Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in the Labour 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 roughly divided between keep as a notable topic and delete as a POV fork of existing articles. These are both defensible arguments that depend on editorial judgment, and so we have no consensus for the time being. Editors who want to keep this should try to develop the article such that it is more clearly distinct in scope from other articles, or it may be renominated for deletion.  Sandstein  08:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Labour Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article lacks notability and is an attack page recently created. Despite the title, it is almost entirely about enquiries in 2016, sourced to news articles. It notes that an enquiry into anti-Semitism in the UK found "no evidence" that there was more anti-Semitism in Labour than in any other political party. TFD (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * deleteI cannot help but feel this is a POV fork from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom an article that most of the material for this one was cherry picked from (and it still mostly duplicates). It is hard to see how and why we need an article on this when far more antisemitic parties can get away with just an article about them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Ridiculous nomination, TFD figures it's not a notable subject, when it so obviously is, to such an extant in fact there are an entire book on the subject, The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti-Semitism as well as hundreds of newspaper sources to be found, This topic is independently notable in it's own right and needs an article on the subject Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 9/10ths of that book is about "the left" (incuding Liberals and far left), even when connection is made to the Labour party, it is largely post-Corbyn. If kept the title needs to reflect a very recent 'scandal'. Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, is not an attack page as alleged by the nominator, and none of the other reasons for deletion given so far are reasons to delete the article (any POV issues can be dealt with by editing to make the article better). Iffy★Chat -- 17:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that the article could and should be more carefully and thoughtfully written, but the subject definitely meets GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I have changed my mind per arguments below that any useful material from this article is better placed in other articles (such as the Chakrabarti Inquiry, Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and the Labour Party (UK). Ralbegen (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A classic "X and Y" type micropage/fork which is in reality a barely disguised blog post, sourced mostly to one-sided comment pieces and commentary. Why not "Anticapitalism in the Labour Party", "Sexism in the Labour Party", "Drinking culture in the Labour Party" etc? It also includes a clear BLP breach in the current last sentence of the lead, which claims that an MP literally proposed transporting Israelis to the US (they didn't).  N-HH   talk / edits  17:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says he did Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. But it's a broad claim made in a comment piece on an obscure website. Even if it was in a better source, that wouldn't avoid BLP issues. And the MP in question was not a "he", which shows the level of effort and proper research you've put into assembling this attack page.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse my typo, it's not a broad claim, it is covered in other sources and she apologised 4 times for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * She apologised for posting a flippant cartoon/image, not for literally suggesting transportation, regardless of what this obscure columnist says in his polemic. Anyway, this is off-topic for a deletion debate. I only mentioned it as an aside, and as evidence of the wider problem with the page. WP needs fewer pages that are basically political debates masquerading as encyclopedia entries, not more.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC
 * Nor was any mention made of the author of the maps comments (I had to add it). In fact it sums up nicely just how POV this article is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV fork. Much of this information is already covered in the articles about the Chakrabarti Inquiry and Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. Given enough information on the topic, a possible alternative here might be an article about antisemitism in UK politics. But, while it's true the media have discussed this topic in relation to Labour, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to it. This is Paul (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Antisemitism in the Labour is an ongoing high profile issue in UK, Jewish, and Israeli media. It is far from "the same as every other party" when 83% of UK Jews think that Labour has an antisemitism issue. Jewish publications have been treating this as front page material for quite some time.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork of Chakrabarti Inquiry. I don't know whether the subject of "antisemitism in the Labour Party" is sufficiently notable for an article apart from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but even if it is, this article doesn't cover that topic. The party is 117 years old, for god's sake, and this article covers barely two years! Talk about WP:RECENTISM. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ken Livingstone's track record on anti-semitism allegations extends back to 2005 or so (he was just recently expelled from the party - the allegations, based on things he said and did, stretch back to then). If the internal Labour inquiry is of note for an article, certainly the long-running phenomena (which continues post inquiry) is too.Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, you're still talking about 12 years out of a 117-year history. Second, whether there's a long-running phenomenon is questionable. While "Labour" appears 35 times in Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and "Conservative" or "Tory" only five times, Antisemitism in the United Kingdom goes back as far into history as Ed Miliband. If this is a long-standing phenomenon, neither of the relevant Wikipedia articles say anything about it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, is this how we define RECENTISM, occurrences relative to how long something has been in existence? In that case, why was there an article Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording? Shouldn't it have been only in the Donald Trump article since he's been around for nearly 80 years and that incident was only a few minutes? The Kingfisher (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That comparison makes sense because Trump has been president for 80 years, hasn't he? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless we're also going to have articles on Antisemitism in the Conservative Party and Antisimitism in the United Kingdom Independence Party etc etc, then there's no justification for this. It's simply a POV pushing fork. Any content of this sort should be covered at Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. The very title is non-neutral, as it implies that the Labour Party is in some way antisemitic in its leanings or policies. G-13114 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is an obvious and egregious POV fork as a result of arguments on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, and the only content is covered at Chakrabarti Inquiry. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Has all the indicators of a POV content fork. Too much weight is given to what is already more neutrally discussed in other articles, and I have to agree with MShabazz -- talk about WP:RECENTISM.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's hard to believe that we're all talking about the same article. The scope, breadth and number of sources that directly address the topic in the article demonstrate that the topic merits notability on a standalone basis. Just looking at the four delete votes that precede mine, and all I see is claims of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and unsupported claims of a POV fork, while the keeps appear to be based on the content of the actual article under discussion. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As one of the four votes you refer to, I agree that It's hard to believe that we're all talking about the same article. This article, which arose after somebody was complaining about the coverage of this topic at Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, appears to only discuss matters from 2016 and 2017 that are discussed at Chakrabarti Inquiry, presumably to allow somebody to promote their POV.  It's a clear example of WP:DEL5.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, if multiple comments suggest this page is at best duplicating and covering the same ground as, and at worst a POV fork of, the Chakrabarti Inquiry page, it might be an idea to explain in what way it is not – when it rather obviously is to anyone who spends two seconds checking – rather than simply asserting that such a suggestion is "unsupported".  N-HH   talk / edits  00:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The internal, issue ridden, Chakrabarti inquiry is limiited to 2016. This article arose after discussions in Antisemitism in the United Kingdom where the issue of over emphasis on recent (past 10 years) events was raised. The amount of sourcing for Labour antisemitism available is copious, this is an on going issue that receives very wide coverage (and this is not the case for other parties) easily meeting GNG, e.g. these incidents in November  are but a small sample of the on going high profile incidents receiving coverage in high quality RS.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon my French, but I don't give a fuck if people want to scrap-book every Labour councillor who express anti-semitic views (and I believe there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of Labour councillors, suggesting that individual councillors are not notable). I'm not sure what the POV being pushed here is, though I assume it's that "liberals hate Jews". Regardless, it's not welcome on Wikipedia unless it's supported by secondary references, and the "news-of-the-day" coverage references clearly aren't that.  Apart from the news-of-the-day coverage, you just have the Chakrabarti Inquiry POV fork content here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is supported by copious secondary references - beyond news of the day. Chakrabarti was limited to events up to summer 2016 - and was an internal inquiry which is subsequently being questioned. This political scandal of the Labour party harboring officials who engage in hate speech - has been a major on-going scandal - garnering international coverage. This is much more significant and systemic than a "sexual miscounduct of politician X" article - which we've had several. We have public opinion polling on Labour antisemitism - (Yes - 83% of British Jews think Labour is tolerant antisemitism - in August 2017 a year after Chakrabarti). Jews have stopped voting for the party (and just like the US, where Jews have been traditionally Democrat leaning - this was the case until recently in the UK - Jews traditionally leaned Labour) -   - down to 13% support by Jews in the UK. We have copious on-going news coverage - google news, a few books , some scholarly sources - google scholar. This issue clearly meets GNG by any notability guideline - being covered extensively, as an issue, for more than 2 years. Your French aside - on Wikipedia we work according to the sources - and in this you case you might "I don't give a fuck" about this - but the Jewish public at large (which is quite alarmed by the rise of antisemitism, as evidenced by polling) and the sources disagree - this is being covered.Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No one disputes there is news coverage and acres of often partisan commentary. No one disputes this is, to an extent, an issue. What is up for debate is whether an *encyclopedia* should be discretely documenting one single political debate in the polemical way this page is trying to do, under this loaded title, and whether it adds anything to the Chakrabarti page (to which there is no reason relevant post-inquiry material cannot be added, with due weight).  N-HH   talk / edits  09:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We also have the issue of re-writing sources to make perceptions or vague assertions facts. The blatant cherry picking now is just a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Meet WP:GNG widely discussion in WP:RS.Widely discussed in scholarly literature ,,--Shrike (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, though the phenomena meets notability, the article's name is incredibly provocative and in contrast to the findings. As is it's lead, which is cherry-picked and simplified version of the events. I.e it doesn't even mention how media-frenzied the findings were. The Chakrabarti Inquiry isn't even cited in the article, acting as a substitue for it though conveying the exact same information in a less encyclopaedic tone and in a less specific article scope. Information in this article should be neutrally incorporated into Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and a paragraph into the history of Labour Party (UK). Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:HEYMANN upgrade needed, but it should be an easy job. Looking at the article as it stood an hour ago, I can see where the delete iVoters are coming from; it was a sort of laundry list of anti-Semitic statements made by MPs (to be sure, there have been an appalling # of such remarks by Party leaders.) However, editors should not judge the available sourcing by the state of the article.  A great deal of serious writing (SIGCOV)  exists on this topic.  Editors who want to take a more serious look might start with the 2016 book The Left's Jewish Problem, or, for the short course, with some of the reviews linked from the page on that book.  There is a lot more out there, serious journalism as well as academic consideration of the topic in peer-reviewed journals.  I remind editors that our job here is to evaluate the notability of the topic, not of the page.  Nevertheless, WP:HEY I made a small start on improving the page just now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep With sources like this book: The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti-Semitism, which started as a doctoral dissertation at the University of London and was instantly revised and published as a book, it is hard to see any justification for this deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep Delete or rename, much as I hate to see an article that clearly has been written with the intention of attacking the Labour Party based largely on Israeli and pro-Israel sources, there has been analysis and coverage about anti-semitism and the 'left' ongoing. However, the new article currently lacks any sense of balance and does, largely, dwell on many of the issues covered by the Chakrabarti Inquiry. The issue has continued to be of interest beyond the conclusion of the report (though I'm yet to see any evidence it was a major issue prior to 2016). I don't know quite how the article can be made less one-sided (or who will have the appetite for the inevitable edit wars) but the subject clearly has some legs . Sionk (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed !vote to 'Delete' because the article is quickly becoming a POV collection of instances (from largely one-sided sources) about anti-Zionism, anti-Israel and synthesis of sources to create a connection to the subject. It has become unrescuable. Even renaiming it "Antisemitism on the Left" would be problematic, unless the tangential stuff is removed. Sionk (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: This topic "antisemitism in the labour party" as been thoroughly addressed in a large variety of news outlets because of several scandals in the last few years. The focus in these news stories is political, which is quite a bit different from the topic of the Wikipedia article "Antisemitism in the United Kingdom", which has a much larger scope, including the full history of antisemitism and various antisemitic attacks. As an article about a political scandal/dispute which has attracted a lot of attention, I think that this Wikipedia article is independently notable. OtterAM (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge any substantive comment into Chakrabarti Inquiry. The article lacks any attempt at balance, uses too many marginal or non-notable sources (a single book by a marginal figure is used as "History" of anti-semitism in the left - apparently it's all Peter Hain's fault, who of course wasn't even a labour party member when he committed this 'sin'). Ruth Deech's opinion, (she is a noted bioethicist, but her opinion as to what motivates Labour figures is no more notable than "the guy in the pub"). It reeks of an "attack page" PoV fork. The article title gives no hint of the actual content, which is entirely focussed on post 2010's. I'm old enough to remember far-left commentators being accused of anti-semitism in the '60's and 70's! The accusation is not new. . There is extremely tenuous use of sources, the article uses a single source with one quoted interviewee using