Talk:Ed Miliband/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

campaign launch

Sorry not sure how to do this, not done it before - removed a reference to his campaign being launched at LSE, this is factually untrue- it was launched at the Brunei Gallery, SOAS, at a Fabian Society conference (unsigned User talk:

I replaced it as it is cited, if you want to change it please provide a citation that supports your claim, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I was a campaign employee so I know this quite well, however: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

IP is correct, and the source for the LSE location said nothing about the campaign launch taking place there. I've changed it. Thanks, IP -- next time come to the talk page first to explain, don't just keep making the same change if it gets rejected. Thanks for your contribution here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to get snappy though, you'll just put people off me ever making changes. I hadn't done one before and was unaware of this, thank you for informing me but a more polite attitude would do no harm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment immediately above was intended to be polite, and I'm genuinely sorry that it didn't come across that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Planned WP:BOLD edit

Ok, in a final attempt to end this pointless debate.


For goodness sake, let's end this without any further wikilawyering.--Topperfalkon (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I support this edit. And I'm not entirely pleased to see Bus-stop delete Religion=none from the infobox, given that Miliband has said he is Jewish but not in a religious sense. I can see why including that element in the infobox would help alleviate other editors' concerns about the possibility that the "British Jews" category might be misleading (I don't share that concern, but I can understand why some might). Bus-stop, he is clearly not a religious Jew, and I think it is acceptable to put Religion=none in the infobox. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity—you say, "he is clearly not a religious Jew." No one is arguing that he is a "religious Jew." But his religion doesn't become "none" as a consequence of his failing to observe the Jewish religion. Jews are commonly understood to be Jewish whether observant or nonobservant, and sources are cognizant of this: can you show me a source that says that Miliband has no religion? Can you show me a source asserting anything remotely like that? Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm almost ready to give up trying to resolve this. Bus stop, your interference is causing repeated wilful degradation of the clarity, and therefore quality, of the article. You failed to argue against the inclusion of Category: Jewish atheists which was my motivation for this edit. Ed Miliband, whilst ethnically a Jew, is clearly by his own admission not a follower of Judaism.--Topperfalkon (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Topperfalkon—you say I, "failed to argue against the inclusion of Category: Jewish atheists." I would not argue against that. Miliband is clearly both Jewish and atheist—not to mention British. Sources are what matters. Where is there a source saying that Miliband has no religion? No source says that Miliband's religion is "None." No source says that in those words or in any other words. You have seized upon the following sentence: "There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist." To you that sentence is interpretable to mean that Miliband's religion is "None." But neither that source nor any other source says that he has no religion. In point of fact every source says that Miliband is a nonobservant Jew. That sentence is describing the quality of the Jewish home that Miliband grew up in. Obviously there was "no religion" in the home in which Miliband grew up—he is a nonobservant Jew. His religion doesn't switch from being Jewish to being "no religion" or "None" as a consequence of his being nonobservant. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Topperfalkon, Nomoskedasticity—no source says implicitly and certainly not explicitly that Miliband has no religion. That source that was linked to merely says that, "There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist." That is a reference to the absence of ritual observance in Miliband's childhood home. That source does not say that he has no religion. It would be original research and false information for an Information Box to say that his religion is "None." You are taking a source that is merely describing a nonobservant Jewish home and concluding that he has no religion. Jewish identity is commonly thought of as a religious identity—even when referring to a nonreligious Jew. To reach the unlikely conclusion a field for "Religion" in an Information Box on Ed Miliband should read None requires a source really conveying that notion. All that the source that you have provided says is that Miliband's childhood home was a nonobservant Jewish home. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If you revisit earlier sections, you will find a quote from an interview/article: "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense" (I might have the middle part wrong, but I'm confident that the first and third parts are correct). If the source from which this quotation was taken (an Evening Standard piece) is a better reference for the infobox, then fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity—he did not say that he had no religion. Therefore his religion is not None. He said that he is Jewish but "not in a religious sense." That is a reference to his being a nonobservant Jew—an extremely common occurrence. We do not commonly say that a Jew has no religion. Those assertions are virtually contradictory in common speech, and no source is saying such a thing: no source can be found saying that Miliband has no religion, and Miliband does not say that he has no religion. That would be a highly unlikely statement. But it is common to describe a person or oneself as being not religious. It would be incorrect to equate "not in a religious sense" to having "no religion." Jews are commonly understood to be under the umbrella of Judaism whether they are observant of that religion or not. This is different than Christianity—Jewish identity depends on birth or conversion. Miliband's status did not change from having a religion to not having a religion as a consequence of failing to observe Jewish ritual. (Judaism functions differently than Christianity in this regard.) Reliable sources are aware of this. That is the reason no reliable source can be found that says that Miliband's religion is "None" or that Miliband has "no religion" Furthermore—it is a misuse of the Infobox to use the field for "Religion" to say "None" when the person (Miliband) is known to be a Jew. This is an article on a Jew. We need not force Miliband to conform to standards that are applicable to Christian identity, in the areas in which Jewish identity is dissimilar from Christian identity. If you wish to convey that he is not a "religious" person—which he clearly is not—then you leave the field blank. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Bus stop...'Christian' is never used to describe ethnicity, because originally Christians were also of Jewish ethnicity. The issue here is that the term has a double meaning, and in the sources it is made clear by Ed that the religious interpretation is not the one he refers to himself by!--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Topperfalkon—you arguments for wishing to list Miliband's religion as "None" would be 100% correct if just one proviso were in place—that Miliband were a Christian. But as we have already firmly established by all sources—external to Miliband and Miliband's own statements himself—he is a Jew. As a Jew, he does not lose that status as a consequence of merely failing to be observant of the commonly accepted guidelines of how Judaism is practiced. This is quite different from Christianity. Were it established that Miliband were a Christian, and if it were further established that he held beliefs antithetical to Christianity—he would no longer be a Christian. You cannot blur this distinction between Christianity and Judaism. You are not only addressing Miliband when you insert the absurdity in the Infobox that a nonobservant Jew's "religion" is "None," but you contradict basic Judaism. No source says that Miliband has no religion. That is the cue that we should be following. We go by reliable sources, and none imply that Miliband has no religion. All sources agree that he is a non-practicing Jew. Wikipedia does not have the permission in sources to state in an Infobox or elsewhere that Miliband has no religion—though that would be 100% correct if we were referencing a Christian instead of a Jew—a non-believing "Christian" is indeed not a Christian. That is because Christianity is solely based on belief and practice—the opposite of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Religion=None and Category: British people of Jewish descent, but am still unhappy about Category: British Jews. Miliband used the terminology in this interview, but read what he said: "I admire lots of things the Jewish community do: the philanthropy of the community, the generosity of the community, many of the great things that British Jews do for our country. I think it’s very important for me, whether I was Jewish or not, to put that on the record..." If he self-identified as a British Jew - which, to me, is what matters - he would surely have identified himself as one in that quote. But, he didn't - he equivocated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Best thing is to add an ethnicity parameter, rather than religion, and say he's a Jew in that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle—you say, "If he self-identified as a British Jew - which, to me, is what matters - he would surely have identified himself as one in that quote. But, he didn't - he equivocated." You cannot reach conclusions about Miliband based on what "he didn't" say. And you do not know that "he equivocated." We go by what is said; not by what is not said. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, he's stated several times, very clearly, that he's Jewish. Someone who is Jewish is a Jew. Please stop inventing WP:NOR about him "equivocating"; as has been stated clearly above, this phase of wikilawyering analysis of things he hasn't said has come to an end, as it had to. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I share your concerns, but I'm doing this for closure. However, Bus stop seems intent on denying me this. Because of this I am shortly going to refer this for mediation. @Nomo, I believe that quote was actually from that source.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Bus-stop, the edit proposed in Topperfalkon's first post in this section was clearly intended as a package. Do you reject that package? I don't think other editors are going to go along with including the categories without Religion=none in the infobox. I suggest accepting the package -- not least because I think several others are likely to accept it and you will probably be unable to unilaterally block its adoption. Apart from all that, it's a perfectly reasonable compromise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity—there is as yet no source saying that Miliband has "no religion," which would be the basic requirement for the assertion some are pushing for here—that the Infobox read "None" in the field for "religion." Obviously Miliband is not a religious man—sources establish that and he confirms that. But he also says he is Jewish. And sources repeatedly say the same. If we were substituting "Christian" for "Jewish" and "Christianity" for "Judaism" then it would be clear that Miliband had "no religion." But we are not defining a Jew according to the standards applicable to a Christian. And importantly: sources are not saying that Miliband "has no religion." Sources are what we go by. It is original research to state that Miliband has no religion. Absolutely no source is saying that. And finally—the standard operating procedure is to leave fields in infoboxes that are not applicable simply blank. It constitutes a contrived pushing of a point to insert the word "None" into the field for religion on an article on a person clearly Jewish—by his own assertion—by the assertion of all sources. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I Support Topperfalkon's edit. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I Oppose Topperfalkon's edit.
Reason: The notion that a nonobservant Jew has "no" religion is incorrect. Judaism posits that identity is based on one of two factors: either "birth" or "conversion." No other factors apply. Religious observance and religious nonobservance are not applicable factors to religious identity concerning Judaism. Miliband remains religiously a Jew even if a nonobservant Jew. That is because Judaism does not take religious observance into consideration when considering who is a Jew. Nor do reliable sources. Reliable sources can be understood to be cognizant that: "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." [1] Repeat: It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. Since reliable sources cannot be found to be saying Miliband has no religion we should be following suit. You surely cannot find any reliable source saying that Miliband's religion is "None." And you surely cannot find any reliable source saying that Miliband is "not Jewish." And you surely cannot find any reliable source saying Miliband has "no religion." I don't mind if the "religion" field in the Infobox is omitted. I understand the objection to potentially misleading the reader into understanding that Miliband embraces ritual practice as pertains to Judaism or that he holds "beliefs" deriving from Judaism—although it is not clear what such "beliefs" might be. Note again that …being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. Our concern here at Wiki is reliable sources. And verifiability. WP:VERIFY says that: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." No source is saying that Miliband's "religion" is "None." Therefore the "Infobox" field for religion fails that "threshold for inclusion" if it reads "None." Also, the footnote next to the word "None" is basically meaningless. It links to a sentence in an article which reads, "There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist." That sentence is nothing more than a confirmation that Miliband grew up nonobservant. It is not a comment that he didn't have a religion when growing up, but merely that ritual observance was absent. You are taking the common meaning of a Jew and forcing it to conform to the outline of Christianity—which it does not. Wikipedia ought to be more respectful of the material it is handling. If it is writing the biography of a Jew, it ought not to fit the Jew into a mold that would be 100% appropriate if the biography were of a Christian. Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Bus stop, I strongly recommend you re-consider, and support this compromise instead. Your unique views on Judaism are noted, but have gotten you into trouble before, and half a loaf is better than none. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, no, a thousand times no. Absent strong self-identification and a consensus here, per WP:BLPCAT, we can't use it, as amply discussed above. We need to satisfy both clauses of Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. and we haven't satisfied either one. --John (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
John—we aren't talking about sex so let's talk about what we are talking about. Miliband said "Obviously I'm Jewish…" Is that, in your opinion, ambiguous? Additionally you are talking about "belief," a concept central to Christian identity and nonexistent in Jewish identity. Sources are well-aware of this. Sources never suggest any notion of disqualification as a Jew for Miliband when they take full note of his being nonobservant. But for your edification consider the following: "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." [2] Please notice that what a Jew believes is not what makes a Jew a Jew. From our point of view, it is what sources say that matters. Sources speaking specifically about Miliband never say that he is not a Jew. They say that he is a non-practicing Jew. Non-practicing Jew is still a Jew. Christianity and Judaism define their identities differently. You can't apply to Miliband the same standards, expectations, and guidelines for identity with his religion that you might apply to another man's identity with Christianity. This is an article on a man whom a broad range of sources identify as a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
John, perhaps you missed the post above that turned JN's opinion, quoting from an interview published a week ago in which Miliband said “My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am,” [3]. This has, it seems, convinced Topperfalkon (as well as JN) that it is acceptable to include "British Jews". The only person still expressing opposition to that element of it now is Ghmyrtle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Not because I think it is wrong, but because I think it is misleading and unhelpful to those readers (the majority) who do not understand the meaning given to the word "Jew" by other Jewish people, and WP should not be misleading and unhelpful. But, if I am really the only person recorded as opposing his inclusion in that category, there is no reason for others not to make that change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I also object, as noted above. --John (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
John, Ghmyrtle—what other "meaning" is given to the word "Jew?" Ghmyrtle refers to "the meaning given to the word Jew by other Jewish people." By that I assume he is referring to the following: "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. " What other "meanings" are there? Do any Reliable Sources define "Jew" in other ways? Please present other definitions of Jews here, if those definitions can be traced to wp:reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
@John -- right, but you also said a week ago that you were taking this page off your watchlist, so it was reasonable to doubt that you had noticed the post that led JN466 and Topperfalkon to change their minds. I'm beginning to wonder what would be sufficient self-identification for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I just point out that I had no direct opposition to the inclusion of Category:British Jews except the inherent confusion that would have been caused by such an addition had adequate reference to his atheism not been made. Bus stop, I have no idea why you keep pushing the idea that Ed Miliband is a Jew in the religious sense when the referenced infobox entry you removed linked to a source that had Ed stating that he was not religiously Jewish! He does not belong to Judaism. He is a Jew in arguably the same sense that Jesus Christ (whether he existed or not) is said (or not, if you're particularly stubborn or poor at geography and biblical history) to be a Jew. If you were to put 'Religion= Jewish' on his page it would be pretty ridiculous! Because we have so far failed to address this I suggest we push to getting the mediators involved. --Topperfalkon (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Topperfalkon and Ghmyrtle seem convinced that the average reader knows little about Jews and Judaism. Ghmyrtle refers to those who "do not understand the meaning given to the word Jew" and Topperfalkon refers to "the inherent confusion that would have been caused by such an addition." How do you know the public knows so little about Jews? And if this is the case, are we therefore expected to present inaccurate information? We are all ignorant about many things. The reader is here to learn. We can explain in the body of the article pertinent factors applicable to Miliband that you may think need to be brought to the fore, as long as they are in keeping with sources and undue weight is not given. But I think the Infobox and the Categories simply have to be kept accurate. That is a consequence of those parts of the article being there in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Then maybe I should add either Religion= None or Religion= Atheist to the infobox then? You can't have it both ways. Either we accept the sources that claim him as atheist/non-religious as well as the ones that claim him as a Jew, or we accept none of them, or we accept a compromise. I have made several attempts now to resolve this issue, please work with me here. --Topperfalkon (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Topperfalkon—you need sources, not original research, if you wish to say Miliband's religion is None or Atheism. Every source says that he is Jewish. No source says Miliband's religion is atheism and no source says that he has no religion. Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
He said there was no religion in his home, and we have plenty of sources, listed above, that say he is an atheist. Atheists have no religion. Unless you have new sources to present, please move on from this point. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Jayjg, Topperfalkon—the field being referenced, in the Infobox, is not asking the question that you are answering. That field is not inquiring as to the atmosphere—religious or otherwise—of the home in which an individual grew up. You are both misconstruing the question. We have a field for religion in an Infobox so that the name of a religion can be inserted in that field. This is your source. This is the sentence you are referring to: "There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist." The Infobox field for religion is simply inquiring after what the person's religion is, if applicable. I am aware that the individual that this article is being written about is a secular Jew. I am under no illusions that he practices a religion. I am also aware that he is an atheist. But atheism is probably not a religion, strictly speaking, so we probably do not want to put Atheism in the field for religion. Besides—he is Jewish. (This is according to all sources.) Do you wish to put Jewish Atheist in that field? I don't think so. Most of these solutions are point-of-view-pushing. Everybody has got their favorite way of wanting to characterize someone who breaks the mold in so many ways. This is exacerbated by his place of high political office thus he is being scrutinized as if under a magnifying glass. Characterizing him as regards these parameters in the confines of an Infobox is problematic. Religion is not applicable to Miliband. The most obvious answer to that question is Jewish, but no editor besides myself seems to be considering inserting the word Jewish into the field for religion in the Infobox. Therefore the only logical and acceptable solution to the problem is to omit that field from the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I have tried on 2 occasions ([4]), ([5]), to insert the term "Jewish" in the field for "Religion" (in the Infobox) only to be reverted each time. Though I contend that this is the "most correct" use of that field in the Infobox, I am willing to "compromise" and leave out that field from the Infobox entirely. But labeling a Jewish person as having "no" religion, as in "None", is unacceptable and should be seen as unacceptable by any reasonable person. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, "Jewish" is not a religion. "Judaism" is a religion, and Miliband has been quite clear that he doesn't practice Judaism. As for labeling a Jew as having "no" religion, it's not "unacceptable", given the very large percentages of Jews who say exactly that, that they have no religion. Being a member of an ethnic group doesn't mean you therefore practice a religion, and while Judaism is the Jewish religion, Jews practice all sorts of religions, and very often none at all. You write about what is "unacceptable by any reasonable person"; but quite frankly, for over two years now you've been pushing this obsessive and unreasonable personal view that "Jew" means only "practitioner of Judaism", nothing more. You've gone so far as to write that Jews who practice no religion are actually practicing Judaism, but just in a non-observant way. You've been blocked for this behavior, and even banned for it. It must stop. You need to either accept what reliable sources and common sense dictate, or withdraw entirely from this topic. I'd prefer the former, but don't hold out much hope any more. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg—you might want to review no personal attacks. Note in particular the wording: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I don't think we need your review of my editing history—certainly not on the Talk page of the Ed Miliband article, especially as your review of my editing history is error-prone:
  • This is untrue: "...for over two years now you've been pushing this obsessive and unreasonable personal view that "Jew" means only 'practitioner of Judaism'…" I've said nothing of the sort. But you shouldn't be filling up the space on this Talk page with recounting what you think you've heard me say—perhaps years ago—and in some other context. You can just respond to the points I make in the immediacy of this discussion. Wouldn't that be more constructive and pleasant for everyone? Article Talk pages have designated uses. At WP:TALK I find: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." I also find at WP:TALK: "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration."
  • This too is untrue: "You've gone so far as to write that Jews who practice no religion are actually practicing Judaism, but just in a non-observant way." I've never said that. But why are you wasting the space on this Talk page talking about me, especially something that you think I said a year ago, or two years ago, in some unrelated situation?
  • You say: "You've been blocked for this behavior, and even banned for it." No, I have not. Yes, there were certainly sanctions placed upon my account. I remember it well. But those sanctions did not result from any of the above—not least because the above does not represent any positions I have ever taken on any issues. But does this stuff really have to be hashed out in the middle of the Ed Miliband Talk page? I'm embarrassed to have to respond but I feel I must object to your mischaracterizations. I didn't say those things, or voice those positions. Can we try to get back on a good footing with one another? I look forward to working together on the encyclopedia constructively. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
@John -- you appear to have completely ignored the long discussion above, and injected personal definitions into a BLP issue. That's not really acceptable. Miliband has stated quite clearly, multiple times, that he's Jewish - "strong self-identification" - and WP:BLPCAT is irrelevant to him being Jewish anyway. You'll actually need a strong consensus to remove these categories, not vice versa, per WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That isn't how BLP works. --John (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course it is. You can't strip someone of the ethnic/cultural self-identification they've publicly declared multiple times, and which is affirmed by multiple reliable secondary sources, merely because you have your own definition that disagrees with theirs. You seem to have some significant misunderstandings of WP:BLPCAT and of "Jewish"; WP:BLPCAT applies to religions, not ethnic/cultural identities, and Miliband has plainly declared his ethnic/cultural identity to be Jewish. In addition, WP:BLPCAT does not state that these kinds of categories are added, as you claim on my Talk: page, merely if something "significant to the person's notability" - otherwise we'd delete 98% of them (which might not be a bad idea, but currently isn't supported by practice or policy). I think you need to carefully review both the policies/guidelines and Miliband's own statements; removal of these cats because you disagree with the way Miliband self-identifies is itself a WP:BLP violation. Jayjg (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm okay-ish with the British Jew category, following that new source above where he spoke about "my Jewish identity", which is a self-identification. I can live with Religion = None in the infobox too. "Jewish atheist" however is still a no-no to me, absent a source where he calls himself an atheist.
  • My edit to the British Jews category was to bring the British Jews category definition in line with American Jews category definition. If editors are still unhappy with this -- and it can certainly be debated whether a category definition that leads to Madeleine Albright being categorised as an American Jew is sensible -- I suggest we start a community-level RfC on how to define the "[nationality] Jews" categories. It appears to have been a matter of longstanding dispute. What we should not have, however, is different criteria for British, American, French etc. Jews. One way or the other, we have to arrive at a consistent definition. --JN466 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've started a discussion of the question at the policy talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Atheist_categories. --JN466 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Ethno-religious_categories. --JN466 01:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that all of User:Jayen466's suggestions are eminently sensible, and I support them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to the party here, but Jayen, I was wondering what was wrong with the Jewish atheist cat, given that that's how he identifies himself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The objection is that he hasn't explicitly described himself as an atheist -- he has only said that he doesn't believe in God (and thus is perhaps better described as an agnostic). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
He has said he doesn't believe in god, which is atheism; agnosticism is an unwillingness to commit one way or the other, a suspension of belief. And in the Jeremy Paxman interview where he said it, Paxman introduced him as a North London atheist. So in that one interview we have both a primary and secondary source. [6] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear -- I'm fine with it. I was only summarizing the perspective of some other editors here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a pity. The problem is that Milliband seems to self-identify as "Jewish-but-not-religious". Now we can focus on the Jewish bit, and ignore the other bit by saying "Jewish does not imply religiosity". The problem with that is that that what Jewish implies is somewhat subjective, but more importantly Milliband's protestations would seem to indicate that he's aware that some people might read religiosity into a simple self-identification as Jewish, so he always immediately qualifies it. For that reason, categories like "Jewish atheists" or "Jewish ethnicity" work, because they capture Milliband's self-identifying "I'm Jewish but..." comments. I'm nervous about truncating his responses into an unqualified self-categorisation. I suppose a category of "non-religious Jews" would logically be the best.--Scott Mac 14:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If I were writing this, I would add an ethnicity parameter to the infobox, and add "Jewish" to it, and then leave out the religion parameter. Or if people wanted to stress no religion, add "none" to religion directly under ethnicity, which makes the point perfectly. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems eminently sensible. What would you do with the cats?--Scott Mac 14:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually no, slight correction. If I were writing this alone, I would probably have neither of these things in the infobox. What I meant to say was if I were writing this and a dispute about it arose, that's how I'd try to resolve it. :)
Cats I find less important because I don't think people really look at them, but I'd probably add British Jew, and I wouldn't see a problem with adding Jewish atheist. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the downside of this project's capacity to think in must put the "sum of human knowledge" in a tidy little box. Life ain't that simple: as Orwell put it, "in every one of those little stucco boxes there's some poor bastard who's never free" (see also my WP:UNBOX essay).--Scott Mac 14:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The best idea, in my view, would be to do away with these categories altogether. Given that they exist, and are populated in all biographies, this seems like the most reasonable use of them. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The stupidity of this whole think is that there is no content dispute. The content is clear - we record what Milliband has said, and any clear facts about his family and upbringing, and we avoid editorialising or getting into whether, and in what regard, he is a Jew. It is only because we have silly binary categories that are incapable of nuance that we end up with pages of dispute. It might be best to say "when there's an honest dispute, refrain from categorising." On the basis of the facts we record, let the reader decide from themselves how (if at all) they want to categorise him. Categories simply impose ridiculous zero-sum games.--Scott Mac 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, these categories are generally pretty stupid; binary choices about complex issues, often irrelevant to the individual, and often inserted as BLP violations. In addition, even when the person in question self-identifies in some way, they themselves do so inaccurately. For example, some 18-year-old Hollywood actor says "on my father's side they were Russian Jews, and on my mothers side they were English and Dutch". Well, when you investigate, it turns out that on the father's side they were actually Ukrainian and Polish Jews, and on the mother's side the ancestors were English, Scottish and "Deutsch", i.e. German. Moreover, it turns out that on the father's side the most recent immigrants were actually great-grandparents, and on the mother's side great-great-great-grandparents. Yet obsessive Wikipedians dutifully add the categories Category:American people of Russian descent, Category:American people of Dutch descent, Category:American people of Jewish descent, Category:American people of English descent. And, of course, they add the Category:American Jews for good measure. It's a stupid exercise in ethnic chest-thumping, trivia, and misinformation. I'd gladly support a campaign to have all these ethnicity categories deleted; you care to lead one? Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You can sign me up too. I am fed up. --JN466 01:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Slim, the point is that Miliband has not-self-identified as an atheist, although he is identified as an atheist in some newspapers (notably those that support the government, rather than his party, which is in opposition). What Miliband has said is that he doesn't believe in God. I've posted sources (Encyclopædia Britannica, Cambridge University Press) above and on the BLP talk page that make it clear that the clear majority of people who don't believe in God do NOT self-identify as atheists. This being so, we cannot categorise him as an atheist until he self-identifies as such, per BLPCAT. --JN466 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that's splitting hairs, J. Jeremy Paxman introduced him as an atheist. It was an important BBC Newsnight interview for Miliband, where you'd expect mistakes and misimpressions to be corrected, but Miliband didn't correct him. He then confirmed that he doesn't believe in god. We don't need him to come out and say the precise words "I am a Jewish atheist," before we can reasonably describe him as that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually strike the first part of my argument, because the introduction was added later. But I'm listening to the interview now, and he makes clear: "I am not a person of religious faith," "I don't believe in god," and "I am not someone who believes in god." That's atheism. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Agnostics don't believe in God either, and only a fraction of those who say they don't believe in God self-identify as atheists. --JN466 01:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Identified by the Telegraph as an atheist too, and in several similar sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of those sources:
  • "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'." "Ed Miliband reveals agenda for power with Labour... and a personal insight", London Evening Standard, August 31, 2010.
  • "Mr Miliband had previously said his religious views were a 'private matter', and his declaration means two of the three leaders of major British political parties are self-proclaimed atheists." "Ed Miliband: I don't believe in God", The Daily Telegraph, 29 Sep 2010.
  • The new Labour boss declared his atheism as he admitted his 'embarrassment' at not signing his son's birth certificate. "Red Ed: I don't believe in God", The Sun (United Kingdom), 29 Sep 2010.
  • "That presumption seems justified in the light of Ed Miliband's declared atheism." "How real is America's faith?", The Guardian, 16 Oct 2010.
  • "Just months after the Australian Labor Party appointed its first openly atheist leader, the Labour Party in Britain has followed suit. The elevation of Ed Miliband - who, despite being rather evasive on the subject of religion, is a genuine atheist - provides an appropriate occasion to reflect on the relationship between atheism and the political Left." "The Left and the Politics of Atheism", Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 28 Sep 2010.
--Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I pointed out, these are all papers that do not support Labour. :) One of them also call him "Red Ed". And it is not splitting hairs to note that most people who don't believe in God do not identify as atheists. Why can you not hear that? Self-identification is what we go by, according to policy. If someone says "I don't believe in God", this means there is a 15–30% chance that they self-identify as atheist. Do you doubt these figures? Why do you ignore them? Can I ask what is so important about adding a category that Miliband has not identified with? Wait until he says it, and I will enter the category myself. But until then let's please follow policy. --JN466 01:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, SlimVirgin you're beating a very dead horse here. The argument by several Wikipedians, presumably due to perceived potential odium associated with atheism, is that "I don't believe in God" is not equivalent to "atheist", rather that "atheist" is a subset of the former who are somehow militantly open about it - eg. Richard Dawkins. While I don't agree with this, it's a consistent viewpoint of a significant minority of editors. We have been through the same lines of argument and reasoning with the Julia Gillard (Australian prime minister) biography too. The upshot there was to not use a template parameter or categories at all to pinpoint religion, as religion shouldn't be subject to such simplistic "you're either in or out" kind of pigeon holing. Donama (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Donama—you say, "religion shouldn't be subject to such simplistic 'you're either in or out' kind of pigeon holing." I don't think we really have to analyze "religion" as an entity in these deliberations. Sources should be our guide. There is a margin for discussing whether the wording found in a source is close enough or not close enough to what we are looking for—but I don't think we have to go so far afield as to consider what religion means relative to other attributes of personal identity. Reliable sources can be depended upon to make responsible pronouncements about a person's identity concerning various attributes. Religion I think is just one of those attributes. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Bus stop, I totally agree with your point (that we need to be informed by sources not some mathematical ideal) for general prose, but I think categories and infobox slots (which are effectively the same as categories) should be treated more carefully. 1. because reader expect some kind of completeness and mathematical accuracy in categories and so we should have highly consistent rules for using them. 2. Because in the pipeline for Wikipedia is the use of categories to perform complex selection queries on articles, especially biographies. I really feel like people need to step back and consider those two points carefully. Donama (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Lots of people who are atheists don't identify as such as a matter of principle, because they don't see why they should have to categorize themselves because of an absence of belief. Introducing a survey about this is OR, because we're having to guess why respondents said what they did; and the survey is not connected to Miliband, so relying on it to make a decision would be a form of SYN. The only points that matter here are (a) he has made clear that he does not believe in god; (b) reliable sources are calling him an atheist (including the pro-Labour Guardian and the neutral Australian Broadcasting Corporation); and (c) he is not issuing corrections. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It must be true because he has not denied it is a weak claim indeed. Can you please stop trying to put words into his mouth, this living person has not identified or even mentioned the word atheist ever, he also has never set foot in a synagogue ever and is British. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
What does being British have to do with it? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You claim he has never set foot in a synagogue ever? This strains credibility. He is a politician and surely visited one, most people have, especially those in official capacities. This absolutism is why you oppose reasonable compromise and ignore all the reliable sources. Btw I'm still waiting for a reliable source saying he is not an atheist. All reliable sources do say so. Hekerui (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Why should politicians have visited all the churchs of all the faiths? If he had visited a synagogue it would be in the Jewish news, thats for sure. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
(SV) - last time I was here there was a push to describe him as a Jewish person. (I can't believe all this is still going on) He is still in the British Jew cat, which is really poor categorization indeed, a British jew is something else indeed. He is a British person of Jewish descent and leave him out of all the agnostic atheist cats, let him speak for himself.Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what a British Jew would be, if not British and Jewish, and he's both, so I'm not sure what you mean, Off2. He makes clear here that it's important to him: "My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • - User Topperfalcon has become a single issue account in an attempt to label this subject as an atheist. He may well be a self declared citable atheist but this living person is not. Off2riorob (talk)
He is Britsh as he has said, yes he has said his Jewish roots is a part of what he is , of course he is not denying his ancestry at all but that is the only part of him that has any connection to Jewishness, a British Jew is imo a person that follows the faith and lives in Britain. Miliband has no connection apart from his genetics. Off2riorob (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Jewishness is an ethnicity, Off2, not just a religion. It's very common for Jews to be atheists, and never to have practised. You're trying to push him into categories that he's explicitly said he doesn't belong to, and removing him from categories he has said he belongs to. We need to follow the reliable sources here, because this really is an argument about nothing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You are reading into his quotes with undue weight to self identification. Resulting seem to support this Ed Miliband is a Jew? British people of Jewish descent - If you are uninvolved this is the only category that it is correct to put this living person in, its enough. Off2riorob (talk) 12:32 pm, Today (UTC+0)
Which Cat am I trying to push him into that he has said he doesn't be,long in, not British person of Jewish descent surely, he is British and he is of jewish descent, how could he deny that? Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
(unhelpful, off topic, personal comments removed)

