text:
Talk:Benjamin Disraeli/Archive 1

Could we please remove the references to Mr. T and Gracie Allen? Their inclusions here are silly. -- Zoe

 * The cure for ignorance is more knowledge. That you don't yet see why these cross-references are meaningful means that I have not yet explained the connection well enough.  I shall continue to keep re-writing the article, adding more explanatory information each time, until it meets with your approval.  I have at least six of the leading biographies of Disraeli on hand, so I'm sure I have enough research materials to accomplish that task. -- isis 03:40 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * It is a matter of wording, yes, but also straining a bit to make a "contemporary" reference to somewhat passé examples. Mr. T. wasn't emulating Disraeli, so the most you could say would be "much like Mr. T. a century later".  As for the Gracie Allen comparison, you have to be over 50 to get it, so I think airhead takes care of it.  I do think his Jewishness, just added, means more.   Ortolan88 04:30 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * But wasn't Benjamin Disraeli (unlike his father) C of E? -- Zoe

 * The English considered Jewishness a race as well as a religion, which many others also did and do. His father raised his family in the synagogue until Benjamin was 11, whereupon he baptized his children in the C of E.  Although Disraeli was a committed Christian, he never denied his Jewishness (which was often thrown up to him) and, in fact, did much to popularize the modern notion of the Judeo-Christian tradition.  This Jewishness is certainly relevant to this article as it is always mentioned in any discussion of Disraeli.  Ortolan88

Could we say that he's the first, and only Jew to serve as Prime Minister? I feel like to say someone is a Jew is to make an ethnic statement, while to say they are Jewish implies a religious commitment, as well. What do others think? john 05:10, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you could say that he was the first and only person of Jewish ethnic origin to serve as Prime Minister. Some people feel that the word 'Jew' as a noun is derogatory. -- Francs2000 07:04, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Incidentally I read somewhere that Disreali's conversion to C of E from Judaism was marked by the alteration of his surname from D'Israeli to Disreali. Not sure how accurate that anecdote is though. -- Francs2000 07:07, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Unknown. As late as 1837 Greville referred to him as "D'Israeli," on the occasion of his maiden speech.  On the other hand, Disraeli himself released the book Vindication, by "Disraeli the Younger."  Even on into the early 1850's D'Orsay wrote to him as "D'I", so the usage certainly seems inconsistent.  Disraeli was baptized om July 31, 1817.  According to Robert Blake, Disraeli first altered his surname in a letter to John Murray in 1822. Mackensen 16:22, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate to move the page to Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield?

I dunno...he's better known as just Disraeli... john 06:57, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * For most of his political career he was just called Benjamin Disraeli, and was awarded the earldom much later. As he achieved his fame before becoming the Earl of Beaconsfield I say leave it as it is. -- Francs2000 07:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, he was Earl of Beaconsfield (and called such) for the majority of his time as Prime Minister (1876-1880 as opposed to 1868 and 1874-1876). john 07:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Well then it's just a question of whether the article should go under the name he was better known as (Benjamin Disraeli) or his actual name and full title (Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield). I would vote for the former, personally but if you want to move the page I for one won't revert it. -- Francs2000 07:19, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I think we'd really need to have a much clearer policy on these things to come to any firm decision. The easiest and most consistent thing would be to just have all hereditary peers listed under their highest title, but that would result in a lot of weirdness, like Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, or what not... john 07:22, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Naming conventions (names and titles) appears to say that Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield would be preferable. -- Francs2000 07:29, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Have moved the page to the correct location as per Naming conventions (names and titles). -- Francs2000 08:10, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

His article really should be under the name by which he is known: Disraeli. But I suppose that battle's long over. -- Binky 08:17, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Well now I'm not so sure, I just looked at the talk page for Naming conventions (names and titles) and there it says that Benjamin Disraeli is preferable, which goes against what the convention says. So I'm just going to back off and leave it somebody else. -- Francs2000 08:20, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The talk page also mentions Stanley Baldwin, but Baldwin was created a peer after resignation as PM, so the title of a commoner would be more commonly used and ought to be used. However, Lord Beaconsfield became a peer during his tenure as PM, and would have been known by such a title during his prime ministership, so the page could be acceptably located where the title is also mentioned. -- Lord Emsworth 15:28, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

In the 1898 edition of Pears Cyclopaedia, if you look up 'Disraeli' it says "See Beaconsfield". Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield is the most sensible place. Mintguy 15:51, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Books treating his second premiership usually refer to "Beaconsfieldism," certainly Lowe and Bright did when attacking Disraeli. This is probably best. Mackensen 16:08, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I moved it back here. The discussion both here and at the WikiProject Peerage discussion has led towards that conclusion, and all the redirects point here. Unless someone is willing to put in the work to change the redirects, it should stay here. (Especially since, as we've noted several times at the WikiProject Peerage page, most other encyclopedias list his peerage title). john 02:32, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't object to the current location, but to make things clearer for people who make be confused about why he is referred to by various names at various times, would it make sense to modify the intro from:
 * Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield...

to
 * Benjamin Disraeli, after 1876 the 1st Earl of Beaconsfield...

This would give our readers some hint as to why he might sometimes, especially earlier, be known simply as Benjamin Disraeli, and later be known as Beaconsfield. --Delirium 19:15, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

I can't understand the need this dumbing down. It is not a convention followed by any other encyclopaedia. What would you have for Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, "Arthur Wellesley, after 1809 Viscount Wellington, after February 1812 Earl Wellington, after October 1812 Marquess Wellington, after 1814 Duke of Wellington"? The bulk of his military activity occured before he was elevated, and he was known to many of his contemporaties simply as Wellesley. Mintguy (T) 21:02, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer that chain of "after [x] known as [y]", since it clarifies what's what. Simply calling someone by the name they had when they died is confusing, as they may have been known by a different name through most of their career. --Delirium 01:43, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it needs to be judged on individual merit, depending on who the article is about. By this virtue I believe this page is in the right place, going by comments made above with regard to his politics and I agree that the "after 1876 known as 1st Earl of Beaconsfield" suggestion is dumbing it down a little too much.  Also Mintguy's comment is valid, as many distinguished people in history went through many titles, and to list them all in the article title would be confusing and totally unnecessary. -- Graham  :) 21:16, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The story has a link to Earl of Beconsfield, but it just redirects you back to where you came from. That's stupid. Kill the link or kill the redirect, I don't care which, but someone who knows more about the subject should do it.--Carl 16:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Happy 200th Birthday
IsarSteve 19:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dukedom

 * Is it factual, gentlemen, that he was offered (but declined) a dukedom in 1878? --Anglius 18:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, after the Congress of Berlin. Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I thank you, Mr. Mackensen. --Anglius 04:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Disraeli and the famine in India
Hello,

Should there not at least be some mention about Disraelis part in the great famine of India?

best regards

 * I confess I'm not familiar with Disraeli's role (or lack thereof) in an Indian famine. Could you please elaborate? --Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Images
Is it really necessary to have so many pictures of other people? There's a picture of his father, a picture of Edward Bulwer-Lytton (not even mentioned in the text), a picture of Robert Peel, a picture of John Manners (also not mentioned in the text), a picture of the Earl of Derby, a picture of William Gladstone, a picture of the Marquess of Salisbury, and a picture of the Earl Cairns. This seems excessive, but I'd like to get other people's opinions before I just remove some. --Angr/undefined 12:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, Manners and Bulwer aren't mentioned in the text because I haven't featured my re-write of the article. I've been working on getting the article up to featured status, and one requirement (generally) for a featured article is an abundance of pictures. Bulwer, Manners, Peel, Gladstone, Salisbury, and Cairns are all pretty important in Disraeli's life, which the article will reflect in the not-to-distant future. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, featured articles should have pictures, but in my opinion this is a superabundance of pictures. Even once the text is expanded to mention Bulwer and Manners, I think it's unnecessary to have pictures of everyone Disraeli ever came in contact with. If I were considering this article for featured status, I'd want to see three or four pictures of him and maybe a picture of a place particularly associated with him, not eight pictures of other people in addition to the pictures of him. But that's just my opinion. --Angr/undefined 19:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote to remove pictures -- leave, say, three at the most. -- Writtenonsand 03:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree - I'd say 3 or 4 pictures & maybe a place associated with him as Angr says. AllanHainey 08:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree We do not need all the pictures of the other people, except possibly those of Gladstone and Victoria. I also think we need to find a good photograph of Disraeli, in addition to the drawings. Lesgles ( talk ) 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't agree. All good articles need pictures. The number does depend upon the amount of text around them, but this article does not have too many pictures. I would go further and say it is sensible to add relevant pictures to an article even when it has virtually nothing else there yet, to aid others coming on later who may be able to add the text. Sandpiper 17:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Should his name-change be mentioned at the beginning?
Many other pages about people who have changed their names have "(born X)" after their names. Perhaps it should be "Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC (born Benjamin D'Israeli 21 December 1804 – died 19 April 1881)"
 * I'd say not, only because it's uncommon for him to be referred to as D'Israeli. Rather, it was common in his youth, but not during his political career. If it's not mentioned in that section it should be, but I'm not sure it merits mention in the intro. Mackensen (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry
Disraeli's ancestry goes beyond claiming to be Spanish–he claimed to descend from the Lara family, a claim thoroughly debunked by Cecil Roth, Lord Blake, and just about everyone else. The matter is complicated yet by itself not hugely important–I'm not sure if it need be covered more than it already is. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The article fails to mention Benjamin Disraeli's father becoming a British subject in 1801. Ln1989

