Talk:History of the Jews in Kingston upon Hull

Issue tags

Since I added four issue tags, I figured it would be best to come here and explain them. As I noted in my edit summary, I think this article is coming along nicely. It's clearly well-written and well-sourced, but these are just ways I believe the article can be improved as it pertains to Wikipedia's style of writing:

• "The article needs additional citations for verification"

I added this one because large portions of the prose outside of the lead section are uncited, ranging from sentences to entire paragraphs. However, the quality of the sourcing elsewhere in the article leads me to believe that this will be resolved at some point by the article's creator.

• "This section is too long to read comfortably, and needs subsections."

Yes, I know this is technically supposed to go under each relevant section, but there are four sections I think should addressed for this issue ("Early history", "Synagogues", "Businesses and professionals", and "Other notable people"), and I didn't want this to feel spammy. Basically, just using subsections here would allow for more comfortable navigation – both on desktop and on mobile.

• "This article reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry."

There's no tag specifically for editorializing, but lines like: "Countless businesses went under in the depressions of 1920-1 and 1929–33, and the second war; all had to adapt."; "A newspaper sensation, he swam manacled from Brooklyn to New York."; "Jewish life in Hull grew right in the bustling Old Town, perhaps 40 souls in 1793, 60 in 1815, and 200 in 1835"; "A sad history of expulsion and persecution had morphed into endemic discrimination before 1810"; "One telling tragedy from the First Word War is of Harry and Marcus Silverstone"; "By the end of the twentieth century, the Jews of Hull had made a prominent contribution to the life of the City, and to the wider world, producing top civic officials"; "The hope of a New Jerusalem across the water was underpinned by correspondence with relatives"; "Next to the 1895 Alexandra Hotel,[56] with Star of David overglazings marking a once vibrant Jewish area, Israel Jacobs is buried here, as is Barnad Barnad (a.k.a Barnard, jeweller d.1821), who "went to receive his blessing.. buried with honour”"; "Living in a great port, Hull's Jewish community has a proud history of charity", etc., are fairly clear examples of editorialized language to create a compelling narrative. To be clear, this sort of approach would work very well in a published book – it just doesn't comport with the sort of neutral narrative tone that Wikipedia takes.

• "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience."

The history of the Jewish community in Hull is surely storied, but Wikipedia is geared toward a general audience and is intended to give a general overview of a subject, and this article is extremely exhaustive in its amount of detail.

TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

ThanQ, TheTechnician27. I have tried to help by leaving guidance in edit summaries, but this author has been mildly-insulting and mildly-combative with sniping edit summaries - Am I bovvered?! . Every time I try to advise with polite information on WP policy/guidelines, I get aggression by return.

I have purposely not ventured into certain areas (SPA, OWN + others) due to likely exacerbating the reaction; Normally, newbies are respectful and grateful. I wrote the following lunchtime, 25 March 2021.

{{Overly detailed|details=this is authored by a single individual with excessive trivial historic detail which could be considered as routine ([[WP:ROUTINE]]), including an extensive listing of past-businesses/owners with historic addresses, two paragraphs of supposedly-notable names (I can hyphenate after a 'y' when not in main/article space) and details of extended inter-personal relationships (children, siblings, maiden names). This excessive verbosity is suggestive of a fan's point-of-view; [[WP:COI|Conflict of Interest]] is not applicable but [[WP:NPOV|neutral point-of-view]] does apply. Suggest a radical precis to accord with Wikipedia's normal content levels and standards|date=March 2021}}

I wanted others to comment before tackling the prose in such a WP:BLOATED account, and getting more dissent in return.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Every time I try to advise" etc. I don't know if you guys can read this. I don't know how this talk function works exactly, or where to reply, its not user friendly. Am I editing your post? Where do I post a reply? Also I don't understand whom I am talking to, with all these usernames, even which are automatically generated. I have not necessarily seen comments or advice, so don't assume I have ignored it. I have not seen the comments below until just now. Some of the comments I do see have been actually hard to understand in plain English.

I agree some of the text is much too detailed, and have been considering how to cull it. One challenge is that the community of people most interested in it keeping send me new information which I research, some seems credible and relevant. For example a member of the community was lost on the titanic but his daughter survived. Is it OK to add this?

It would be upsetting if after my hundreds of hours of work people with (it seems) no knowledge of or interest in the subject started to cull the text, or get others in to do it - why is it so urgent to chop this down? Is there a shortage of space? It is a work in progress. Why I am being badgered like this? At least something is there where there was nothing before. I have noted comments like "editorialising" with text being removed when in fact the words of praise in question were taken from the reference given. Other changes have left typos and left references out of place or meaning rather garbled.