Seems to me that the sensible thing to do is list him in the infobox as "ethnicity - (polish?) Jewish" "religion - none". That relects what he's said. I suggest since the categories are problematic, we just don't categorise him at all for the time being. The text can narrate the nuance of his self description and leave the reader to decide whether or not that constitutes atheism or not, and "in what sense" he's Jewish. There's no need to impose our definitions one way or the other.--Scott Mac 12:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac—What is called for according to policy is close adherence to sources. Sources have Miliband designated as a Jew. Can you bring a source making reference to "ethnicity" concerning Miliband? I haven't seen any such source. But I have seen plenty of sources stating that Miliband is a Jew. We editors can rest our minds concerning designating him Jewish because all sources support that designation. Yes, the text in the body of the article can and should be used to flesh out this and related matters. But at issue here is the Infobox and Category placement. "Jewish" as well as "Jew" are the terms that sources invariably apply to Miliband. Therefore we should be following suit—both in the Infobox and concerning Category placement. Importantly no source ever refers to Miliband as an "ethnic Jew" or as being "ethnically Jewish." Such terminology simply has no representation in sources. Fundamental and nonnegotiable policy calls for us to follow the terminology used by sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Bus stop. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your position is not unreasonable, but despite the fact you keep repeating it, it is not convincing people. I could re-rehearse the arguments against it, but you've heard them again and again. It's time to stop repeating the same line and work out what we can agree on, and what is the best compromise. At very least, the idea that the infobox should mark Milliband as "religion - Jewish" has been soundly rejected. I'm not expecting you to agree. I am expecting you to realise that consensus is against you on this point. Your repetition is becoming disruptive.--Scott Mac 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Scott Mac—didn't you say above that we "list him in the infobox as 'ethnicity - (polish?) Jewish'"? By what sourcing would we consider his Jewishness an "ethnicity?" Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is satisfied that, whatever else, his comments and the sourced facts support us listing him as ethnically Jewish, and don't support us listing him as religiously Jewish. We've still got to work out the cats, but that much is agreed. Your demand for an explicit source mentioning ethnicity has been heard, and rejected. You can keep repeating the argument, but it won't change it. Now, drop it.--Scott Mac 19:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Scott Mac—this is a biography of a living person. You say, "…his comments and the sourced facts support us listing him as ethnically Jewish…" Why do you suppose no sources explicitly say that he is "ethnically Jewish"? Why do you suppose he does not explicitly say that he is "ethnically Jewish"? We should not be characterizing him in ways that he is not characterizing himself. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You are simply repeating the same argument. There is no BLP concern with this. Personally, I'm happy not to mention Judaism at all in the infobox - infoboxed ought to only summarise the key features, and whatever else Judaism isn't a key fact about Milliband.--Scott Mac 20:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree that there is no good reason to describe his religion as Jewish (and I say that having read all of Bus stop's arguments) - but I think it's premature to say that there is a consensus that he is "ethnically Jewish". What does it mean, and does it matter? However, he is clearly of Jewish descent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The one category I can support without any reservation whatsoever is British people of Jewish descent. My editorial preference for the infobox would be to comment neither on ethnicity nor religion in it.
  • Interestingly, Nick Clegg also said he does not believe in God a couple of years ago. Commentary in The Times: “I think the majority of people either believe in God’s existence - certainly research that we have done in the past demonstrates that - or they are agnostic. If he is saying that he is agnostic, obviously that is probably not quite so serious politically as saying you are an atheist.” --JN466 22:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • One thing that I find interesting here is the various levels of knowledge among the participants in this discussion. And also the various levels of familiarity with Wikipedia (as measured by number of edits; assuming, of course, that there are no socks at all in this discussion). Another is that it seems not to correlate very much with the level of discussion editors feels compelled to engage in. As to particulars, some observations as to the points I find most especially on-mark and off-mark:
  1. One need not be a religious or practicing Jew to be a Jew. Those who think otherwise are mistaken. If someone wants to add a "religious Jew" or "practicing Jew" category for some reason, I don't care either way. But no such category now exists.
  2. One can be a non-religious, non-practicing, non-observant Jew. That does not mean that the person lacks religion. It means that they do not actively participate in it. If a Jew is asked "are you religious", and answers "no", one can expect that that simply means that they do not follow some ritualistic practices, not that they are saying they are bereft of religion. Here, the religion differs from some others, which require a level of belief or practice for one to be a member.
  3. Complicating matters, as has been discussed with footnotes from Judge Brandeis and others many times elsewhere in similar discussions, the Jews are a religion, but also a "people", and also an ethnicity. Again, here Judaism differs from some religions that are neither a "people" or ethnicity.

