![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the introduction of the article, it states that after the expulsion of the Jews, some remained in hiding. However, this assertion is not backed by a citation, nor is it mentioned in the main body of the text.
I'd be interested in the UK's stance of offering immigration to persecuted Jews on the continent during the Nazi regime and WW II. That would fit in to the last section "modern times". Any plans for that issue? -- Freeatlast 21:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Although some people are confused by the concepts of "England", "Britain" and the "United Kingdom", does anyone else think the line "England is the southern and central portion of the island of Britain" perhaps not necessary for an article regarding the history of Jews in England?
What about Jews with the Roman Armies? -- Son of Paddy's Ego 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason this article is exclusive to Jews in England? Would there be any objections to expanding the article into an history of the Jews in Britain, including Scotland and Wales? aliceinlampyland 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
The article is correctly titled and focused.-- Mais oui! 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The description of the death of Jews in Clifford's Tower in the article on York Castle is very different from the one here. I'm not sure which is more accurate, but some coordination needs to be done.
There needs to be some reference in this article as to where they went after expulsion: Spain? ... Where? Dogru144 14:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Download:
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/jgei.htm
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton
Jews in the Court, Raphael Mostel | Fri. Oct 06, 2006:
There were no Jewish musicians in the court of King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I did not have a Jewish physician. 76.92.210.222 ( talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
From the article:
"In 1943 famed Anglo-Jewish film star Leslie Howard and Jewish activist Wilfrid B. Israel were killed when BOAC Flight 777 was shot down by the German Luftwaffe off the coast of France".
Not sure how to formally submit queries or corrections, but this sentence needs amending, because Leslie Howard lived long after WW2!
John Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahoo.co.uk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.163.26 ( talk) 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Usury is used a bit too much in this article. The definition of usury as simple money lending is archaic; the modern definition is lending money at an illegally or abnormally high interest rate. I'm going to change some of the usury references to other terms. Dragonsscout ( talk) 23:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement..."By July 1945 228,000 troops of the Polish Armed Forces in the West, including many Polish Jews, were serving under the high command of the British Army..." is undoubtedly true. What percentage of them were Jewish, or more simply, how many were serving in this contingent? Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Understood. A solution would be to change the phrase "many Polish Jews" to "Polish Jews". FYI in the democratic Polish Government in Exile a.k.a. the London Poles there were two Polish Jews: Szmul Zygielbojm and Ignacy Schwarzbart. They were there to represent Polish Jews, not least Polish Jews under British high command in the War. Chumchum7 ( talk) 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Here you go http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3302233,00.html it says 10,000 Polish Jews under the Polish flag fought the Nazis at Monte Cassino. Even if half fell in Battle, you've got thousands of Polish Jews entitled to settle in Britain in accordance with the Polish Resettlement Act 1947. Only about a third of that 228,000 figure were Anders Army. The rest were from the tens of thousand of Polish troops that fled German POW camps and the forced enlistment into the Wehrmacht, and the figure for Polish Jews under Brit high command increases. Its not an undue mention, but reword it for precision if you have to. Chumchum7 ( talk) 23:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The claim that jews could not own land in England is beside the fact that most all of the gentile people could not own land in england. Only the king and/or queen could own land. The royal families owned the land because they had armies who would fight for them. If jewish people had an army that would fight and win the land for them they would have owned land in england just like the royal families owned land in england. Does it need to be pointed out for shame of antisemitism that jews could not own land whenever 99.99999% of the gentile population could not own land? Technically it is not antisemitism that caused jews to not own land in england but the jewish people's military weakness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.141.183 ( talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
notice in the section ""Statutum de Judaismo", 1275" someone wrote that the jews original profession was orgenized crime, and claim all the jews of england became criminals (no sources at all and sounds fabricated) now this seemed wierd enough , but then came the section "Expulsion of MIBZ, 1290" of mibz?! this goes on in all the section ,all "jews" changed to "mibz" , even the sources of one citation Reference (num 7) was changed (instead of jews ,the book name include "mibz") and in the end of the section , the peculiar 'historian' even adds a "meow"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.2.191 ( talk) 14:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
the stuff written in the end of the section of ""Statutum de Judaismo", 1275" still have no sources though, what is this based upon ? ("Some resorted to highway robbery" never read such a thing in any source on jewish history of england "while a considerable number appear to have resorted to coin clipping as a means of securing a precarious existence." they indeed was accused of that when the heads of families were arrested , but it was part of Edward I persecution. the article mention it as a reasonable scenario) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.19.1 ( talk) 18:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Parts are copied from a 1906 book Jewish Encyclopedia published in New York--its copyright has expired and there is no copyvio. (It should be cited the way EB 1911 is often cited) Rjensen ( talk) 12:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary; currently, it is too detailed and has information not in the body of the article. According to MOS:LEAD, 'The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents....The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies....Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.' Jontel ( talk) 07:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The intro to this article says: At the insistence of Irish leader Daniel O'Connell, in 1846 the British law "De Judaismo", which prescribed a special dress for Jews, was repealed.
