Talk:Respect Party/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV edit by Picquant

I am amazed at this diff [1] and the comment. Far from rephrasing, this edit simply cuts the reference to an opposing point of view. Editors have to be much more careful to avoid edits that seem to introduce POV. --Duncan (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The revision you refer to does not remove the opposing POV. The original read: "Salma Yaqoob, in her document 'Challenges for Respect', rebuts this." My version read: "Salma Yaqoob, in her document "Challenges for Respect", denies operating in a Communalist fashion." This is better because (a) according to the article "John Rees...was claimed to have accused...Salma Yaqoob...of "communalism". If the accusation is only claimed to have taken place it cannot necessarily be rebutted (one cannot rebut an accusation that was never made).

You on the other hand have removed the quote from the actual published account regarding communalism and the reference. This weakens the section and does remove an alternative POV.

I suggest, therefore, that your change should be reverted. Piquant (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your re-write of this particular paragraph was not very clear – and the original read OK, I feel (especially when someone changed ‘refute’ to 'rebut', which I think better suggests how she 'invalidates' the idea). It can certainly be improved, but it's got to be an actual improvement though. To be fair, you've had quite a run at changing quite a lot! I thought Duncan’s revert was fair enough. I've been trying to get my head round how these criticisms of Respect should be displayed myself – a few people have been focusing on this section at present along with a deleted communalism accusation by Nick Cohen (though I myself haven’t had much time of late – I’d love someone to come in and properly sort it out!). It is proving awkward to relate the SWP allegations of communalism (however fully defined) and also cover Cohen - both under the same heading.

On the subject, is it crazy to give Cohen’s Observer column a paragraph? It came to me after someone recently called Galloway ‘Oswald Mosley’ on his biography talk page – only Cohen has hitherto made that ‘link’ to my knowledge, but of course it is difficult to gage how influential Cohen actually is.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with your comment re communalism accusations. Whatever one makes of the accusations they do not constitute a "criticism of Respect", rather a debate/split in Respect. The Cohen criticism would fit here better, the internal debate should be moved to a different section.

I also think that a statement of the ACTUAL criticism levelled at Yacoob and Galloway by the SWP backed up by a direct citation, rather than a CLAIMED ACCUSATION by the SWP would work better (this was the substance of my edit, which was then reverted without any discussion).

My version had the form: "(A) claimed this about (B). (B) denied this." Now it has the form: "(C) claimed that (A) claimed this about (B). (B) rebutted this."

Anyway, I will leave it to a disinterested third party, if one should happen across this, to adjust the section. Piquant (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

communalism

It isn't serious to say "C claimed that A said this about B". If there is no clear source where A definitely sasy it, leave it out of the encyclopedia until someone has time to do there Homework. In reality what is going on here is a one word quote taken from a long document. One word quotes are rarely useful! 90.16.169.204 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

London Mayoral Election

There seem's to be some confusion. Respect Renewal has no official stance on the Mayoral campaign. Some members of RR are calling for support for Ken Livingstone, while others are calling for support for Lindsey German. I've been having trouble in rewording the paragraph to reflect that. Any takers? :) --Charliewbrown (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)unreferenced and seculative

There's no place for speculation, especially since it can be excluded that Renewal will run a candidate. I have cut that section. --Duncan (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

surely Respect Renewal will shortly have an official stance ? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. RR have consistently refused to take an official stance, although both factions of Respect have agreed that getting Livingstone into office, i.e. keeping Johnson out, is important, some members of RR believe that this means NO left of Livingstone candidate due to the danger of splitting the vote, while others believe that on a matter of principle, Respect must run a left of Livingstone candidate. It's gone as far as some RR members endorsing Lindsey German's candidacy. --Charliewbrown (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Leader

Linda Smith is registered at the Leader of Respect with the Electoral Commission. I'm new to Wiki and got confused when I went to the edit page. Can someone please edit that to reflect. Thanks, I just don't want to mess things up.[2] --Charliewbrown (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

who is this lady? If she is leader of the party surely she should have a page on WP? Drutt (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps we do need a page about her. Last weekend Respect's national council elected Salma Yacoob as the new leader. I will update the article. --Duncan (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

communalism

Either someone can find the swp quote where "communalism" is mentioned and quote at least two sentences, or this has to be omitted. A one word quote of this sort is obviously journalistic and not encyclopedic. What did Rees actually say, and where ? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Left List" - a separate article?