I'll stop here, with these observations, for now. If/as I wade through the conversation further, I may try to contribute more (if I think it might be helpful) to the discussion here. It is of course possible that we have more than one motive afoot here, but I think that we may well have some completely good faith editors involved in the discussion who aren't on the same page on the above points. If they could get there, I expect that that may assist at least those editors in coming to a better understanding of the matter. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

@Epeefleche. I'm surprised that you do not observe an anomaly in your statements that "One can be a non-religious... Jew. That does not mean that the person lacks religion." Most readers - including those with a low "level of knowledge", probably including myself - would see those statements as fundamentally inconsistent. You seem to be using words to mean whatever you want them to mean, rather than with the meaning that most people would give them. A religion is, essentially, a set of beliefs. If a person states that they do not have those beliefs, they cannot be said, according to that definition, to be of that religion. If some people want to use a different definition of religion, that is fine - but they cannot assume that other people who do not share that definition will understand the meaning of the words they use, and, for the specific purpose of having a consistent approach across an encyclopedia, the use of that definition is therefore inappropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding of religion is incomplete; not all religions involved beliefs about a deity of some sort. (FWIW, I say this as someone who teaches courses on the sociology of religion.) Epeefleche has used an unfortunate shorthand expression (unfortunate but nonetheless common in some quarters) -- what is likely meant by "non-religious" is non-practicing, i.e., non-observant, i.e., does not keep (do) the various mitzvot. This does not mean he is not Jewish -- particularly when he has said he is Jewish. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • @Ghmyrtle -- Thanks for making my point. It is just this sort of surprise, "apparent" anomaly, and apparent fundamental inconsistency that I was thinking I saw affect some of the good faith editors in this discussion. Note btw that this is not about what editors want the words to mean. But how they are used, by RSs. As to your insight into the meanings that "most people would give them", it is perhaps a belief of various editors discussing this, with divergent views, that they somehow have insight into what "most people" think. Perhaps that is not something they really know, however, and it might be better to turn the focus to how RSs use the word rather than rely on any of our personal abilities to know what "most people" have pinging around in their brains. As I outlined above, the phrase "Jew" is used in RSs quite commonly to refer to more than the narrow definition that you have in mind. This has been discussed ad nauseum in other discussions on this same issue. No doubt a little research by editors can reveal the RS support for these views, either by independent google research of such RSs, or by looking at prior duplicative discussion on wikipedia talk pages. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Did I mention a deity? No. I said "shared beliefs". What he or you may "mean" is, I'm afraid, not relevant. What is relevant is how most readers perceive that meaning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
My point stands even without "a deity". Religion is not always a matter of beliefs; this is a common misconception. I'm a bit foggy on the evidence concerning statements about "most readers". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should look at rewriting the first six words at Religion. (I know it's not a reliable source, but I'm pretty sure it reflects a wide consensus view of the word's meaning.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that that would be desirable. As for "wide consensus" -- like I said, it's a common misconception. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that what you see as a "common misconception" is, in fact, the prevalent definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm always happy to consider possibilities. But I'll have to continue to insist that "prevalent" does not equate to "right". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Right is almost always a point of view. At any rate, Wikipedia is about creating a good encyclopedia, not conforming to obscure and picky conventions.--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
He has also said that he is not part (and never was) of the Jewish community, so it's fairly likely he doesn't partake in any of Judaism's practices. This is why the argument exists that Ed Miliband is of Jewish ethnicity only. But I digress, the priority here is getting a resolution.--Topperfalkon (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
We do have a resolution, your compromise suggestion. It doesn't satisfy everyone, or even most editors here, but as a middle ground it will do. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I know, I was just holding the ridiculous assumption that the reaching of a compromise would cause this discussion to die out somewhat.--Topperfalkon (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


I feel that we should change the main image. Does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Miliband

Interested participants should provide input to potential mediation case being discussed. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Too many cats

Per WP:Category, "if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." In this case, "British Jews" is a subcat of "British people of Jewish descent". So, I'll get rid of the latter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it should be the other way round; he is certainly the latter, debatably the former. But both should go anyway --Errant (chat!) 14:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Interrupting his name to insert the shorter version of it is ugly and contrived

Here's a note I've just left on User talk:Donama which on second thoughts probably belongs here better. In the comparable case of Tony Blair there is a long consensus that the article should not begin Anthony "Tony" Charles Lynton Blair because it is an unnecessary piece of information - it is obvious the subject is normally known as 'Tony' and so it doesn't need to be pointed out again.

I don't think you quite understand. It's obvious he's known as Ed Miliband. The page is called Ed Miliband, the infobox says Ed Miliband, and where the text refers to a first name it is 'Ed'. It is quite otiose and unnecessary to add a special note at the top to say so; in effect this treats the reader as having a very limited capacity to read and understand prose. But there is a second and far more important reason why the page should not say "Edward Samuel "Ed" Miliband" - that isn't his name. His name is either Edward Samuel Miliband, or Ed Miliband, not some bastardised combination of the two. If you really feel the need, the compulsion, to spoonfeed readers of the article, then you may try "Edward Samuel Miliband, commonly known as Ed Miliband" - that at least would be accurate. But please let us not interrupt the complete and by no means lengthy name in the middle, unannounced, to insert an additional comment. It looks and sounds ugly and contrived, because it is ugly and contrived.[7]

In addition it is an Americanism which should be avoided in a British subject. American men who are known by nicknames or familiar forms of their full name quite often insert the nickname in quotations after the full form. Britons do not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It should be obvious, and whereas we try to give our readers sourced information, we shouldn't assume that they are not so stupid as to be unable to make an obvious leap of comprehension. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not an Americanism, it's just stupid. -Rrius (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this article at WP:BLP/Noticeboard

There is a discussion taking place here concerning this article. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:British Jews

I fail to understand this edit.

Do we not have enough sources supporting that Miliband is British and Jewish? In the last quote he just about refers to himself as a "British Jew". Consider the following:

Evening Standard:

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


"Ed Miliband, a Jewish minister, narrowly defeated his brother in a vote to head Britain's opposition Labor Party."

Jewish Chronicle:

"Ed Miliband is Labour's first Jewish leader"

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


"Ed Miliband's campaign focused on economic and social issues, but friends of Israel are suspicious of the opinions of the Labour Party's first Jewish leader."


"He's not first leader of a major British political party to be Jewish, nor even the first to say he doesn't believe in God."

"In the picturesque, largely prosperous and decidedly middle-England Berkshire village of Pangbourne yesterday, however, residents were almost as relaxed as Ed Miliband himself has seemed this week at the idea that an unmarried Jewish atheist soon-to-be father-of-two should become the new leader of the Labour party."

History News Network:

"Thirdly, Miliband is the first Jewish leader of the Labour Party. Finally, Miliband is not a practicing Jew but an atheist, making him the second current non-religious current leader of a British political party, after the Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg."

Arutz Sheva:

"Historic First: UK's Labor Party Headed by a Jew "

"The son of Polish Jewish immigrants, Miliband is the first Jew to head the Labor party."

"If he ever becomes prime minister, however, Miliband would not be the first Jew in that capacity: more than 100 years ago Benjamin Disraeli, a Jew who was converted at a young age to Christianity, led the Tory party and served as prime minister twice."

The Scotsman:

"Meet the new leader: Ed Miliband could be the first Jewish prime minister since Disraeli"

"The first Jewish prime minister since Disraeli he could be but the man nurtured in a Marxist household insists religion is not important to him."

Jewish Chronicle:

"Proud Jew Ed strong on Israel."

"Now that Ed Miliband has been elected as the first Jewish leader of the Labour Party, what does this tell us about Labour and its Jewish constituency?"

"What does Ed's acceptance speech at the party conference last month tell us about his approach to his Jewishness and how - if at all - it will shape his leadership of the party?"

"In spite of his much-trumpeted atheism, Ed's Jewishness is obviously important to him. He seeks neither to hide nor to belittle it. In a conference speech of around 6,000 words, he devoted no less than 300 to a retelling of the story of how his Jewish parents had to flee Nazism, and to the "encouragement and the aspiration to succeed" that he had derived from the obviously caring Jewish home in which he had grown up."

Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council:

"Ironically, the first defining characteristic that pundits point to when describing Miliband is that he is Jewish. Indeed, he is the first Jew to lead the Labour Party."

Jewish Chronicle:

"Ed Miliband’s Jewish intellectual heritage could not be more impeccable."

“My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am,” he said. “I visited Israel as I was growing up because my grandmother was living there. I visited for the first time when I was seven, so I was always very aware of my Jewish relatives living in Israel.”

“I think there was a set of values my parents taught me about justice and making the world a better place, which are recognisably ‘left’ values but also owe something to the Jewish tradition.”

"He said he remains envious of his parents’ community of Jewish friends : “I sometimes hanker after what they had, which was not just a political community but a recognisably Jewish community: people who had been on Jewish youth groups and probably had more fun than I did when I was growing up.”

"Perhaps because of his Jewish background, Mr Miliband’s coments in his leadership acceptance speech condemning Israel’s actions against the Turkish flotilla and the blockade of Gaza came as a shock to some in the community."

"I ask him why he didn’t you move more quickly to reassure the Jewish community? He concedes there is some bridge building to be done: “There is a task for me to get to know the Jewish community better as the leader of the Labour Party and it’s something that I take very seriously."

"And there’s a task for the community to get to know me.. I admire lots of things the Jewish community do: the philanthropy of the community, the generosity of the community, many of the great things that British Jews do for our country. I think it’s very important for me, whether I was Jewish or not, to put that on the record. And my door is very much open.”

In that last quote he makes reference to "...the great things that British Jews do for our country." He is in that statement virtually stating that he is a "British Jew". Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit in question makes a mockery of the consensus-building process and ought to be reverted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there is no issue with sourcing that fact and including it in the article. However we have a policy called WP:BLPCAT that requires us to demonstrate that things like religion are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. It's pretty unequivocal. And you will know that BLP policy pretty stringently overrides anything else. In simple terms; what religion or culture he belongs to are not currently all that relevant to his public life and, so, there is no need to categorise him as such. It is strongly recommended to keep categories to relevant material; otherwise we end up with a bazillion of them :) Categories are not indiscriminate, particularly religious ones --Errant (chat!) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
He's leader of the opposition and therefore his affiliations could well influence his decisions on policy. It's referenced in reliable sources so I find it hard to see any lack of notability. I've reverted John's edit, because it's gone completely against the several lengthy discussions we've had to establish consensus. We've evaluated policy and we've still come to the current consensus.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Topperfalkon, I'm afraid that must be demonstrated in a reliable source. As it is, I disagree. We have no crystal ball and make no commentary on what may or may not influence his policy; all manner of things may influence him, religion is just something we (irrationally) sieze on as "it must be an influence". Unfortunately page level consensus does not override BLP policy; I'm afraid until it can be successfully demonstrated in a reliable source that this is significant part of his profile as opposition leader it must and will stay out. Categories are a bright line for BLP articles; do not add it back again, at all, until you are able to satisfy BLPCAT. This is somewhat of a final warning to the talk pagers here. Thanks --Errant (chat!) 22:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting, Topperfalkon -- I genuinely appreciate it as honoring the compromise, given that you were not initially in favor. As for its relevance to his notability, this is apparent in the fact that he is the first Jewish Labour Party leader, as noted in one of the sourced quotes above. Errant, please do consult the extensive discussions in the archives -- we're quite familiar with BLPCAT, thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, BLPCAT requires that apparent relevance to be documented in a reliable source. The sources presented above are mostly Jewish sources and so, it is understandable that they make mention of his Jewish heritage. With the greatest respect; no consensus can over rule BLP enforcement. Adding it back is a direct BLPCAT violation and you are strongly discouraged from doing so, I would consider it highly disruptive. To be clear; we require a source documenting how being of Jewish heritage is significant to his public life or reason for notability. This, so far, is distinctly not met --Errant (chat!) 22:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming that a "Jewish source" is not reliable? I'd urge you to rethink that. It hardly matters -- if you look closely enough, you'll find that there are sources that are not "Jewish sources" that note this particular point. As for "BLP violation": you don't get to determine what is a BLP violation. You get to have an opinion on that, but it doesn't count any more than anyone else's opinion. Or has someone appointed you enforcer on this matter? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Don't be silly. I am pointing out that those sources are predominantly Jewish; it is rationale that they should be proud of or interested in the fact he is Jewish, and mention it. I only mention it because I find it somewhat dubious that few non-Jewish sources are cited. I'd look for a balance within the whole of mainstream media. However; none of the sources satisfy BLPCAT; some mention he may be the "first Jewish PM since Disraeli". If he makes PM this is persuasive and I imagine someone would deal with the significance of it. However at this time the sources all demonstrate he is of Jewish descent (and atheist practices), but do not comment in any meaningful way on the significance of this in relation to his public life - which completely fails BLPCAT. As I mentioned elsewhere; there has been some wider discussion of BLPCAT in the last few days, with general feeling to enforce it more strongly across articles. There is an unequivocal BLPCAT failure here so it seems appropriate to enforce it. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves whether BLPCAT can be satisfied - I recommend asking for help by uninvolved BLPCAT specialists on the BLP talk page -Errant (chat!) 22:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The same reference used to justify the addition of 'Religion= None' also has him self identify as being of Jewish descent. He is also in a strong position to change policy, so his affiliations are of arguable importance to the British public. How does that not satisfy BLP? Would removing every letter from the article satisfy BLP? Please don't give us the zealot approach, all Wikipedia policy is intended to be (and must be) tamed by common sense. This discussion has been going on for well over a month (it had been raging on well before I got involved). Coming straight in here and invalidating that discussion without actually making reference to and refuting is really quite insulting.--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to call anyone a zealot, that is silly, and you make yourself look silly saying it. This is not about article content; clearly he is of Jewish descent, and clearly this is significant enough to make the article. However that does not automatically demand a category. I think you are misunderstanding what I am asking for in a source. Where you say so his affiliations are of arguable importance to the British public, this is fine. But we require a reliable source that says this. So far that does not appear to exist :) Something may appear obvious to us, but we are in no position to judge. I have been keeping an eye on the discussions going on here, and I appreciate how crazy they got. But BLP policy was misunderstood and once this was re-raised at the BLP/N some of us were able to come in to help :) --Errant (chat!) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so perhaps zealot is a little harsh, but please consider the fact we've already discussed this in some detail for over a month before you come in here bashing the Wikipedia bible. My interpretation of BLPCAT is that although I believe this definition is notable regardless, and I take the fact that the question was brought up and answered directly in an RS as being indicative of that, the category in dispute is not being used as a qualifier of religion, but of ethnicity, which doesn't seem to fall under the same criteria. The infobox is making a direct statement on his religious beliefs but at the same time is referencing an RS. Again, this was all considered during the discussions. I prefer Category: British people of Jewish descent to the current version, but then it was seemingly in the BLP/N's infinite wisdom to remove that category which made a hell of a lot more sense. The current consensus is relatively stable and doesn't violate BLP (to my understanding). --Topperfalkon (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Having re-read the BLPCAT policy, I think I agree with Errant. There's no doubt that Milliband is Jewish, and the article can say that, but it is also true that it isn't one of the most salient facts about him. He's not a religious Jew, he was brought up secularly, and not as part of the Jewish community. Sure, the article can narrate his comments and relationship to Jewishness in all its nuance, but I don't think we should be categorising him in this way. I support the removal of the category.--Scott Mac 23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'm going to have to disagree, rather strongly, because he himself has strongly self-identified as Jewish: "My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am". This is on top of the fact that he's the son of two Jews, the grandson of four Jews. It's as if someone with four African-American grandparents were to declare himself to be "African-American", but editors here were to refuse to include him in the category Category:African-American people because he was raised in a non-African-American environment, and they personally felt he wasn't "African-American enough" for their liking. An insulting denial of his own identity, and as stated before, a BLP-violation itself. The irony here is that he's one of the few living people in Category:British Jews that has actually self-identified as Jewish, much less with such vigor. Wikipedia would be far better served if editors trying to remove that category here went and removed it from the hundreds of other BLPs in this category, rather than from this one, where it so clearly belongs. Alternatively, since they clearly refuse to respect its inclusion criteria, they'd be better served by getting the category itself deleted. I'd strongly support either initiative, but not this misguided one. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The notion that not including someone in a category could be a BLP violation is simply nonsense. BLP violations are things that might present a false picture of someone to their detriment - you simply can't do that by omission. And the notion that we have to keep Milliband in a category, that you yourself believe to be a poor one, simply because it exists, or because other people are wrongly put in it, is also an argument I find incredulous. I don't think anyone is questioning Milliband's self-identifying, or that it should be recorded in the article.--Scott Mac 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't "present a false picture of someone to their detriment" by omitting them from a category? I don't think that's an argument that can actually be defended. You can present a false picture to someone's detriment by including them in or excluding them from a category; this is so self-evident I can hardly even imagine someone seriously claiming otherwise. I think the African-American analogy I used above shows exactly how it might well be considered offensive by a living person to exclude them from a category, and I'm happy to provide more examples, if requested. Saying someone is not Jewish, when they consider themselves to be so, is, in fact, highly offensive to many people. I've known a number of secular Jewish Wikipedians who have taken great offense at that argument, and it happens all the time outside Wikipedia too. As for insisting someone be included in a category I don't personally like, I think at least half the categories we have on Wikipedia are unhelpful/wastes of time/often abused. However, given that they exist, they should be used properly and applied consistently, not abused based on the personal bias of individual Wikipedians. That categories should be applied consistently is an entirely reasonable position, one quite hard to argue against. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the issue is fairly trivial, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but your argument is nonsense, and your analogy irrelevant. If we failed to put a bunch of "African Americans" in that category, it could not possibly offend anyone sensible. Particularly if the article described the person as an African American. But even if it didn't, it it would simply be an omission of pertinent information. I'm sure we've got lots of articles that omit pertinent information - we don't consider them "BLP violations" - else we should just delete every BLP stub right now. As for consistent - Wikipedia isn't consistent, never has been and never will be. The notion we achieve something by adding a bad category somewhere because we've added a bad category somewhere else is laughable. The perfect cannot be made the enemy of the good. It is really quite easy to argue against both of these fallacious arguments. But as I say, I don't think in this particular instance it mattes too much.--Scott Mac 08:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Jayjg, the usual usage is based on self-identification, which Miliband has done. Whether that identification is ethnic or religious doesn't matter. Yworo (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. He's British, and has self-identified as Jewish, so he belongs in the Category:British Jews. Claiming BLPCAT says anything to the contrary is ridiculous. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh? "Claiming"? WP:BLPCAT does require more than that in fact. It requires that his Jewishness is part of his notable activities. I'm not entirely convinced either way on that at the moment. One of the references above mentions that he is the first Jewish person to hold his position, and that might just be enough. However, that is very much so a requirement of the guideline. Please familiarize yourself with it.Griswaldo (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Griswaldo—WP:BLPCAT says that, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." This is not applicable to Jews at all (the religious beliefs part—not the sexual orientation part). Jewish identity is never dependent upon "beliefs". By no definition is a Jew ever a Jew because of something he/she believes, and conversely no Jew ever ceases to be a Jew as a consequence of failing to believe something. This is virtually the opposite of Christianity—in which "belief" is of paramount importance. One either believes in Christ or not. If one believes in Christ, then one is a Christian. If one does not believe in Christ—one is not a Christian. Bus stop (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I can point you to any number of self-describing Christians who'd not agree with your description of Christianity.--Scott Mac 08:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That may be, but it was a perfectly accurate description of Jewish identity, and that is something that has been missing among certain participants here, leading to flawed arguments. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree that the "belief" language of BLPCAT is not ideal. It is a product of the ingrained Christian (particularly Protestant) bias in Western cultures that makes us think of and discuss religion in terms of belief as opposed to practice. However, it is clear to me that BLPCAT means religious identification more broadly. BLPCAT is just, like a majority of Westerners, using the unfortunate language of "belief" in describing religious self-identification. Ideally the language in BLPCAT ought to change to make it more explicitly inclusive. Now when Bus stop claims that "Jewish identity is never dependent upon beliefs", he is presenting a view of Judaism and Jewishness which is almost as superficial as his view of Christianity, and only modestly more accurate. First one has to disentangle Judaism, the religion, from Jewishness the ethnic/cultural identity. It is certainly true that both identities are reinforced more by (religious) practice than by religious belief. It is also certainly true that the ethnic/cultural identity can be devoid of religious belief altogether (though notably so also can a culturally Christian identity, and such identities are more common that you might think). However, the religious identity cannot be devoid of religious belief. You cannot maintain a covenant with a god without a belief in that god - bare minimum. As I said, reducing the religion of Judaism to this belief is all kinds of stupid, but then again popular discourses are often all kinds of stupid when they deal with the practices of minority groups. So we have a situation in which "belief" is a reality for religious adherents to Judaism. It is also arguable that religious practice is a reality for any Jew who practices the cultural traditions of Judaism since all of those traditions have a religious basis, which in its most simplified form aims to reinforce the covenantal relationship between the Jewish people and their god. So what am I getting at ...

