Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party

Things to be expanded or added

Some things to be expanded/added. --Woofboy (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Expanded

• Conservative associations with Oswald Mosley's movements.
• Antisemitism from the Conservative publication Truth (this might be a useful resource: R. B. Cockett, 'Ball, Chamberlain and Truth' --Woofboy (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)).

Added

• Antisemitism during the Boer Wars.
• English Mistery, English Array and Nordic League involvement. --Woofboy (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Mosel;y

Was also labour, and anything damn else that could get him power.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, what? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We give him a fair bit of attention when in fact it's mostly about torry MP's supporting him, so I should be wew-worded.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits removing "nobodies"

Hi @Slatersteven:. Thanks for joining in with this article. In a couple of your edits recently ([1] and [2]), you're removed information because it was in regard to, as you put it, "nobodies". The precedent of the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party demonstrates that these insidents are worth including. For example, in that article, it mentions a Labour Party member - a "nobody" - another "nobody", an activist (both of who were suspended for antisemitism), and a lot of other "nobodies" who frequented pro-Corbyn Facebook groups. These are worth including because they are about antisemitism in both parties at various levels, and about how the more parliamentary levels of the party respond to the more grassroots elements. I'll pop them back in. --Woofboy (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And I have argued the same thing there. I do not care what a mess that article is, that is not excuse for this one to follow the same bad habits.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It is often the case, 'less is more'. I agree that this article does not need to copy the practice of adding every weak unnotable event by earnest editors in other articles. This article already goes into deeper depth than the one about the Labour Party. The nobodies to me weaken the impact of better examples in this article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but will go no further down that road as this is not about the other article and its faults.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure they are unimportant in either article, is my point. It shows antisemitism at all levels of the parties and also highlights the response of the more parliamentary sections of the party to the more grassroots ones. --Woofboy (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

We have both said they are important in both articles, but WP:OTHER is not an inclusion argument. It is silly trivial nonsense that only weakens the image of either article. We can at least make this one less trivial, and silly. Nor does it show this is a grass roots issue, one man a crass roots movement does not make. All it shoes is all parties contain a fraction of nutters. What matters is what the party does, and how it acts.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. You are saying they are important? Then you are saying it is 'silly trivial nonsense'? It's also not just one person: you deleted two instances of "nobodies"; the article also mentions Conservative Associations and university Conservative Associations -- these are all a part and picture of antisemitism within the grassroot elements of the party. Perhaps if these were put together in one section? I'd also like to add (again) that this isn't a case of WP:OTHER: it issue is important in both --Woofboy (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. I meant We have both said they are unimportant in both articles. I would point out your whole argument is based on what is in the other article.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to put these here, because it seems to have been missed:

• 'These are worth including because they are about antisemitism in both parties at various levels, and about how the more parliamentary levels of the party respond to the more grassroots elements.'
• 'I'm not sure they are unimportant in either article, is my point. It shows antisemitism at all levels of the parties and also highlights the response of the more parliamentary sections of the party to the more grassroots ones.'
• 'these are all a part and picture of antisemitism within the grassroot elements of the party.' --Woofboy (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

way too big

The article needs to be truncated and turned into prose (rather then a list).Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Tory Party

I propose we split this off into a new article as the UK Conservative Party and the Tory Party are two different things. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The is virtually nothing in this article about the previous Tory Party, apart from the first sentence of the Lede. Antisemitism most likely existed in the old Tory Party prior to the Conservative Party but its not covered in this already big article ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you want to split, there is almost nothing about the old Troy party>Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There is much material about the Scottish Unionist Party. It wasn't the Conservative Party until the 1960's but is lumped in with the Conservative Party.Kingbird1 (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kingbird1. The Unionist Party is included because the Unionists were under the Conservative whip. In many books, etc., that address antisemitism in the UK, no distinction is made between the Unionists and the Conservatives. For example, in Richard Thurlow's Fascism in Britain: From Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to the National Front, under "Unionists" in the index it says 'see Conservative Party'; in Harry Defries's Conservative Party Attitudes to Jews 1900-1950, is says 'Archibald Maule Ramsay ... had become the Conservative MP for the Peebles and Southern Division', and Richard Griffiths's Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany, 1933-1939 also describes him as a Conservative MP. --Woofboy (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This should be split off, and an explanation of the context written in both articles.10:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not according to most sources. In fact, if we are to follow the sources, reference to 'Unionist' MPs should be changed to 'Conservative' MPs. --Woofboy (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The Scottish Unionist party and the Conservative and Unionist Party were not the same. This has not place here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, they are according to the sources so they are relevant in this article following WP:STICKTOSOURCE. More examples (as well as those above in reference to Ramsay and the parties generally): in regards to Thomas Moore, Pitford (in The Conservative Party and the Extreme Right, 1945-1975) calls him a Conservative MP, as does Richard Griffiths in Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany, 1933-1939. --Woofboy (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Disraeli's (unnamed) antisemitic colleagues

