explain it further, because your explanation is flawed. One need not be a "practicing Jew" to be a Jew. Your apparent belief to the contrary shows the limits of your knowledge on this matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

and the great Nonoskedasticity speaks and all other mortals are flawed, sorry I hadn't realised ----Snowded ^TALK 22:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement that Ed Miliband is a British Jew, considers himself a British Jew, and is described as a British Jew by reliable sources. With that said, there doesn't appear to be anything left to discus and the photo should be added back without delay. To repeat, there is no good evidence to the contrary other than IDONTLIKEIT and that isn't a valid argument for removal. Original research and commentary by Youreallycan and Snowded is interesting and appreciated, but cannot be used to argue against inclusion. As far as I can tell, we have consensus to include the image, consensus supported by good sources and arguments based on evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You don've have consensus for change, opinion is roughly even on both sides. The statements you make above about original research etc. are your opinion. You are not responding to arguments, just restating your view which I for one thing is a misinterpretation. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on the editors and arguments on this page, I see a clear consensus for restoring the image, an image that was removed for no reason. What reason do you offer for removing it? The sources call the subject a British Jew, the subject self-identifies as a British Jew, and according to who is a Jew?, the subject is classified as a Jew. What else is there to discuss? Do you have sources contradicting the sources offered? No? Then this discussion is over and the image will be restored. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The subject does not self identify as a British Jew at all - he recognizes his Jewish heritage only - Youreallycan 13:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

He self-identifies and recognizes his heritage, and there is no difference at all. Please keep your original research to yourself. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to remove the image. Based on the sources and the classification in use at who is a Jew?, and the established consensus on the talk page the image gets added. Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary

So let me be clear on this:

• He acknowledges his Jewish Heritage but specifically states he are not practicing
• We would not list someone as a prominent British Christian if they said they were an atheist
• No one has established that Jewishness is different from Christianity or other religions, so that needs to be proved by reliable third party sources, not just the causal use of the word in some newspapers.
• Even if some choose to use the label, this article is about prominent British Jews so the burden of proof for inclusion is higher and (again) he is not practicing