This is not great encyclopedic writing: it's ambiguous as to whether England (the subject of this article) is even being referred to, given the Irish context. It is also not made clear whether Jews were legally required to wear certain clothes up until 1846, or if the law was long since unenforced but just happened to still be on the books. Despite appearing in the lead there is no further mention in this article of special dress for Jews at any time, other than mention of the yellow patch centuries earlier. It appears from a search that "De Judaismo" refers to the
Statute of the Jewry of 1275, but again, in that article there is no mention of clothing other than the yellow badge, nor of anything to do with Daniel O'Connell or repeal. I don't seek to downplay the significance of the yellow patch/badge, but it is not obvious to the reader whether references to "special dress" refer to it or to something else. This factoid thrown into the intro needs to be contextualised or removed.
Beorhtwulf (
talk)
16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
In “Henry VIII and Judaism’ it says ‘ and in 1549 Henry allowed Hebrew to be used in private worship.’ That’s not possible 46.208.12.95 ( talk) 17:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I changed the format of the sources to contain all sources as a final list, and use notes within the text eg {{sfn|Name|year|p=123}} or <ref>{{harvnb|Name|year|p=123}}</ref>?
I feel this would make it easier to do some rewrites / source clarifications on the basis of a handful of good sources; for instance atm some of the medieval stuff relies on newspaper articles! Not that the content is wrong, just that there are better sources, which in the current format, would be repeated a lot. Jim Killock (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the introduction of the article, it states that after the expulsion of the Jews, some remained in hiding. However, this assertion is not backed by a citation, nor is it mentioned in the main body of the text.
I'd be interested in the UK's stance of offering immigration to persecuted Jews on the continent during the Nazi regime and WW II. That would fit in to the last section "modern times". Any plans for that issue? -- Freeatlast 21:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Although some people are confused by the concepts of "England", "Britain" and the "United Kingdom", does anyone else think the line "England is the southern and central portion of the island of Britain" perhaps not necessary for an article regarding the history of Jews in England?
What about Jews with the Roman Armies? -- Son of Paddy's Ego 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason this article is exclusive to Jews in England? Would there be any objections to expanding the article into an history of the Jews in Britain, including Scotland and Wales? aliceinlampyland 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
The article is correctly titled and focused.-- Mais oui! 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The description of the death of Jews in Clifford's Tower in the article on York Castle is very different from the one here. I'm not sure which is more accurate, but some coordination needs to be done.
There needs to be some reference in this article as to where they went after expulsion: Spain? ... Where? Dogru144 14:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Download:
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/jgei.htm
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton
Jews in the Court, Raphael Mostel | Fri. Oct 06, 2006:
There were no Jewish musicians in the court of King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I did not have a Jewish physician. 76.92.210.222 ( talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
From the article:
"In 1943 famed Anglo-Jewish film star Leslie Howard and Jewish activist Wilfrid B. Israel were killed when BOAC Flight 777 was shot down by the German Luftwaffe off the coast of France".
Not sure how to formally submit queries or corrections, but this sentence needs amending, because Leslie Howard lived long after WW2!
John Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahoo.co.uk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.163.26 ( talk) 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Usury is used a bit too much in this article. The definition of usury as simple money lending is archaic; the modern definition is lending money at an illegally or abnormally high interest rate. I'm going to change some of the usury references to other terms. Dragonsscout ( talk) 23:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement..."By July 1945 228,000 troops of the Polish Armed Forces in the West, including many Polish Jews, were serving under the high command of the British Army..." is undoubtedly true. What percentage of them were Jewish, or more simply, how many were serving in this contingent? Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Understood. A solution would be to change the phrase "many Polish Jews" to "Polish Jews". FYI in the democratic Polish Government in Exile a.k.a. the London Poles there were two Polish Jews: Szmul Zygielbojm and Ignacy Schwarzbart. They were there to represent Polish Jews, not least Polish Jews under British high command in the War. Chumchum7 ( talk) 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Here you go http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3302233,00.html it says 10,000 Polish Jews under the Polish flag fought the Nazis at Monte Cassino. Even if half fell in Battle, you've got thousands of Polish Jews entitled to settle in Britain in accordance with the Polish Resettlement Act 1947. Only about a third of that 228,000 figure were Anders Army. The rest were from the tens of thousand of Polish troops that fled German POW camps and the forced enlistment into the Wehrmacht, and the figure for Polish Jews under Brit high command increases. Its not an undue mention, but reword it for precision if you have to. Chumchum7 ( talk) 23:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The claim that jews could not own land in England is beside the fact that most all of the gentile people could not own land in england. Only the king and/or queen could own land. The royal families owned the land because they had armies who would fight for them. If jewish people had an army that would fight and win the land for them they would have owned land in england just like the royal families owned land in england. Does it need to be pointed out for shame of antisemitism that jews could not own land whenever 99.99999% of the gentile population could not own land? Technically it is not antisemitism that caused jews to not own land in england but the jewish people's military weakness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.141.183 ( talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
notice in the section ""Statutum de Judaismo", 1275" someone wrote that the jews original profession was orgenized crime, and claim all the jews of england became criminals (no sources at all and sounds fabricated) now this seemed wierd enough , but then came the section "Expulsion of MIBZ, 1290" of mibz?! this goes on in all the section ,all "jews" changed to "mibz" , even the sources of one citation Reference (num 7) was changed (instead of jews ,the book name include "mibz") and in the end of the section , the peculiar 'historian' even adds a "meow"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.2.191 ( talk) 14:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
the stuff written in the end of the section of ""Statutum de Judaismo", 1275" still have no sources though, what is this based upon ? ("Some resorted to highway robbery" never read such a thing in any source on jewish history of england "while a considerable number appear to have resorted to coin clipping as a means of securing a precarious existence." they indeed was accused of that when the heads of families were arrested , but it was part of Edward I persecution. the article mention it as a reasonable scenario) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.19.1 ( talk) 18:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Parts are copied from a 1906 book Jewish Encyclopedia published in New York--its copyright has expired and there is no copyvio. (It should be cited the way EB 1911 is often cited) Rjensen ( talk) 12:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary; currently, it is too detailed and has information not in the body of the article. According to MOS:LEAD, 'The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents....The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies....Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.' Jontel ( talk) 07:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The intro to this article says: At the insistence of Irish leader Daniel O'Connell, in 1846 the British law "De Judaismo", which prescribed a special dress for Jews, was repealed.
This is not great encyclopedic writing: it's ambiguous as to whether England (the subject of this article) is even being referred to, given the Irish context. It is also not made clear whether Jews were legally required to wear certain clothes up until 1846, or if the law was long since unenforced but just happened to still be on the books. Despite appearing in the lead there is no further mention in this article of special dress for Jews at any time, other than mention of the yellow patch centuries earlier. It appears from a search that "De Judaismo" refers to the
Statute of the Jewry of 1275, but again, in that article there is no mention of clothing other than the yellow badge, nor of anything to do with Daniel O'Connell or repeal. I don't seek to downplay the significance of the yellow patch/badge, but it is not obvious to the reader whether references to "special dress" refer to it or to something else. This factoid thrown into the intro needs to be contextualised or removed.
Beorhtwulf (
talk)
16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
In “Henry VIII and Judaism’ it says ‘ and in 1549 Henry allowed Hebrew to be used in private worship.’ That’s not possible 46.208.12.95 ( talk) 17:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I changed the format of the sources to contain all sources as a final list, and use notes within the text eg {{sfn|Name|year|p=123}} or <ref>{{harvnb|Name|year|p=123}}</ref>?
I feel this would make it easier to do some rewrites / source clarifications on the basis of a handful of good sources; for instance atm some of the medieval stuff relies on newspaper articles! Not that the content is wrong, just that there are better sources, which in the current format, would be repeated a lot. Jim Killock (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)