Talk:Benjamin Disraeli/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The references provide enough about his ancestry

The problem is, the way it's written is terrible.

The source says, "Disraeli's mother's ancestors included Isaac Aboab, the last Gaon of Castille, the Cardoso family (among whose members were Isaac Cardoso and Miguel Cardoso), the Rothschilds, and other prominent families".

Also, "Both Disraeli's grandfathers were born in Italy; Isaac's father, Benjamin, moved in 1748 from Venice to England. His second wife, Disraeli's grandmother, was Sarah Shiprut de Gabay Villareal. The maternal grandfather, Naphtali Basevi from Verona, settled in London in 1762. He married in 1767 Rebecca Rieti, born in England, the daughter of Sarah Cardoso and granddaughter of Jacob Aboab Cardoso who was already born in London (from this line, Disraeli had already four generations born in the UK)."

And another one, "Of these surnames, Shiprut de Gabay, Cardoso, Aboab, and, most likely, Israeli are Sephardic, Basevi is of Ashkenazic origin, while Rieti was originally taken by a family whose ancestors lived in Italy for centuries; see Beider, Alexander."

Now, what is written in the text? Let's see, "The family was mainly of Sephardic Jewish Italian mercantile background."

That's entirely missing the point! First of all, not all Jew living in Italy are Sephardic, there is also a group called Italkim that is neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardi, and that's about the Rieti family.

As for his descent of the Rothschilds and Basevi, that's Ashkenazi origin.

The rest is Sephardic. You can't just say he was of one ancestry when he actually belonged to three different Jewish rites, in terms of ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is very interesting, but unfortunately the changes now say, falsely, that the cited Wolf essay mentions the Rothschilds and Cardoso. It doesn't. If you wish to mention them you will need to find a source to substantiate the statement rather than sneak it in under the pretence that an existing citation covers it. Tim riley talk 20:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

But it does, here it is: "Disraeli's mother's ancestors included Isaac Aboab, the last Gaon of Castille, the Cardoso family (among whose members were Isaac Cardoso and Miguel Cardoso), the Rothschilds, and other prominent families; Disraeli was described in The Times as having "some of the best blood in Jewry".

You can find it under 7 Wolf, Lucien. "The Disraeli Family", The Times, 21 December 1904, p. 12 in references, or 1-3 sources in the notes. Sometimes you need to point at the reference at the end of a note for more information.

Have a thorough look at the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your addition is, I am sure sincere, but it still says, mendaciously, that the Times article says what you say it says. It doesn't. I have a copy of it in front of me. What you say may be true, but you must provide honest citations. Tim riley talk 21:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

But the citations are honest, and I didn't provide them - they were always there! I'm confused, what point exactly do you think isn't referenced well enough? Could you please provide me with a specific quote from the text? I'll be happy to address any point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how more clearly I can put it. You have ascribed to the Times article mention of the Rothschilds and Cardoso that are not mentioned in it. That is dishonest and unacceptable. Tim riley talk 19:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see - got you. Allow me to add a few sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The principle is described in WP:INTEGRITY. The cited source needs to support the details in the main text. Adding new facts but not new sources to support them undermines the integrity of the text. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

And may I suggest, Maxim, that for everyone's convenience, please use easily accessible sources so we can look at them. Do not place them beyond the sea, so that we should ask "Who should cross the sea and get them for us, so that we may read them and check them?"--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that, I've added another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

MP in post-nominals

Would it be procedurally correct to give "MP" among his postnominals when for the last five years of his life he was no longer in the House of Commons but in the Lords? MPs normally bear the postnominal while sitting.Cloptonson (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Jew in categories?

This man had nothing to do with Jewish identity: he was never in Judaism, he never declared his commitment to Jewish ethnicity and did not participate in Jewish life. Considering that he was an Anglican and an Englishman all his life, also the twice prime minister not of Israel, but of Great Britain, is there any sense in these categories of him as a Jew? By analogy: by consensus in discussion, Karl Marx is should not considered a Jew in any form, despite his Jewish origin of his parents. Should this gentleman be? 31.40.131.100 (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that's an accurate statement of his life. Robert Blake somewhat neglected the Jewish aspects of Disraeli's life and career, but Adam Kirsch's 2008 biography filled in some of those gaps. Yes, Disraeli converted to Anglicanism and was ignorant of Jewish customs and traditions. On the other hand, the position he took during the debates over Jewish emancipation (most notably in 1848), his relationship with Mrs. Brydges-Willyams, and the recurring character of Sidonia in his novels, suggest someone who never walked away from that part of his life. Mackensen (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Jewish biographers, such as Adam Kirsch, certainly consider Disraeli a Jew because he was born of Jewish parents and according to the halachic laws of Judaism, he is "automatically" a Jew. This is part of their religion, respectively worldview. As for his actions to emancipate the Jews, it is described as part of his worldview that Judaism is a "beta version" of Anglicanism and therefore there is no harm in Jews in Parliament. There is no indication here that he associated himself with the Jews in any way. 31.40.131.100 (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, Blake writes rather definitively, in discussing Disraeli's early life, that "He was a Jew." That was certainly the view of Disraeli's contemporaries, and Disraeli himself. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• An Anglican all his life? The article says "Conversion to Christianity enabled Disraeli to contemplate a career in politics."? He must have converted from something? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, all his adult life. I doubt very much that in the first 12 years of a person's life, religion has any influence on actions or worldview. However, I don't want to start a theological debate, I just want clarity. 31.40.131.100 (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I just mean that his conversion is mentioned as a notable life event and must be somehow explained in the text, with a Category, or Categories, to match. Categories can apply equally to people under the age of 12? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing that Disraeli did by the age of 12 made him notable, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