When one slaps a category that simply says "British Jews" onto an entry one does not distinguish between religious and ethnic/cultural identities - one does not distinguish between those Jews who do believe and those who do not. One also doesn't distinguish between observant and non-observant Jews, or between people who identify genetically with Jewish ancestry without maintaining any Jewish practices, and those who do maintain Jewish practices at whatever level of belief or observance, etc. This is problematic in and of itself. When someone like Ed Miliband says, "oh I'm Jewish but not religiously", the category does him no justice. That category might imply to many readers that he is religiously Jewish, or that he is observantly Jewish, or that he believes in the god of Judaism, or any number of things. When it comes to BLP we err on the side of caution, and do not add ambiguous categories to BLP entries. People are under the mistaken assumption that not categorizing something is somehow a problem. It isn't. There is no loss in not identifying someone's ethnicity or religion, unless that identity is closely related to the notability of the subject. But there is a cost, most certainly, if we mis-identify or misconstrue the nature of someone's religious or ethnic identity. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo and Errant. In the absence of sources that Miliband's Jewishness is significant to his notability, this unsubtle ethnic label needs to be aggressively removed from the article, under the provisions of WP:BLP. The onus is on those wishing to add the label to establish consensus that it is appropriate. I do not believe that has been attained. --John (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Miliband's ethnicity has no relevance to his notability. He isn't Jewish by faith. The only arguments presented in favour of categorising him as 'Jewish' seem to depend on using the ambiguity of the term to suggest that rules don't apply. This is arguably Wikilawyering, and against the spirit of BLP and the entire WP project. On this basis, I support removing the ambiguous and misleading categorisation. It is totally unnecessary in any case for anyone interested in Miliband's background, as this is explicitly stated in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
To get a flavor of just how wacky the arguments of the pro-ethnic labeling and anti-BLP side are, see here. If you agree with Yworo that Judaism is not a religion and that material included in articles here need not be strictly relevant to the subject to be included, maybe you should start another project (call it Ethnopedia?). Meantime on this one we have standards and those standards should be upheld. --John (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting what I said. Here's the detailed explanation:
Yes, Judaism is a religion (and I have never said otherwise). But read the article Who is a Jew?: the word "Jewish" can refer to either cultural or religious identity or both. Jewish cultural identify does not require adherence to the religion; that is, one can self-identify as Jewish without believing in Judaism as a religion. The Wikipedia "Jewish" categories are ethnic, not religious. Your comments seem to indicate a complete ignorance on the subject of Jewish identity. I personally believe we should do away with the "of Jewish descent" categories, make clear that the categories like "British Jews" refer to ethnic and cultural identity as distinct from religious identity, and create categories like "British adherents of Judaism" to distinguish religious belief. But as it currently stands the "Jew" and "Jewish" categories include all people who self-identify as Jewish, whether or not they observe/practice Judaism as a religion. That is, they are ethnic categories, not religious categories. Yworo (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
On the one hand you say that "Jewish "can refer to a plethora of things, on the other you say, but here it only means this. Then "Jewish" is by definition a problematic word to use in a category because readers will not know what it refers to only here. For that matter many editors here will disagree with the very claim that it only refers to ethnicity here or that we should use it in that fashion ... I know I will.Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
...And following on from that, since BLP policy explicitly states that ethnicity should only be given when it is relevant to the subject's notability, Miliband should not be categorised as 'Jewish'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I don't believe BLP says that. If you believe otherwise, please point out where. Yworo (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:EGRS: "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity". I have now removed the category 'British Jews'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It is, I think, akin to Wikilawyering to refer to this as only an ethnic category; even ethnic Jew comes under the spirit of the BLP policy. Whilst it is not per-se religious belief, it does still contain religious affiliations; whether implied or otherwise. Certainly "British Jew" is, regardless of context, a religious category (remember - cats have no disclaimers). Despite all of this mountain of text it has still not be demonstrated in a reliable source that this category is significant to his public career. Unless this can be done it is highly disruptive --Errant (chat!) 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Errant here. His Jewishness needs to be a significant part of his career.Griswaldo (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion = none

I've removed this from the infobox. There is no support that he does not have religious beliefs. The source cited simply said two things: (1) his religious beliefs are a private matter; and (2) he doesn't believe in God. It's original research to derive "religion=none" from this. Not all religions believe in God, for example, Buddhism. Unless he explicitly states that he has no religion, which he hasn't, this can't be assumed. Yworo (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted you, though I might be convinced to self-revert depending. Your rationale has a mistaken assumption. "Religion" /= "belief". "None" is an established sociological category which includes anyone who does not affiliate with a religion. Such people might, or might not have religious beliefs. They maybe atheists, agnostics, or simply the "spiritual but not religious". Either way it is not original research to use "none". On the other hand you might convince me that it is original research to include Miliband in that category, which I'm leaning towards after reading your comment here.Griswaldo (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There are also people that don't recognise the validity of the Judeo/Christain/Islamic concept that everyone has 'a religion' (or a well-defined rejection thereof). The idea that there should be a category 'religion' is itself POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I still disagree with the rationale used by Yworo.Griswaldo (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
In Miliband's particular case, one might be able to argue that his position is that the category 'religion' exists (it is very much part of mainstream British culture, regardless of ethnicity), but that he doesn't identify himself with one. This is entirely different from not accepting that 'religion' in the sense it is used here is a valid universal category at all, which, regardless of "established sociological categor[ies]", is very much the position of contemporary anthropological perspectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLPCAT applies to infoboxes. Unless he specifically says that he has no religion, that is, self-identifies that his religion = none, then we don't include the field at all. It's been previously discussed at WP:BLPN that in general, the field is left out rather than filled in as "none". Yworo (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it was appropriate to revert. In general, I would suggest that we're beyond the point of "bold" edits on this issue -- there have been very long discussions leading to consensus among those who participated, and at this stage departing from that consensus should happen after discussion, not via bold edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This was next on my list to address. It is not clear that his religion (=none) is relevant to his career or public life as demonstrated in reliable sources; so BLPCAT is even clearer in this case. The article covers the reasonably complex aspect of his religion and ethnic roots in sufficient detail - no need for it to be in the infobox.--Errant (chat!) 17:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Response to Nomoskedasticity: Consensus cannot override policy (and I don't see much sign of consensus anyway). Also, can you make clear whether you are advocating Miliband being placed in the category on the basis of his ethnicity, or for some other reason? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)OK. I'm convinced that he has not declared himself to be of no religion and will self-revert for that reason. Consider my reversions cancelled out. Anyone else can revert Yworo as they wish of course. Regarding Errant's point, however, the same would apply to the ethnicity category Yworo added unless I missed something.Griswaldo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
R to Andy: Consensus in earlier discussion was formed on the basis of policy, and if you don't see it then you haven't spent enough time in the archives of this talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
@Griswaldo; yep I agree it would (but I'd suggest only because it meets the spirit of BLPCAT in referring to contentious religion-affiliated ethnicity) --Errant (chat!) 17:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP note

Unless it can be demonstrated that WP:BLPCAT is satisfied (which does not seem to have been attempted at all at this point) continual re-adding of the categories and infobox content is a BLP violation and considered disruptive. Please desist edit warring to insert problematic BLP material; I've no concern taking continued violations to one of the noticeboards for sanctions. With contentious BLP material we must always remove the contentious material and the reach policy compliant consensus for insertion. --Errant (chat!) 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to get over the notion that you are editing on the basis of policy and people who disagree with you are ignoring policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, usually I would agree. In this case, though, policy is clear. And it is BLP policy. You must satisfy the requirements I am afraid. --Errant (chat!) 17:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
(to be clear; I'm still happy to be convinced BLPCAT can be satisfied, but having made an extensive hunt for a source to satisfy it I turned up blank - hence a rather hardline attitude to force proponents of these categories to either pass BLPCAT requirements or own up to not being able to. I'd be overjoyed to see the requirements satisfied, because cats are always of some trivial use when relevant) --Errant (chat!) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it may indeed by relevant with respect to Israel. There are quite a few articles dealing with his Jewishness in relation to his politics regarding Israel, relating to the hopes and fears of other Jews, including Jewish constituents, with respect to his policies. He has also (last link), issued an official Chanukah message on the Labour Party website.
It certainly appears that his Jewishness is a relevant aspect of his notability. I believe the question now becomes whether to use Category:British Jews or Category:British people of Jewish descent. Yworo (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That's more like it. I'm not immediately convinced (articles are somewhat speculative... and all Jewish sources, his Chanukah message is of interest but only tangentially useful in this case) but let me have a good read and get back to you with thoughts. --Errant (chat!) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Ed Miliband's notability is that he is (a) A British MP, and (b) Leader of the Labour Party. Neither was due to him being of Jewish ethnicity. Now, his ethnicity may be 'notable' to The Jewish Chronicle, but it isn't notable in relation to his political career so far, as least as I can see. This is the requirement for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, there are also non-Jewish UK sources:
All these article bring up his Jewishness in relation to his position. Even if they dismiss his ethnicity, which not all of them do, they show that it is relevant to his identity as well as how others think of him in terms of his politics and position. Yworo (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
"All these article bring up his Jewishness in relation to his position". But do they? Ignoring the Anorak and Online Journal articles, until evidence is given of their relevance to mainstream media or other reporting, we find that The Guardian quotes Professor Monty Losowsky, a former dean of Leeds University's medical school as stating :"...his Jewishness hasn't really figured", The Scotsman only mentions Miliband's Jewishness in the headline, with no further comment. , and there seems to be no mention of Miliband's ethnicity in the New Statesman article, from what I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Andy seems to have made the points I was going to make :P I think most of this is about what might happen (i.e. first Jewish PM since.., his Jewisth roots may...). Some of the sources are more persuasive but don't really have a lot of depth to them. Honestly; I think this is slightly borderline, but still coming down on the side of not including the categories for the main reason that being Jewish has not lead to any mainstream attacks, in-depth commentary (about the link), controversy or other significant events within his career. But I am still reading them --Errant (chat!) 18:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with your actions regarding this article Errant, but after a month of this I honestly couldn't care less what happens to this article now. My priority here was to reach a stable consensus that also presented an acceptable article to the public. The removal of the categories as well as the infobox entry fulfills that so unless one or either are re-added subsequently my work here is done. But I do still think you BLP guys could do with taking a bit of a chill pill, you can be a bit to eager to enforce policy even when there is no good reason to. That shouldn't be taken personally or anything, because we all do it for the things.--Topperfalkon (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So, can I remove Barack Obama from Category:United Church of Christ members since it's of no relevance to his notability? - MichiganCharms (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. That seems to be correct. In fact, according to the arguments posted here, you must remove it right away. Yworo (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and while you're at it, the American Christians category has to go, as well as all the descent categories. Yworo (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you may be missing the finer points of the debate here, but if you actually want to remove all categories applying to people, I'll not object. All too often, shoving people into metaphorical boxes has become a prelude to shoving them into real ones... AndyTheGrump (talk)
No, I actually think they have a point. Obama's religious ties have nothing to do with his political career, especially seeing as he doesn't seem to decide policy based on those ties. So why have them as categories? The problem with the BLPCAT policy is that it is open to interpretation, it gives undue weight to the enforcement of the proper usage of specific types of categories, and it leads to so-called BLP experts charging into articles making changes against consensus and engaging in wikilawyering. This was becoming a non-issue until someone decided BLPCAT must be enforced no matter the cost.--Topperfalkon (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, feel free to remove them. Although it might be possible to find critical commentary that passes BLP - I recall reading at least one article that discussed his religious connections. And don't forget there was the controversy over his pastor (IIRC) during his election. Couldn't say without looking; but I suggest killing the categories and asking for sources --Errant (chat!) 10:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Right, ok, the events detailed in Barak Obama#Religious views are suitable to pass BLPCAT on Category:United Church of Christ members, the other one might be up for debate --Errant (chat!) 10:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The general issue that Yworo has dredged up regarding the flat out "removal" of all ethnic and religious categories is separate from the discussion of inclusion in any given category. Yworo's comments insinuate that someone has been arguing that all Jewish cats should be deleted but only those. I see absolutely no such suggestion anywhere and will assume good faith, but frankly I resent this insinuation since it casts aspersions. Now regarding inclusion, the Obama example is a tad tricky. It is true that he made his religious identity known often during his campaign. In other words, he made it a notable part of his public life himself. It is difficult to imagine a BLP policy not allowing him to be categorized in the manner he categorized himself publicly. That said I'm not sure his particular denomination is actually important here. Of course then the problem becomes one of categorization. If we give him a religious category, then clearly it should be as specific as he has himself specified. I guess I agree with Errant that BLPCAT is not being violated, but I would actually prefer no category on that entry, just can't nail down a policy reason for it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't bring it up, MichiganCharms did. I simply agreed with him and noted that there were other categories of questionable relevance on that article. Yworo (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I see how I misread you above. My apologies. I've stricken that part of the response.Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Griswaldo. I do admit I may have taken MichiganCharm's idea a bit more over the top than necessary. Yworo (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
But if Obama bringing up his Christianity during the campaign makes it relevant than surely Milliband's self identification matters? Who are we to determine that it shouldn't be given equal weight because he's a non-religious Jew instead of a cultural one? The man himself has identified as a British Jew. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Barak Obama's faith was a frequent item of comment during his presidential election campaign. Ed Miliband's ethnicity was hardly commented on during the Labour leadership campaign. It is not us that determines 'weight' but the general level of coverage of the issue. If this subsequently becomes significant, we may have to revise the article, but for now we are merely reflecting the general consensus in the mainstream media. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that this BLP dispute may be somewhat of a spillover from the List of Jewish Nobel laureates AfD. Even so, the focus on this article is strange, especially seeing as the Jewish categories tend to be non-controversial. Even Richard Feynman is in Jewish categories despite being only Jewish by matrilineal descent. In fact, because you can be a Jew by belief or by ethnicity, we have articles such as Jewish atheism. At the least, this article should be placed in Category:Jewish atheists, which is populated by his brother, his father, and Feynman. Sceptre (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Bus stop (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the below. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy in infobox