Terminology
Given that we in the UK don't use the term 'administration' to refer to the group running the top level of Government, what term should used in the titles 'First Administration' and 'Second Administration'?

 * "Government" would be better usage, I think. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual propensity totally ignored
There are many pages on the web (nearly 20,000) mentioning Disraeli's clear homosexual propensities, yet not one single word in the Wikipedia entry. What is going on here? Geronimo20 13:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the entry is based on published biographies, and they don't mention anything about homosexuality–his numerous (and well-publicized) affairs with the opposite sex suggest heterosexual behavior, as do his generally distant friendships with other men (save Manners and Lennox). Could you point us in the direction of such references? Mackensen (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * EDIT CONFLICT The number of pages thrown up by a google search is not comparable with proper historical research. None of the biographies I've read has made any mention of or provided any evidence of homosexuality or 'homosexual propensities' (which seems extremely vague & ill-defined in any event) and I can't recognise Disraeli's "clear homosexual propensities" which you refer to. Information should be added to the article on the basis of actual confirmed historical events or previously published speculation/commentary/evidence/theories by those qualified to make such (historians); we shouldn't be adding things just because google provides a lot of unverifiable speculation or attempts by certain groups to claim notable figures as "one of our own".
 * That said if any of the google links are verifiable, well informed & provide plausible info either supported by other biographies/biographers then we should at least mention the controversy (stating specifically which historian/biographer supports it & whether it is opposed by others). Personally I don't think this is anything other than unjustified and unfounded speculation (& possibly attempts to put a different shading on history) blown up by the powers of google (by comparison "Diana assassination" threw up 845,000 hits). Incidentally I googled for "homosexual propensity Disraeli" and only got 747, "homosexual propensities Disraeli" gave 106. "homosexual Disraeli" gave 25,200 but only the first 5 seemed to have any relevance & all concerned a biography by William Kuhn.
 * You seem to know more than I on this claim, perhaps you'd care to assess Kuhn's facts & the opinions of other biographers and add a little in the article if it is warranted. AllanHainey 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The review in the Times suggests that Kuhn is out on a limb, and based on the evidence quoted I'd have to agree. I'll try to find the book and read his arguments in full, but it sounds like sheer speculation. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Life of the Party, The New Yorker 7/3/06
I've just read a great article in this week's New Yorker by Adam Gopnik on Disraeli - very entertaining & enlightening. I'd be interested in anyone's comments on it. I'm new to Mr. Disraeli but have just become a big fan. --Judesobol 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to post a link to the New Yorker's on-line edition (assuming they have one & it is there) it may be a useful source for the article. AllanHainey 15:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the cite: schi talk  17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article
As an uninvolved editor, I've decided to pass this as a good article. It seems to meet all the criteria set out in WP:WIAGA: Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Reasonably well written – Check.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable – Check. Sources seem reliable.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage – Extensive coverage of political and literary career and private life, in appropriate context. Check.
 * 4) Neutral – no bias or NPOV violations that I can see. Seems to describe political disputes of that era in an appropriate encyclopedic manner. Check.
 * 5) Stable – no major disruptions except vandalism reversions, which don't count. Check.
 * 6) Images have appropriate licensing info – they're all PD due to age. Check.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield → Benjamin Disraeli — This is what he is most commonly known as and so is the most appropriate title for the article. Although having the earldom in the title is what happens with a few other Prime Ministers, this is normally because those PM were known by their title and not their name, this is not the case with Disraeli. —Philip Stevens 14:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

 * Support: He is generally known by his name only, and referred to without a title. Oren0 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Use common name where appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 01:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose until someone else engages the discussion section. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I'm conflicted. The only rub is that he really was referred to as Beaconsfield during most (four of six years) of his second premiership, especially by Gladstone during the Midlothian campaign. I don't feel strongly but I don't think the matter is clear-cut. Mackensen (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, his title is part of his name; in a sense he had two names. It wasn't for nothing that his foreign policy was denounced as 'Beaconsfieldism.' Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Clio the Muse on WP:RD/H for 30 May 2007
There are one or two additional pieces of information that I can add, not, I think, fully covered by the Wikipedia article. Disraeli, the Jewish-born outsider who made his way to the top of the 'greasy pole' of the aristocratic Tory Party, and from thence to the very pinnacle of British politics, has long been viewed as a cynical and unprincipled manipulator: a charlatan in charlatan's clothing. However, an examination of both his published work, and his political conduct, reveals another side to his character altogether.

The first and greatest influence in his life was Isaac Disraeli, his father, who inspired in him a reverance for all of England's ancient institutions-the crown, the landed aristocracy and the established church. These, Disraeli came to believe, were a vital source of both English identity and social cohesion. In 1835 he published a pamphlet entitled Vindication of the English Constitution, intended to show the origins and purpose of the elements that made up the constitution. For Disraeli, the Whigs were parvenus, who came along in the eighteenth century and established an 'oligarchy of self-interest', monopolising government for purely selfish ends. The Tories, in contrast, were the true national party, and the guardians of the real England. Looking at contemporary political life, he concluded that the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832, introduced by the Whig government, was a piece of political gerrymandering, intended to arrange the electoral systemm in such a way as to perpetuate an 'unholy alliance' between Utilitarian Radicals, Protestant Dissenters and Irish Nationalists.

After he became an MP in 1837 he identified with the nascent Young England movement, developing his ideas still further in a trilogy of novels: Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred. Sybil, in particular, deals with the so-called 'Condition of England Question'. Published in the same year as Fredrich Engels' Condition of the Working Class in England, it is also a sustained attack on the forms of laissez-faire liberalism favoured by the Whigs, though from a different perspective altogether. Disraeli hearkens back to a mythical Arcadia, in which a paternalist aristocracy and a caring church protected the poor. The Whigs, whose ancestors had plundered the monastic lands, were again to blame for the dissolution of this ideal, organic social order, introducing a rapacious individualism and harsh legislation, such as the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. Holding such beliefs, and hating the Whigs, goes much of the way to explaining why Disraeli later became such a bitter critic of Sir Robert Peel, the leader of his own party, after he started to adopt measures favoured by the opposition.