Given that those candidates (and I assume existing councillors) on the SWP side of the split are now known (or will campaign as) "The Left List", is this party notable enough for a separate article; and, for Wiki purposes, election box metadata information? The party exists as a separate registered party for electoral purposes - link to Electoral Commission site which I always took to be a good step towards an article here.

I only ask because, with local and London elections coming up in a month, a decision on this would be welcomed. At the moment, I notice on the City & East article page the use of "The Left List (Respect)", which whilst admirable is not strictly accurate.

Any views - ? doktorb _words^deeds 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Left List candidates generally explain that they use this term because of what they consider to be an illegitimate refusal of one of the Respect Renewal people to sign over responsibility for the electoral commission to the people chosen by the Respect conference in November 2007. (Conference not recognized by Respect Renewal). They claim not to be setting up a new party...Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Previously I would have said that either both renewal and the list get articles, or neither. However if we really have two parties now, then re should merge Renewal into this article and have a separate article for Respect (the left list). --Duncan (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus on who is really Respect, it would be I think a mistake to merge Renewal with this article and so suggest that Respect (maintained) is not really Respect. The obligation to use another name on ballot papers doesn't seem to me to be a decisive element. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've created Left List, largely using material from this article. (Respect Renewal already exists, although it is fairly short.) While the Respect Renewal faction have control of the party name as far as elections go, it seems to me that a separate article for Left List is the most sensible approach, while taking care to ensure that both that article and this one appropriately cover the name dispute. If others would like to review the new article for wording to check NPOV etc., that would be great. Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

POV: Respect conference went ahead?

A recent, and largely helpful, edit adds this form of words: "The Respect national conference, which went ahead on the same day was attended by 270 delegates". I think there's way was can get around this looking POV, perhaps by saying the that two conferences took place: one organised by the officers of Respect and a another organised by Renewal, neither of which recognised the other. --Duncan (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Respect official website

The official website of Respect is www.respectrenewal.org . The electoral commission determined the rights to the name belong to the Galloway faction - see for example http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1633. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.129.225 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the commission have expressed a view oin the website[3]. --Duncan (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 elections

I think that "faction" is necessarily a negative word, so I put 'organization' instead. It's not perfect, but it's better. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Faction isn't a necessarily negative work. We use it on Fourth International to describe the two public factions of the FI, for example. But there is a risk of POV in suggesting that we have two organisations, rather than one divided organisation. Since no-one claims to have left Respect, we need an alternative word. I suggest 'people' or 'current'. --Duncan (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Those "death threats"?

I'm sure I remember death threats being mentioned in the news when Respect split. I was surprised that there is no mention in this article. Anyone care to elaborate the relevent section to include this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.64.29 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? Road Wizard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We can resolve the split issue

I think we are now at the stage where we can resolve the split issue. The SWP-led side have adopted a new name, and given up on challenging for the Respect name. They have registered as a new political organisation, The Left Alternative, leaving the original organisational framework in the uncontested hands of the team around Galloway. In the same way that Wikipedia calls the Church of Rome the Catholic Church, despite the doctrinal issues reflected in the Orthodox Church, I think we must now recognise that the Left Alternative is now a separate organisational framework from Respect. --Duncan (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure things are quite as clear cut as that, the Left-Alternative group are still holding on to the Respect website (http://www.respectcoalition.org/), also in the universities they seem to be holding on to the Respect name for the student societies. I'm partisan in this (having gone with the renewal group) so I'll try not to get to involved in editing the page but I don't think the page could be given over to describing the renewal section for example. The main problem is that we are supposed to decide issues like this on the basis of credible sources but on this topic there are a distinct lack of them.--JK the unwise (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Left Alternative will hold on to the old website, but they are not using the name Respect. Looking at the former Student Respect page, it now is for Left Alternative Youth and Students. We'll need to see what they call their student groups next month, but if that's the last area to clarify we can wait and see what happens. However, at Manchester, where Student Respect was perhaps strongest, it has rebranded as UMU Left. At Cardiff, Student Respect is migrating to a new website[4] and probably a new name. --Duncan (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This moving faster than I expected. The new "Left Alternative Members Bulletin" says "Office email addresses ending @respectcoalition.org will no longer work after this week. Please send all emails to [email protected]". I think this marks the end of the process by which the SWP-side has rebranded its faction as Left Alternative. We now certainly need a Left Alternative page that pulls out some of the split references from this page. --Duncan (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So, we really can resolve this now. The Left Alternative has agreed to sign over the Respect name to Galloway's organisation, so there's now no lack of clarity over the formal, organizational continuity. --Duncan (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Defection to Tories

"In 2008, one Left List councillor defected to the Conservative Party."