In the infobox, first there's a template for "Leader of the opposition" and then there's one for "Leader of the Labour Party". But the Labour Party is the opposition party, right? And in those boxes, why mention the Queen and the Prime Minister?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No, sorry, but those two positions are separate. Leader Of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is a constitutional position that carries with it certain privileges and duties (the right to appoint peers, for example). The Leader of the Labour Party is a separate role that has nothing to do with being leader of the Opposition - Mr Miliband is the latter because Labour are the second largest party in the House. The Queen and Prime Minister are mentioned in those boxes because that's how Wikipedia works - it should be a matter of record under which Monarch and opposite which Prime Minister he was Leader Of The Opposition. Tom Black (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. "Leader of the opposition" is not a constitutional position, and it does not carry any rights or privileges. It certainly does not give the right to appoint peers. The Labour Party are "HM Loyal Opposition" - and Milliband is leader of the opposition ONLY because he leads that opposition. Certain courtesies are customary afforded by the crown to the main opposition, including the invitation to nominate for honours (who, if accepted, are appointed by the Crown). --Scott Mac 02:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you've gotten a little obsessed with semantics there - appointing peers is indeed the wrong term but I think to use that to undermine the spirit of my post is a little low, no? By this logic the PM cannot appoint peers, only nominate them, etc, and while this is technically true, nobody is going to get killed if we don't stick to the correct wording 100% in an informal discussion on the Internet. Your point about the Loyal Opposition having a leader only because Ed Miliband is their leader seems somewhat circular in its logic but I accept the gist of it - the constitutional position is the Opposition as a whole, and Ed is the leader of this opposition and therefore has the official and separate title of Leader of the Opposition, yes? In terms of keeping this relevant to the article, I think the consensus (and factual accuracy) still says that Leader of the Opposition deserves its own infobox. Tom Black (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with the above.--Topperfalkon (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


What do people think about using descriptions of cartoons to make a point. C/f Big Society? NBeale (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

An utterly ridiculous use of a dubious source to make a POV statement. See WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR etc. If you have a problem with another article, this isn't the place to discuss it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I agree it seems odd to use a cartoon, but (as has been pointed out to me in Big Society by some quite experienced editors) it's far from clear that it is against policy. And of course we are not endorsing the concerns expressed (which would be POV) merely reporting them. Can we see what some more experienced Editors think? NBeale (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Andy - we need to discuss this point and get other editors' views. Please don't remove until we reach a WP:CONSENSUS NBeale (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - I removed some low quality content and support bold revert discuss actually keeps it out of the article and not in and User NBeale broke WP:BRD. Off2riorob (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:BRD is not policy or even a guideline. And the only way to get the question discussed is to have the point in so that people can see it. NBeale (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It isn't just 'odd' to use a cartoon, it is completely wrong to make an unreferenced statement about it as 'an example' of anything - who says it is an example?. The article from PR Week is likewise being misused, as it consists of nothing beyond the usual negative comments of political rivals, and comments from PR organisations about Labour's image - neither of which give any indication whatsoever that Miliband's authority is being questioned by his 'colleagues'. I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR. And again, if a cartoon is being misused in the Big Society article, that is of no relevance here: see WP:POINT. There is no need to reach 'consensus' over a blatant breach of policy - if this is reinserted, I will take this elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Andy - can you explain why you think this is against policy. I've been an Editor for nearly 5 years but I can't put my finger on it? NBeale (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop playing games. To quote from what an experienced editor wrote in a related situation (here Talk:Big_Society#Cartoon) 'I don't think that cartoons about a concept belong in this article. They are not remotely a WP:RS - the concept of "fact checking" doesn't apply. There could be some exceptions but just a "random" cartoon from the Guardian doesn't make sense. Are we going to include cartoons lampooning every political figure and concept?' . The editor was of course you. Furthermore, the interpretation put on it is yours, and not from WP:RS. This edit was clearly made to prove a point. Argue about the Big Society article elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned, this topic is closed, unless another editor supports your dubious arguments - which seems unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Youngest Labour Leader since WWII

"At the age of 40, he is the youngest Labour Leader since World War II". The leader then was Attlee who was considerably older than 40. Straw Cat (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Speech impediment

He seems to have some kind of minor speech impediment - he always sounds rather "adenoidal". Is there any more info on this? Has he ever spoken about it? Seems to be something of an 'elephant in the room' to me. (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

He lisps. Kittybrewster 10:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I always thought it was more of an accent thing, because of the fact that he was raised in North London, but also spent some time as a child in America - a bit like Lloyd Grossman in reverse. He's never spoken about it in interviews, though, so this is just conjecture. (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


I see Mais Oui! has changed Ed to Edward. I think that's wrong. He's most certainly commonly known as "ED". The fact that he's been called Edward recently in one parliamentary process hardly changes that. If it sticks, maybe later.--Scott Mac 15:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, obviously. See also WP:COMMONNAME. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

March for the Alternative

We can't disregard things in the Daily Telegraph because it is "right-wing" - it is a WP:RS. However there is also a source from The Independent and it was clearly a topic on the BBC Politics Show. NBeale (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And John Rentoul in the Independent says "To compare a political disagreement over the pace of balancing the Government's books to the struggles of the suffragettes, civil rights movement and anti-apartheid campaigners was an analogy too far. And to quote Martin Luther King opened him to ridicule." NBeale (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther Miliband

With the FT calling him as Martin Luther Miliband I'm tempted to write "criticized and mocked", but at least we can get rid of "by some". And pace Off2RioRob, citing an article by a critic/opponent of a politician in a WP:RS is perfectly reasonable to demonstrate that he "has been criticised". We can't censor Ed M's opponents any more than David Cameron's NBeale (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of satire in the FT is not enough to support the statement and a rival politician sounding off is never counted. Agree with Off2RioRob here --Snowded TALK 05:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well satire in the FT is certainly evidence that someone is satirised! And since when has criticism by a rival politican not been notable - and why not? Shall I remove all criticism of David Cameron by rival politicians?NBeale (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
While the immediate reaction to Miliband's OTT speech may get into serious sources, is it likely to stay there? I suspect not. If he makes a habit of this sort of thing, it may have long-term significance, but it looks to me like one of those stories that everyone but the anti-Miliband spin-doctors will have forgotten in a week or so. So no, it shows little sign of lasting notability, which should be the standard we set. As for criticisms of Cameron, the proper place to discus that is on that article's talk page, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Nbeale is at it again with the partisan attack additions - I have removed his addition again. Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not "partisan attack" - the FT is if anything rather labour-leaning. And now that the Telegraph has also picked this up it is has two solid reliable sources, quite apart from several other reports (eg the 3rd ref) NBeale (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC) + the Economist with a very similar take. NBeale (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, it a valueless attack addition - left leaning right leaning is irrelevent, imo you would do better not to edit this BLPyou clkearly are simply wanting to add attack content. Off2riorob (talk)
If something is commented on by the FT, the Telegraph and the Economist it is not "attack content" or "irrelevent" (or even irrelevant) but a serious point that is worth recording. What do other people think? NBeale (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Whats serious point about it? Its attacking name calling and ridicule. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a one-off epithet that will be forgotten in a week or two. If "Martin Luther Miliband" sticks as a nickname for the long term (like Iron Lady), fine, we include it. But at present it's just a passing bandwagon. So I exclude it on those grounds - nothing to do with whether it says something good or bad about Miliband, whether it's praise or attack. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point - I basically agree. I don't think we should wait a year to see how it goes, but we should probably see over the next few weeks whether this this theme develops further or dies down. Then we can make a judgement. NBeale (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life info

Not sure if this the place to point it out, but it keeps getting edited - Miliband and Thornton were enaged in March of 2010, not March 2011. It's mentioned in the Doncaster interview, and quite a few articles - they only publically declared their engagement in 2011. This keeps getting changed, possibly becasue it's assumed to be a typo? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

If the sources in the article support the earlier date, and the sources are reliable, then the earlier date should be supported. If there are no sources, then feel free to add some!--Topperfalkon (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity in infobox

Can AndytheGrump explain why he is trying to remove Miliband's ethnicity from the infobox? His edit states there is some sort of consensus regarding this, but I only see a discussion in the archives regarding Categories, and no consensus even there. This would also be relevant:

Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it's inaccurate as it makes the attempt to label him as claiming only Jewish ethnicity. Secondly, there is no WP:RS source here. We had a lengthy discussion about this that included administrator intervention on more than one occasion. Yes, the consensus applied to what was in the cats at the time, but this is no more than an attempt to plant exactly the same thing, with no clarification, to the infobox. I'm removing again as per consensus. I will seek admin arbitration if this matter is forced again. We spent a good month or so discussing this back then and I don't see that anything has changed.--Topperfalkon (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
First, it's accurate, as he claims no other ethnicity. Second, there are at least two WP:RS cited above. Third, Categories are different from other article items precisely because Category items cannot be annotated, qualified or cited in any way. Fourth, there was no consensus even then, you merely outlasted those citing sources and policy. Unless you can come up with an actual consensus for removing this properly cited and accurate infobox item, I will restore it, despite your threats regarding arbitration. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What about his Polish ethnicity? Are you going to make the claim based on one biased source and one non-explicit source that his Jewishness takes precedent to the other ethnic affiliations he can claim? The decision made in the last discussion regarding this was to leave out anything that would misleadingly put Ed in a particular 'box'. This was done in the face of a compromise I suggested that would have clarified Ed's Jewish ethnicity by simultaneously addressing his religious views, which was rejected. Part of the reason for this rejection was because neither inclusion of specific ethnic affiliation or religious beliefs in either infobox or categories added anything of significant worth to the article. It was also clearly leading to some confusion and dispute amongst editors. You were part of this discussion at the time, unless I am mistaken. I don't think your minor change in the approach to the addition of what is essentially the same as Category: British people of Jewish descent is going to be any more pleasing to other editors than that category was back then. So please just drop this. Or better yet, ask Ed Miliband in an interview that can be considered a reliable source to decisively state what he claims his ethnicity to be (as per the 2011 census for instance). In fact, ask him to publish his census form. Can't do better than that.--Topperfalkon (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, apparently someone added that category back in... Hmm.--Topperfalkon (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. He's not an ethnic Pole and never was, nor has he described himself as such, nor are there any sources that describe him that way. Ethnic Jews living in Poland were ethnic Jews, not ethnic Poles. Your statements indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of ethnicity (particularly Jewish).
  2. The sources themselves are an expert source and a completely explicit source. Both satisfy WP:RS. It is critical that you make more accurate Talk: page statements.
  3. The discussion last time was about Categories, not infobox parameters, and there was no "decision" per se; you and a couple of others merely wore everyone else down by dint of constant repetition.
  4. If you object to the infobox having the "ethnicity" parameter, then you should get it removed from the infobox template, rather than trying to extremely selectively trying to remove it from one article.
  5. Of course we can "do better" than having him "publish his census form"; we can follow policy and report what he has explicitly and clearly stated.
Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Erm, no. Your statements indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of ethnicity, Jayjg. It is self-ascribed (by definition, otherwise it isn't 'ethnicity'), and if someone were to describe their ethnicity as Polish-Jewish, it would be entirely valid (see the UK Census 2011 for some good examples of self-asserted 'ethnicities': 'Asian British', 'Black Scottish' etc). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Erm, no. Your statements indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of Jewish ethnicity, AndyTheGrump. Ethnicity may be somewhat of a cultural construct, but up until World War II (and indeed in some ways afterwards), Poles and Jews were generally peoples who had different places of origin, different languages, different religions, different foods, different cultures. And we have something much better than a UK Census; we have Miliband's own self-identification, in reliable secondary sources. Hypothesizing that he might want to claim some other ethnicity is, frankly, irrelevant to this discussion; we go by what he's actually said, not by what he might theoretically claim, according to an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
In regards to the post that jumped in before I could revise my comment...
  1. Ok, so maybe I'm not an expert on ethnicity, but given these concerns weren't addressed last time, it is remiss of you to not address that prior to making these edits. I am not the only editor that hasn't forgotten about the previous discussion.
  2. Are you not going to address what is at least my perception of bias with one of your sources? I also thought that bias with that source was a factor in the dispute previously.
  3. According to prior discussion, which I have linked below, it was made clear that policy regarding Categories applies to the infobox also, and there's no reason why it shouldn't either. Furthermore, you cannot wholly pin the resolution of that discussion down to me or those sharing my views. A group of editors sharing your views were responsible for inflaming that dispute in the first place, by insisting that false information be put in the infobox under the religion= parameter rather than the outright removal of the parameter which had by that point already been agreed as a resolution. Also in the prior discussion, it is clear that the disputed info was removed because neither Ed's ethnicity nor his religion is a factor in what makes him notable. The case that his ethnicity was a factor was made but found lacking at the time.
  4. I do not outright object to its inclusion, but it's clear that fields and categories making bold categorisations are inevitably going to provide more editorial disputes than they provide encyclopaedic content. I have no objection to Ed's ethnicity being mentioned in the main text, as long as it is in the context of the source (and that the source can be believed to have extracted said information in proper context originally). I class religious beliefs and ethnicity among the things that I would not trust to bold categorisation. But I don't outright object to their inclusion to an extent that I would make the case for their removal. I would also, personally, get rid of large swathes of BLP categories too, but that's not an argument I have the time or energy to indulge in.
  5. Would a census form not be more fulfilling of policy? It's a reliable source that removes the context from the equation specifically to better allow categorisation.
Anyway, I'm going to make this a whole lot simpler and refer you to the Talk:Ed Miliband/Archive 2#Category:British Jews, specifically the end of that section. Please tell me what has changed since that discussion. Because I am taking said discussion as the basis for a working consensus that was provided at the time the previous dispute occurred.--Topperfalkon (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. These concerns were addressed last time.
  2. A claim that there is a consensus regarding the infobox is not a reality; again, there was no consensus in that discussion, but you (and AndytheGrump and a couple of others) simply wore down and outlasted everyone else.
  3. If you don't like the infobox parameters (or categories) then deal with that issue. I'd be fine with them disappearing altogether too, but I won't abide selective removal of them, particularly when doing so directly contradicts the statements of the subject themselves.
  4. No, a census form is a WP:PRIMARY document, and a private one, and it only allows for the categorizations that the census form makers think up. It's no-where near as good as the reliable secondary sources we have.
  5. That discussion was regarding a category, didn't accord with policy or practice, and was merely the echo chamber of those who outlasted everyone else. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
We have from Miliband that he is Jewish. He says, "“Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense." I think the Infbox should not be making us decide between "Ethnicity: Jewish" and "Religion: Jewish". There should be a third possibility. A field should be created for "Religious identity". This should satisfy those trying to emphasize that Miliband is nonobservant as well as those trying to emphasize that Miliband is Jewish.
By the way the second half of that sentence only says that Miliband is nonobservant. He is not contradicting the first half of his sentence in the second half, or else, to paraphrase, he would be saying I'm Jewish, but I'm not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps instead, "those trying to emphasize that Miliband is Jewish" should read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV etc, and take their 'emphasizing' elsewhere. In the arena where Miliband derives his notability - UK domestic politics - his ethnicity is almost entirely a non-issue. Only the usual crowd of ethno-boosters, and the occasional drive-by antisemite, seem to be overly concerned over this, and it would be a darned sight better if they all took their dubious opinions elsewhere. We don't need more fields in infoboxes, we need less arbitrary classification by POV-pushers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—I don't think it should matter whether Miliband's notability is related to his being Jewish, but it is not my opinion which matters, but rather that of reliable sources, many of which indicate that Miliband's Jewish identity is worthy of noting. What you are calling "arbitrary" ("we need less arbitrary classification") reliable sources are considering noteworthy. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, will you please stop making endless edits to your posts - it makes replying without edit conflicts practically impossible.

I have nothing further to say to you in any case. You are here solely to push your usual 'Jew-tagging' agenda, as I think is blatently obvious to even a casual observer. As far as I am concerned, you are a real liability to the Wikipedia project, and should have been banned a long time ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say that you have nothing further to say to me but at the same time you utilize a phrase like "Jew-tagging" in reference to me. Do you think I should not respond to that? You speak of "'Jew-tagging'". In your understanding is there a legitimate noting of Jewish identity in an article in which the subject of the BLP has stated that he is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Go boil your head... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Bus stop, please respond to my comment at 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC) or don't bother pursuing this argument any further. I am now of the opinion that Wikipedians clearly cannot be trusted with making such sweeping categorisations of BLPs. I think I will take this case up to higher levels over the weekend, but I honestly don't want to waste more of my time on this.--Topperfalkon (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

  • I think the comments -- and support for the comments -- to the effect that the subject's ethnicity should be reflected are far stronger than the counter-arguments. Though I was almost swayed by the "go boil your head" response. It is appropriate to reflect that he is Jewish.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Jayjg asked me to comment. It seems to me, based on cited sources, that Miliband considers himself Jewish, and that belongs in the article. As for "Polish Jewish", that is more of a sub-ethnicity of Jewish than part of Polish ethnicity. I've never heard of a Pole who considers Polish Jews to be ethnic Poles. And certainly there are sub-ethnicities within Jews, even within Ashkenazim, but I think that is generally hair-splitting that few except we Jews are ever concerned with.