The ideas of Young England continued to inform Disraeli's actions throughout his political life. Although he himself was later to be responsible for a further extension of the franchise in the Second Reform Act, it was fully consistent with his beliefs, reaching beyond a constituency of self-interst, towards a much more widely based electorate. Although not initially successful, it marked the beginning of a process of political engagement between the Conservative Party-as the Tories were now called-and the British working-classes, who had little to gain from unrestrained free market liberalism. In a speech of 1872 Disraeli repeated the assertion that he had made in 1867 that there was a natural affinity between the Conservatives and the working class, on the basis of shared 'national principles.' The working classes, as he put it, 'were English to the core' and proud of their country. In the Parliamentary election of 1874 the Conservative Party, under Disraeli's leadership, began to move out of its traditional rural heartlands into the urban areas, particularly in London and Lancashire. It is perhaps due to Disraeli, more than any single man, that the working-class in Britain were well on the way to becoming the most 'bourgeois' in Europe, to the dismay of Marx and Lenin. Clio the Muse 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Title
Anyone know why he became Earl of Beaconsfield, rather than Earl of Hughenden? I'm assuming he couldn't become Earl of Wycombe as the Marquess of Lansdowne was already. I just can't find any connection with Beaconsfield at all. Petsco 08:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Could it be related to the fact that he refused to accept a title himself, so the it was offered to his wife?--Crestville 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * His wife became Viscountess Beaconsfield earlier, yes, but he was later Earl of Beaconsfield in his own right. The real question is why his wife didn't become Viscountess Hughenden. To that I don't have an answer. Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
I don't question that Disraeli was a good and great man, although as an American I know very little about him. However he was a politician. I'm sure that not everyone agreed with his politics. There must have been another side. So why is everything in the article positive towards him? Where is the criticism section? Another point: His example encouraged Jews to assimilate into gentile society, and perhaps even to convert to Christianity. This is a very controversial thing. Yet this issue is not mentioned in the article. If you like, compare the article on Jews for Jesus. I came here after using Disraeli as an example there. Steve Dufour 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the inclusion of a stand-alone "criticism" section as encyclopedic or useful. Opposition to his policies is noted where appropriate as is the general mistrust which surrounded him. Do you have a specific incident in mind that is not accorded adequate coverage. Concerning Disraeli's faith, he was in many ways an exceptional figure--his father was an agnostic, who withdrew from the synagogue over a financial dispute. Disraeli's views on Judaism and Christianity were bizarre and ran counter to the usual example of quiet assimilation. I haven't seen sources suggesting that Disraeli's example encouraged others; by all means if you've seen such material bring it forward. Mackensen (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the article quite interesting. Thanks for your work on it.  I will take off the neutrality tag.  I was too quick putting it on after just skimming through the article.  I see now that the other side is presented.  I was reacting to extreme hostility towards converts in the other article, which was probably a violation of the point policy on my part. Cheers. Steve Dufour 20:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, no worries (and a pity you're not disputing notability--that would have been an interesting meta-discussion). I might wander over to Jews for Jesus to see what's going on there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever else Disraeli was, he was certainly notable. Steve Dufour 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To speak in response to the first statement in this line of discussion: I do question the premise --and it seems to me absurd that this praise of "the man" here stands isolated from the astoundingly blood-soaked history of hte same period of the British Empire. The extent to which the empire can be treated as separable from the Prime Minister who did directly govern it is very limited: the brief and vague mention of some moral hand-wringing over the mutiny in India is a distant echo of the issues involved here.  Of course, not everyone can be an expert in everything, but the reasons for an NPOV Warning on this article have nothing to do with his ethnicity.  I think the pre-occupation with his Judaism is a strange reflection of how "involuted" European political discourse still is (i.e., does this really matter more than the atrocities being carried out on three or four continents by his government during the same era?).  I say bring back the neutrality tag --and put out an open call for contributions from editors with expertise on the British Empire's conduct in the colonies (Africa, Asia, etc.) during this same era.  The P.M.'s policy decisions deserve (on the colonies) deserve a place of primary importance in such an encyclopedia article.

Automatic addition of "class=GA"
A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning
I removed the antisemitic tirade somebody had added in the beginning of the article.

Jukka Kemppinen Porf., Finland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jukke (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

contradictions on relationship with Queen Victoria
first the article states:

"In this duel, Disraeli was aided by his warm friendship with Queen Victoria, who came to detest Gladstone during the latter's first premiership in the 1870s."

then later it states:

"Disraeli was elevated to the House of Lords in 1876 when Queen Victoria (who liked Disraeli both personally and politically) made him Earl of Beaconsfield and Viscount Hughenden."

can both these statements be true? 81.100.103.39 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction--the first statement notes Disraeli's friendship with Victoria, while commenting on her bad relations with Gladstone; the second gives the date of Disraeli's peerage. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh...? I do find it confusing. "[Disraeli's] warm friendship with Queen Victoria" and "Queen Victoria (who disliked Disraeli both personally and politically)" seem rather contradictory to me, at least... Shadowcrow (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The text says liked, not disliked. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops - I read wrong. Shadowcrow (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording
Is there any reason why this section is called 'Disraeli's Jewishness' rather than 'Disraeli's Judaism'? Surely, Judaism is the preferred word.  Oliver Fury, Esq. message  •  contributions  21:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  Oliver Fury, Esq. message  •  contributions  19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

References in fiction and other media
Perhaps there should be a subject added to the end regarding references to him in various media. Two things come to mind for me: 1 there's an aside in Family Guy where Peter says "now I understand how Benjamin Disraeli fealt", and it cuts to an irate Disraeli saying "you don't even know who I am" to the camera. 2 he's mentioned repeatedly in John Fowles' novel "The French Lutenient's Woman" Snowboardpunk 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that would be of any value to the article. Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also fail to see what he has to do with the Cream album Disraeli Gears, you know, you would think such an influential progressive album would be mentioned. -Lukas Dawson

 * LOL, the family guy reference is none the less hillarious, but not appropriate for the article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.2.18 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Here is the dialog from Family Guy:

Lois: Nigel is charming. All British men are. Peter: Yeah, right. That's what they said about Benjamin Disraeli. (Cut to Benjamin Disraeli) Benjamin Disraeli: You don't even know who i am.

This needs to be added to the article. Or at least explain the joke to me. please =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.110.175 (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

=
Google Disraeli is commonly quoted as saying, "A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy" in a debate in the House of Commons. Usually Conservative is capitalized.

Disraeli being a Conservative, maybe that should have some explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.83.120 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Family Guy
It is worth mentioning in an "Influences in Popular Culture" section that Benjamin Disraeli was the subject of a Family Guy cutaway scene where he turns to the audience and says "You don't even have any idea who I am." Or is Family Guy not notable enough? 203.211.77.193 (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not a meaningful depiction of Disraeli; I don't see that it has any place in the article. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is TRIVIA. See WP:TRIVIA. I've deleted this idiotic reference and really wish "cartoon fans" would grow up already and just start their own fan sites instead of littering encyclopedias with their inane "pop culture" pap.

and you don't need to be a dick about it I find it note worthy otherwise I wouldn't look up this crap139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

One Nation Conservatism
I think this is a very important point that is not really touched upon. Disraeli is considered the father of a distinct class of conservative due to his writings and his actions as PM. He is as influential in that sense as Margaret Thatcher is with New Right Conservatism. In fact he is probably more so, coming up with most of the ideas himself.--Willski72 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His legacy as the father of "one nation conservatism" should be explained but I think historians now agree that his administration was less the implementation of his earlier "Young England" ideas and more of a broadly bipartisan approach to social reform.--Britannicus (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish birth
Would it not be better to say he was the first prime minister of Jewish birth, as that is considerably more precise than saying he was of Jewish heritage? (and anyway how do we know in reality that there was no Jewish heritage in all the preceding prime ministers? These sort of things tended to be kept quiet) I had to check his father's article to confirm that DIsraeli was, in fact, born a Jew. This article should make that clear. 86.42.71.111 (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet, why not question the entire concept of being born into any religion? Seems absurd to me. No one is born into religion, humans are born into the planet Earth.12.233.18.194 (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the most ignorant posts I've seen on Wikipedia. Jews are a nation too, and Jewishness played a big part in Disraeli's life.--Britannicus (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal life
The absence of any reference in the article to the D'Israeli and Basevi families Italian origins is odd at best. Instead, reference was made to largely unsubstantiated claims to Iberian origins, claiming as factual that they "originally from Portugal." Many Jews, during the Spanish Inquisition, settled in Sicily and other areas of southern Italy well before moving northerly. Also, the Italian origins (of which of all Disreali's grandparents, it appears) and the debate over the more ancestral Iberian origins are well noted in the biographies of Blake, Hibbert, and Kuhn. Also, please explain the value of the statement: "One modern historian has seen him as essentially a marrano." First, what is the 'essence' of a marrano? Second, in no way were the Disraeli's marranos - or better, "anusim" - because the conversion of Disraeli and his siblings was by choice of their parents, which came centuries after the origin of "marrano." 94.175.125.87 (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)D'Accuracy His personal life beyond young adulthood is not treated at all it seems. Was he ever married? Did he ever have children? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC) The article was updated in December 2008 to add alleged illegitimate children. I have never seen these alleged children mentioned in any of my previous research, nor are the links to the citations active anymore, so I have to wonder how reliable this is. Has anybody else heard of this before? Mmorrisbsa (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He married Mary Anne Lewis. They had no children. Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that too. Will you add to the article?--A Y Arktos\talk 01:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Should be there already. Might've gotten dropped when I was re-organizing. I'll see to it. Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't mention that viscount Hughenden lived at Hughenden Manor, which is now something of a museum to him. Come to that, it doesn't mention the TV program yesterday speculating on whether he was gay, but that might be taking details of his personal life a little too far. Sandpiper 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * She's mentioned, under "Political career" (because the article is still organized chronologically, not thematically). Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The information regarding marriage has not been added. Is there a reason why not? --Matty smith 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Christopher Hibbert, in his book Disraeli - A Personal History, gives some credence to the possibility of Ralph Nevill, the third surviving son of Dorothy Nevill being an illegitimate son of Disraeli. He asserts that there were rumours at the time.  In a footnote he also quotes from Stanley Weintraub's Disraeli - a biography(1993) regarding the possibility of Catherine Donovan being an illegitimate daughter.  Both are presented as rumours and speculation not established fact.Dizzysrattle (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I note there is still nothing regarding his personal life (spouse, etc.). --134.186.130.250 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

O'Connell "Reply"
"Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honourable Gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the Temple of Solomon."

