Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are equally split between keep, delete and merge into a new article together with Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Normally I'd try to go for the compromise outcome, but anything like this sort of broad restructuring of an entire topic should be discussed at the talk page level first. So we have no consensus for now, but I encourage editors to try and see on the talk page whether there's any interest in this kind of merger. If not, a renomination remains possible. Sandstein 21:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party

Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A massive WP:COATRACK/WP:SYNTHESIS detailing every real or supposed antisemitic incident in the UK Conservative Party from 1834. Many of the article subheaders are the result of very flimsy original research: Jacob Rees-Mogg for instance is covered here not because he has said something antisemitic, but because he has retweeted the German AfD party, which in turn have some antisemitic members.

"Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party" does not exist as an independent and notable topic, despite the fact that the party has had antisemitic members during its history. The only source here which discusses the topic independently is an article by the Left Foot Forward which is not a RS. At best, this article is a pointy counterpiece to Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Perhaps some of this content is usable in separate biographies of the people covered here or the Racism in the UK Conservative Party which I consider a legitimate article. This article has been almost single-handedly written by one user, Woofboy. Pudeo (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Pudeo (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The issue of racism in general is not the same as the issue of antisemitism - indeed all kinds of racism tend to have important differences and if they are extensive, as this clearly is, it deserves its own article. That there are many identified instances of antisemitism in the party, it is, as with other parties, an important issue to follow and highlight action the party is taking, or not. Again, this cannot be simply lumped in with racism in general.

Dispersing the content into various specific pages dilutes the issue. However, the authors of the OP may want to take it on to ensure all individual instances are ALSO included in the specific articles.

Further, there are over 200 references in the article from all manner of credible sources, despite what the OP here is suggesting. I also note whilst the article has had one person originating it, and adding a lot of content, several users have been very positively active. Even so, the OP shows no argument for one main active user being a problem.

Editing the article is a far more reasonable thing to do. As for the example above re Rees-Mogg, there is also a quote from him as referenced on the UCL site which is clearly significant, "...it was extremely unsettling for me to hear Rees-Moog castigate his opponents, particularly his two fellow Tories of Jewish background, Sir Oliver Letwin and Speaker John Bercow, as “Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves.”".^[1][2][3] Cjwilky (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cjwilky: My point wasn't that there are no sources which detail antisemitism of individual Conservative party members since 1834, of which there are plenty. But are there any sources that cover antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party as a distinct phenomenon? If not, then this information belongs to individual articles (e.g. the Nazi comment by Alan Clark belongs to Alan Clark). --Pudeo (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is this brochure Antisemitism and the Conservative Party by the Antisemitism Policy Trust. Though it seems quite careful not to associate antisemitism with the Conservative party specifically: Nearly all political parties have at some point in their existence faced, in some form, allegations of racism, and specifically, antisemitism. The Conservative Party is not immune from this. --Pudeo (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo: Thanks, I see what you are saying there now both regarding that point and the general place you're coming from :) If the article was called "Institutional Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party", then your point may have validity but that isn't what it is called. It's worth adding that renaming the Labour article as Institutional would be questionable, as arguably the primary issue in that party is antizionism as distinct from antisemitism, with criticism of the state of Israel's actions against Palestinians being the central factor, and to a lesser degree outright antizionism beliefs held by members, including Jewish members. To create distinct articles reflecting these nuances would be hugely problematic - as I'm sure you're aware - and unhelpful for readers with precise definitions of the terms and of the accusations being fairly fluid. The articles as they stand leave space for those nuances to be identified and easily placed, so I remain Strong Keep Cjwilky (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Over 200 reliable and credible sources here, certainly satisfying GNG. Perhaps some cleanup could be done, but the topic is certainly notable... – DarkGlow (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party under a third name, or split both articles by era and cover them all in an overarching timeline from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom rather than party-specific ones. It's true that neither article has many sources discussing antisemitism outside the scope of specific politic eras, which suggests that either a single broad article discussing each political era where antisemitism is discussed or splitting them all by era and listing them in a more neutral central article would be best. But there are absolutely sources here discussing (eg.) broad antisemitism under Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron, Johnson and so on, so each individual section is good and worth preserving somewhere; and lumping them together by topic doesn't seem utterly unworkable - it's splitting them onto UK / Labour pages like this that raises some issues, since it risks implications that aren't actually in the sources on either article. I lean towards splitting by era because that seems to be how the sources work (there are many sources discussing "antisemitism under X", but relatively few non-opinion pieces discussing "antisemitism in the extended history of party X.") The complaint that this is WP:POINTy, though, doesn't seem well-founded, since central to WP:POINT is that it must disrupt the encyclopedia; the individual sections here are very good and have appropriate sourcing for discussing that era, so they definitely shouldn't all be deleted. --Aquillion (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party under a third name (antisemitism in British politics) or keep (if merge fails) as it is Well Sourced, about a history going back over 200 years (and sourced for most of that with contemporaneous sources,, not ones deciding it was antisemitic in the last two years).Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as goes against WP:SYNTHESIS. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be notable as a standalone topic: sources exist but shouldn't be combined together in this way to jump to conclusions not stated or implied in said sources: this is original research. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as per the solid arguments set out by Cjwilky, Slatersteven, Aquillion, DarkGlow above. This article is no more a coat rail,synthesis or original research, than the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article, and exactly the same argument about whether antisemitic actions are those of individuals or the party could be made of about the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article as of the Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party article. I feel that Wikipedia should not show any bias and treat both articles the same. Alternatively to a lesser extent weak Merge with both articles cleaned up and joined, but I fear the combined article would be overlarge. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject is synthetic. Are there reliable sources, such as an academic paper or a book that links these events? Where there is secondary sourcing, much of this material can be included in articles about the individual subjects. The subject itself isn't notable or best discussed as an article. Ralbegen (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a unified article or keep per Slatersteven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a unified article (perhaps Antisemitism in British politics) per Aquillion. This whole topic area is extremely pointy and perhaps a unified article would make it a bit less so. Number 57 18:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons already mentioned by other users above. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Pudeo and Ralbegen that this meets the definition of synthetic. It is, instead, a sort of laundry list, a throwing together every encounter between a Conservative MP and a Jew or Jewish issue that can possibly be given a negative spin. Moreover, I see NO sources that support the overall thesis that support for the notion that Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party is a thing,as opposed to the fact that sundry members of the party have, over the centuries, held antisemitic attitudes.NotButtigieg (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, however the article is called "Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party". The contents are exactly that, it does what it says on the can :) It is undoubtedly a valuable resource.

I mentioned before about the idea of adding "Institutional" to the title of this and/or the Labour article and how that is then problematic, but it could be added as a subsection where you could possibly find sources to demonstrate that is or isn't the case. Keeping the main page title as it is keeps things clear and simple. Cjwilky (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A coatrack of antisemitic incidents in the Conservative Party without evidence that the underlying topic meets notability requirements does not belong in the encyclopedia. You could write an even better sourced article about Use of quotation in the UK Conservative Party that documents examples of Conservative politicians using quotations. But the fact that a bunch of Conservatives have used quotations doesn't make the subject of the use of quotation in the UK Conservative Party a notable topic for an article. Almost anything could be a big well-sourced article, but far fewer things are notable and hence should be an article. Ralbegen (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that antisemitism in all ways, especially politics, is a notable issue. With respect, quotations isn't, especially in politics. Cjwilky (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.