So can we less of the judgemental statements and accusations and a little more engagement with the arguments please. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Judaism? Have you studied about it, perhaps? I find your third point troubling (and the phrase "causal use of the word" incomprehensible). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—you say "We would not list someone as a prominent British Christian if they said they were an atheist".[13] Jews should be defined according to the definition applicable to Jews; Christians should be defined according to the definition applicable to Christians. But I don't think we need to engage in a quagmire of discussion over this when we are talking about sourced information. I think we can presume that sources are aware of these two important religions. By the way, you are asserting that he is "not practicing".[14] If this is so would not sources be aware of this? Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the pair of you several times to find a reference to support your assertion that the definition applicable to Jewishness is in some way different (and I find your assertion worrying by the way). If it is so self evident it should be difficult for you find an academic source which states it. However even if you establish that, then you need find some reason to argue that someone who has specifically said he is not a practicing Jew and is at least the second generation of his family to be an atheist, belongs in an article on British Jews. This is not an article on people in Britain of Jewish origin. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's explained in detail at who is a Jew?. Being a 1) secular 2) Marxist 2) atheist does not change his status as a British Jew in any way, and the subject still self-identifies as a British Jew. It is original research on your part and on the part of Youreallycan to repeatedly claim that Jewish people cannot be 1) secular 2) Marxist and 3) atheist. You don't have a single source nor any justification for removing the image. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—You say "I've asked the pair of you several times to find a reference to support your assertion that the definition applicable to Jewishness is in some way different (and I find your assertion worrying by the way)."[15] The definitions applicable to Judaism are different from the definitions applicable to Christianity. You don't have to take my word for it. You can look into the matter on your own. But that isn't the purpose of this discussion. We are looking to see what reliable sources say. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You are dead right, I don't have to take your word for it. If you want to assert it then its your responsibility to provide a source which says it. Its not legitimate for you to say the newspapers you quote must have researched it. Even if you do by the way, it is far from clear that two generations of non-practicing an ancestral religion qualifies you to be listed as a representative of that religion. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—you say "…it is far from clear that two generations of non-practicing an ancestral religion qualifies you to be listed as a representative of that religion."[16] It is perfectly clear. You are failing to understand Judaism. It is different than Christianity. Reliable sources are aware of this. That is why they say that Ed Miliband is Jewish. He is representative of Judaism. Many Jews are nonobservant. This is not as unusual as you seem to be purporting it is. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Supposing you provide a source (still waiting, its not enough to say other sources are aware of it) which establishes that Jewishness persists even if practice is abandoned (dangerous that, but I leave that to you) then the fact that in this case it has been abandoned for two generations does not justify the insert of Milibrand into this article. Now please stop telling me that things are self evident and find a source to back you - not an implied one, an actual one please ----Snowded ^TALK 16:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—you say "find a source".[17] The sources are listed above. The sources which are listed above are considered reliable. Do you consider the sources above not to be reliable? Do you have a source that suggests Ed Miliband might not be Jewish? I believe the sources above establish that Ed Miliband is Jewish, do they not? You have argued the following: "Even if some choose to use the label, this article is about prominent British Jews so the burden of proof for inclusion is higher and (again) he is not practicing".[18] What does prominence have to do with whether someone is Jewish or not? Why would the "burden of proof" be "higher" if the individual is "prominent"? And furthermore, aren't reliable sources aware that Ed Miliband is prominent? We have a source literally saying: "Ed Miliband could become the United Kingdom's second Jewish Prime Minister, following in the footsteps of Disraeli, the Victorian statesman who led the country from 1874 to 1880."[19] Would such a source be unaware that that this individual is prominent? Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Snowded—I'm not sure what you mean by "prominant British Jew".[20] Could you please give me a few examples of people that you would consider prominent British Jews? Bus stop (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus issue

Three editors against two is not a consensus, the fact that you think you are right does not give you any special authority to override others. If you don't like this then raise an RfC or similar. There are alternatives to edit warring, please use them ----Snowded ^TALK 13:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with how many editors but how many arguments, of which you have zero. Original research combined with IDONTLIKEIT does not an argument make. Claiming that a Jewish person cannot be a "Marxist atheist brought up in a secular family" is simply not supported, nor do you have a single source supporting that claim in regards to the subject. Consensus is based on arguments which are in turn based on sources. You have none of those. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