Hi @Bangalamania:. I'm just wondering what to do about resolving the "WHO" tag you placed in the section about Disraeli's early political career. I wrote that sentence, and I honestly wasn't trying to give a 'vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis'. I was following the source (Dick Leonard, The Great Rivalry: Gladstone and Disraeli (London: I. B. Tauris, 2013)), which says (in the context of Disraeli being elected as MP of Maidstone in the general election of July 1837): 'He [Disraeli] was ready enough to socialise with anybody, but many of his Tory colleagues avoided him because of his bohemian reputation, others through antisemitism'. Leonard doesn't mention which MPs avoided Disraeli because of their antisemitism, but it's a prejudice that Disraeli had to face all the same. --Woofboy (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I guessed something like that might have been the case. Feel free to remove the tag if you wish, I just think it would be good to find out the name some specific examples if possible. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Grassroots level" sections renaming?

Was just wondering if these sections could be renamed; some, such as Turning Point UK in the May leadership section, do not seem to be described as 'grassroots' in any reliable sources. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

was wondering about TPUK< fringe of a fringe. Not even sure they do really have any "grass roots" support, as it is one blokes son and some yanks.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Split the article into easier chunks to Digest

This article is already a very detailed big article and its only in its infancy.Hopefully more editors will contribute more stuff and other viewpoints will be added, espicially to more recent events. Could we, without loosing the flow, split the article in two halves ~ maybe 1. Peel to Baldwin and 2. N. Chamberlain leadership to the Present. To be honest, I am not sure if this would work and what would be the best way to do it. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of ways of doing this that don't feel artificial (forgive me if I sound rude, but the proposed split of Peel to Baldwin and then everything after feels artificial/arbitrary to me). What recognised periods of (British) history could we use? -- Woofboy (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, I was going for pre and post WW2. But no break on the timeline is easy.

It might be better to reduce content, we really do not need this much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps historical periods of Victorian, Edwardian, World War I, Inter-War Period, World War II, Post-War? Some problems would be that some of the events stretch over multiple time periods; and that some of the periods are still long (e.g., Post-War). --Woofboy (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Things considered to be irrelevant to the topic of antisemitism in the Conservative Party

I know we are considering the length of the article at the moment, but it's possibly worth drawing attention to some edits that have removed things that the editor/s saw as irrelevant to the topic of antisemitism in the Conservative Party. For example, information about the BBL was removed for this reason; or information about Thomas Moore. However, the BBL was an organisation set up by Conservative MPs, so what the BBL did is connected to the Conservative Party; and Thomas Moore, while a Scottish Unionist, was part of the Conservative Party (as discussed before; perhaps similarly to how the Cooperative Party is often subsumed in the Labour Party). --Woofboy (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Unionist Party (Scotland), that party merged with the CP in 1965, whereas the information about Moore in this article was from the 1930s. "the BBL was an organisation set up by Conservative MPs, so what the BBL did is connected to the Conservative Party" is logically flawed: if I set up a group, I'm not responsible in perpetuity for what it does. Anything with only a peripheral connection to the CP or anti-Semitism shouldn't be covered in great detail here. EddieHugh (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pages

A lot of citations require page numbers. I considered adding the tag to each instance of this, but there are so many that requesting page numbers here is more economical. EddieHugh (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Entries without sufficient sources

This article needs a thorough cleanup, as quite a few of the more recent entries in this article are merely of the form "X said Y", with no references from WP:RS as to whether the statements made (or alleged to be made) are, or even alleged to be, actually antisemitic. Such entries need either to be sourced properly, or removed, per WP:BLP. -- The Anome (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets have an example.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Dexter Smith. Cummings. -- The Anome (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You are aware that one of the sources for Dexter smith is called "Antisemitism Policy Trust, 'Antisemitism and the Conervative Party"? And one for Cummings it titled "Dominic Cummings' latest blog post branded 'racist' and 'antisemitic"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV, and re-read WP:BLP. Controversial statements need high-quality sourcing, and must be attributed to the entity saying it. -- The Anome (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Then raise it an RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Controversial statements need high-quality sourcing, and must be attributed to the entity saying them. Readers are not psychic, and can't be expected to draw conclusions from reading sources. -- The Anome (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not controversial they were alleged to be antisemitic, we are not saying they were antisemitic, only accused of being antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The entries in question do not say anything at all about the statements in question; that's the problem. The reader is being asked to draw conclusions, contrary to WP:NPOV. Please re-read WP:BLP, and what it says about controversial statements about living people. -- The Anome (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No he is not, he is being told something has been said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleted passages