the term "whitewash" (from the Board of Deputies of British Jews), to justify this text: "the report was widely criticised and described as a 'whitewash'." Why is Chakrabarti joining the Labour party relevant, except to imply that there was some sort of 'deal'. AfD is not clean-up, but there is no indication in the article or in the votes above WHY the subject is notable outside of the same subject as the Chakrabarti Inquiry - if necessary as 'aftermath' or 'criticism' sections. Pincrete (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the "History" section, which traces Labour party's antisemitism back decades, to funding from Libya that allowed Corbyn & chums to take propaganda junkets to the West Bank back in their student days (a sort of Khadafi-funded birthright to teach antisemitism to young Brits,) Libyan funding of the early activist groups in London  that created the Israel-practices-apartheid, and more remarkable material going back decades that is explored in The Left's Jewish Problem, an entire book about antisemitism in the Labour Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it rather difficult to claim Pincrete ignored the book when he explicitly described and critiqued the source? Still waiting for that page number by the way, Gregory.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the source "Chakrabarti, an MP who recently authored a much-criticized report on anti-Semitism", the source supports both Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Events in 2017, e.g. these from the last month - British Labour Punishes Member for anti-Semitism, Reinstates anti-Zionist, Labour member suspended months after councillor reports anti-Semitic posts, Jewish councillor accuses party of failing to discipline Labour member over antisemitic posts, BBC Presenter Won’t Host Holiday Special After Making ‘Fat Jewish Guy’ Comment are clearly not related to Baroness(future) Chakrabarti inquiry in summer 2016. And the inquiry itself is clearly an admission there is an issue to be inquired - the issue - antisemitism in Labour - clearly more significant and notable than an internal Labour inquiry.Icewhiz (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I would only support keeping this if there are also corresponding articles on Antisemitism in the Conservative Party etc etc, otherwise it's just a party political attack piece, we could find plenty of material for that: Conservative candidate makes vile Jewish racist slur against Ed Miliband Top Tory councillor suspended over claims he made antisemitic remarks Senior Bradford Conservative official suspended by party amid probe into allegations of anti-Semitism The antisemitic traditions of the Tory Party. G-13114 (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to Antisemitism in the Conservative Party, if it meets GNG. The situation in Labour - which is treated by copious secondary sources (including scholarly research, and widely covered in the international press) - does.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Chakrabarti Inquiry as a WP:FORK or the latter. I note that the current version of the article does not even link the Inquiry’s article. The page consists mostly of polemical and original research and is not suitable for inclusion at this time. The name is a valid search term and the relevant content is already presented in the Inquiry page. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It does link to the Chakrabarti Inquiry, have you actually read the article? And the is no OR in the article that I can see, please give an example. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Do sentances such as "In his 2016 book, The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism, Dave Rich traces the origin of antisemitism in the Labour Party to the early 1970s, " and "James R. Vaughn traces the origin of Labour antisemitism to..." pass NPOV? They seem to assume that there definitely is antisemitism in the labour party, rather than claim it. Anyone can weigh in on this? Egaoblai (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well Labour MP John Mann said in a tweet that the report showed there "definitely is" a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party reckons there is Darkness Shines (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That still does not make it true, it makes it his assertion. Hell the only study has said that it is not more antisemitic then anyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take the words a Labour MP's over you, Lucy Powell “There clearly is an issue with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party otherwise we wouldn’t have spent the best part of the last six or seven days talking about it,” Darkness Shines (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What? The one which says "the failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic" Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And this is what is meant by cheery picking. It does not say "the labour party is antisemitic" does it? Would you (buy the way) like the quote form the report that says (explicitly) that the labour party is not more antisemitic? This is the whole problem with the article, and why I think it is beyond real fixing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is about "Antisemitism in the Labour Party" not "the Antisemitic Labour party" - all that is stated by the title is that there is some antisemitism in parts (possibly small) of the Labour party. This is possibly true of other parties as well (who may be more or less antisemitic) - however in Labour's case the antisemitic speech clearly rises to GNG per the copious SUSTAINED coverage of the phenomena in RS. Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH - but about what appears in the sources.Icewhiz(talk) 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, so the article needs to reflect that, and not the idea the Labour party is antisemitic, agreed?