not - no consensus - and i dont like it - that it is clearly still disputed and about a living WP:BLP Marxist atheist brought up in a secular family being tagged and promoted as a notable British Jew when we do not catagorise him as one on his wiki biography - is the argument - Youreallycan 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Except, you haven't disputed a single thing. Disputing something means providing evidence, sources, arguments—all of which you lack. There's consensus for inclusion because there isn't a single valid argument for exclusion. Being a secular, Marxist atheist does not exclude you from being Jewish. Is this making sense yet? Obviously, you haven't read Jewish atheism. Perhaps you should? The reason we don't categorize the subject in his biography is solely because you removed the category. It's your little POV pushing campaign you're waging under the false rationale of "BLP". Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How much experience do you have of Wikipedia? Telling other experienced editors that they have no evidence etc. etc. is just your argument, its not truth just because you say it. I interpret the evidence presented differently from you. Sorry about that, but it happens. I've asked you for some evidence to support your claim about the nature of Jewishness. It should be easy for you if it is as self-evident as you think. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You were given the evidence, multiple times from multiple editors, and you're still ignoring it. Here it is again: who is a Jew? Please read it. I'm telling you that you have no evidence because—you have no evidence. You have not produced a single shred of evidence supporting an argument for excluding this image. You just keep making baseless assertions. Baseless assertions are not evidence. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You have given clear evidence that he has a jewish heritage, and that same evidence says he does not practice. To that you counter that the definition of Jewishness does not require this. I have asked you for a source to establish this. Please so as baseless assertions are not evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All Jewish religious movements agree that based on matrilineal descent Miliband is considered Jewish by birth. Are you disputing this? You've already been given the sources for it. What notable source disputes Miliband is Jewish? If you can't name one, then you must concede the argument. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Show me a third party reliable source which says that. I haven't been given any such sources, just ones that reference the heritage. If you can show a source then you still have to make the case that a second generation atheist is a notable British Jew. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're in IDHT territory now. You've already been given sources yet you keep repeating the same debunked nonsense. There's no reason the image can't be added back into the article. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument and that's all you've got. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - @Viriditas - this is not the Jewish atheism article which Miliband doesnt identify as either - Not really - if you are looking for someone to add to the infobox of this article without a disclaimer then chose someone clearer and less contentious - Youreallycan 14:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To recap: you claimed that Miliband cannot be considered Jewish because he's an atheist. And, I have just shown you and provided you with evidence demonstrating that Jewish atheists are considered Jewish. Since this debunks your argument, there is nothing further to discuss. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Marxist atheist brought up in a secular family" - clearly needs clarifying - I don't dispute Miliband's Jewish history in any way - just as a living person under the circumstances noted - his inclusion in this article is clearly disputed and contentious enough to warrant his exclusion - We have after lengthly discussion him classified as a British person of Jewish descent rather than a British Jew and we should be as sensitive here - Youreallycan 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All Jewish religious movements agree that based on matrilineal descent Miliband is considered Jewish by birth. What exactly is in dispute here and what else is there to discuss? Please name the noted authority or source that says that this is in dispute. "Youreallycan" is not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

matrilineal descent ? Miliband has two genetically Jewish parents - that is not the issue is it? - Youreallycan 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—you say "I've asked you for some evidence to support your claim about the nature of Jewishness."[21] We aren't even discussing the "nature of Jewishness". We are discussing whether reliable sources say that Ed Miliband is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, whether reliable sources say that Ed Miliband identifies as Jewish. All the quibbles about matrilineality or how often he goes to shul are beside the point. BLPCAT doesn't cease to apply when it doesn't conform to particular users' personal beliefs about Judaism or Jewishness. And multiple reliable sources are extremely clear that Miliband identifies in this way. That the discussion has continued on so long is indicative of the ridiculous way in which the community permits POV-pushing editors to do anything they want as long as they claim it's in the name of BLP. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

And those same sources still call him Jewish because he was born Jewish and remains Jewish regardless of whether he practices it or not. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—we are expected to adhere to the findings of reliable sources. Nonobservant Jews are Jews. Reliable sources know this. That is why they unhesitatingly refer to Ed Miliband as Jewish. That is also the reason you have not been able to find any sources suggesting that Ed Miliband might not be Jewish. You haven't presented even one source on this page. Bus stop (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Look guys, just think about this a bit will you. The statement that "nonobservant Jews are Jews" needs direct sourcing, it can't be implied from the use of 'Jewish' by newspapers. If you think this is self evident then you must be able to provide a source (ideally academic) which says this is a characteristic of the use of the word. If you establish that, then yes he is Jewish. You then have the second issue to deal with, is it right to list someone as a prominant Jew if they have specifically said they do not practice (and the same was true for their parents). ----Snowded ^TALK 08:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