In recent major edits, presumably in response to the previous talk page item, several passages have been deleted. I don't think all these deletions are justifed, and think it would be worth discussing them to make sure we have consensus:

1. One of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Anthony Eden's aides noted in his diary in 1942 that "Anthony is immovable on the subject of Palestine. He loves Arabs and hates Jews".
2. After BHS, the department store chain owned by Philip Green, went into administration in April 2016 and was sold for £1, Richard Fuller said, "If the sale was done on the understanding that it was avoiding responsibility for those pension losses, then the £1 received was the equivalent to 30 pieces of silver in his betrayal of the employees and pensioners at BHS". The phrase "30 pieces of silver" was 'a reference to the price Judas received for betraying Jesus' and it was regarded as an antisemitic comment.
3. At the Conservative Party Conference in October 2016, Theresa May said, "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere". Leader of the Liberal Democrats Vince Cable and Jewish journalist Benjamin Ramm saw similarities between the language used by May and that of Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, as well as Joseph Stalin's anti-"rootless cosmopolitan" campaign against Jews in the Soviet Union.
4. Shaun Lawson, writing in Open Democracy, accused Sajid Javid of exploiting antisemitism "for naked political purposes" after Javid tweeted a disapproval of Holocaust denial. Javid then attempted to link denying the Holocaust to the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, by stating (we) should not be misled by Corbyn. Javid was forced to retract his comment, and responded by tweeting: “Corbyn is not a Holocaust denier. I am happy to make that clear.” Javid was again accused of an antisemitic tweet when he wished Jews in the UK and abroad a happy Rosh Hashanah. He insisted people were feeling under threat from Jeremy Corbyn, and "for all decent people to stand together to celebrate our Jewish community". This drew criticism from Michael Rosen who noted that Javid had used a similar antisemitism to that seen in Vichy France, where Jews had been separated into French or foreign born. Javid, following this lead, had separated Jews based on "decent Jews" and "Corbyn supporting Jews". David Schneider insisted that Javid had used Rosh Hashanah as a "political football" and was ignoring Islamophobia and racism within Javid's own party.
5. In July 2018, during a row over the Labour Party and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, Channel 4 FactCheck revealed that the Conservative Party rulebook did not mention antisemitism, despite Theresa May stating that her party had adopted the IHRA definition. Later that year, the party's code of conduct was amended, adding an annexe stipulating that the IHRA definition was fully adopted, to support the existing stipulation that discrimination on the basis of "religion or belief" was prohibited.
6. In December 2018 a right-wing advocacy group, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), launched its British branch, Turning Point UK (TPUK). TPUK was founded by George Farmer, son of Conservative peer Lord Farmer and fiancée of TPUSA communications director Candace Owens who, at the TPUSA conference, had come out in support of neo-Nazis. When asked about nationalism during a Q&A session at the TPUK launch event, Candace Owens said, 'If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that ... he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize ... that's not nationalism. ... I don't really have an issue with nationalism ... I think that it's OK'. Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell attended the event and support for the organisation was given by a number of Conservative MPs: Jacob Rees-Mogg, Priti Patel, Steve Baker and Sir Bernard Jenkin.
7. During a speech at the 2019 Conservative Party conference, the party's Home Secretary Priti Patel spoke disparagingly of the 'North London metropolitan liberal elite', which was understood by some people as an antisemitic reference, and described as 'the language of the far-right ... a worrying descent into dog-whistle antisemitic discourse'.
8. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove MP, was urged to apologise for sharing an antisemitic tweet from a Twitter account falsely claiming to be run by a Labour member. Antony Lerman, writing for Open Democracy, accused Gove of "dog-whistle antisemitism", attempting to chase votes and "shamelessly exploit[ing] Jewish fears".
9. Along with Michael Gove, Antony Lerman, writing for Open Democracy, accuses James Cleverly, Chairman of the Conservative Party, of "dog-whistle antisemitism". Cleverly, in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, claimed that Jewish "individuals and groups, including entrepreneurs and other business figures" – people he had known "much of [his] life" would leave the country if Labour won the 2019 election.
10. During a speech at a December 2019 event hosted by right-wing think tank the Danube Institute, Boris Johnson's Social Justice advisor Tim Montgomerie praised Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orbán and suggested the UK should have a "special relationship" with Hungary. The Labour Party called for Montgomerie to be removed from his position, MP Jon Trickett saying his comments were "despicable. Cosying up to a government which peddles antisemitic and Islamophobic rhetoric, attacks migrants and refugees and undermines judicial and media independence is unacceptable".