This quote (which, doubtless thanks to its appearance on this page, is now all over the internet) seems to be apocryphal. The two references do not themselves give sources. Safire is certainly not reliable enough in himself. Lord Blake in his massive biography of Disraeli does not quote Disraeli as such in his handling of the O'Connell affair, nor does Adam Kirsch in a more recent book. My guess is that this quote is a bastardization of a passage from Disraeli's Tancred:

"Your bishops here know nothing about these things. How can they? A few centuries back they were tattooed savages."

Unless anyone can show me an authoritative source for this quote (and it's hard to get more authoritative than Lord Blake), I think we should either 1) delete the quote or 2) rewrite the sentence to make it clear that the quote is probably apocryphal.

Stealstrash (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A good resource is the recent Yale Book of Quotations p 208 which tracks these matters down. see I recommend option 2; we should tell people what we know -- its provenance is uncertain but it has not been fully disproven. Rjensen (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Also worth mentioning is the fact that this quote sees Disraeli referring to O'Connell as the "Right Hon," a prefix that would not have been used of him (he was not a member of the Privy Council of Ireland). Also, opened my copy of the Yale Book (which I think not a very good source, as the editors are open about the fact that many attributions are dubious at best) and found two versions of it there there, neither identical to the one appearing on this page. No reference was made to any of Disraeli's books or speeches. It is amusing to me that the sources for both are American newspapers; a British newspaper editor would recognize that O'Connell was not a "Right Hon" gentleman. I have also checked Hansard: nothing, which means that if he ever said it, he certainly did not say it on the floor of the House of Commons.Stealstrash (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sue Brewton in her July 16, 2016 at 8:56 pm reply to David L. after her "No, Benjamin Disraeli did not write that." post on https://suebrewton.com/2016/04/30/no-benjamin-disraeli-did-not-write-that/ describes the quote as "more legend than fact" and then quotes a “famous apocryphal story” Emmanuel Nathan and Anya Topolski "Is there a Judeo-Christian Tradition?" with its URL, as well as including URLs for The Yale Book of Quotations and Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Mcljlm (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Duelist?
Had Disraeli been to the field? I believe, at 31 years old, in 1835 he challenged the 60 year old Daniel O'Connell, who had dueled and killed a man, but refused all challenges anon, including Disraeli's. O'Connell's son, Malcolm, also an experienced duelist, refused to take up the challenge. Was Benjamin fierce or lucky?Bostoneire 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your correction, righty given, and input. Yet my question as to Disraeli's dueling experience remains unanswered. Was he the warrior who, unlike the O'Connell's, had not been in battle? Bostoneire (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Morgan O'Connell (not Malcolm) refused to fight on behalf of his father, so Disraeli insulted Morgan directly. Things got fairly far along--Disraeli had selected Henry Baillie to be his second. From what I recall, the sheriff got wind of the affair and Disraeli was bound over to keep the peace. Mackensen (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If he was born a Jew and converted at 11 or so in the Anglican church he was by choice a Christian. I thought Judiasm was a religion and not an ethnic group? So he is Christian not Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.57.247 (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Judaism is a religion. The fact that Disraeli was ethnically a Jew is not the same thing, as many Jews have converted from Judaism to Christianity or are Jews who've been raised in the Christian faith by parents who converted. When referring to the nationality/ethnicity the proper term is Jew. If someone is Jewish that refers to practicing Judaism, to be clear. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Birth Place
Benjamin Disraeli was born in "Massachusetts" Not only is he the first Jewish Prime minister, he was also the first prime minister born outside the UK. Could you also tell the guys that do the Prime minister page, that this makes David Cameron the 2nd as yes he was born in Canada!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.110.215 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no. He was born in London. Your facts are uncoordinated. I suggest a medical purgative.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

jewish race?
It's claimed in the article that he was "ethnically J77.185.207.201 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)ewish". So was Hitler right in saying that Judaism is not only a religion but a race? 77.185.207.201 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with Hitler? Of course Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion.  Or rather, I should say, there are several different Jewish ethnicities (Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Falasha, etc.) Does anyone dispute that? john k (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Jewish identity or Who is a Jew? for anwsers to the ethnic, religious, and cultural definitions of Judaism. It doesn't belong here.--Tim Thomason 08:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik in Haaretz on December 28, 2012 http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december302012/jewish-gene-oa.php

"The various groups of Jews in the world today do not share a common genetic origin. We are talking here about groups that are very heterogeneous and which are connected solely by religion."

The bottom line, he claims, is that the "genome of European Jews is a mosaic of ancient peoples and its origin is largely Khazar."Paragon27 (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Lowe
I'm impressed with the scope and quality of this rewrite. One brief suggestion: Disraeli's dislike of Robert Lowe was both well-known and unusual (for Disraeli), and should probably be mentioned. It steemed from the 1867 Reform Bill, inflamed by the Suez purchase, and culminated in the Royal Titles Bill. I should have time in the next day or two to add this, though my prose should be rewritten to match the article's new tone. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though my efforts pale besides Tim Riley's. Put it in and I'll deal with it.  If I forget or you don't like the result, let me know. I haven't quite gotten there yet but I will make a note to myself of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Grand Tour
Robert Blake wrote an entire book on Disraeli's "Grand Tour" (the 1829-30 trip to the Middle East) which could be incorporated here, though it's not essential. I think most biographers would agree that Disraeli's time there influenced his views on the Eastern Question 40 years later, but we don't make that link yet. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we don't have the book we can get that conclusion from a journal review of Blake's book?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can get access to that book fairly easily, and there might well be enough in Disraeli itself to make a go of it. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He really doesn't (page 59 of my edition, which is the 1967 first US edition). He dances around the point, saying that historians underestimate such youthful experiences and Disraeli's tour was a formative experience for him, and he mentions that the Eastern Question dominated Disraeli's second premiership, but doesn't truly get down to cases.  The closest is "The significance of the Eastern tour lies rather in the way that it affected his attitude on critical issues of foreign and imperial policy, which, as chance would have it, were to dominate public affairs during his premiership forty-four years later".  If you send me an email, I can send you an image of the page if you don't have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Before we go to FAC I'll make sure to have a look at this other Blake book at the British Library, and will report back. Tim riley (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have same edition. Blake circles back to the theme on 579 (in the opening to "Foreign Affairs"). I admit the he says less than I remembered, but I have the other book on request over inter-library loan so we'll see if there's more there. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, must have missed it. I'll let you and Tim handle it between you, then (lazy me).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done the deed. Please see what you think, Mackensen (and Wehwalt, naturally). Revise ad lib, of course. Tim riley (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Conacher
The author's name "Conacher" is misspelled throughout as "Conancher". In addition, the article cites "139 Conancher, p. 177". The page number is not within the range of the 1958 article. I suspect that the 1971 book is intended. This is currently included in the Further reading section. I haven't easy access to the book and thus cannot check this. Aa77zz (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very much obliged for this. I will toddle down to the British Library next week and check all. This is a most valuable steer - thank you. Tim riley (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. You were spot on, Aa77zz. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Formatting of titles
I understand that as per the MOS titles are not to be unnecessarily bolded. AlecOostmalle, could you please stop edit warring and discuss why you think otherwise? - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Info-box
The box for this article is so long that on my various screens it runs on into the main text. The recent addition of Disraeli's details as Lord Privy Seal hasn't helped in this respect. I'd like to prune a bit. Any thoughts on this?  Tim riley  talk    08:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine to revert the recent additions, but I await Wehwalt's response. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with Tim on this one - it makes it very long, and I don't think the average reader is going to want to know the detailed succession of some of these posts "at a glance" when they look at the article, which is the key purpose of an infobox. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. All this info is at the bottom of the article anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so. Duly trimmed.  Tim riley  talk    20:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of putting Disraeli's second leadership of the opposition (1880-1881) back in - not to be obtuse or to ignore this discussion, but if the top infobox is going to include the leadership of the opposition, both of Disraeli's spans in the post should be recorded, not just the one. Either put both in or leave it out altogether. I note Gladstone's infobox records all three of his spells as leader of the opposition. I agree however the Lord Privy Sealship/leadership of the Lords should be left out. 86.186.161.232 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Aristocrat"?
The lede states that Disraeli was "...a British Conservative politician, writer and aristocrat who twice served as Prime Minister." I think this an inaccurate usage of "aristocrat". That term refers to an elite caste of which he was never a member, as his parents were middle-class commoners. It would be more accurate to amend the statement to read "...a British Conservative politician and writer who twice served as Prime Minister, and who was elevated to the peerage." Any objections to my doing so? Bricology (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * good idea. Rjensen (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we need it at all in that position. I agree that "aristocrat" has overtones (I bet Salisbury didn't think Disraeli was one). I'd be inclined just to drop it rather than adding "was elevated etc" which is unmissably obvious from the info-box alongside.  Tim riley  talk    08:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Tim riley. He really isn't best known for being an aristocrat.  I'd cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. It's interesting to note that Disraeli considered himself aristocratic, but that rested in part on some inaccurate beliefs he held about his connection to the Lara family. Certainly (per Tim) that belief was not shared by his contemporaries. Mackensen (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We seem to be at one. I'll wield the secateurs.  Tim riley  talk    18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