IDHT, again? You were already given links to sources. Nonobservant Jews are considered Jews. We've been over this already. If you believe they are not considered Jews, then it is you who needs to provide sources. "Snowded" is not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making the assertion you are. The sources you have might imply the statement but that is not good enough. Hence the reasonable request. Also please note (as you keep missing it) two points are being made here. I make no claim to be a reliable source, I'm just asking for one --Snowded ^TALK 08:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're doing it again. The assertion you just made (and continue to make) is "nonobservant Jews are not considered Jews". That's funny, because every official count of the number of Jews in a community, in a country, and in the world, counts nonobservant Jews. Furthermore, nonobservant Jews are recognized as Jews due to their birth. Is this making sense yet? Again, you are not a reliable source so stop acting like one. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is so self evidently the case then give me a source, should be simple for you. You seem to think that if someone does not agree with you that there is no burden of proof on you. Also you persistently ignore the second point, this is an article about prominent British Jews, a second generation non-practicing Jew does not count. --Snowded ^TALK 09:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You've been given dozens of sources and pointed to many articles with even more sources. What is it exactly I'm supposed to be giving you a source for here? I don't even think you know what you are asking for. You're just objecting for the sake of objecting and disagreeing for no reason. You say you do not agree with me, however, I have not said anything at all. I've only repeated and reported what the sources say, the very sources we base our articles on. Sorry, but you are not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Trying to move forward

OK we have two separate issues here:

1. Firstly, if someone has a Jewish heritage does it mean that they are a Jew even if they are non-practicing. If so how many generations does that apply to? I have some Jewish ancestry on my material side but its over 4 generations back (I think). Does that make me a Jew?
2. Secondly, for any of these list articles there is always a question over who should or should not be included. So even if Ed qualifies under the first, should he qualify from a long list of candidates. I would content that someone who is a non-practicing Jew would be automatically excluded from such a list.