Some of these might have insufficient sourcing (in which case a better source tag might be more appropriate than removal) or could be worded better. Can we discuss each please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

References

My personal view is that Lawson is not noteworthy and Vox is not reliable so no.4 would need heavy editing, but otherwise all of these stand up with some minor edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't work out why a number of these have been removed (for instance, someone "Hating the Jews" seems pretty clear). --Woofboy (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As the person who made the changes here is my explanation

1. I felt this was weak. One aide saying Eden hates Jews cause of his stance on Palestine to me is not enough to warrant. I feel that more proof is needed to say this as is the case with Harold Macmillan
2. I find this to be at best a reach the term is widely used as a way of describing a betryal due to money. While it could maybe a dog whistle, in this case I really can't see how a rational person would think that.
3. Another reach I find this article includes some Jews who think it is anti-Semitic while others think it is fine [3]. While it could be and was used as anti-Semitic, with May it does not fit here.
4. I think we are in agreement here. This to me was the worst one since clearly Javid's tweet was about condemning anti-Semitism, and it takes some pretty massive leaps to somehow turn this around.
5. Not an issue, especially since the Conservative party as said apporved it as soon as it saw that it did not. In comparison to the outrage at the labour party this is a nonissue.
6. Nothing anti-Semitic, Owens comments were dumb, historical inaccurate, and partistan but that does not make it anti-Semitic, in fact the link given has her attacking Hitler claiming he is not a nationalist, absurd, but it does show that she opposes the Nazis.
7. See #3
8. I don't see how it was anti-Semitic, Gove retweeted to prove that the labour party had a problem with it. He got tricked, but that is not anti-Semitic.
9. It was widely reported in the news that many Jews in the UK feared a Corbyn led government and that some were planning to leave. James Cleverly was pointing to that. Again how that is anti-Semitic makes not sense. Along with the above I don't think Antony Lerman is a good source to use.
10. This is again a reach, not only is Orban already mentioned, but again this idea involves a pretty big reach.

I hope this cleared things up. Have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

1/ Although this is not that major, I think clear testimony of antisemitism on the part of a party leader deserves a brief sentence. A better source is here. (It is also fuller: "[[[Bernard Wasserstein]] quotes Oliver Harvey, private secretary to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, as saying in a note: “Unfortunateli A. E. is immovable on the subject of Palestine. He loves Arabs and hates Jews.” And in a note to Mr. Harvey, Mr. Eden wrote in September i941: “If we must have preferences let me murmur in your ear that I prefer Arabs to Jews.”

2/ Here it doesn't matter whether we think it was antisemitic or a dog whistle; it's a question of whether reliable sources do. The cited source is the Antisemitism Policy Trust, which includes the incident in their list of antisemitism-related incidents in the party, commenting: ” It was suggested by some that the use of the phrase ‘30 pieces of silver’, a reference to the price Judas received for betraying Jesus, was infelicitous at best when employed in reference to a Jewish businessman. with a citation of an opinion piece in the Jewish Chronicle[4] which says It has been suggested to me that in using the phrase "30 pieces of silver" there is a hint of antisemitism. It is certainly infelicitous. That's not particularly strong and I wouldn't strongly argue for reinstatement.

3/ Again, our views are not important; those of RSs are. There is a massive weight of RSs commenting on this and it absolutely has due weight and sould be included in this article.

5/ I don't think this is a non-issue given the large amount of coverage it had. C4 Factcheck would not have fact-checked it if it were not being discussed in public, so is evidence it is due.