True. And we don't have Category:People who wore a nappy. His baptism was hardly voluntary. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Most baptisms are involuntary, in that sense. And in this case, it's unclear. He wasn't baptized the same day as his younger siblings. Anyway, it's somewhat beside the point. In any sense that matters, Benjamin Disraeli would be considered a Jew who practiced the Anglican religion. I would think that's one of the fundamental characteristics of his life. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

the category fits. On Disraeli-as-Jew see Jonathan Parry's scholarly biography Benjamin Disraeli (Oxford UP 2007) p 23:

"Disraeli convinced himself (wrongly) that he derived from the Sephardi aristocracy of Iberian Jews driven from Spain at the end of the fifteenth century....Presenting himself as Jewish symbolized Disraeli’s uniqueness when he was fighting for respect, and explained his set-backs. Presenting Jewishness as aristocratic and religious legitimized his claim to understand the perils facing modern England and to offer ‘national’ solutions to them. English toryism was ‘copied from the mighty [Jewish] prototype’ (Coningsby, bk 4, chap. 15). Disraeli was thus able to square his Jewishness with his equally deep attachment to England and her history."

Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Most baptisms" are probably not relevant to this case, so it might not be beside the point. But that extract from Parry (2007) is pretty clear and might usefully be added to the article somehow. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

OK I added a new section on "Role of Judaism" under "Legacy." Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Phrasing conflict

I’m somewhat confused that this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Disraeli&diff=1084327996&oldid=1084249019 was reverted. It consisted of two changes. One was removing a sentence in the lead paragraph: “He made the Conservatives the party most identified with the glory and power of the British Empire.” I deleted this because it has two problems, a subjective aggrandizement of the British Empire and a nebulous statement- how are you going to give evidence that the Conservatives were most associated with Britain and that this was primarily the work of Disraeli?- and it does not seem to be very important in the lead section, where his political accomplishments are already laid out. If it does seem important to communicate that his actions led the Conservative party to national dominance, that can be done without randomly praising Britain or invoking mental association.

The second change was a rearranging of a paragraph in the 1830- 1837 section. I shifted some parts to allow the elimination of the words “propaganda” and “couched”, which, although they can be used descriptively, carry somewhat negative connotations and, in combination, read like someone trying to portray Disraeli in a negative light.

Overall, I think the reason cited for reversion, “‘bias’ warning applies to Wiki editors and not to reliable sources, so these passages are okay”, does not apply to these edits, where the language conveys subjective and moral arguments as assertions- Wikipedia should never describe something as either glorious or propagandistic.

I made several mistakes in editing this article. I saw the “glory of the British Empire” quote and felt it was blatantly POV, so I edited it. I think I shouldn’t have edited anything else- I was somewhat driven by fear of appearing like a biased editor, so when I saw the “propaganda” language, I felt like the edits I made to that would show I was striving for a completely neutral tone by rewording biased content from both sides of the aisle, rather than just one. I also should have explained my self better in the edit comments section, and should have look more at this article’s history and featured article status to understand that edits on it are often reverted.--MaroonDichotomy (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which establish that Disraeli created an image of the Conservative Party as the 'National Party' associated with Britain and as the party of the British Empire, in opposition to Liberal internationalist cosmopolitanism, and that this was crucial to the Conservative Party's electoral success. Here are some sources:

"One of Disraeli's main legacies to the party was reclaiming its position as the patriotic 'party of empire'... Disraeli...saw an opportunity after Palmerston's death to champion the Empire and bolster Britain's prestige, and he squeezed every last drop out of the opportunity... Sensing a growing public demand for patriotism, Disraeli used his speeches at Manchester and Crystal Palace in 1872 to mark out a bold imperial vision for his party. Disraeli's commitment to the Empire continued in office after 1874".—Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon, The Conservative Party: An Illustrated History (Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 2004), p. 32.