      As for "Jew-tagging": I don't think I'm generally guilty of any such thing, but it seems to me that in any nation-state (or, in the case of the UK, multi-nation state: England, Scotland, Wales, and part of Ireland) it is notable when a prominent political figure has an ethnicity other than the one primarily identified with that state. - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What you think is hardly relevant. The British people don't seem to consider it notable. Or have you got evidence from a reliable source that they do? Given the evident lack of coverage of the issue, I think that will be hard to find. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What the editors on this page think is, in fact, somewhat relevant. It reflects what the consensus view is. And consensus is, perhaps, of some moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. You cannot overrule policy by 'consensus', particularly when the 'consensus' seems to have been drummed up by editors asking others "to comment". And can I remind people that the issue is whether Miliband's ethnicity should be mentioned in the infobox. The article body text makes clear his background, beliefs etc in what seems a reasonable manner. What has been objected to is placing "ethnicity: Jewish" in the infobox, on the simple basis that it places undue weight on something that is of no significance to his career in politics. This is the key issue. Miliband makes little of his ethnicity, at least in public. The British people do likewise. The only people that seem particularly interested in this issue are a faction of Wikipedia editors, several of whom are seemingly intent on tagging everyone they can find with any Jewish connections (or almost everyone, though I'll refrain from pointing out a recent case where an exception seems to have been made, as I think most of the 'faction' would disassociate themselves from that particular episode). To give any weight to a 'consensus' constructed largely from this faction would be a breach of a key Wikipedia policy: WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. You cannot invent policy by personal fiat, particularly when many of those inventing policy appear to be unaware of actual policy, and completely in the dark regarding the subject at hand, Jewish ethnicity. A spurious appeal to authority of "the British people" carries no weight when it comes to discussions regarding the content of Wikipedia articles. The only people that seem particularly interested in this issue are a faction of Wikipedia editors, several of whom are seemingly intent on removing everyone they can find with any Jewish connections. To give any weight to a 'consensus' constructed largely from this faction would be a breach of a key Wikipedia policy: WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The suggestion that I am "seemingly intent on removing everyone [I] can find with any Jewish connections" is a gross slur. It is self-evident that I am attempting nothing of the sort, and am instead 'intent' on seeing Wikipedia treat people equally, regardless of their (supposed) ethnicity. I suggest you withdraw this serious breach of WP:NPA immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Andy -- the consensus as to what NPOV policy requires here is at odds with your personal point of view, and the consensus as to policy trumps your POV. As to your seeming intent -- that's perhaps a discussion more appropriate for another forum; I'm not familiar enough with your edits--but I think for this discussion we can avoid going there.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
A gross slur? Certainly less of a gross slur than the claim that there is a "faction" here at this page that is "seemingly intent on tagging everyone they can find with any Jewish connections". In the future a) Comment on content, not on the contributor (note, that's directly from WP:NPA, b) if you do make personal comments, at least make sure they're accurate, not false, and c) name names, so your innuendos can be dealt with appropriately. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." From WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?. I think Andy is rightfully aggrieved here. --Topperfalkon (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute, Andy can say "The only people that seem particularly interested in this issue are a faction of Wikipedia editors, several of whom are seemingly intent on removing tagging everyone they can find with any Jewish connections", and that's perfectly fine, but when someone makes the counter-accusation, he's "rightfully aggrieved"? Are those Andy accused in the first place not also "rightfully aggrieved"? If so, why haven't you first leapt to their defense? If not, why not? Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think his attack, whilst possibly factual, was somewhat misguided. However, there do seem to be a number of Wikipedia editors determined to force the inclusion of Jewish ethnicity and religion on this article by any means. I haven't seen a trend occurring across the site, but it is certainly happening here. I think it was a poor move to say on this page that there is a group within Wikipedia pushing an agenda of tagging articles with Jewish categories and infobox entries. There are more appropriate channels for addressing those grievances, where it is easier to provide evidence for those allegations. All I want on this article is the cessation of any edits that add any religion or ethnicity infobox entries or cats unless they can be conclusively shown by a reliable source to affect his opinion/judgement when it comes to his professional/public duties or influences on policy.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
An attack is an attack; were Jmabel or I "rightfully aggrieved" by Andy's attack? Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of points: firstly, Jayjg is misquoting me. It was him that referred to 'removing' people with Jewish connections - I wrote about 'tagging' them, which is something else entirely. And secondly, it wasn't me that suggested that there was a 'faction', but Bus stop, when he wrote about "those trying to emphasize that [Miliband] is Jewish". The simple fact is that this talk page has been dominated by issues of Miliband's ethnicity and faith totally out of proportion to its significance as reflected in the mainstream media. Whether the 'emphasizers' are an organised faction (which I doubt), or merely those contributors who regularly get involved with this type of debate, actually makes little difference - they are attributing undue weight to topics that are peripheral to the article's topic: Ed Miliband, Leader of the Opposition, and potential future British Prime Minister. Don't you think our readers might be more interested in other factors - like his politics for example? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I quoted you exactly; I literally copied the words from your post, you can't be any more exact than that. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide a diff for where I supposedly referred to "removing everyone [I] can find with any Jewish connections"? You cannot, because I didn't. I suggest you look again, and then apologise for misquoting me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I copied the wrong statement. I've corrected it above. However, that's just a side-show; the "ethnicity" field in the infobox is not intended for a discussion of politics, but rather to indicate the person's ethnicity. The infobox has all sorts of other parameters too, where other relevant material (including politics) can be included, and the one word "Jewish" in the parameter doesn't preclude a lengthy discussion of politics too. As for being "peripheral to the article's topic", of course it's not. The topic of this article is Ed Miliband, not Ed Miliband's political career, and this is a facet of Ed Miliband which he himself has said is "part of my identity" and "such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am". Moreover, quite a few reliable sources have noticed how he expressed that identity at his wedding. Neither the infobox nor the article are simply about his politics; they discuss his schooling, his spouse, his children, his relatives, etc. As far as I can tell, you've pretty much run out of excuses for excluding this fact. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't need "excuses" to exclude anything. Per standard Wikipedia policy, it is down to those who wish to include something to provide a justification. Now explain why Miliband should be (apparently) unique amongst senior British political figures in having his ethnicity noted in the infobox, in direct violation of the Wikipedia manual of style, which states "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears"? Or have you got evidence that Miliband's Jewish ethnicity is somehow a 'key fact', in spite of the fact that (wedding trivia aside) the British media has hardly commented on the issue? Where are the articles discussing how Miliband's roots affect his politics? Where are the articles discussing what effect this has on Labour Party electoral prospects? Where indeed is anything that notes his ethnicity as more than an interesting aside? It isn't a 'key fact' to anyone but those obsessed with turning Wikipedia into an ethno-religious database. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
True, you don't need excuses to exclude anything, or at least any good excuses; you've been removing it just fine without any. Also, I've already explained that I won't be drawn down the rabbit hole of discussing other articles, and given the reasons why; we're here, and discussing this article - which, by the way, is still Ed Miliband, not Ed Miliband's political career or Ed Miliband's politics. This article does indeed discuss his ethnicity; you used to say the British media hadn't commented on it, now you seem to be saying it hasn't commented on it except for where it has commented on it. And, of course, it's not just about what the "British media" comments on; Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a summary of the British media. Now, again, do you have any good, policy-based reasons for removing this information? Or even some moderately plausible excuses? Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Gosh, you're right, neither Miliband nor the British media have commented on the whole "Jewish" thing! Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
So a political blog in the Guardian that notes how little Miliband's ethnicity is commented on is evidence that the media consider it a key fact? Utter nonsense. And please don't start misquoting me again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, The Guardian commented that Miliband's atheism and Jewishness would have "caused an uproar" barely a generation ago. It didn't say anything about the British media. It also says that Miliband is "a Jewish atheist because none of us escape the culture, national and family environment in which we are raised". Proves my point again. Anyway, you have no real response, because your latest excuse is yet again disproved - or, in your words, "utter nonsense". If Wikipedia's editorial policies were decided by what the British media thought was important (and they're not), well, the British media did comment on his being Jewish. Any new excuses? Better ones this time please, though. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Putting Miliband's ethnicity into the infobox will violate both the Wikipedia manual of style, and WP:WEIGHT. That is all I have to say on the subject, regardless of how much you Google for 'Miliband Jewish' and then misrepresent what is written. I consider this topic closed, as you have offered no substantive reason as to why policy should be ignored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Bare assertions are not arguments. I also consider this topic closed, as you have offered no substantive reason (or even plausible excuse) as to why using this parameter violates policy, or why this parameter should not be used here. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
They didn't actually say anything about him having Jewish ethnicity, just the woolly term of 'Jewishness'. So I wouldn't say this supports the inclusion of ethnicity=Jewish anyway. --Topperfalkon (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The point was that Andy claimed the British media hardly commented on his being Jewish, when they obviously did. In the future, rather than simply supporting Andy, please read the comments made in context. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The ethnicity field is not intended at all. According to the other editors there isn't even any documentation for its inclusion and usage. This article is about Ed Miliband insofar as it is notable. There is little to suggest that Ed's ethnicity, which may well be different to his cultural identity, and every prior attempt to make additions of ethnicity has caused ambiguity. Every attempt made to level that out by noting his atheism (we're not having that argument again now) has been decried as fallacious or irrelevant. In one case his atheism was mentioned in the headline of a newspaper that normally fulfils WP:RS. Yet the only reference so far that directly links Ed's ethnicity as being Jewish is a Jewish news source. Given that Jews are known for using an entirely different means of discerning ethnicity than anyone else I could hardly call it reliable in this matter. In another source, he self references a 'Jewish identity'. Needless to say, you don't need to practice Judaism or have any Jewish ethnicity to claim a Jewish identity. Much in the same way that you don't need to be an Arab or other Middle-Eastern ethnicity to claim an Islamic identity (or a Christian identity, for that matter). There is still no good reason to add this detail, as the proper context of his statements and actions are already better described in the main body of the article.--Topperfalkon (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Topperfalkon, you've failed to answer the question above; were Jmabel or I "rightfully aggrieved" by Andy's attack? If so, why did you not first leap to our defense? If not, why not? Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Because, as far as I'm aware, Andy addressed it himself. I didn't feel there was much point in adding anything to it. There is irony in that statement however, as you have failed to respond to the post you are replying to. You're becoming as bad as BusStop, and any sympathy I ever had for your argument is rapidly draining.--Topperfalkon (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Topperfalkon—what is the point to this? You say:
"You're becoming as bad as BusStop, and any sympathy I ever had for your argument is rapidly draining"
I disagree with the point that you are making in this discussion. Nevertheless we are expected to: "comment on content, not on the contributor." Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Andy didn't "address it", and what he does is not relevant to what you do. The actual irony is that your pretense of being somewhat neutral has been completely disproved by your statements here; your perceptions and statements are based entirely on your support for Andy's position on this topic, nothing more. You are even worse than Bus stop; he, at least, does not pretend to be "neutral" on this topic, but rather makes his position clear, and does not waver from it. Any sympathy I ever had for your arguments is completely gone. Don't bother to respond, unless it's to apologize for your outrageous inconsistency in who you think is "rightfully aggrieved" by personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed your comments regarding my supposed 'attack' here [8], where I pointed out that you were misquoting me (which incidentally you went on to repeat), and also pointed out that it was Bus stop, not me, who implied that there were 'factions' involved. If you don't consider this reply adequate, I suggest you take this issue elsewhere. Meanwhile, can you please reply to Topperfalkon's comments on the substantive issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No, you haven't, because your attack was when you said The only people that seem particularly interested in this issue are a faction of Wikipedia editors, several of whom are seemingly intent on tagging everyone they can find with any Jewish connections etc. Here's your attack. False, and entirely unwarranted. Neither Jmabel nor I do what you implied we do; in fact, I typically do the exact opposite. So yeah, you did state explicitly that there were "factions" involved, and you did personally attack those you saw as part of those factions. And Topperfalkon, like you, needs to deal with his statement in an honest way; until he does, his statements have no value because there is no guarantee they are made in good faith. If he can apologize for his obviously biased pretense regarding personal attacks, then it's possible to take his others statements straightforwardly, and respond accordingly. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If you consider stating openly what is self-evident to be a "biased pretense" (what is the pretense - I said it openly) then I suggest you raise it in an appropriate place. The fact is however, that there are several regular contributors who frequently seem more concerned with noting the ethnicity and/or faith of 'Jewish' people at every opportunity, regardless of its significance, and often based upon questionable evidence, than with producing a neutral, balanced encyclopaedia. While I acknowledge that there are many in the Jewish communities who feel that their culture and sense of identity is under threat, and that it therefore needs to be emphasised, this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. In this particular instance, a great deal of time has been expended on a debate that is almost entirely irrelevant to the article topic. Ed Miliband's ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with his notability, and other seniour British politicians are not marked by ethnicity in Wikipedia infoboxes. So far there has been no argument put forward at all as to why Miliband should be treated differently - for the obvious reason that the only arguments for doing this are nothing to do with Miliband per se, and everthing to do with the preoccupations of contributors. I am instead arguing that Wikipedia should not treat particular people differently based on their ethnicity and/or faith - so how exactly does this constitute 'bias'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you say, "other seniour British politicians are not marked by ethnicity in Wikipedia infoboxes". Please provide me with some examples of "other seniour British politicians" that are "not marked by ethnicity in Wikipedia infoboxes". For the sake of good comparison could you please confine your examples to Jewish "seniour British politicians"? Bus stop (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No. Because I'm not a bigot who thinks that Jewish politicians should be treated differently. Go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't have to "raise" anything anywhere; I'm simply ignoring his comments until he indicates they're made in good faith. He knows what he must do. And while there may be editors who are keen on promoting Jewish ethnicity etc., a) there is no indication that they comprise a "faction", and b) that accusation was directed at Jmabel and me, to whom it definitely does not apply. Acknowledge the falseness of that implication, and we can move on to your other points, such as they are. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
How exactly is pointing out that, as you yourself acknowledge, "there may be editors who are keen on promoting Jewish ethnicity etc" become a false 'implication'? If you wish to ignore my comments, fine. This topic is dead anyway. We aren't going to tag Miliband as ethnically Jewish in the infobox, for the very good reason that nobody has offered any argument whatsoever (other than "promoting Jewish ethnicity") as to why we should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we basically are going to be filling in that infobox parameter correctly, for the very good reason that nobody has stated we should do for the purpose of "promoting Jewish ethnicity", and nobody has offered any argument whatsoever as to why we shouldn't. Your excuses so far have consisted of false implications, personal attacks, and straw men. None of them have even risen to the level of a good excuse, much less an argument. If you have any actual arguments to make, please make them now. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg: The parameter to which you refer has already been remarked as not being documented in the template itself. It also isn't in widespread use throughout Wikipedia. You've also failed to provide a compelling case for its inclusion, simply reusing the same arguments that were already dead and buried months ago. If you're going to make bold edits, then the onus should always be on you to justify those edits. If you are having an argument about this with several other editors who disagree with your case, does this not cast into doubt the premise for your inclusion of the material? --Topperfalkon (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review my previous post to you. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
So you have no actual reason for including the 'ethnicity' parameter (or at least, aren't prepared to give one), but insist on adding it anyway? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You're not Topperfalkon, and, unlike you, I've clearly given good reasons for my position. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed that post, and I replied to discuss the issue at hand. This is what the talk page is for. Maybe it'd be a far better use of your time to stop sniping at other editors and actually contribute?--Topperfalkon (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, if you aren't proposing this for the purpose of "promoting Jewish ethnicity", why did you draw attention to this debate with this misleading comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism [9]? AS you are well aware, the debate has never been about whether Miliband is ethnically Jewish. The issue is whether this merits mention in the infobox.
If you have any good arguments as to why Ed Miliband should be singled out for ethnotagging please make them now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I brought it to the attention of the Wikiproject most likely to be able to assess the importance, accuracy, relevance, and meaning of Miliband's claim to being Jewish. And the issue has always been the attempts by a small cadre of editors here to hide Miliband's ethnicity, whether by initially deleting all reference to it in the article, or later by deleting the appropriate and accurate categories, or now by deleting the appropriate infobox parameter. If you have any good arguments as to why Miliband's Jewish ethnicity should be singled out for suppression in the infobox, when he himself says "My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am", please make them now. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
What about Miliband's claim to be a socialist? Did you raise that at the appropriate forum? As for your lies about me trying to “hide Miliband's ethnicity”, I suggest you redact that immediately. As is blatantly obvious, all I have argued is that as other British politicians aren't marked by ethnicity in infoboxes, Miliband shouldn't be singled out. Please keep your ludicrous insinuations to yourself, and stick to the question - why should we single Miliband out? Why are you obsessed with treating Jews differently? Do you consider this compatible with the objectives of Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—I don't think you would disagree that the attribute of identity of being Jewish is applicable to Ed Miliband. (Correct me if I am wrong about that.) Nevertheless you seem to be arguing that such information should be kept out of the Ed Miliband Infobox. For instance, you argue that:
"…other British politicians aren't marked by ethnicity in infoboxes, Miliband shouldn't be singled out. Please keep your ludicrous insinuations to yourself, and stick to the question - why should we single Miliband out? Why are you obsessed with treating Jews differently? Do you consider this compatible with the objectives of Wikipedia?
I was wondering if you could provide an example or two of British politicians that you think are comparable to Ed Miliband in regard to the discussion underway. Specifically, could you provide us with examples of other British politicians that aren't marked by ethnicity in Infoboxes?
You've presented this argument before, and I have asked you to present a few examples of actual British politicians that are treated this way on Wikipedia, and you have refused to provide any such examples.
Can you please show me some comparable examples among other British politicians—which other British politicians are not "marked by ethnicity" in their Infoboxes? I think it would be helpful if you provided comparable examples. I think it would be a good idea if you were prepared to explain in what way you feel that any examples you may provide are comparable to the example of Ed Miliband. Of course if your examples are not comparable I think that would tend to show the weakness of your argument. Bus stop (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If you think there are 'comparable examples' of senior British politicians who are' "marked by ethnicity" in infoboxes, I suggest you find them. I've got better things to do than argue with trolls. AndyTheGrump (talk)
Regarding "ludicrous insinuations", it was you who claimed that there was "a faction of Wikipedia editors, several of whom are seemingly intent on tagging everyone they can find with any Jewish connections", and ludicrously insinuated that I was one of them. If there are any "lies" that need to be redacted, it is that one - yet you have continually refused to apologize for it or redact it. Yet when I point out there is a small cadre of editors trying to hide Miliband's ethnicity, you immediately assume you are one of them, and insist it is a lie that I must immediately redact. The irony here could not be more rich. In addition, while I have provided quite lucid and rational arguments regarding the ethnicity parameter, you have quite singularly failed to provide even the smallest excuse as to why we should single Miliband out and refuse to use it for him. Now, stop talking about me, stop asking loaded questions, and finally, for once, give a real argument as to why we must exclude this parameter on this specific article. No more of this nonsense about what goes on in other articles, or what the British press thinks about Miliband's ethnicity, or farcical claims that this article only discusses items relevant to Miliband's politics. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
So you think a suggestion that this article should discuss what makes Miliband notable, rather than your ethnotagging agenda which explicitly states that Miliband should be singled out by including an entirely undocumented (and apparently unused) parameter, is 'farcical'? Go boil your head... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, stop talking about me, stop asking loaded questions, and finally, for once, give a real argument as to why we must exclude this parameter on this specific article - though I admit, "go boil your head" is a better argument than any of the others you've advanced (but becoming a bit dull because of the repetition). Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
We 'exclude' the parameter because you refuse to explain why we must 'include' it. As for dull repetition, I think it is you that is doing most of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
As I've explained before, we include it because a) Miliband himself both states and indicates how important it is to him, b) there's no reason this specific article should be singled out for infobox ethnicity expurgation, and c) no reasonable excuse has been advanced for excluding it. All the rather weak excuses for doing so (e.g. the British media doesn't care about Miliband's ethnicity, this article only discusses items relevant to Miliband's politics) have been debunked. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Jayjg, you've "explained before". What you haven't explained is why this particular article should be different from others, and include an "enthicity" category that isn't used elsewhere. And no, you haven't 'debunked' anything - you may think that stating that something has been 'debunked' constitutes evidence that it has, but it doesn't work like that. If you cannot give a logical reason why Ed Miliband should be singled out, he won't be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The argument you're trying to make is that this page has "Infobox officeholder" Template, not "Infobox person" Template, and no articles use the ethnicity parameter for "Infobox officeholder". OK, I'll go remove the parameter from the Template. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Jayjg, you've "explained before". What you haven't explained is why this particular article should be different from others, and include an "enthicity" category that isn't used elsewhere. And no, you haven't 'debunked' anything - you may think that stating that something has been 'debunked' constitutes evidence that it has, but it doesn't work like that. If you cannot give a logical reason why Ed Miliband should be singled out, he won't be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg: Again, you're making a trend of completely ignoring the content of the comment you are replying to. Andy's replies to you then were sufficient in my mind to allow you to continue discussions about whatever grievances you had without my continued interference. But clearly that isn't good enough for you. You also seem to misunderstand me. I'm neutral in the context of the wider argument that was last discussed here at the end of last year, in that my preference was to remove any categorisations or infobox entries regarding atheism and Judaism/jewishness to get rid of the headache it was causing. That position hasn't changed. Unless you honestly have suffered from long-term amnesia recently, I don't see why I should have to recount the events that are already archived in the talkpages anyway. We came to a resolution back then, you're just trying to muddy the water again using any possible justification you can dig up to do so. I am also beginning to find your parroting irritating as well, I'd much prefer it if you stop trying to provoke me (and Andy).--Topperfalkon (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Topperfalkon, which of Andy's replies addressed his personal attack, in which he stated The only people that seem particularly interested in this issue are a faction of Wikipedia editors, several of whom are seemingly intent on tagging everyone they can find with any Jewish connections etc.? Please quote and link to the reply that addressed it, because I can't find it. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, I'm not interested in your attempts to distract from the discussion at hand. The issue at hand is the inclusion or exclusion of categories/infobox entries regarding Ed Miliband's ethnicity. --Topperfalkon (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Without an admission/apology, your comments here of no value because they cannot be taken at face value, and will therefore be weighted accordingly. If you want your responses to be taken seriously, and responded to, you know what to do. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Why should I apologise for your inability to come to terms in a discussion with another editor. You are, in fact, still arguing that matter with him, so why do you expect me to add anything else? You've spent the majority of this discussion doing your best to avoid discussion of your proposed edits. Why on earth would you presume to have any more credibility than I do if you're going to evade the point! Your pathetic attempts to brush off any continued discussions reeks of immaturity. --Topperfalkon (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review my previous post to you. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, in the future, if you want your arguments to carry any weight, please make non-spurious arguments; that means discussing sources and policy, not your theories about "the British people", or claiming you somehow have the inside track on actual policy and are the only one following it, or adding various ad hominem and wildly inaccurate screeds about other editors and mythical "factions". Your arguments would also improve (and be taken more seriously) if you stopped telling people to boil their heads. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So nobody is going to come up with any evidence that Miliband's ethnicity is notable to anyone but this faction entirely conicidental confluence of contributors? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Miliband himself states "My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am". Where does it state in policy that the ethnicity parameter can be used in an infobox only if a Wikipedia editor believes it is notable? Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me he is "non-observant Jewish", not Polish jewish. Kittybrewster 22:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The two are not mutually exclusive. Then again, neither would be notable unless demonstrated to be so by reliable sources. There is little doubt that Miliband considers himself ethnically Jewish (amongst other things), that isn't the issue. This discussion is supposed to be about whether it it is appropriate to include this in an infobox. I note that neither Diane Abbott nor Khalid Mahmood to pick a couple of random examples from the (sadly small) number of 'minority ethnicity' MPs have this dubious distinction. Can anyone explain where exactly this is justified in policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
If Abbott or Mahmood have stated their ethnicities in reliable sources, then it may very well be that it should be added to their infoboxes. In any event we're not talking about those articles, we're talking about this one. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Miliband's Ethnicity is of no interest to me but it has been a feature of comment in many WP:RSs for example The Independent [10], the Jewish Chronicle [11] and The Scotsman [12] so I guess we should have it in. NBeale (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Independant article is clearly not about Miliband's ethnicity as such. The Jewish Chronicle merely notes that he is Jewish, but makes no other comment on the significance of his ethnicity. The Scotsman article uses the word 'Jewish' precisely once - in the headline. I think these three articles actually support my argument - that Miliband's ethnicity is of little or no consequence to his political career. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The Independent is completely clear about his ethnicity. Where does it state in policy that the ethnicity parameter can be used in an infobox only if a Wikipedia editor believes it is "consequence to his political career"? Let's also keep in mind that, as opposed to anonymous Wikipedia editor AndyTheGrump's view of its importance, Miliband himself states "My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am". Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is entirely possible for an 'anonymous Wikipedia editor' to cherry-pick quotes to prove a point, and for other anons to form a 'consensus'. The fact is however that there is no evidence that Miliband's ethnicity is of any more relevance than that of any other British politician. Unless a cogent reason can be given why Wikipedia should consider it to have such significance, to include it would be unjustifiable. So how about some arguments that actually address the issue: why should Miliband be treated differently? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, no evidence except for Miliband's own words. Now, where did it state in policy that the "ethnicity" parameter could not be used on infoboxes for politicians in general and/or Miliband in particular? That is the issue of "being treated differently" you need to address. Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Andy, so now I'm part of a cabal? I presume (though he didn't say anything other than that there was a discussion that might interest me) that Jayjg turned to me for my opinion because I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups and because I've probably done as much as any one person to propose policy in this area, not because he presumed I would agree with him. It's true that over the years of discussions where we both been involved, I do agree with him more often than not, but presumably that would be the case for almost any pair of long-term contributors, or we would never have anything like consensus here! He and I have certainly had our disagreements (including on Jewish-related topics), some of them a bit strenuous. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited for a long time but came across this discussion and thought I'd contribute. I personally dislike these infoboxes, which seem like Top Trumps cards with a varying selection of trivia. However, a cursory inspection shows Cameron, Brown and Blair don't have ethnicity infoboxed. The notion it must (and only) be included when "an ethnicity other than the one primarily identified with that state" seems wrong to me (surely infoboxes should be standard) but even accepting the presmise, the infoboxes don't mention the Jewish or part-Jewish ethnicity of Howard, Mandelson, Letwin, Sugar, Silkin, Joseph, Disraeli; for other minority ethnicities, Abbott and Mahmood were mentioned, I'll add Sadiq Khan, Scotland, Warsi. Outside the UK, Obama and Sarkozy don't have their minority or mixed ethnicities infoboxed.
It's not usual to include it in the infobox and I can't see a reason to here. I worry it might actually be distorting - Miliband talks about "Jewish identity" not "Jewish ethnicity", I'm not certain he sees Jewishness the way a simple "Ethnicity: Jewish" might imply. And there's an issue of whether "Jewish" is enough (he specifically talks of "Polish Jewish", though his father was born and raised in Belgium). I find the idea infoboxes must note ethnicities other than a theoretical primary, unsustainable. If we aim to show minority ethnicites are noteworthy in UK politics, we're relying on readers to notice it's only in some boxes and deduce that reason. Are Cameron, Brown and Blair the same ethnicity - and what is it? Should Bevan's infobox list "Ethnicity: Celtic"? (I can provide quotes showing how important Celtic identity was to him.)
Finally, JayG said "If you object to the infobox having the ethnicity parameter, then you should get it removed from the infobox template". There's an inconsistency in the relevant template - ethnicity is in the code but is not listed in the documentation (unlike nationality and religion). Its inclusion was never discussed. After an exhaustive search, I find this edit added the parameter to this article. These two edits first added infoboxes, and didn't include that parameter: 1, 2. I cannot remember ever seeing an infobox that includes ethnicity - religion is in some and not others (and that's annoying), but I've not seen ethnicity. I'm not saying there aren't any out there, but it seems to me it would extremely selective to include it in this one article. Sorry this is such a long comment. -- Gregg (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
He's British - and, like most people of British "ethnicity", comes from a mixed genetic and cultural background. It's not important, interesting or relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the question of whether the relevant infobox should have an 'ethnicity' field, I can see nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) to justify it. On the contrary, it states that "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears". Given that the field seems to be seldom used, it cannot possibly be a 'key fact', unless specific evidence can be provided that indicates otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "Jew-tagging agenda" as an editor can add content to articles in his area of interest whatever his area of interest may be so long as his addition of content is compliant with policy and consensus. Normal editing of Wikipedia is not called an agenda. Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I have also observed your "Jew-tagging agenda" so it clearly exists. It's not normal editing since you continue to argue about it interminably after consensus against doing it has been clearly established on multiple occasions. Being against consensus, it's no longer normal editing. You know this, because you were in fact at one time banned for doing it. Yworo (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yworo—you say, "You know this, because you were in fact at one time banned for doing it." This is not 100% true. Indeed I was banned. I believe the ban ran for approximately a year—a long time. But I was not banned for the reasons you are citing. You have been reminding the community repeatedly that I have been banned. Do I need to bring "diffs" to to show your repeated efforts to diminish me in the eyes of the Wikipedia community by repeatedly pointing out that I have experienced a lengthy ban of my editing privileges? You have even tried to get that ban reinstated, as seen here. Your constant reminding the community that I have been banned is problematic. You are presenting incorrect information to others concerning me. Even if it were correct information, it would be out of place: "Comment on content, not on the contributor..." Also try to avoid spreading incorrect information as that only compounds the problem. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, I find this sort of page manipulation irregular. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
This is out of line. In point of fact I am responding to something said in this very section. It most certainly is not "Jew-tagging" when one inserts "Jewish" in an Infobox. I am permitted to respond in the same section that that incorrect characterization is made. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It does help make it clear that you're cruising for a topic ban at the very least. Your incessant argumentation on the topic is taking up too much time on the part of other editors, and that's all it takes for a community ban, really. IMO you are skating on very thin ice. Yworo (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you say, "I think these three articles actually support my argument - that Miliband's ethnicity is of little or no consequence to his political career."
Do you think that you have presented an "argument"? Wikipedia is based on sources. Do you have any sources to present to support an "argument"? Here is a source that suggests that the Infobox should read "Religion: Jewish".
I have suggested above and I will suggest again—in the instance of Jews—both observant and nonobservant—the field should read "Religious identity". This covers the gamut from Orthodox to secular.
We should not be making this choice between "Ethnicity" and "Religion" concerning a field in an Infobox. As WP:BLPCAT says, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." Translation: the reader has to read the article. Category names and Infobox fields are not expected to be precise. Fields in Infoboxes should be formulated to take in a wide-enough area of applicability to be reasonably accurate, but for more precise details a reader is expected to read the article.
No source has been brought by any editor supporting an "argument" that Miliband might not be Jewish. Translation: We do not have sources contradicting one another on the point of whether Miliband is Jewish.
We see the same illogic here, where no sources whatsoever are brought by you or by anyone else arguing your point of view yet the pseudo-argument is made that we can't even say in the body of an article that a person is Jewish. The body of the article of course is not even subject to the more stringent restrictions of WP:BLPCAT.
The sources presented above are way more than enough to support an indication of Jewishness in the Infobox. The sources are saying in no uncertain terms that Miliband is Jewish.
You say that, "The Independant article is clearly not about Miliband's ethnicity as such. The Jewish Chronicle merely notes that he is Jewish, but makes no other comment on the significance of his ethnicity. The Scotsman article uses the word 'Jewish' precisely once - in the headline."
None of those sources nor any other source I've seen in relation to Miliband uses the term "ethnicity". Furthermore Jewish is defined as being Jewish by birth or Jewish by conversion, therefore even "The Independent" article is at the very least suggesting that Miliband is Jewish. The "Jewish Chronicle" article and "The Scotsman" article both state pointedly that Miliband is Jewish.
You are arguing that sources don't "comment on the significance of his ethnicity." As previously stated—they do not even make any reference to "ethnicity". Furthermore "the significance" of Miliband being Jewish is evidenced by the mere mention of this in reliable sources. You are arguing that "Miliband's ethnicity is of little or no consequence to his political career." Again—you are introducing terms not found in sources. As concerns the "consequence to his political career"—this is not for you to determine. We defer to reliable sources to provide us with guidance as to what is "of little or no consequence to his political career." You should not even be attempting to override what reliable sources think is of "significance" and of "consequence". Reliable sources are showing us that they think that the fact that Miliband is Jewish, and presently holds the position of Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition, is a noteworthy fact. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Bus stop, I'm not interested in your blather. You are wrong. You are also disruptive. Go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Andy -- I think that Bus is trying to communicate with you. I've not problem with your indicating that you think he is wrong, and no doubt if your reasons are convincing the consensus will be in agreement with you. But calling his thoughts "blather" are not perhaps within what is contemplated by wp's civility guidelines, and telling him to go away could be viewed by some as perhaps being something short of civil as well. Please energetically disagree with him if you think he is wrong. But I fear that incivility will distract readers from the points you are seeking to make. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's an improvement on Andy previously telling Bus stop to "go boil your head". Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I see no evidence that Bus stop is trying to communicate with me. Communication is a two way process. What Bus stop is doing isn't communication, it is lecturing. Unfortunately, his 'lectures' are based on a fundamentally false premise - that Wikipedia articles are nothing more than a collection of random 'facts' found in 'reliable sources' and that if he finds one, that is justification enough to include it. On its own, this would be nonsense, but easily dismissed. However, he doesn't actually look for random facts, but instead for very specific ones - assertions that person X or Y is Jewish. To him the context is irrelevant, as is exactly what 'Jewish' means in the particular instance: actually, the less-well defined it is the more it suits his ends, as he can the Wikilawyer his way around any objections more easily. This isn't behaviour conducive towards encouraging cooperative editing, and nor is it 'neutral'. He is attempting to spin Wikipedia for his own ends (whatever they are - I'm not sure he actually knows himself), and in the process he is perpetuating a less-than-helpful stereotype about 'Jewishness: that it is something 'inborn' that marks a person out as 'different' and that is somehow more important than the actual characteristics of the person concerned. Such stereotyping has no place in a 21st-century encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is his Ethnicity removed? Miliband is a public figure and it is important for his BLP. Gimpman (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not removed. It is simply in the article text where it can be presented in context rather than as an inaccurate-because-incomplete gloss in the infobox. Yworo (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────AndyTheGrump—you say, "Such stereotyping has no place in a 21st-century encyclopedia."