6/ Again, our views aren't relevant; the fact that RSs describe this as antisemitic is. (And that she "opposes the Nazis" does not mean she didn't say something antisemitic.) Here is what our source, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, says: {{[Owens] has been repeatedly criticised for remarks she has made which it has been alleged signalled support for Hitler and White Supremacists, allegations she has categorically and repeatedly denied. The anti-racism organisation Hope Not Hate has raised numerous concerns about Turning Point UK including links with conspiracy theorists}}

7/ Multiple sources describe this as antisemitic. The wording above, "some people" consider it as such, is week, but the citations show that the "some people" are significant, e.g. the Jewish :abour Movement. We could also add members of the Board of Deputies.[5] as well as authors on antisemitism.[6] Even arguments that it was not antisemitic[7] show that the allegation has due weight. This should definitely be reinstated.

8-9/ Again, our views aren't relevant; the fact that RSs describe this as antisemitic is. The current source for both of these is Anthony Lerman, who many would argue is an expert on antisemitism. I think this is too week as it stands without further sources.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the response. You are correct about our view, but we do have to weigh the evidence and see if it is worth it.

1/ I am not sure about this, this is better, but still what one memoir to me does not feel like it is enough to claim anti-Semitism. Eden's comments could be taken to express his annoyance at the numerous Zionist organizations engaged in terrorist attacks on the British.

2/I think we agree here that this is week.

3/ Yoram Hazony says it was not anti-Semitic, nor did the ADL say it always was. Its pretty clear that May did not use in an anti-Semitic way.

4/ One of the sources is what looks like a blog, VOX Political, and should not be used. The other does not call him Anti-Semitic.

5/ It was not major news. The news was about the Labour party, when it was pointed out that the Conservatives did not have it, it was added without any debate, unlike labour.

6/ The Buzzfeed article does not call her anti-Semitic, Haartez is behind a paywall. The Buzzfeed specifically mentions them accusing the labour party of anti-Semitism I really don't see any reason to include based on this and what I wrote above.

7/ Both come from supporters of the JLM which is not exactly unbiased. One is a blog, that are generally discouraged. Finally see #3.

8-9/ Looking at Antony Lerman he seems to lately moved to Wikipedia:Fringe theories and undue weight. As well I stand by what I said before.

I hope this clears things up thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Would be good to hear other editors' views to get a consensus. Re these specific points: 5/ Might not have been "major news" but I think it's clear that it was noteworthy in relation to the topic of our article. 6/ Ha'aretz is an RS, whether paywalled or not. At any rate, there are plenty of other RSs on allegations that Owens has said antisemitic things, e.g.[8][9][10][11] Buzzfeed is not being used as a source for her alleged antisemitism but as a source for the attendence of senior Conservatives at the event. 7/ I'm not asking for the JLM to be used as an RS for a fact; I'm saying that a range of noteworthy figures (including but not only the JLM) described this as antisemitic and it would be DUE to mention that. Which source is a blog? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Source 15 was the blog one. I still disagree about the Owen's articles, it was clearly ahistorical, but anti-Semitic is a reach. The JLM I think is reasonable source, but you also have to weigh that it is a partisan source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Commenting here again to see if there are any other views, as only two editors have commented here and so we don't have a consensus (in particular on 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 above, where I strongly oppose the edits). Where there is no consensus, article should return to previous version, although there may be BLP issues for nos.2+ which need to be taken into account. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Split Article

This has been brought up before, but I this article is way too big and should be split. Some think it should be divided at the very least between the 18th-20th century and the 21st. However, I have no issue further dividing between Victorian, Edwardian, etc. eras. Thoughts? 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Scruton

This has been removed from the article. Is this supported by consensus?

In November 2018, the Conservatives were condemned for appointing Roger Scruton as chair of a new Housing and Architecture Committee because, in the words of Labour MP Luciana Berger, he "peddl[ed] antisemitic conspiracy theories" regarding Soros. Labour MP Wes Streeting expressed concerns over Scruton's links with Orbán. The government defended Scruton. Scruton was sacked as Government adviser in April 2019 after a New Statesman interview in which he repeated comments similar to those previously made. Dawn Butler, shadow women and equalities minister, said Scruton's language was that of "white supremacists" and that he should have been sacked when he had made his comments previously. Historian Dominic Green disputed these claims, saying that Scruton was taken out of context and that attacks on him were attempts by the Labour Party to deflect from their own antisemitism problems.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Since the New Statesmen apologized, Eaton was demoted, and Scruton reinstated, I did not feel that this warranted being included. Especially given how long the article is. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly but the fact we have six sources here suggests it has some weight. Could amend to note the NS apology (do you have a link for that?) and/or could trim e.g. remove Butler's comments. But if editors agree it is undue I don't object. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are the links to the apology [12] [13] NS statement "We acknowledge that the views of Professor Scruton were not accurately represented in the tweets to his disadvantage. We apologise for this, and regret any distress that this has caused Sir Roger"