"Disraeli's substantial achievement at Manchester [in 1872] was to blend advantageously the old doctrines of constitutional Conservatism with new emphases on social reform and empire... [T]here was an even more significant body of opinion bewildered and resentful at the eclipse of Britain as a European power and very much in need of comfort and reassurance. Without actually using words as revealing as 'consolation' or 'compensation', Disraeli went as near as made no difference to offering empire to the 'national' public for precisely such a purpose... Disraeli proceeded [at Crystal Palace in 1872] to analyse the 'three great objects' of 'the Tory party, or as I will venture to call it, the National party'. These were to maintain the institutions of the country, to uphold the empire, and to elevate the condition of the people."—Richard Shannon, The Age of Disraeli, 1868–1881: The Rise of Tory Democracy (London: Longman, 1992), pp. 140-141.

"Earlier in the century, according to Disraeli, the Conservative Party had been severed from its philosophical roots and withered. Successive Liberal ministries...had borrowed 'cosmopolitan' principles to justify an assault upon the venerable institutions. Now, however, the people were weary of alien doctrines and reckless legislation, and Conservatives were poised to embark upon restoration, because they had reconstituted themselves as a national party able to nourish the patriotic sentiments of propertied and working classes alike... Disraeli now added a vision, calculated to appeal to all classes, of a Britain sitting astride an empire, which, though threatened by the anti-colonial policies of Liberal governments, might become an even richer source of national pride and greatness".—Robert Eccleshall, English Conservatism since the Restoration: An Introduction and Anthology (London: Unwin Hyman, 1990), p. 120.

"Empire was the second of Disraeli's specifics in 1872, and the one on which he most relied to create an image and an object of common national interest and mission. In taking up the imperial theme, he was, as with social reform, both drawing on past professions and asserting a tactically advantageous Conservative position... What was novel was his promoting empire to the centre of the Conservative platform, which he was constructing, not only as an issue on which the Liberals seemed vulnerable, but as one which could perform a vital integrating function in providing for all classes a common symbol of national stature, a common source of national prosperity, and a common object of national pride and endeavour".—Paul Smith, Disraeli: A Brief Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 162, 164

"Disraeli's proclamation at the Crystal Palace of the "three great objects" of "the national party", to maintain the monarchy, the House of Lords and the church, to "uphold the Empire of England", and to elevate "the condition of the people" summed up the Tory doctrines he had been preaching for nearly forty years. He was reasserting the indispensability of his leadership by defining Toryism in the terms he had patented, summoning his followers to march to the music only he knew how to play. The strategy of protecting the institutional and social order by seeking national integration both through the focusing of popular sentiment on the symbols of crown and empire and through attention to the material bases of popular well-being in the frame of national efficiency would supply the Conservative party with the major elements of its appeal to the mass electorate for almost a century".—Paul Smith, Disraeli: A Brief Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 165

"Disraeli added certain features peculiarly his own to the pattern with which he was to stamp the Conservative party, and these enhanced the contrast with Gladstonian liberalism: belief in empire; adoption of a tough, "no nonsense", foreign policy; assertion of Britain's...greatness in the world. Disraeli was unsympathetic to all forms of nationalism except English nationalism – this was quite compatible with being most unEnglish himself – and he saw no reason, whether in Ireland or the Balkans or elsewhere, to allow what he considered English interests to be overridden by the supposedly higher moral law that encourages the emancipation of nations "rightly struggling to be free". ... His attitude decisively orientated the Conservative party for many years to come, and the tradition which he started was probably a bigger electoral asset in winning working-class support during the last quarter of the century than anything else".—Robert Blake, Disraeli (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1966), p. 760

"Few democratic political parties can have so systemically and ruthlessly called into question the integrity, the devotion to the institutions of the country, and the patriotism of its opponents. In illustrating this argument it is appropriate to begin with Disraeli's Crystal Palace speech in 1872, one of the most important public speeches ever made by a Conservative leader. He argued...that it was the threefold purpose of the Conservative Party "to maintain the institutions of the country..., to uphold the empire of England..., [and] to elevate the condition of the people." It is with the enunciation of the second Conservative purpose that the party took its first long step to becoming the party of empire and indeed of imperialism... In the years that immediately followed Disraeli's pre-emption of the Empire as a uniquely Conservative cause, an increasingly strident note creeps into party literature whenever reference is made to the Liberals' attitude on imperial and foreign issues".—Robert McKenzie and Allan Silver, Angels in Marble: Working Class Conservatives in Urban England (London: Heinemann, 1968), pp. 49-51

--Coningsby (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)