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article should reflect the degree of antisemitism as reported by RS, yes.17:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are saying the article should say the Labour party is antisemitic?Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The collation of this material doesn't appear to be supported by the sources used- it's mostly a bunch of WP:SYNTH. Would support splitting material into the relevant articles, such as the books cited. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point out any synth in the article, I've seen none Darkness Shines (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Do not combine material from multiple sources (or different parts of one source) to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." seems apt. From the WP:SYNTH link, first sentence. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not what I asked for is it, but telling you are unable to give an example of synth from the article Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry; from what you said, it seemed that you didn't understand why I found the material synthesis (e.g. you were unclear on why I was citing the policy), not that you couldn't see the material itself. The conclusions drawn by the article (e.g. a history of alleged antisemitism in the labour party, the focus of the wikipedia article) do not appear present in the sources used- instead, it is original research (synthesis, specifically) that is used to draw this conclusion independent of the sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding possible synth, does James R. Vaughn or June Edmunds actually speak of anti-semitism? The only bits I could access spoke of opposition to Israel in various forms, the article gives some fairly silly examples. Is being opposed to selling weapons to Israel in 1972 intrinsically anti-semetic? It is what the present text implies. Regarding the book cited by EMG, this is a single book written by someone with no track record of writing on UK politics. Can any serious commentator on UK politics believe that Peter Hain was somehow responsible for introducing anti-sem into left-wing discourse, especially when he wasn't a left-winger. The claim is so fringe as to be laughable, yet is here presented as 'history'. A single non-notable book does not become fact because one editor believes it. Pincrete (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Source A says X source B talks about X in relation to Y, thus source A is talking about X...Synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject of the wikipedia article is the same exact subject of a topic covered substantively in the British press, let alone the world press. The fact that the article has some synthesis is not at all a basis to delete the entire article. I see a lot of attempts at whitewashing masquerading as legitimate policy arguments.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When all else fails, accuse those with different policy-based views of "whitewashing". I guess we should expect nothing less.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing that the article persuades me of is that there was a great deal of controversy - immediately preceding and following - the Chakrabati Inquiry, most of the controversy was focussed on a fairly small number of individuals or local constituencies, some of those individuals have a longer history of 'moral' support for Palestinians, or opposition to Israel - neither of which are intrinsically anti-semetic, though the aricle is happy to equate the two at times. If the inquiry article did not exist I would support keeping this one (with huge clean up), but it does. At present it is very difficult for me to conclude that this is anything other than a PoV-fork, everything from the title onwards reeks of an 'attack page', without - for example - any attempt to indicate the scale of Labour's problem (how many, what percentage of labour activists criticised?), except from very partisan, and sometimes marginal sources who think that labour is 'rotten from top to bottom' and whose opinions are repeated without any attempt at question, balance or context, sometimes in WPVOICE. Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * comment opposing merge on the grounds that this page is not about the Chakrabarti Inquiry and not limited to that event, would be UNDUE at page on the British Labour Party (where it is more appropriately a linked subhead,) and is shown by sourcing to be a major, independent topic.    Nor does is this topic confined to 2016, as these two books demonstrate.
 * Comment on sources I want to point out that there are two recent books about antisemitism in the British Labour Party, in addition to a remarkable number of deep dives by journalists and academic article now on the page and not yet on the page. Although the page is not surced to either book, the chaper titles give some idea of what they contain:
 * Contemporary Left Antisemitism by David Hirsh. Note that Hirsh begins his narrative of "contemporary" antisemitism in 2006.
 * Ken Livingstone and the Livingstone Formulation
 * The rise of Jeremy Corbyn and how tolerance of antisemitism came to function as a marker of belonging
 * The crescendo of antisemitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party and the Chakrabarti Inquiry
 * The campaign for an academic boycott of Israel
 * Struggles over defining antisemitism
 * Ronnie Fraser v UCU: taking the union to court for antisemitism
 * Antizionism: discourse and its actualization
 * Jewish antizionism: being drawn towards the logic of antisemitism
 * Sociological method and antisemitism


 * The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism by Dave Rich Note that Rich begins his narrative in the 1960s.
 * When th eLeft Stopped Loving Israel
 * From Anti-Apartheid to Anti-Zionism
 * Creating Palestine or Destroying Israel?