Really? I would think a development as surprising as this ought to be amplified further. What happened, and where? BTLizard (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a point to exploire on the Left Alternative page, not here. It was an SWP member on the council in Tower Hamlets, I think. --Duncan (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Revolutionary Socialists?

Can RESPECT be really described as Revolutionary Socialists? I am no fan of the party, but where has this information come from, or is it just opinion? (Whoops, nearly forgot to sign) --Welshsocialist (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's unreferenced. Let's remove it. --Duncan (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 euro elections

Are Respect standing? If not, what happened? Ed: and their website is down. Have they folded?BillMasen (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

These questions are answered in the article. Respect did not stand in to Euroelections. It has not folded. --Duncan (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

View of the Islamic Party

I have removed this section, which relates to Tatchell's claim regarding Muslim support for bans on gay organisations: "Additionally the former point is also repeated on the Islamic Party of Britain's website<ref>"Islamic Party of Britain's view on homosexuality". 2002. Retrieved May 4, 2008.</ref>." The page makes no reference to gay organisations. --Duncan (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. RolandR (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Respect – The Unity Coalition → Respect Party — Was formerly known as the longer version however it is now known as 'Respect Party' see website for more details. Dimario (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to make the same request, for the same reasons, so you have pre-empted me. I strongly support this request. RolandR (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

2010 Election results

On 13-14 May I added a bunch of info about the party's 2010 election results - with a focus on the results of individual candidates, listing the numbers and percentage of votes which the most successful of them received. However, at the end I also included both what percentage Respect received of the total vote in the constituencies where they stood (6.8%) and what percentage of the total national vote Respect candidates received (0.1%). That seemed a comprehensive and balanced way to indicate the party's electoral result and relevance.

The latter info has been deleted twice now by RolandR. I consider that an unjustified deletion, and would ask him to discuss the question here before deleting it a third time.

In my opinion, the share of the national vote is basic relevant information. Someone who is hearing about the party for the first time will want to know how significant a political force the party constitutes electorally in Britain; not just in the dozen or so constituencies where Respect was able to run a candidate. The constituencies where the party had the candidate and finances to stand are, after all, likely to largely be its 'bulwarks', for lack of a better word. While it's useful information to know how well the party did in those constituencies, having only that information but not the party's share of the overall vote leaves the reader without important context about the party's place and significance in British politics. In my opinion leaving one number and deleting another constitutes selective information. No-itsme (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fact that Respect gained 0.1% of the total national vote is of no more significance than the fact that the Green Party gained 1% or that Sinn Fein gained 0.6%. This is not mentioned in either of those articles, so why treat Respect any differently? What matters in all three cases, and with the many other parties which only stood in a few seats, is the proportion of voters who could vote for them that actually did so; it tells us nothing to learn that voters in a seat where Respect did not stand did not vote for them. RolandR (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, my apologies for my late reply. That was careless of me, to bring this point and then not return to it.

As to the substance of the question, I'm surprised that the article on the Green Party does not mention that it gained 1% of the national vote. Isn't it crucial information to give an indication of what electoral weight a party has nationally? Wikipedia would be a first port of call for me to find out how a party did in national elections, and I would not just want to know how well it did in those constituencies it chose and was able to compete in, but also how big a share of the national vote the party represents.

In fact, the Wikipedia article on the United Kingdom general election, 2010 *does* list the percentage of the vote that each party, including the Green Party, received; and what they list is the party's percentage of the national vote, not its percentage in the selected constituencies it was able to run in. Respect's score of 0.1% is listed there too. If Respect's share of the national vote is considered relevant information for the Wikipedia page about the elections as a whole, wouldn't it definitely be relevant info for the page on the party itself?