Now the first of these can be resolved by a reliable third party source which diretly addresses the issue. The second requires concensus between editors, its not a matter of sources. So maybe we can move forward in a more structured way -please ----Snowded ^TALK 09:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Snowded—there are a multitude of sources listed above, but they are sources supporting that Ed Miliband is Jewish; they are not sources supporting that "nonobservant Jews are Jews". You say "The statement that "nonobservant Jews are Jews" needs direct sourcing…"[22] Of course it does not. I am explaining to you, to the best of my ability, how the multitude of reliable sources listed above reach the conclusion that Ed Miliband is Jewish. But I am not privy to anything but what I read at these reliable source's web sites. I don't have to provide a source for what a reliable source writes on its web site. That would be impossible. But what we do know is that all of the above sources support that Ed Miliband is Jewish. Are there any sources suggesting that Ed Miliband might not be Jewish? No, there are not. Bus stop (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Sorry, but no. Your primary thesis can be summarized thusly: "nonobservant Jews aren't considered Jewish". That's completely wrong, and it's the same thesis Youreallycan has been promoting for a year or more. When asked for evidence supporting his theory, Youreallycan responds with "I'm thinking of what is best for the BLP" and "it is my personal opinion". For the last, final time, neither Snowded or Youreallycan are reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are getting locked into a response to an another editor. I have asked for some evidence for the statement that observance is not necessary to be jewish and also over how many generations that applies. I have also said, that even if that established that he is Jewish then I don't think its approopriate to have a non-practicing jew on a list of prominant British Jews. The latter is a consensus issue. At the moment there is no agreement, so its either stalemate or you raise an RfC on that issue. Please don't confuse the two questions. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're confused again. This article is not a list of British Jews and this article is not a category. There is overwhelming agreement based on actual sources, actual arguments and actual evidence to include the image. You have not offered a single valid reason for removal, and you don't even seem to be aware that this is an article, not a list or a category. Your statement, "I have asked for some evidence for the statement that observance is not necessary to be jewish and also over how many generations that applies" is representative of your own original research and personal pet theories on this issue. You're not a reliable source, so we don't need or require you to analyze who is a Jew?—as the sources already do that for us. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about British Jews and we are debating who is included in a list of the most prominent - i.e. the photographs. You do not have overwhelming agreement to include the photograph, you have four editors for and three against. You are making a fundamental error. If he is legitimately designated as Jewish (I stand by my request on that issue by the way and your protestations indicate you cannot find a source) it does not follow that his picture should be included. If that is the case then anyone who is Jewish (which by your definition includes anyone of Jewish descent which means a large portion of the human race) should be included. That gets us down to the question of criteria for inclusion. Prominence is one of them, I am suggesting that actually being a practicing Jew is another. That issue is one for editors to discuss and agree. Its not overwealming because you think it is the case, it is over wealming if lots of editors by a significant majority think so. Got it yet? Prepared to stop making silly accusations yet? ----Snowded ^TALK 12:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We are not going to edit this article by deferring to your lack of knowledge about Jewishness. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—you seem to be favoring "practicing" Jews over "non-practicing" Jews for this photo-box, and you have said "…it is far from clear that two generations of non-practicing an ancestral religion qualifies you to be listed as a representative of that religion."[23] My question to you is: why would a Jew that is nonobservant and removed from observance by generations be unrepresentative of that religion? Can you provide a source that may serve to support your response? This may not be the most fundamental question in the discussion on this page—I think the most important question concerns what sources have to say about Ed Miliband specifically—but I was wondering if you had a source in support of your apparently very strong preference for "practicing" Jews for this photo-box. Regardless of your answer, we already know that all reliable sources thus far examined on this Talk page confirm that Ed Miliband is Jewish. But I am just trying to address your apparent preference for "practicing" Jews for this photo-box. So my question would be: why should preference be given to "practicing" Jews? You may ask follow up questions if I have not made myself clear. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cause they are practicing Bus stop ----Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am against inclusion too at this time. --JN466 21:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Which makes it four editors for inclusion, four against. Under no definition is that a consensus. Hopefully ANI will resolve the issues of people who think it is ----Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. No consensus on Wikipedia is determined by numbers, only by arguments, of which you and three others seem to have none. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to misconstrue what you are saying so let me check. In your opinion there is a consensus for the inclusion, because those opposed to you have no arguments? If not would you elaborate please the basis for your claim that there is "over welling consensus". Thanks ----Snowded ^TALK 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the best argument you can offer for excluding the image? I've looked on this page and I haven't found one. Please briefly restate it here. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've clearly stated my reasons above. At this stage I am happy to accept that you don't like the argument, or even that you can't see one. For the moment I am addressing the issue of a consensus. You have after all reinserted his picture on the basis of "overwhelming consensus". Your comment above implies that the logic behind this statement is that you believe those who oppose its insertion have advanced no arguments and that you are thus justified in your actions. Have I got that right? ----Snowded ^TALK 02:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Note, I just asked to state your argument for exclusion and you refused. Therefore, I must conclude that you have no argument. Why else would you refuse? You said you've stated your reasons, but I'm not seeing any "reasons", I'm seeing "I don't like it because I don't like it because I don't like it, because I don't like it." Are you serious? Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK if you don't want to address the issue of consensus I can't force you. I assume by the way that, given your behaviour on this article, you will be reversing this edit on your user page? ----Snowded ^TALK 02:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't address your non-existent arguments. According to reliable sources, Ed Miliband is Jewish and self-identifies as Jewish. You have not been able to show otherwise with any reliable source, only your personal opinion. We don't edit Wikipedia based on personal opinions. As for my user page, you apparently need to work on your reading comprehension, as it clearly says "this user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war". You're not the first person to make this mistake, nor the last. I suggest you stop concerning yourself with my user page (which evidently you don't understand) and start worrying about your lack of arguments and persistent POV pushing against what reliable sources say and report. That's very concerning. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some sources to take into account