John Vincent wrote a short study of Disraeli circa 1990 in which he stressed how Disraeli believed that his Jewishness made him a sort of natural aristocrat. I no longer have a copy to hand. There is of course that famous line about how when Britain was still inhabited by savages his ancestors were "priests in the Temple of Solomon" - I think he said it to Daniel O'Connell, but I may be wrong. Probably worth a mention.Paulturtle (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't absolutely swear to it, but I think pretty confidently that when doing the pre-FAC research for the article I read that though this saying is often attributed to Disraeli, no reliable attribution has been found for it. It's a brilliant line, but I can't find it in Blake or Bradford. It crops up elsewhere but not, as far as I can see, with any plausible attribution.  Tim riley  talk    17:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall that specific one. Both Disraeli and Judah Benjamin are credited with a quote to the effect that "It is true that I am a Jew, and when my ancestors were receiving their Ten Commandments from the immediate hand of Deity, amidst the thunderings and lightnings of Mount Sinai, the ancestors of my opponent were herding swine in the forests of Great Britain."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Am happy to accept it may be apocryphal or misattributed. On a slightly different note, I see that the article already covers how Disraeli exaggerated the social status of his own Jewish ancestry.Paulturtle (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you're happy on the second point, Paul, and good to have the quote discussed here too, even if only to rule it out for use in the article. Best,  Tim riley  talk    20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you find a source "debunking" the quote, it might be worth adding - one thing Wikipedia is actually very good at is debunking popular myths.Paulturtle (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a reassuring thing to read, and thank you Paul, but of course proving a negative is never going to be easy.  Tim riley  talk    22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Rumour of shema supposedly being final utterance
I'm not convinced by this. It's sourced to Weintraub's biography, page 658. Now I don't own the book, but I've looked the relevant passage up on Google Books here. Firstly, this book seems to report another story that Disraeli might have summoned a Jesuit to receive him into the Catholic Church on his deathbed. Secondly, it seems that the rumour we reference is not that Disraeli actually said the shema—shema Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai ekhad, or in English "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one"—but that, to quote Weintraub: "another story was that at the end, Disraeli held the hand of Philip Rose [a friend and adviser] and murmured, 'There is—one God—of Israel!'—the traditional Shema Yisroel declaration that is the central statement of Judaism. More likely, Disraeli died as he had lived, a confirmed skeptic in the tradition of his father."

Beside anything else, even if this story about him saying "There is—one God—of Israel!" is true, I'm somewhat dubious about describing this as saying the shema. On all my previous readings of our article I'd always presumed the rumour was that he actually said the shema in Hebrew, which would have been rather more of a statement. Granted, he was on his deathbed so it probably would have been difficult for him to speak and he may have forgotten how to say it—but I still feel it is somewhat misleading of us to describe this simply as saying the shema, even if Weintraub rather generously identifies it as that. I'm also somewhat dubious about the wording "there were rumours that his final utterance was"—rumours among whom? When? What did Philip Rose have to say about this (the statement itself or the rumour)? Weintraub doesn't go into any of this. So far as I can see he doesn't even explicitly say the rumour was that this was the very last thing Disraeli said.

If someone who has the book could have a quick look so we could clear this up I'd be grateful. Thanks, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  13:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I've been bold and put this into the footnote along with the Jesuit rumour and Weintraub's conclusion that probably neither story is true. If anyone can clear this up further I'd still appreciate it. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Dizzy, Disraeli's nickname in infobox
I've added Disraeli's nickname in the infobox in "other names". (N0n3up (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Nevermind. As soon as I clicked the review I saw that it didn't show up. Anyone knows how to put it there? (N0n3up (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC))
 * I'd leave it out. "Other names" doesn't seem to be used for nicknames in other articles. It's not key information so far as Disraeli is concerned, I'd say.  Tim riley  talk    19:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Reputation as debater and phrase-maker; long-term hostility with Gladstone
There is little mention of Disraeli's large reputation as a debater, and none at all of his comparable reputation as a phrase maker, a creator of quips and epigrams, many of them off-the-cuff. Some examples of these should be included, if they can be sourced, or even sourced as being widely attributed to Disraeli, even if further research renders such attributions dubious. After all, if such phrases were widely attributed to him, either during his life or afterwards, that is part of his reputation, of his public persona, and as such deserves mention. Similarly his ongoing feud with Gladstone should be more detailed, and perhaps should have ma section or sub-section of its own. I mention these together because many of his most celebrated quips were aimed at Gladstone. For example:

"Can you tell us the difference between a misfortune and a calamity?" / "Oh there is a vast difference. If Mr Gladstone, say, were to fall into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. If someone were to pull him out..." (http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/gladov.html cites this to Anne Fadiman, Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader, 140)

There are many other such quips and sayings commonly attributed to Disraeli. No doubt many of these attributions are inaccurate, but a number will surely stand up, and the general reputation for such wit should be mentioned, I would think. DES (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition
The infobox has Disraeli being succeeded by Gladstone - surely this should be Salisbury, or at a pinch, Northcote ? RGCorris (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think it should be removed entirely. As the situation after Disraeli's death showed, there really wasn't a single office at all times then.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing last sentence in the first paragraph in lead
From "He is, at 2016, the only British Prime Minister of Jewish birth." to "He has since been the only British Prime Minister of Jewish birth." or something along the lines, in order to make it more general rather than having to change the year number every 12 months. Anyone agree or object to this? (N0n3up (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC))
 * I've removed the year. It seems unnecessary.  If there is a Jewish PM, people would certainly look to update the Disraeli article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tweak Wehwalt. (N0n3up (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