I do understand the idea of summary informative text in an encyclopedia; I thought Wikipedia would allow me to evolve that. Should I delete the whole article, polish it up elsewhere, and just post a summary? END — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Sugarman (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I will partially-address some aspects only; see what I did there? hyphenisation after the 'y' per British English can be used in non-article space; Wikipedia has long-decided against this for mainspace = 'House Style' - already advised in this edit summary, now twice (WP:HYPHEN).

• It's not usual for new contributors to embark on such an epic undertaking - see Newbie: "As a new contributor, you may feel a little overwhelmed by the sheer size and scope of this project called Wikipedia." No-one expects you to know everything, straight off, but please assume good faith in that whatever changes are made, there are good reasons - not just to 'get at' you, as perhaps you have concluded.
• You cannot delete the whole article; you donate your copyrighted original prose with an agreement to allow re-use, free of charge and to allow any modifications in what is a collaborative project. When others have also contributed, there's no scope for deletion.
• You are not being badgered; the article needs considerable work to precis-out the verbosity and trivia, plus other aspects such as breaking the sentence with inline citation boxes and embedded links, including external links to other Wikis. A good portion appears to be WP:OR - it's not incumbent on others to do all this for you - see WP:BURDEN
• I have been 'accused' of over-detailing myself. Don't knee-jerk react, don't take it personally - sometimes/often the other person's viewpoint is worthwhile considering. Multiple viewpoints form a consensus.
• Please don't continue with acerbic, reactive comments in edit summaries - it can be suggestive of abandonment of good faith.
• Wikipedia has become highly-structured over much-time and can take years to learn, so it's understandable that it may be unclear.
• Please don't make the mistake of assuming gender - "guys"; it can be offensive and there's ongoing topical consternation, presently, regarding gender-neutrality
• END!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Philip Sugarman: Hi, Philip. To add to what Rocknrollmancer said, I want to note that none of these issue tags (save "This article needs additional citations for verification.") are urgent, nor is any onus on you to remedy any of these (save, again, for the verification). Fixing the issues about subsections, story-like prose, and level of detail would just make the article better comport with Wikipedia's style of writing, and subsections specifically would just make long sections more easily navigable for readers. By and large, issue tags are just there to let passing editors know: "Hey, if you have the time, here's something you can do to help improve this article." They're not there to denigrate the article or any of its contributors, and – except for a very select few (this once again does include the one about verification) – none of them are meant as some sort of red flag for readers. I think the best analogy for most issue tags would be a 'Help wanted' poster.

As far as the verification issue goes, though, that actually should be addressed as soon as possible. As one of the most popular websites in the world with the ability to edit given freely to anybody and being totally reliant on reliable sources, this site has the potential for an especially pernicious form of circular reporting, which we call "citogenesis". What this looks like is best explained in Randall Monroe's comic xkcd, and this is a real issue that has had real impacts on the real world. Wikipedia does not want to originate any misinformation, and so we require that all statements that may be contested are supported by reliable, independent sources (the lead section of short articles is usually an exception, as long as that material is sourced later in the article, but it's not a bad thing to cite it either). The article at present contains large chunks of uncited material. As mentioned in the guideline for unsourced material, which Rocknrollmancer linked above: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. [...] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Basically, if I wrote: "[[Oliver Cromwell's favourite flavour of ice cream was pistachio", the burden would be on me to cite material by a reliable news source, a book by a reputable publisher, etc., attesting to that. Given how early this article is in its life (I don't foresee this article being removed on any grounds; if Wikipedia is still around in 30 years, I imagine so too will this article be), deleting unsourced material would probably just be rude and counterproductive, but I would implore you to make sure as soon as reasonably possible that all uncited material be sourced to reliable, independent sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to TheTechnician27

Thank you for your response. Not so long ago I ventured to post up on wikipedia some work I had been developing over some years, on the Jews of Hull, for which there is little out there covering the same ground.The response was that it would take as much as 4 months to go live. It then went live in about 3 days, and subsequently a fair number of minor style edits and some quite unpleasant intervention mainly from rockandrollmancer have been hard to handle - partly because I have been trying to work frantically to generate the large number of references needed, and at the same time the internal communication function and conventions of wiki editing are pretty obscure and frustrating at least to me. I still keep tripping over replies on various talk back pages, don't really understand the system yet. In addition the main readership have been supplying me off-line with a great deal of new information which I have been trying to process and fit in appropriately where it seems justified. I forget how many references I started with, I think about 20 - so most of the 122 so far and nearly all the hypertext links have been carefully generated by me in just few days. No one else has added on-line anything of any real content value, I think it fair to say, nor has anyone added any significant clarity, some have detracted from it with their edits. A lot of it has been moving full stops around, making ironic remarks about hyphenation, describing my work as bloated, trivial detail whilst claiming to act in good faith etc. I am happy to comply with house style but it make take a little time. So the demand for urgently more references on what should really still be an article in draft seems to be a problem caused by the culture and mechanisms of Wikipedia, to some extent at least, in this particular incidence. I am happy to continue to add references and also to boil the text down in order to achieve a useable article for all audiences, but would be grateful for a more supportive environment and a bit of breathing space. I saw the succinct comment from Graeme Bartlett, he seems to get it! Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Sugarman (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Split proposal

Pinging for comment @Philip Sugarman, Slywriter, Cloptonson, and Keith D:

I propose that the sections Businesses and Notable people be split into a separate page called List of Jews from Kingston upon Hull. I am concerned that the article is bloated and overcited, and a split could help resolve those issues.