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/9880/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He does not regret having no faith to draw strength from. "No, because my belief comes from a set of values about the kind of society I believe in. It's a very strong part of who I am. Different people come to their politics from different vantage points. I think you can have equally strong politics." JN466 21:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources amount to a hill of beans when it comes to Jewishness. The points about views on Israel are particularly irrelevant -- all sorts of Jews are rather less than keen to be thought of as "friends of Israel". It doesn't even matter that he might not see eye to eye with the organizations representing British Jewry -- as with views on Israel, there is a great deal of diversity of opinion among people who are unquestionably Jewish. As for faith -- have a look at Secular Jew. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The only question is how Miliband self-identifies, and there are strong indications above that he has rejected self-identifying culturally and religiously as a Jew, or at least only considers that a part (and perhaps not the major part) of his identity. That's his freedom—ours to respect, and not yours to take. Period. --JN466 22:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such "indication" at all, and continuing attempts to "interpret" the sources to say what they don't mean is indicative of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's the only question, then perhaps you could stop muddying the waters with questions you consider irrelevant (particularly when adding misleading implications). I've made plain my disagreement with your interpretation the sources regarding how he self-identifies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As for faith -- have a look at Secular Jew. Why when this article links to Secular Jews in the lede, and your link isn't about Secularism at all? John lilburne (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

JN seems to be saying that because Miliband speaks of having no faith he can't be considered Jewish. That's a misguided argument, because many Jews -- secular ones -- do not embrace a faith, something the article I linked to makes clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The real question that needs to be asked is where are these disputes coming from? We don't create disputes in our heads and then argue about them on Wikipedia. The primary disputant,Youreallycan, appears to imply (and I'm liberally paraphrasing here) that he had "remote viewed" the BLP subject and personally determined based on his "psychic" link to Miliband, that not only could we not claim that Miliband was Jewish, but there was no such thing as a "British Jew". Are we really going to keep entertaining this kind of delusional thinking? Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jayen—you say that the "…only question is how Miliband self-identifies…"[24] He "self-identifies" as a Jew:

"There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous."[25]

The above is an intact, whole paragraph from a reliable source. It contains, from Miliband, a clear statement. Miliband is saying that he is a nonobservant Jew. I think we need to take care not to misconstrue a phrase such as "I'm Jewish." It is a phrase which means "I'm Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what JN 'seems' to be say but I'll reiterate that for a start Ed Miliband is not an Israeli citizen, in fact I don't think that any of the people you have pictures of in the infobox are/were, which is what the links in the lede imply. Secondly the link you provided as an explanation is about Atheism not secularism. John lilburne (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the intended link is Jewish culture. Yworo (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at ANI, a few weeks ago, Miliband wrote at some length about his complex relationship with his Jewishness: [26] To me, that article is a clincher and shifts the balance in favour of inclusion. So I for one would no longer object to it. The article is quite detailed and really essential reading for anyone wishing to contribute to this discussion. --JN466 18:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