Bertrand Russell's appraisal
There is little direct criticism of Disraeli in the article, especially from later commentators? In his 1935 Legitimacy Versus Industrialism 1814–1848, Bertrand Russell describes Disraeli, alongside Coleridge, Carlyle and The Tractarians as “a medievalist”. He says "Disraeli, who dreamed the same dreams, was powerful enough to twist reality to his fancy: he saw our Indian Empire, not merely as a market for cotton goods, but as a revival of the splendours of Solomon or Augustus. But by lending a romantic glamour to imperialism he encouraged tyranny and plunder on the part of those he persuaded to share his self-deception.” Some may consider Russell to be only an amateur popular historian, but I think this is an illuminating and incisive comment that might be worth adding. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a google search and none of the hundreds of history scholars have seen fit to quote Disraeli. So I'm negative. Russell shows little familiarity with Disraeli--the same page denounces a variety of authors and religious leaders for their cruelty.  Rjensen (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "quote Russell on Disraeli"? I can see what you mean, maybe Russell's own agenda is just too strong here. He's outspoken throughout the whole book - I think that's why it's so entertaining! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, as someone brought up in the household of a Whig prime minister, it would be asking a lot to expect Russell to be dispassionate about Disraeli. I boggle at the coupling of the gruesome author of Sartor Resartus with the incomparable author of "Kubla Khan". Still this book sounds fascinating and I shall seek it out.  Tim riley  talk    14:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, yes there is that, I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Father's dispute with synagogue
Even if this detail has "stood for a long time", I don't see that it's very relevant to the life of Disraeli himself. Surely his baptism, encouraged by Sharon Turner as godfather, is the more relevant detail? I think it's also misleading to say that his father "left Judaism". I thought the link to "Sephardic Jewish family" was quite useful, but mention of the dispute with the synagogue really not so. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think, without laboriously checking, that I wrote that bit of the lead, but it seems pretty much spot-on to me in concisely placing Disraeli in the socio-religious terms of his day. I'd be inclined to leave it.  Tim riley  talk    18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would linking "Judaism" to "Sephardic Jewish" work, or would that be seen as a wrong turn by people who would expect to jump to the more general "Judaism" page? - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure his father's dispute with a rabbi at his local synagogue informs us much about "the socio-religious terms of Disraeli'a day", but I'm not going to fight against a long-standing consensus. No-one should care who wrote what, of course, so you can be spared your laboriously checking task, Tim. I guess "Sephardic Jewish family" can just stay in the Early life section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it helps establish motivation as to why it occurred.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that. I just seems to be more about Isaac than Benjamin. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the father's the moving force here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's possible I wrote it. Anyway, it's important. Benjamin's conversion to Anglicanism is a direct outcome of his father's withdrawal from Ben Marks, and his hazy understanding of Judaism is a direct outcome of Isaac's non-observance. Mackensen (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Balkan POV edit warring
An IP has been trying to force some POV wording onto the talk page. Such wording, in my opinon, needs to be backed up with some very strong references, which have not been provided. IP, the thread is now open for you to discuss the matter. If you continue to edit war, a report will be filed, and there may well be repercussions. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The cited sources don't support the IP's somewhat dramatic interpretation of events. This is a featured article and it really doesn't benefit from the insertion of uncited personal points of view (any more than non-FAs do, for that matter).  Tim riley  talk    12:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Schrocat, Martinevans123 and Tim riley. Allow me to introduce myself - my name is Dimitar Popov, and as you may suggest, I am Bulgarian. This is not an issue for my impartiality - as you can easily see I am not objecting the fact that Disraeli was one of Europe's leading statesmen at the time. As a matter of fact my only objection is against the wording "he worked at the Congress of Berlin to maintain peace in the Balkans". While an average British, perhaps could not care less about what happened to the Balkans at the time or after that (and why should he or she?), for a Bulgarian this is a rather sensitive matter. It is a part of our history that lays the foundation for three national catastrophes (one Balkan war and two World wars), the tragic loss of hundreds of thousands of lives - both Bulgarian and foreign (British too for that matter, since we fought on opposite sites during the world wars), and the fact that it is still the chewing gum of every far-right pseudopatriot that my country is, unfortunately, so abundantly producing. Working in an archive, dealing with historical documents on a daily basis and understanding the importance of discussing historical events objectively and without too much flair, I tried to make my case as clear as possible: British representatives insisted on creating two separate Bulgarian autonomous provinces, which was followed by the unification of these two provinces, which was followed by the Serbo-Bulgarian war of 1885, etc. At the end of this post I will paste my reply to Martinevans123 in full, but since my POV (which is actually a mere statement of a fact) is being questioned or even labelled as "somewhat dramatic interpretation of events", I would like in return to be provided with the very strong references, supporting the statement that "Disraeli worked at the Congress of Berlin to maintain peace in the Balkans". I welcome the opportunity for a report to be filed if that needs to be done in order for some objectivity to be achieved.

Looking forward to your reply and references.

Sincerely Dimitar

P.S. Messagge to Martinevans123: "Greetings! The exact quotation from the 1879 Annual Register is: “Although the country inhabited by the Bulgarians extends far to the south of the Balkans, the Berlin Congress decided, chiefly in consequence of the firm attitude maintained on the point by the British plenipotentiaries, that the Balkans should form the southern frontier of the Bulgarian principality, and that the remainder of the Bulgarian territory should be constituted a province of the Turkish Empire under the name of Easter Roumelia, with an autonomous administration under a Turkish governor.” A much more recent publication – Salisbury, Victorian Titan by Andrew Roberts (1999) – states that: “On 17th June the Congress got down to the meat of the Bulgarian question, with Salisbury proposing that Bulgaria be split into an autonomous principality north of the Balkan mountain range, whilst the territory south of it would be called the province of Eastern Roumelia and left under the military and political control of the Sultan...”. It will take a special kind of talent to hold that the best thing to do in order “to maintain peace in the Balkans” (as this is what I am contesting) is to divide a nation into two different neighbouring states. The inevitable consequence of this brilliant diplomatic solution was their unification just seven years later – in 1885, after a rather peaceful revolution. As this event is a historical fact I do not think that quoting a particular publication is necessary, but at the same book Mr. Roberts describes the complete chaos that followed (pages 352 to 356) and, amusingly, the new development that since in the meanwhile Bulgaria became anti-Russian, now Salisbury favoured big Bulgaria. What followed from the 1885 unification, which followed the decision at the 1878 Berlin Congress to split the nation in two autonomous states, was the Serbo-Bulgarian war from November 1885. The official casus belli was the violation of the Berlin Congress. That was a rather brief war, that lasted a couple of weeks, but due to the surprising Bulgarian victory, it ended with the acknowledgement of the unification of Bulgaria. Nonetheless it deeply divided the two Balkan nations and that would have implications later, during the First (1912-1913) and Second (1913) Balkan wars, when Bulgaria fought first, along with the other Balkan states against Turkey for liberating the remaining provinces populated by Christians and then against its former allies for dividing the spoils of war. To wrap up – my argument is that: 1) you cannot state that there was piece in a region (the Balkans) when a war broke out just seven years after the Berlin Congress (followed by further conflicts few decades later) and 2) this turn of events is directly influenced by Disraeli’s government that demanded the separation of one of the Balkan countries (Bulgaria), that ultimately led to that war. I hope that this would suffice." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Dear Dimitar, Regardless of what you believe about the circumstances or situation (which is classed on Wiki as WP:original research), do you have solid, reliable sources in the form of published academic works, etc, that specifically states that Disraeli's action "led to the destabilisation of the Balkans". We can't string together a series of events to fit our own point of view, we are here to reflect what the sources say - or rather what the balance of sources reasonably say. - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dimitar, I must agree with SchroCat. It isn't that anyone disagrees or agrees with your take on the Congress and its outcome: it's that we are all here to present a scrupulous summary of what reliable published sources say, and to include citations saying where any of our statements is taken from. As you can see from the list of sources for the article, we have drawn on a wide range of distinguished historians and cited their statements. It seems to me that the article as it stands does that in re the Congress. Have you a reputable source that states clearly that the Congress led to war in the Balkans? If so it can be taken into account in the text – after wide discussion, preferably. But do bear in mind that to reach the status of Featured Article, this article has been reviewed by multiple editors at peer review and featured article candidacy, at both of which stages, particularly the latter, the quality of the sources is scrutinised.   Tim riley  talk    15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