I'm also proposing a similar measure for History of the Jews in Leeds on that article's talk page.

Lkb335 (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned about different proposals for the split, here including Businesses but not on the Leeds article. Would be better to have them both the same structure. Keith D (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned piping Businesses into the list for Kingston upon Hull only because, in this article, it basically functions like another list of people. To be honest, I am concerned most entries in the businesses section (and notable people, for that matter) are not notable enough for inclusion. Lkb335 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I oppose a split until the article is cleaned up. The more I read it, the less I believe the article meets Wikipedia standards. This is one person's personal project and requires substantial copy-editing, pruning and removal of the excessive sources. There is a line with something like 12 sources which doesn't even bother to describe content in the sources.Slywriter (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. I think there could be some use for a list, and the article itself certainly has value. I'm working on removing bloat from the Leeds article as well; remains to be seen what will be the appropriate response after that. Lkb335 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, notable people includes very few that have Wikipedia articles and many may not meet the wiki definition of notability.Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Lkb335,I'm going to revise and say I support a split. After taking a detailed look, there's enough good content in notable people to justify. Some judgement calls will need to be made post split of whether individuals should be redlink with potential for an article or should be pruned. Slywriter (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I too support a split, I agree with the reservations about the criteria for notability of some of the names too. I am neither Jewish nor come from the area so am not emotively affected.Cloptonson (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I have split the article, hopefully properly.

I will be requesting the copyediting guild take a look at this article. Slywriter (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

OR and Undisclosed COI

Several references are Personal communication to Philip Sugarman. Several Sources are written by Philip Sugarman. I've run out of time for the moment but do think editor needs to clarify their relationships and make proper declarations.Slywriter (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Should this page be renamed?

I'm not entirely sure about this, but wouldn't removing the 'the' in the article name work better? 'History of Jews in Kingston upon Hull' sounds better to 'History of the Jews in Kingston upon Hull'. JML1148 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree--I'm of the opinion that the phrase "the Jews" evokes conspiratorial images--but quite a few articles have this title, like History of the Jews in Poland and History of the Jews in Hungary, while others lack the definite article, like History of Jews in Syria and History of Jews in San Diego. I'll admit that the version without the definite article feels awkward; maybe "History of Judaism in x" would be better? I'll note that we don't say "History of the Christians in x" for any location; instead it's "History of Christianity in x". Lkb335 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Would support removing "the". Would also support the more broad renaming in line with Christian articles Slywriter (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If one or two more editors chime in with support, I'll request a move for all relevant pages. I've never participated in RM before, and would like some experience there. Lkb335 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The originally proposed title seems to have the most support from the participants as the most natural phrasing and best fitting the scope of the article (the people themselves). (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

---

History of the Jews in Kingston upon Hull → History of Jews in Kingston upon Hull – I think removing the 'the' could sound better, and would be useful to set a consenus for other articles - refer to Lkb335's comment above. JML1148 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Note Also, the page could be moved to History of Judaism in Kingston upon Hull - that may work a bit better, and would bring it in line with the same articles on Christianity. JML1148 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. It does sound better. Walrasiad (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Walrasiad: would you favour just removing "the" or the Judaism version? Keith D (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

As originally proposed Just removing the "the". Walrasiad (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  @GordonGlottal: would you favour just removing "the" or the Judaism version? Keith D (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just removing "the", as the page is about the group and not the religion.GordonGlottal (talk) GordonGlottal (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support, better name Marcelus (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Prefer instead Jewish history of Kingston upon Hull.--Pharos (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banner about the article being promotional, and citation numbers

As no one has (to my knowledge) tried to address this issue in several months, I have looked again at this article largely written by me. I believe this was a reference to the phrase (something like) "notable contribution to the life of the city in the broader world " in the introduction. Have replaced with "made an impact on the life of the city, and some became known in the broader world".

I do not know if the issue is now addressed. I do not know how to contact or deal with the bot or person who it seems posted the banner. Is the person called "abductive" or does that mean something else? Perhaps if no-one replies in a while, I will take the banner down myself.

As regards excess citations, in previous discussions it was asserted that splitting the article in two would help with this. I have also removed citations in several sections. Again perhaps if no one replies I will removed the other banner after a suitable time. Philip Sugarman (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)