'Most' in lede

From the lede: "Most British Jews adhere to Judaism, although there are an increasing number of secular Jews". Would it perhaps be possible to be a little more precise? The article later states that "it is estimated that 74 percent of the country's Jews are affiliated with [a synagogue]", which is a start, though being 'affiliated to a synagogue' doesn't necessarily imply 'adhering to Judaism' (or vice versa?) Then again, if by 'British Jews' one means persons who are Jewish by ethnicity, 'adhering to Judaism' and 'secular' aren't the only possibilities either. Expanding on problems with the lede a little, as I've pointed out elsewhere, [27] I think that some of the more heated debates over this article might have been avoided were it a little more obvious what its subject is - people who are both British by nationality and ethnically Jewish, regardless of faith. Making this clear in the lede is the obvious place to start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. At the moment the lede (and much of the article) reads more like a lede for Judaism in the United Kingdom, except that we include people in the infobox who are definitely not followers of Judaism. --JN466 18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the crux of the problem. As I pointed out above the lede is atrocious, I've seen stupid rows about whether Jews have divided loyalty to their country of birth/adoption and Israel, and in the lede here we have links to Israeli society. Otherwise the lede is casting British Jews mainly in the context of Judaism with a passing reference to Jewish culture. There is no allowance in the lede for inclusion based on ethnicity. Which is the problem with Miliband, we all know that he has a Jewish background via his parents, but he does not have a Jewish religious background, and neither, apparently, does he have a Jewish cultural background either. Thus including him in an article as a representative figure within British Jewry is misleading. John lilburne (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that in a sense, Miliband is a very good example of a 'representative figure within British Jewry', in that he 'represents' a significant proportion of them in recognising his ethnicity, acknowledging his 'roots', and then actually living his life without considering the issue very often. As for the link to Israel -or more precisely, to our Hiloni article - I can only respond with a resounding WTF! Truly deranged. Or was it vandalism? It sure as hell shouldn't be there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've replaced the misdirected link to Hiloni with one to our Secularity article for now, as though it is less than ideal (see my first post in this thread), it is less misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So we change the title to make clear its about ethnicity? That is fine with me. In those circumstances there is no objection to his inclusion----Snowded ^TALK 07:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can do that. The problem being that "British Jews" is a synonym of "British Jewry" and whilst that may encompass people that are Jewish only on ethnic grounds, that is not normally how the term is used. If one looks at say the Board of Deputies who say that they represent British Jewry but I'm not seeing anything there that is about people that might be ethnically Jewish but not part of the religious or cultural community. It is very hard to find any such acknowledgements within the mainstream organisations, although it does appear to be an issue within the community at large. Miliband may represent that trend, but the article, as written, does not elucidate those issues within British Jewry. John lilburne (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Originally the article pointed secular to Reformed Judaism (which is some POV in itself), later Bus Stop removed that along with the links to other denominations, and edited the lede to downplay culture and ethnicity. Later 'secular jews was added with a link pointing to Secular Jewish culture which has since redirected to Jewish culture, later Secular Jews was redirected to Jewish atheism (which Nomoskedasticity linked to here) and then later redirected to the Hiloni article. Whilst this is a major problem where redirects end up pointing to things that the original editors did NOT originally intend, it is clear that a number of editors here are, despite protestations, referencing Jewry in relationship to the religion rather than to a shared culture or ethnicity. John lilburne (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the present definition, "Jews who live in, or are citizens of, the United Kingdom" is absurd (to take an obvious example, Daniel Taub lives in Britain, but nobody would call him a 'British Jew', given that he is the Israeli Ambassedor) and that the text previous to Bus stop's ridiculous edit for 'crispness' seems a perfectly adequate summary of what the article is about, I'll restore it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now reordered and tweaked the lede for clarity and flow, per WP:BRD. It probably needs more work, but it seems to me to be a starting point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

From the article:

From 1990 to 2006, the Jewish population showed a decrease from 340,000 Jews to 270,000. According to the 1996 Jewish Policy Review, nearly one in two are marrying people who do not share their faith.[28] From 2005 to 2008, the Jewish population increased from 275,000 to 280,000, attributed largely to the high birth rates of Haredi (or ultra-Orthodox) Jews.[29] Research by the University of Manchester in 2007 showed that 75 percent of British Jewish births were to the Haredi community.[30] Ultra orthodox women have an average of 6.9 children, and secular Jewish women 1.65.[31]

We can do better than this. A lot better. Multiple sources giving overlapping and sometimes contradictory figures for population, interspersed with material on marrying out, and on differing birth rates. I fully understand that this raises contentious issues amongst British (and other) Jews, but that is no reason for clarity of prose to suffer. I think that we need to (a) either pick a single source for population figures, or (b) make clear that data from differing sources may not be consistent. We also need to point out the obvious here - that the 'decline in population' is almost certainly down to a 'decline in identification as Jewish' - this is elementary demographics. We then need to separate the demographics from the explanations - and think about the relevance of the explanations given to the subject of the article, which may not always be obvious to a casual reader. Given that the article is about 'British Jews' regardless of whether they are followers of the Judaic faith or not, how is 'marrying people who do not share their faith' an issue here? I know the answer, or at least I hope I do (having somehow acquired a Bsc in anthropology, which should equip me to understand such issues), but it needs proper sourcing - from a source that is actually directly discussing the subject matter at hand. The Telegraph article is clearly written as an explanation for a decline of Judaism in Britain. It is unquestionably relevant - but its relevance needs to be explained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)