SchroCat – it is completely irrelevant what I believe – I am writing about facts and the chain of events – you’re more than welcome to check them for yourself. I’m still waiting for the solid, reliable sources – author, title, if possible quote – in the form of published academic works, etc, that specifically states that Disraeli's action led to "maintaining peace in the Balkans". Tim, there is a number of historians that support or express this view. Prof. Elena Statelova, for instance, in ‘History of Bulgaria in three volumes’, Volume III, History of New Bulgaria, 1878-1944, where she writes about the immediate consequences of the Berlin Congress. Prof. Hristo Hristov writes the following in, perhaps the most authoritative History of Bulgaria, published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Vol VI, Sofia 1987): “The Berlin Treaty is aimed at destroying the progressive results of the war (the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War). It limited the scope of the liberation and anti-feudal struggle in the Balkans, destroyed the national unity of the Bulgarian people, left considerable Bulgarian and Balkan territories under Ottoman rule, granted Bosna and Herzegovina to Austro-Hungary. All this makes the Berlin treaty a reactionary peace treaty, which the Bulgarian and the rest of the Balkan states could not accept.” Richard Crampton writes in the second edition of his ‘A Concise History of Bulgaria’ (Cambridge, 2005): “The treaty of Berlin of July 1878 satisfied British and Austro-Hungarian demands... The new Bulgarian state was to enter into life with a ready-made programme for territorial expansion and a burning sense of the injustice meted out to it by the great powers.” The new state therefore began life with a ready-made irredentist programme and a bitter resentment at its treatment by the great powers. Again the same author in ‘Bulgaria’ (Oxford, 2007): “The new state therefore began life with a ready-made irredentist programme and a bitter resentment at its treatment by the great powers.” At the end I’d like to quote whoever wrote the article on the Berlin Congress in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin): “Thus, the [Berlin] congress sowed the seeds of further conflicts, including the Balkan Wars, and ultimately the First World War.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 * The line in the lead as it stands represents what is written in the body of the article, where it carries citations. If you look in the relevant section of the article (rather than just the summary in the lead) you will find the relevant citations. – SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you are asking me to do that, given my posts so far, only shows that you severely underestimate the person that you are talking to. It also hints that I am overestimating the person that I am talking to. Of all article references, which one (or more) states that Disraeli's action led to "maintaining peace in the Balkans"? Please, do take a moment before you answer, to reflect upon the possibility that I might have access to all of them. You should know by now that this is not the kind of discussion that you might be having over a pint or a cuppa, it require a bit of mental effort for historical objectivity’s sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Dimitar, Please do not start insulting people. I have tried to help you by explaining where the citations were that you asked for. There was no need for you to suddenly personalise the discussion, which is only going to ensure that people start being personal to you, which is not going to help anyone. – SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I managed to get myself into a petty argument, for which I apologise. At this point it pretty much doesn’t really matter to me what will happen to the article – anyone interested in these particular historical event knows the facts and where to get them from, and I wanted to see it as accurate as possible on Wikipedia, which I often use and strongly support. My suggestion may be wrong but that was not proven (even another Wikipedia article supports it). Anyway. All the best, Dimitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

After all is said and done it appears that there is no point to “DISCUSS THIS ON THE TALK PAGE” further. As kindly suggested by SchroCat I am requesting a dispute resolution. Since I am not familiar at all about how Wikipedia ‘works’ in these circumstances I expect this to be an interesting experience. In the meanwhile I still believe that it will be only fair to either provide me with particular source, author, and quote if possible (I am not asking for more than I delivered myself) or accept the suggested correction. Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this discussion, but I would note that the main article text concerning the Balkans primarily follows Blake's biography of Disraeli. That's the standard, but it's also fifty years old and Blake by his own admission was not a specialist on the Balkans. On reading over the section I'd call it very "traditional" and it would benefit from the inclusion of more recent work. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 * I would have no objection to another opinion being inserted with in-line sourcing. The article doesn't say long term peace and historians have their own opinions on such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd happily sign up for that. Would you be willing to provide an alternative form of words?  Tim riley  talk    07:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What quote are we using?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've only got Blake, Bradford and Roberts (on Salisbury) to hand - none of them of the most recent vintage. If you or can lay hands on a more recent source I'm happy to go along with that.   Tim riley  talk    08:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * About the same here, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate all recent contributions on the topic. On the dispute resolution page (my thanks to Robert McClenon) was pointed out that I have not notified the other editors about it. The truth is that i do not know how – it is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Benjamin_Disraeli It might be helpful to remind that I have already provided an exact quotation from a source – Hristo Hristov’s statement, which should not weigh less than that of Robert Blake. To claim otherwise would be to say that all sources are equal but some sources are more equal than others. Hristov’s argument needs not be accepted over Blake’s, but since we have two contradicting statements I would suggest that both should be accepted critically. Another source I’d like to add is Misha Glenny, who writes in ‘The Balkans’ (Chapter 3): “The Greeks, he [Disraeli] said, ‘had utterly mistaken the purpose of the Congress: they seemed to imagine that it was to partition the Ottoman Empire, while nothing was further from the thoughts of the assembly. Like individuals who have a future, states, lectured Beaconsfield, must learn to wait. In this instance, Beaconsfield was probably deluding himself rather than lying.” He also quotes Salisbury saying: “he has the dimmest idea of what is going on – understands everything crossways – and imagines a perpetual conspiracy.” The Disraeli article states that: “he [Disraeli] worked at the Congress of Berlin to maintain peace in the Balkans”. How can we know for sure what he worked there for? Let’s not forget that Great Britain got Cyprus out of the Berlin Congress and historically supported the Ottoman Empire to keep open the road to India and the Russian power in check. At the end we should report facts, not intents, especially politicians’ intents, which always raise suspicion or at least should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hristo Hristov? Which one? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Prof. Hristo Hristov writes the following in, perhaps the most authoritative History of Bulgaria, published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Vol VI, Sofia 1987): “The Berlin Treaty is aimed at destroying the progressive results of the war (the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War). It limited the scope of the liberation and anti-feudal struggle in the Balkans, destroyed the national unity of the Bulgarian people, left considerable Bulgarian and Balkan territories under Ottoman rule, granted Bosna and Herzegovina to Austro-Hungary. All this makes the Berlin treaty a reactionary peace treaty, which the Bulgarian and the rest of the Balkan states could not accept.” See, previous post to SchroCat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%A5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2_(%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the Hristo Hristov quote represents the old communist historiography that was imposed by the Communist Party on professors, and has been abandoned by virtually every historian since the collapse of communism in 1989-91. Note the old favorite communist terms: progressive, reactionary, anti-feudal, etc. In any case we need to rely on Reliable sources about Disraeli. Rjensen (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a most reasonable remark, Rjensen. It is supported by the fact that Prof. Hristov was appointed director of the History department at BAS (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) in 1963 and in those days you would need to be a very dependable communist to take such a high-ranking position. However the first two quoted terms, perhaps ironically, reflect closely the thought of the time that they describe (let’s not forget the political ideological turmoil that existed during the XIX and XX centuries) and it is a matter of fact that feudalism while perhaps long gone in Western Europe, was decaying for well over two centuries, but painfully present in the Ottoman Empire (not by accident dubbed the ‘sick man of Europe’). The volume in question was published in 1987 when it actually became modern to be ‘constructively critical’ but within limits (!) and, in general, communist historians tended to stray from the period immediately after 1878 due to the controversial role that Russia played at that time. A final objection to disregarding the source is that, in fairness, assuming that if it was produced in a communist era it must be wrong by default cannot be scientifically objective. If that was true then the Cold war West would not need to worry about Soviet nuclear power. But it did. Similarly, a brief overview of Robert Blake, Baron Blake biography, could easily support the statement that his work can be dismissed on the same grounds. Born just a year after Hristov – in 1916 – he must have been inevitably influenced by the west-east struggle (ergo a capitalist). Written in 1966 the book precedes the BAS volume by over twenty years and was produced at times of bitter East-West rivalry, but even worse it could be influenced by outdated Victorian historiography, which did not excluded racism and white man (predominantly Anglo-Saxon white) supremacy and duty to elevate the savages of the world (pretty much everyone else). A peer and a conservative, he had every reason to glorify Disraeli. But that would be just as wrong and would completely dismiss the merits of his work on the basis of his brief biography in Wikipedia. And no, time did not suddenly rupture or implode after 1990 in the East. The same excellent scientists (Georgi Bakalov, Nikolay Genchev, Vera Mutafchieva, Andrey Pantev, Georgi Markov, to mention but few) who professionally worked with history before, continued to do so afterwards and many of their works from well before 1989 are considered significant contributions. Othewise in Eastern Europe we would need to ‘breed’ a new generation of historians that would have to take over right about now and what could be more communist than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.196.106 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that two works by Hristo Hristov do appear under "Surveys" at History of Bulgaria, but the date given for his sole-authored work is 1985. Does he also say the same thing in that book? Two works by R. J. Crampton (1990) and (1997) also appear - what does he say, if anything, about the Disraeli? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Coming somewhat belatedly to this discussion, an argument can surely be made that Disraeli's aim was not to secure peace for the sake of peace - he did after all deploy Indian troops to Malta and, not mentioned in the article, send a small fleet under Admiral Hornby into Besika Bay - but rather peace on terms more favourable to Britain and Austria-Hungary: a smaller, partitioned Bulgaria rather than a large Russian satellite state. "Peace With Honour" not Peace for the sake of Peace. It may well mean that somebody needs to dig out their copy of Robert Blake (mine is alas, buried deep in the attic) and check exactly what he says.Paulturtle (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Title
An editor keeps inserting a statement that is inadequately referenced: no page number and in a format incompatible with WP:CITEVAR. The information is inoffensive enough, but a featured article should not be devalued by substandard citations. I have removed the material. If the editor concerned wishes to add it as a footnote as he/she suggests, that will be admirable – but with page number and full bibliographic information, please, in conformity with the article's prevailing style.  Tim riley  talk    08:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the additional information is both correct, and makes good an inadequacy in the existing text, and that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, it would obviously be more helpful for improving this article's content if an editor, such as the one commenting above, would simply convert the edit to the format proposed (if that is required) than merely intrude critical remarks. Qexigator (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But, as I have said twice already – clearly, I thought, but evidently not – we must have a page number, and I haven't got that book in front of me. I could toddle down to the British Library and look at it, but as the information in question is so minor I am not much minded to exert myself to save you the trouble.  Tim riley  talk    14:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to go to any special effort. It is the responsibility of the person adding the information to do it in a way that conforms with WP:V.  While I'm sure we all help as needed, the responsibility lies with the person adding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the section is headed "Prime minister", Tim riley's misguided undo inverts the rather week point he is now making. Not excessive detail, but corrective reporting, if the capacity of Disraeli's signature is being mentioned. This source was not available at the time when that first appeared in August 2013. But actually, to mention it here is excessive detail unless in full, to give due weight to the point, which the 2014 source has made available online. Otherwise, let it be trimmed away. Qexigator (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It could be mentioned in a footnote. I think it a bit of a digression to mention it inline.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Cartoonist
See discussion at Talk:D'Israeli In ictu oculi (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Depictions
(and anyone else), do you think it worth a mention that the Conservative leader in Trollope's Palliser novels, Mr. Daubeny, was based on Disraeli? See for example, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yes that is relevant to popular culture portrayals. Rjensen (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hartlebury and homosexuality