I agree with you that it matters what proportion of voters "who could vote for the party actually did so". That tells us what its appeal was in those places where it had the wherewithall to run a campaign. On the other hand, you write, "it tells us nothing to learn that voters in a seat where Respect did not stand did not vote for them". I'd argue that it does tell us something that, as a party that was only able to field candidates in a limited selection of constituencies, it was only able to collect 0.1% of the vote nationally. It tells us something about the electoral impact the party was able to make on the overall results. I'd suggest a comparison with the BNP. The BNP was able to run something like twice as many candidates this year as last time. On average, its candidates received about the same percentage of the vote as they did in 2006. But because it was able to run twice as many candidates, it received a twice higher total of votes, and a twice higher percentage of the national vote. That's a significant (and alarming) development, IMO.

In that light, there are counterexamples to the Wikipedia page about the Green Party. Whereas the BNP page only lists the total of votes the party received and no percentage, the Wikipedia page about UKIP does mention the share of the national vote the party received, and does so prominently, in the opening summary. It's true that there's a difference in that UKIP did contest most seats, if not all. But the Wikipedia page about the English Democrats, which stood in only about 1/6th of the country, also specifies that "The English Democrats received 64,826 votes, or 0.3% of the vote in England, and 0.2% of the vote in the United Kingdom."

(The pages for Socialist Labour and TUSC parties also list those parties' share of the national vote, but I suppose those don't really count in this context since, um, I was the one who wrote up their 2010 election results ;-)) No-itsme (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If Respect had chosen to stand in more constituencies, they would almost certainly have picked up more votes in total, even though their vote per seat would be likely to have gone down. Therefore, although I tend to agree with No-itsme's analysis as to the likely correlation about the selection of constituencies, I agree with RolandR's comment that the overall percentage share tells us nothing of interest. Just compare the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, the Christian Party and the Respect Party, with the independent Sylvia Hermon. All four took 0.1% of the vote; all four had very different results in the election. The key information is the number of seats contested, the average vote per seat contested, whether the party won or came close to winning any seats, and perhaps the total number of seats in the UK. Warofdreams talk 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

There are quite considerable POV issues – what’s entirely inappropriate in the Controversy section is extremely lengthy quoting of highly partisan, political responses from rival councillors. That’s not something which is tolerated in any politically related Wiki page, for very clear reasons. In this case, that’s even highlighted by the politicking within the comments.

The appropriate course is to state the nature of the argument put forward by both sides, clearly and concisely, unless there are appropriate reasons for doing otherwise. Please provide justification for what rumours and grandstanding add to the actual section – which is supposed to summarise the controversy over the incident in a mature, neutral and factual manner, in keeping with Wiki guidelines. Alternatively, it may be removed or escalated Marty jar (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Added to the line "This lead to criticism from other councillors, including allegations that it was a disrespectful act" with line taken from BBC news ref "and with Salma Yaqoob being accused of of supporting terrorism", as this shows just how controversial her actions were seen by many.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason several editors are out to ensure the NPOV of the section, is that Martin Mullaney, who accused her of supporting terrorism, did so without any basis, and mere insults are not worthy of being added to an article. It adds nothing to the article. Mullaney's motivation for making the comments were clear, and they were not related to the article, and politically-motivated insults are not suitable material to add to supposedly mature, neutral, factual accounts of basically unrelated incidents. Marty jar (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that both of you are more careful here. One article does not make a controversy, let alone a notable criticism. Is what happened significant in an encyclopedic way? Is is something people will remember in ten or twenty years time? So Gaius Octavius Princeps or someone else needs to find much more than one reference. That said, Marty jar should not have deleted a reference to a BBC news report on the basis that it's an internet claim by a rival. It's a BBC news report, which is totally suitable as a reference. The questions are whether it is notable, and reflected in balance with the rest of the article. I am not convinced. --Duncan (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite right that it's a suitable source - but Mullaney's criticism itself is not of relevance to the incident, nor is it particularly supported by other evidence. I undid the full change as it was fully quoting a highly dubious political smear with very limited support, and little validity. I think the important thing is that the events are represented appropriately, and the criticism in relation to this incident was primarily about being disrespectful, or unpatriotic, whereas the most extreme example (that of Mullaney) was very much separate to the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty jar (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a NPOV issue. The facts are that an incident took place. It is on record that the Respect councillors were two of a number of people to remain seated. A few councillors grumbled, one (Mullaney) took great offence and issued a insult without basis on a forum and repeated it to journalists, allowing it to be come national story, with all media coverage relying heavily on one quote. The tabloid media gave it the usual treatment, requoting Mullaney without any basis or reliable sources.