How is it "stereotyping" to say that someone is Jewish? I think you are misusing the basic meaning of the word stereotyping. "Jewish" is an attribute of identity. Reliable sources are fully supportive of the fact that Miliband is Jewish. There is no stereotyping when we are supplying the reader with the reliably sourced information that an attribute of identity is applicable to the subject of a biography.

You seem to be also requiring "context" as well as a fine-tuning of an individual's Jewishness. In fact these are not requirements at all. A requirement is that we adhere to what is presented by good quality sources. You say, "To him the context is irrelevant, as is exactly what 'Jewish' means in the particular instance…"

What would "context" be? Can you please tell me what sort of context you think should be required beyond noting that an individual is Jewish? If there were some sources saying that the individual were not Jewish then we would have a situation requiring either special treatment or omission. But when all sources say the same thing—that the individual is Jewish—what further "context" would be required? I am not saying that one cannot elaborate on the topic if other reliably sourced information is available, but there is no necessity, or requirement, that additional information must accompany the noting that the individual is Jewish. The fact that someone is Jewish warrants mentioning. Reliable sources make note of the fact that Ed Miliband is Jewish. In my opinion the field in which to mention this in the Infobox should read: "Religious identity". That terminology includes those Jews, such as Ed Miliband, who are nonobservant.