References

Fountain/Challen

Also removed as too trivial:

Andrew Fountaine was selected as prospective parliamentary candidate by the Chorley Conservative Association in 1948 or 1949. At the Llandudno Conservative Party Conference the same year, Fountain gave an antisemitic speech. The Conservatives' Standing Advisory Committee on Candidates disavowed him, meaning he failed to gain approval at a national level. However, come the 1950 general election, there was no "London-sponsored" replacement for Fountaine and the Chorley Conservative Association did not try to find a replacement either, so he ran as a locally nominated Conservative candidate. Later, Fountaine left the Conservatives. In 1954, the antisemitic, far-right ginger group the League of Empire Loyalists was founded and led by Arthur K. Chesterton, a former leading figure in the British Union of Fascists, who had served under Sir Oswald Mosley. The pressure group was composed of "right-wing Conservatives, particularly retired military men, and a few pre-war Fascists". Conservatives who were part of the group included Edward Martell and Andrew Fountaine.

I'd remove or trim to bear minimum the second para, but the first para looks important to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

After reading Fontaine's page specifically this part "During the 1940s, Fountaine also became involved with the Conservative Party, with his speeches becoming one of the highlights of the annual party conference, such as during the 1948 conference when he denounced the Labour Party as consisting of "semi-alien mongrels and hermaphrodite communists." I can see maybe keeping it a trimmed down format. However, Martell was a member of the liberal party not the conservative and thus should not be included. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree: trim but keep. Martell later became a Conservative but wasn't at this point so should go. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Martell's page does not mention him joining the conservative party, do you have a source saying he did? 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

From the article: In 1962 Martell joined the Conservative Party and in 1963 was chairman of the Hastings Conservative association. His anti-trade union newspaper, The New Daily, reached a circulation of 100,000. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

His page says in 1962 he founded the National Fellowship party. The party supported conservative candidates in elections, but it seems that they were two different entities. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems there is a slight contradiction between the Martell article and the NF article. The latter says In early 1963, Martell joined the Conservative Party, but maintained the Fellowship. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a third-party source going one way or the other? 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Archibald Maule Ramsay MP and the Right Club

Another long section removed. Is there consensus for this? I think a shorter summary would be due, and that we need to check that the content is covered in his own article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

My issue here is that Ramsay at the end of the day was a minor figure in the Scottish Unionist party (Since they were aligned with the conservatives, I assume that is why he is here). Maybe a brief sentence but having such a long run down on an already long page seems unneeded. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If he wasn't a Conservative (his page suggests he was, but is a little muddy), yes should go. This sentence struck me, but is very vague: Ramsay distributed copies of the antisemitic periodical The Truth to MPs. The paper was a Conservative Party publication and was edited by an antisemite. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is a vague one. However, if more info is added I could see it being warrant being here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Has any change to that point yet? If not what do we do about it? MeKramer07 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tag?

I don't see much arguing here about the neutrality, just the reliability of the sources. Should this tag be removed? {{SUBST:font colorNobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

There is little neutrality on this page. In the bit about Rees-Mogg attending the Traditional Britain Group Annual Dinner the only sources are extreme-Left and very sensational (and largely fictional) newspaper articles, one of which was based upon an illegally recorded conversation. the report, needless to say, was partial in the extreme. When Lauder-Frost was interviewed by Vanessa Feltz (you can still listen to this on YouTube) about the TBG's position on immigration, she (not him) kept going on and on about being Jewish and asking where should she go etc. So when Lauder-Frost was illegally taped he naturally mentioned her Jewishness because it was clear to him that this was her wish. not because he was anti-semitic. In fact there is not a scrap of evidence that Lauder-Frost is anti-semitic and he has always avoided the subject, which he once told a reporter 'doesn't interest him'. So sure, get him on his political beliefs, but not on inventions and fictions etc. Rees-Mogg has surely also said lots of controversial things and is a major capitalist sitting on at least £100 million (if we count his wife's inheritance).2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:7C43:9C2E:AF38:1E96 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Err you need to read wp:soap, and wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

And there are at least four sources about Rees-Mogg and the Traditional Britain Group. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)