 * He co-wrote the novel Hartlebury with his sister Sarah, a fact "only comparatively recently" discovered by the editors of the BD Letters. This is according to William Kuhn's The Politics of Pleasure: A Portrait of Benjamin Disraeli, p. 146. We need to add this to his bibliography.

 * This is the same William Kuhn who is referred to at Talk:Benjamin Disraeli/Archive 1. I recommend it for an eye-opening perspective on Disraeli's dandyism and clear interest in younger men.  There is a wealth of material presented, although Kuhn admits there is no smoking gun that proves Disraeli ever had sexual relations with other men.  But his emotional and romantic attachment to men is indisputable.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Benjamin Disraeli/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Contemporary Christian music

The Catholic guitar mass
There is a tension within Wikipedia as to whether the music of the Catholic guitar mass should be included in this topic. This current article mentions nothing of guitar masses, Ray Repp, the St. Louis Jesuits, or any modern music for the Catholic mass (Carey Landry, etc). And yet, the Wikipedia article on Ray Repp says that his 1965 album "Mass for Young Americans" represented some of the earliest stirrings of Christian contemporary music. This problem is somewhat analogous to how the Wikipedia article on "Christian Colleges" tends not to consider Catholic colleges as Christian colleges. It is somewhat insulting to Catholics that they are implied not to be Christians. Thus it is really hard to decide whether modern Catholic music pioneers like Repp and the SL Jesuits should be included in this article. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How is there tension over the subject? I don't recall anyone trying to add it. Also, you did not point to a discussion happening about it elsewhere. It seems that it would be more appropriate to include it in the liturgical music article, or possibly in the article on contemporary worship music. I'm not sure why contemporary Catholic liturgical music is not a good location to discuss it though. The contemporary Christian music genre is not an umbrella genre for other genres though. It's essentially the Christian version of pop music.
 * I'm sorry that protestants are treating Roman Catholics poorly on the Christian colleges article. Granted, Roman Catholics have caused a few problems elsewhere by claiming the term "Catholic" for only themselves. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I came here to discuss in good faith, not bicker. If you want to discuss with mutual respect, I'm fine with that, but I'm not going to bicker. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not realize there was bickering. I was pointing out that you did not point to where this tension was created and existed. I then tried to explain where a better location for this topic was in hopes that you would explain why you felt that a guitar mass should be discussed here. I also tried to explain why some editors might take umbrage with with Roman Catholics, but I apparently created some of my own. If you actually want to discuss, feel free to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

New section - Rejection of the label
A number of bands have made high-profile rejections of the CCM label. I think that's significant for this article, in part because these usually include discussions of the meaning and significance of being labelled as "Contemporary Christian music". I'm thinking of, eg. Needtobreathe and Mutemath. Daask (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What did you have in mind? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and added this. Due to the no original research policy, I'm not sure how much discussion we can put in, but the artists' own words are citable. Keshiik (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Stylistically-rooted in Christian Music?"
Thoughts: One, I have no idea what that definitively means, and neither do you, especially "stylistically." Two, considering this topic is "contemporary Christian music" and given that term's typical usage, is there any reason the "stylistically-rooted" note shouldn't read "in pop/rock music?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:2240:7DAD:B08C:56C1:63F2:C334 (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Style and Artists
The list of artists is severly out of date, including Third Day (which has now disbanded), Aaron Shust who hasn't released any popular music in a while, and under the historically part, Newsboys, who recently released an album, and has never disbanded. I think one band that should definatly be included is For King and Country, who is the one of the most popular artists in the genre. They have won grammys for their work, and just overall should be apart of this list. Cherrell410 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

“Propaganda”
This is a pretty exceptionally poor wording. Referring to a genre as “propaganda” seems about as silly as saying that black metal is Satanist propaganda, or that punk music is liberal propaganda. I’m actually baffled this has been included - it’s beyond unencyclopedic. Toa Nidhiki05 18:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the genre is called propaganda; at least not in the lead which summarizes the article. Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the phrase is inflammatory, the VICE article that is cited contains the statement "contemporary Christian music (CCM) has often functioned as a propaganda wing of the Christian right." But that isn't what the article is about, the thesis statement for the article is "Queer musicians say the industry is facing a spiritual crisis: Adapt to a new generation of listeners, or die." While the article is using inflammatory language, such as "propaganda", "spiritual crisis", and "adapt or die", it isn't doing so to prove those points. It is using the language to explain contrasting ideas in the Christian music industry. The current criticism section lists several opponents to CCM within conservative circles, so I don't see how they could see it as a propaganda arm. 2601:8C0:C7C:3DF0:1A9:3E7C:C72E:3635 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see it now; at the end of the History section. But it doesn't say that the genre itself is propaganda. It says that it's often been used by the Christian right as propaganda against LGBT interests. The word "propaganda here seems to come from the first named source, an article in Vice. Looking over that article it seems to be more of an argument than a straight news source and Vice is not a strong source anyway according to WP:Perennial Sources. Still, there's no real doubt that Christian pop music has had anti-gay messages. I would say that we shouldn't just copy the writer's use of the word "propaganda" which is almost always used as a negative but instead just say that Contemporary Christian music has often included anti-LGBT messages. Goodtablemanners (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

As perennial sources recommends, I think you're correct that we shouldn't be using the hyperbole from the VICE article verbatim. I passed the original statement through ChatGPT, and it said that it was biased. But it recommended that it be changed to this: "Contemporary Christian music audiences tend to be conservative but there are many on the Christian left within the genre, as such, diverse viewpoints have prominence in the genre Christian LGBTQ artists." So that's what I think we should go with, it removes the inflammatory language and it better reflects the given sources Vice, The Grammy's, LAist, and Pride Source. 2601:8C0:C7C:3DF0:1199:4BB0:FD7F:23E4 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Contemporary Christian music


text:
Talk:Halle

Map24.com reports 25(!) places called just "Halle" and a further 7: Halle (Saale), Halle-Booienhoven, Halle-Heide, Halle-Neustadt, Halle-Nijman, Halle/Saale, Halle/Saale. -- Hotlorp

 * I suppose they could be included gradually, if and when an article is written about one of those places. It's going to be a hell of a disambiguation page! :-)D.D. 08:53 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * I suppose quite a lot of them are in fact boroughs of Halle (Saale) - at least Halle-Neustadt is one. andy 15:02, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Halle