The second half of your above-quoted sentence reads, "…as is exactly what 'Jewish' means in the particular instance…"

We do not need to know whether an individual is observant, nonobservant, or in-between. In the instance that sources shed light on level of observance—that can be included. But if no reliably sourced information is available about level of observance, we are still permitted to note simply that the person is Jewish. Wikipedia is never finished. If such information becomes available at a future time, it can be added. Bus stop (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, thank you for providing such clear evidence that my observations regarding your relentless behaviour are correct. And no, 'Jewish' is not "an aspect of identity". Or can you find a 'reliable source' that says it is? And on what basis do you claim that "we do not need to know whether an individual is observant, nonobservant, or in-between"? Why? Why then is it important that we know that a person is 'Jewish' in some undefined way at all? It isn't, unless you are obsessed with the idea that 'Jewishness' is somehow 'inborn' and unique, that makes Jews 'different'. If you believe that, you are stereotyping. Waffle on all you like about 'sources', but the fact is that you are obsessed with turning Wikipedia into an ethno-religious database, and will come out with the most ridiculous pretexts to do so. This is disruptive, and offensive. Please take your obsessions elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"Disruptive, and offensive?" AndyTheGrump—reliable sources set the precedent for the content of articles. Sources sometimes tell us that the subject of a biography is Jewish, such as in the case of Ed Miliband. Should we not pass that along to the reader? The article happens to say that "Miliband is Jewish, but not religious." I am suggesting that in the Infobox it read: "Religious identity: Jewish". Can you tell me if you find that suggestion reasonable? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Give over Bus stop this really is obsessive and disruptive - Milliband is closer to an atheist than a religious Jew - he is British - his genetic history has Jews in it. He has never been in a synagogue. He is a British person with some Jews in his genetic history. Leave him alone. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Bus stop, Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing lies to suit your agenda. Miliband does not have a Jewish "religious identity" - he has clearly stated that he doesn't believe in God. And where did this "religious identity" phrase come from anyway? Can you provide a 'reliable source' that shows it isn't something you created yourself to confuse ethnicity and faith even further? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—in reference to your edit summary found above, please note the wording found at WP:Edit summary:
"Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult."
While the above applies primarily to Article pages I think it makes sense to consider it in relation to this Talk page edit summary as well. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Your edit summaries are commenting on me as an editor, as additionally seen here and here—from 24 hours ago on this same Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
And this is another example of your obnoxious behaviour. whenever you can't answer a question, you start dragging up other issues to hide the fact. If you don't like my comments about you, raise this in the appropriate place. Now tell me where this "religious identity" nonsense came from, and why it wouldn't be an outright lie to describe Miliband as having a Jewish one. And if you cant answer these simple questions, I will have to assume that you are only here to disrupt the discussion, and act accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—I think this is a source which would suggest that the Infobox should read "Religion: Jewish". I assume you disagree with the language found at that source. If you disagree with the language found at that source, can you tell me why you think they chose to use the language they did?
You make referrence to my supposed "obnoxious behaviour." Do you not notice that I do not speak to you in deriding terms? You need not characterize my suggestions "nonsense". We can safely assume we are two people of normal intelligence. Neither of us is speaking nonsense. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
So yet again, you refuse to explain where this term "religious identity" came from, and instead come up with a link to NNDB which asserts (without evidence) that Miliband is Jewish by religion. Do you really think garbage like this can be a 'reliable souce'? It isn't. Now answer the questions I've repeatedly asked or <redacted> and troll elsewhere (and no, I have no reason to assume you are of 'normal intelligence' - quite to the contrary). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Why does NNDB use the locution "Religion: Jewish" for Ed Miliband? I don't see that you've offered any possible explanation other than to call NNDB "garbage".
When you tell me to "fuck off" it becomes exceedingly difficult to work collaboratively.
I suggested "religious identity" as a third possibility, in addition to the other two parameters already found in the Infobox, namely "ethnicity" and "religion". You don't have to agree with it, but it was my suggestion. If no one else supports it, I guess my suggestion won't be taken up. If others think it's a good idea, we can discuss it further. No need to get hot under the collar. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you ask above: "Why then is it important that we know that a person is 'Jewish' in some undefined way at all? It isn't, unless you are obsessed with the idea that 'Jewishness' is somehow 'inborn' and unique, that makes Jews 'different'."
What you are failing to understand is that in every instance it is not my obsession that we convey to the reader that the subject of a biography, in this case Ed Miliband, is Jewish, but rather that reliable sources bring this to our attention. I would turn the question around: Why should we omit what is provided to us by reliable sources when the information is that the subject of the biography is Jewish—even in the absence of any additional information? Why is the bare fact that someone is Jewish not in and of itself significant enough to warrant inclusion in an article? Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What you are failing to understand is that Wikipedia won't publish lies to suit your agenda. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I find that user Bus stops repeted returns to this totally undue. Please don't assert some kind of refusal or denial of this content, we already have this in the article - Born in London, Miliband is the younger son of Polish Jewish immigrants. His mother, Marion Kozak,[2] survived the Holocaust thanks to being protected by Roman Catholic Poles.[3] His father Ralph Miliband was a Marxist[4] and Brussels native whose parents were from Warsaw, Poland, and fled Belgium to the UK during World War I - Miliband is Jewish, but not religious. - That is more than plenty. There is a clear consensus not to include his Jewish genetic history in the infobox - Such practice is much less common in my experience in UK article - to attempt to portray this person as religiously Jewish is a total falsehood. Please everyone - stop replying to this Bus stops comments. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob—you say, "Please everyone - stop replying to this Bus stops comments."
It is the other way around—I have been (basically) replying to other editor's comments. Peruse this section of the Talk page to see that. Even in this instance—it is I who is responding to you—is it not? In most instances I think this is the case. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You people are distorting the facts. Miliband is ethnically Jewish. The infobox should clearly read Ethnicity: Jewish. What is religion is is slightly more subjective - I just need to find an article talking about him attending a Synagogue and then you can bet it is going back in Gimpman (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope. That Miliband considers himself ethnically Jewish (amongst other things) isn't really a matter of debate. What is at issue is whether this merits mention in the infobox: see WP:WEIGHT. And why are you so concerned to "find an article talking about him attending a Synagogue"? How exactly would this tell us anything? What do you think happens in Synagogues? Why is it so important to you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wedding smash

Ed Miliband smashed a glass at his wedding. Maybe he's Jewish after all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I smashed a glass at my wedding, but I'm not Jewish. So? Yworo (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the article? Key words, in the first sentence: "his religion". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It's the Jewish Chronicle. Not reliable for religion, as they and other Jewish publications use different criteria than Wikipedia. They will claim "religion" just because of birth. We require self-identification for religion. Yworo (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Nomo here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
How does it satisfy the WP:BLP requirement for self-identification of religion? Yworo (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I see someone added this to the article, and was reverted. This sort of trivia has no place here. (And no, it isn't evidence of Jewish faith, and neither is the JC's assertion. Self-identification is a requirement for BLPs). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
A related discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Jewish Chronicle -- not reliable for Jewish topics? Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've put it into the article, not to imply that Miliband is a religious Jew, but simply as an illustration of how he chose to bring religious symbolism into his (civil) wedding ceremony. Since it has been reported on by the Jewish Chronicle as well as a lot of mainstream publications including the Independent, WP:UNDUE would seem to mandate it having a place in the article. ╟─TreasuryTagAfrica, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current wording of that section. --Topperfalkon (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Balancing Ed's positive comments/spin

It's all very well quoting the subject saying Labour is "on its way back to power" (with no evidence) but we should also balance it with the facts that a pro-Labour paper is reporting (also picked up in "labour Briefing" [13] and those from a respected polling organisation. NBeale (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that an earnest Miliband Defender has removed the Tribune comment, despite it being replaced by another editor. I've restored this, please get a consensus here before removing balance. NBeale (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You should try writing something more ... informative and not so ...titillating .. headline comments such as -- the knives are out are not encyclopedic or educational at all. Regarding the Tribune_(magazine) your desired addition... Labour supporting seems to be so what - are we to add that the the telegraph and the Sun - the conservative supporting Sun - etc - I have removed the unsupported fluffy promo claim "we are back to power" as a compromise. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Opening Section

This edit makes the article have a more concise, thorough and neater opening section. As it was before, the opening section looked quite fragmented, oversimplified in it's paragraphing and lacking in several details. I plan to redo my edit and, against my better judgement, remove reference to the election results. MWhite 21:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please allow interested users some time to comment, There is no hurry, thanks. Like what is this "Miliband has been described as a centre-left, social democratic politician." - who is doing this describing? Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In the Self-description of views section, the passage ends with 'He is generally described by observers as a left-of-centre, social democratic politician.' I also found this source, that clarified Ed's self-identification as a social democrat. If that source was used, it would mean re-wording the sentence to say 'Miliband identifies as a centre-left, social democratic politician', which would be appropriate. MWhite 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • User talk:Mwhite148 - Not sure why there are no links to your userpage in your signature - it is quite distracting and if its not against guidelines it should be - so here is a link to it. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I also don't support some of the other changes such as this you want to add to the lede "A descendant of Polish Jews" and this is his article not his fathers, I don't support additional details in the lede about his fathers life in the edit you are desirous of making. Your EL doesn't seem to work here it is, I don't think his comments are a self declaration of being a social democrat politician, such nuances are better in the body of the article where they can be more easily attributer and developed. I don't like hanging labels on living subjects like that in a simplified as if stated fact. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. Per WP:LEDE, neither references to Miliband's father nor his descent from Polish Jews belong there, and the "centre-left, social democratic politician" sentence looks out of place - it belongs in the 'Policies and views' section (if it can be properly sourced) - though the section already states that he describes himself as a socialist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how being a social democrat is a 'label' if it's stated that he is merely regarded as such. If it had just bluntly stated 'He is a social democratic, centre-left politician', I would understand you. His ethnicity is something, from what I can understand, that many people are confused/curious about, so it being in the lead section would be of use to the casual reader. With regards to his father and brother, both are well-known (to different extents, I concede) people who should be referenced in the opening section as being relations to Ed. In response to your comment on my talkpage, my signature's something that's annoyed me for a long time now and I've tried many things to sort it, but none of them have worked. If you've got any suggestions, I would appreciate them. I must extend my apologies, as I will not be able to continue this discussion any more tonight (or today - wherever you happen to be), and I will not see your reply until sometime tomorrow. Mwhite148 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No worries - tomorrow it is. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Good Article status

While there are a few experienced writers around - what about WP:GA review? As opposition leader we could raise the standard up a little bit - is anyone interested in nominating for a WP:GA assessment ? Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. I would, however, suggest that those involved in the article recently not take part in the review. We don't need any more reason to cry out about conflict of interests! --Topperfalkon (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks Topper. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Milliband is not irreligious. Have we a citation that supports that - also linking to Jewish - the main thing about Miliband in relation to Jewish is only his genetic ancestry so we either need to specify that or linking to Jewish internally without explaining it is undue in this case. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Irreligious needs a source. ╟─TreasuryTagprorogation─╢ 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. And even if we had a source, it is not notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the edits earlier because I didn't agree believe the edit by TreasuryTag was well enough explained to justify the whole edit. By all means remove the redirect wikilink in that instance, but I'm not getting involved. I am surprised that you claim to have a citation supporting Ed's religiosity though Rob. I thought we'd had quite detailed discussions before on sources demonstrating (with self-confirmation) that Ed isn't religious. --Topperfalkon (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes but we don't have the support to redirect that simple statement to point to the wikipedia article - irreligious - which appears to be quite a complicated expression with a mixture of understood meanings, one of which is (from our article) - "Defined as hostility to religion" - clearly we have nothing to support that, actually he seems to be a bit fluffy about it, as in the glass breaking nod to his Jewish faith (Judaism) and his leaning towards atheism/agnostic but not specifically coming out and stating that as his brother has. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've got to agree with Rob here. Miliband has been a little too vague over the issue (perhaps intentionally) for a simple statement that he is 'irreligious' to be justifiable. We can't put words into his mouth, and nor should we over-interpret what he says. As for a Wikilink to 'Jewish', that is totally unnecessary, and contrary to WP:OVERLINK - readers know what 'Jewish' means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That's fine Rob, it was only a query. I have no intention of arguing the point. At least not based on the evidence we currently have. I was confused about the removal of the wikilink for 'Jewish, but on reading the comments here I'm happy with that too.--Topperfalkon (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ed Miliband/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary review

Looks goods in most respect but Im afraid there are too many issues for me to fix as part of the review as I normally do. The most serious is a failure against Wikipedia:Good article criteria 4 (Neutrality). Will decide soon whether to quick fail or place on hold, either way I'll detail the improvements required. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Full review

Im going to fail this which is a shame really as in many ways it rather good. The prose quality is generally excellent, the layout is nice and you've done a great job of capturing most of the key incidents in his life (it's a bit lite on the family stuff but that's understandable, you could get some great human insterest stuff from the Hassan/Macintyre bio if you wanted.) A simple improvement this needs is to improve the ref format – you have about a dozen bare URLS in there. Not explicitly a Good article criteria but still desirable for an article of this prominence.

The reason for quick failing is due to the neutrality requirement. The article doesnt at all reflect the widespread criticism Ed's leadership has received. In places there seems to be pro Ed bias e.g. - In the months following Miliband's election, Labour overtook the Conservatives in opinion polls for the first time since 2007

The above sentence is cited to a generic poll tracker making it arguably borderline OR; it implies Ed's leadership was responsible for Labours Poll success (serious analysts are almost unanimous on crediting the unpopularity of the coalitions austerity measures, not Eds leadership) If you look at the hundreds of press articles that do specifically talk about Ed and the Polls, youd find pieces like this Clegg more popular than Miliband (and that was just after the student riots) or Labour opens up a gap on the NHS, but Miliband tracks IDS (polls last month showing Ed's personal popularity doing worse even than IDS and Howard at a similar stage in their opposition leadersship) I see editor NBeale tried to add some balancing coverage reflecting this but his contributions were rejected. The good news for pro Ed editors (which includes me btw, I think he might turn out to be an even better PM for the nation than Attlee) is that Eds unpopularity may have already bottomed out in mid June. Over the past few weeks his more assertive approach has won a lot of respect both within the party and externally, and if you wait a few weeks a new poll will likely come out saying his personal popularity is back on the rise.

This is turning in a ramble so to sum up: A mostly very nice article but before you re-nom you should address the neutrality issue and fix up the bare URLs. Possibly one of you could get the excellent new bio by Mehdi Hasan and James Macintyre, especially if you plan to progress this all the way to FA level. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


  • I removed the tracker OR comment- In the months following Miliband's election, Labour overtook the Conservatives in opinion polls for the first time since 2007 - Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • - I also removed this whole in the polls section - it might be relevant in the Labour party article but unless it can be shown to specifically related to the subject in some way it seems leading and suggestive - Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • - I formatted around a dozen citations. I will go through them all tomorrow...Unless anyone else beats me to it... Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In regard to the lack of criticism ...perhaps we can discuss and suggest what is the main criticism/critisisms of him/his actions and expand/add some detail about that? The reviewer said - the article is missing - "the widespread criticism Ed's leadership has received." Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Good to see the refs sorted and fair point about the Hassan Bio. To meet criteria 4 and arguably 3a there should be some mention of Eds poor personal ratings since he became leader. Its doesn't need to be as harsh as the entry editor NBeale tried to add, but you could include a sentence such as "A June 2011 poll result from Ipsos MORI found Labor 2 percentage points ahead of the Tories, but Miliband's personal rating was low; he was rated as less popular than Iain Duncan Smith at a similar stage in his opposition leadership." and source to this FT article Hundreds of alternative sources come up if you google "ed miliband popularity". Maybe I overstressed the suggestion of pro Ed bias, there is no reason why the article cant reflect much of the extensive posive coverage hes received. If you add even one sentence reflecting the criticism and/or low popularity of his leadership then IMO you could immediately put the article back up for review. Or if you don't want to you could just re-submit it anyway as another reviewer may not consider it essential for NPOV. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • My thanks to FeydHuxtable for taking the time to review this article. I see Off2riorob has already made a start with the article improvements, which I am pleased with. I am more than happy to renom when your points have been covered. It is unfortunate I don't have more time to actually contribute to this article myself.--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments - I agree something along those lines is required and have added FeydHuxtable's suggestion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In regard to the lack of criticism, I propose that instead of one sentence mentioning a negative poll that was rendered irrelevant by the hacking scandal, we instead in the Leadership of the Labour Party section create a "Reaction to Miliband as leader" section, similar to the one that can be found on the David Cameron article. In this section could be put most of the critical charges levied against Miliband, and mention quotes from the media which have been negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The media's critical comments, about what? A section to keep a load of press criticism is not correct according to WP:MOSBNIO - If you have something specific you want to present for addition please present it for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You'd better sort out the David Cameron article then hadn't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I worked on neutrally presenting and supported removal of some such partisan content at the David Cameron biography - if you want to discuss some of the content there please let me know and we can look together, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

suggested addition

  • - factoid - trivia or worthwhile additional personal detail?

After two spells living in Boston as a child, one year when he was seven and one junior high school term when he was twelve, [1] Miliband is a baseball fan, supporting the US team Boston Red Sox.[2]

Don't think the baseball thing is noteworthy, but the fact that he lived in Boston as a child could go in the "early life" section, and I think the source is good enough. --FormerIP (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I added the two spells in Boston as a child to the early life section and left out the Sed Sox support. Off2riorob (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cat removal

Hi - I removed a recently added Category:Religious skeptics - it was uncited and is a WP:BLPCAT - A recent and undiscussed addition in this diff by IP: - Youreallycan 19:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Ed Milliband interview". Retrieved 30 August 2011. 
  2. ^