 * When Anti-Racists Ban Jews
 * The New Alliance: Islamists and the Left
 * Anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and the Left.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY I caved and walked all the way to the library, where I took out a copy of David Hirsh's book. I also figured out who "borrowed" my copy of The Left's Jewish Problem and made them give it back (I threatened to delete his Wikipedia page unless he returned it immediately.  It worked!) Since I had read it last year, it was easy to begin the WP:HEYMANN upgrade this article has needed.  I probably won't have time to read the Hirsh book until after Christmas. So I did what I could; I read Hirsh's brief "epilogue", written after this summer's election, and added a little material from the epilogue. but Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the book called "Labour's Jewish Problem?" TFD (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * because then we would have less to discuss on the talk page! Considering the editor's history, I wouldn't be surprised if Rich's book was "appropriated" to fit with this POV article. Regardless, to put it in a history section as historical fact is ludicrous and would need adjustments if this article is unfortunately kept.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that while article needs improvement, Antisemitism in the Labour Party continues to be in the headlines: Dec 6, 2017, The Guardian: Labour leadership in UK has antisemitic views, says Israeli minister],   Dec. 7, 2017:  Times of London: Labour is veering towards antisemitism, warns Gilad Erdan;  Dec. 8, 2017, Jerusalem Post: Israeli government minister: British Labour Party leadership holds 'antisemitic views'; The Times.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite the headlines, the first article quotes Erdan as saying, "I didn't say that." You need to distinguish between opinions expressed by politicians about their opponents and facts.  Some people think that the U.S. government is controlled by the illuminati, but we don't have an article called "Illuminati control of the U.S. government."  TFD (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject has been subject of much debate including governmental Chakrabarti Inquiry and Baroness Royall's report. Trichinosis (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Books have been devoted to this subject per DarknessShines and it's regularly discussed in the media. Two recent inquiries commissioned by the Labour party on anti-semitism in the party.Crystalfile (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - Amazing and  that you have both been gone for three years and spontaneously reappear to !vote at this AFD in rapid succession. Closing admin please take that into consideration; I for one don't believe in such coincidences.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although it does need to be expanded and improved upon, e.g. more discussion of George Galloway and his breakaway party, RESPECT, Ken Livingstone's mayoralty, and Labor's appeal to Muslim communities like Tower Hamlets...Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- POV Fork as others have mentioned. Just read the lead, it has a bunch of non-cited allegations and an non-cited poll.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Errr you do realise that George Galloway is not a member of the Labour party (thrown out years ago) and neither is Livingstone (thrown out recently). Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per WP:NOTE: Guardian TelegraphChannel 4 Daily Mail Tablet The Tower BBC NBC Financial Times The Times  Daily Mail The Times Sky News The Mirror The Jewish Chronicle The Times of Israel Haaretz LBC Huffington post The Kingfisher (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete votes amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much discussed issue that has received significant media attention. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - there was some canvassing on the Delete side - Labour Party (UK): diff - an article which is more heavily watchlisted by editors with aligned POV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There also appears to be Stealth canvassing and Meatpuppetry happening on twitter: for keeping the article. Note how having the discussion itself is described as "aweful"Tontag (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Was wondering about this uptick in voting... However one must note that denying well established antisemitic incidents could be fairly viewed as "awful".Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is denying anything? The guy linked attacks the institution of having delete discussions not those actually denying incidents (and that doesn't seem to happen in the first place). Btw thanks for the "single-purpose acc"-tag (the discussion started weeks after I joined). So much for WP:NOOB and WP:GF.Tontag (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * delete a fork that fails to adhere to WP:NPOV Tontag (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)  — Tontag (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable topic as evidenced by the large number of reliable sources addressing it in detail. Delete arguments such as "why not 'Drinking culture in the Labour Party' or 'Antisemtitism in the Conservative Party'?" should be ignored because there is no reason not to create those articles should a similar quantity of sourcing be found. Regarding Chakrabarti Inquiry, I am of the opinion that that article could be merged into this one, as it covers one aspect of this subject. The only other main Delete argument seems to that his is a WP:POVFORK but having actually read that policy, I don't see that as an argument for deletion here - people arguing for Delete based on that should clarify what this is a fork of and why it's irredemably not WP:NPOV. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A major issue in the UK for more than two years which has been neglected on Wikipedia. The title of the article is not ideal, but we are beyond "allegations" now, a couple of dozen people have been expelled, and several prominent figures, including Ken Livingstone, remain suspended. In other words, the allegations have been partially accepted by the Labour Party itself. A possible title therefore would be "Labour Party (UK) and antisemitism". The Chakrabarti Inquiry is only part of the narrative and the issue has continued to develop since its publication. Philip Cross (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "a couple of dozen people have been expelled", I think the number is lower than that, but regardless, you do realise that the party has around 300,000 members? Do we have an article on Corruption in the X party because a small number of people are accused of 'helping themselves'. The Labour party as I understand it has outlawed certain perjorative terms (like "Zio"s for Israel supporting members), to that extent it has outlawed 'offensive' criticism of Israel or Israel's supporters, that isn't an admission of anti-semitism, it's an admission that some members had used needlessly offensive terms for their political opponents - which it has now outlawed. There is evidence of a notable scandal concerning - mostly fringe elements - in recent years, and if kept the article title should reflect that recent scandal, not fire 'grapeshot' at a party with a long history. 'Keepers' don't seem willing to admit that this scandal is very recent (the Labour leader before Corbyn was a secular Jew), because to do so would mean that the article was covering exactly the same territory as the Chakrabarti Inquiry. Pincrete (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Chakrabarti was in summer 2016. We have a year and half of subsequent copious in depth coverage of numerous incidents and of the phenomena as a whole. Chakrabarti should perhaps be merged or redirected to here - but it definitely does not cover the wider issue (that led to the launch of the internal inquiry) or events following the internal inquiry.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment (Response to Pincrete) My "couple of dozen" point is based on sources like this one. Labour Party membership has risen sharply under Corbyn, so 300,000 is actually an underestimate by several hundred thousand (see Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn). Words like "z--" may have become disciplinary offences a few months ago, but that does not necessarily mean the Labour Party will enforce the new rules. In fact, because of the incomplete way Labour has dealt with the issue so far, the prospect of it effectively doing so in the future has been disputed. Philip Cross (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Given the depth of the coverage, this meets notability requirements. I would support Philip Cross's retitling proposal.LM2000 (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The only policy- and source- relevant arguments above for "Keep" are supported almost entirely by a raft of articles related to a recent event and WP:NOTNEWS applies. It is also a clear WP:POVFORK as documented by  and others above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to an article sourced to 2 scholarly books; multiple scholarly articles, and a series of events dating back to the 1980s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Philip Cross's observation/summary of the topic's notability is correct and I support his retitling proposal. Alfietucker (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic's notability is obvious, and the article well-written and extensively sourced. This deletion nomination is ridiculous. Atchom (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment to repeat a point I made earlier: the reason to delete isn't that it's not notable (it clearly meets GNG), the reason to delete is that it is a POV fork of Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and Chakrabarti Inquiry. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * it is pointless. These recent keep voters were canvassed here. You won't convince them to change their POV or stop tainting this AFD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of your political beliefs, this is an important article about an important subject. Strongly recommend keep. Peanutbutter1230 21:33 10 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanutbutterwikipedia1230 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep This is an important subject recorded in many articles in many newspapers & periodicals. It was so serious that the Labour Party were forced to carry out an enquiry but unfortunately chose a Muslim Labour Party member to carry it out which makes the results suspect. But even if the report was pukkah the entry should still be maintained on Wikapeadia as a historical record, anti semitism is too serious to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.197.240 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chakrabarti Inquiry and include a precis in Labour Party (UK) This is a reliably sourced matter of public interest, just presented with an obsessive level of detail here that lends itself to seeing the page as intended mainly as an attack rather than a reference work. Several people have noted the main topic is Chakrabarti Inquiry. It's true that there's a little more context outside the inquiry itself, but not much. The key points could be made to live in the "Background" or "Controversy" sections of the inquiry page without difficulty. I note also that the Chakrabarti inquiry is not mentioned at all in Labour Party (UK). It seems respectable enough not to be WP:ONEWAYed. Rhoark (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Chakrabarti Inquiry is far from being the "main topic" of this page, It is on the page exactly where it belongs, as a "main" link under subhead 2016 inquiries, where it can be discussed within  a page that begins with the origins of modern Labour Party antisemitism in the 1980s  - when it was a minor phenomenon involving a handful of members, and continues through the decades, and, unfortunately, necessarily also covers antisemitism within the Party since the 2016 Inquiry. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It has been a contentious issue for years; there have been two (three?) formal Party investigations as a result; there are numerous publications and discussion groups based around it. Merging it with the Chakrabarti article would be silly; this is an ongoing issue with historical antecedents, not a necessarily-brief inquiry made for political reasons. Joe in Australia (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is little more then a WP:COATRACK attack article for content that didn't gain consensus for inclusion on the main article Antisemitism in the United Kingdom which is basically the definition of a WP:POVFORK, and the issue of off-wiki canvassing should certainly be looked at by admins. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a well-referenced phenomenon and extends beyond the Chakrabarti inquiry. FOARP (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.