The facts are that Mullaney has been reprimanded over his comments and insults to Yaqoob, and told to apologise, which he to date refuses.

Lance Corporal Matt Croucher has accepted and expressed on record that (a) He wasn't personally offended (b) He didn't think they should, if they did, have protested against him (c) he also admitted and claimed he understood they didn't protest against him but other councillors, the government and the war (d) that Salma may have done it for publicity but that (e) Salma didn't know it was going to happen to didn't premeditate it and (f) that Yaqoob and Ishtiaq may have been targeted because of their race and religion and if a "white Christian councillor" has remained seated it wouldn't have been such a big deal - he accepted it may have therefore been a case of "racism", his words.

I'm remaining neutral here and have included all of his views from BBC Radio WM and Newspaper interviews (with sources if requested), whether they are pro-Salma, anti-Salma or indifferent which they largely are. Just to add, he has also made it very clear that he does not support the EDL or their protest action on 'his behalf' as a result of this incident.

Also, for the record, the Birmingham Post has a piece criticising Mullaney in this incident as does the Birmingham Mail's Maureen Messent, who praises Salma Yaqoob in this respect. Much of the 'criticism' of Yaqoob is in the red top tabloid press (Daily Star etc. and the right-wing press) as oppose to the local press which has first hand accounts and is largely neutral and neither left or right.

An incident this small in relation to a national party shouldn't be mentioned on this page. It's mentioned on Salma's wiki entry and that's fine. I doubt the actions of every single part councillor or even party leader are mentioned on their party's page so the rule should apply equally here. UK 007 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Far left

this party is about as far left as a party can go. Tags should read "far left" it's run by communists. History might be a bit dazy, but I'm almost certain that puts you right on the bottom left of a political spectrum? The hypocrasy of this tagging is hilarious. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'left' / 'far-left' dispute has been one of the clearer examples of when balance or reasonableness makes way for utterly pitiable, childish game-playing by Wiki editors. The situation is very clear. The default for a political party is to be 'left' or 'right'. Anything beyond would have to be very well supported by a wide range of articles - ideally academic articles relating to the categorisations involved, in relation to UK political parties. Marty jar (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

N.B. User 82.3.17.19 - who has taken an interest in this page, appears to habitually vandalise pages. Revisions may have to be made regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty jar (talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Left wing to Far left might be a better description. --86.166.118.232 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The party is definitely far left on the political spectrum. If this isn't far to the left, Nazis aren't far to the right!203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User: 203.184.41.226 I have tried to explain why "far left" is not appropriate usage on the Galloway article's talk page, and my points also apply to Respect. The party did once have an alliance with the British Socialist Workers Party, who would claim to be revolutionary socialists and Leninists (so Alexandre8 is certainly correct to a degree), but that arrangement was terminated as long ago as 2007/8. While I have no time for Galloway or Respect myself, your insinuation that they are the left wing equivalent of the Nazis is not accurate. The Nazis were responsible for about 300 murders of their left wing opponents (social democrats as well as communists) in the years before they seized power, not a practice which Respect has emulated, nor have they followed the Bolsheviks habit of "expropriation" (bank robberies). Respect is basically a constitutionalist group without revolutionary pretensions, and still has support from conservative Muslims. Galloway's reactionary comments six months ago about Assange and rape are not exactly of the left either. Philip Cross (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines almost every nationalist party in Europe as either far-right or right-wing to far-right. Most, especially in Western Europe, are not violent. If the Danish People's Party are far-right, it is certainly fair to describe Respect as far-left. The hard-left in most developed countries are defensive of Assange.--81.147.86.22 (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Since Respect is not a nationalist party, the previous comment is of no relevance. RolandR (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a nationalist party or possess an internationalist ideology, those would seem to be stronger indicators if they were on the "far" side of a political direction. Any attempt to relate the party (as with most things) to Nazism could immediately be dismissed and ignored. Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Respect is definitely a radical Islamist and Arab nationalist party. It is anti-Semitic and has a far-left anti-Semitic ideology concerning Jews and Israel. And its leader sides with "Palestinian" terrorists and colonist-settlers from Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.139.108 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?

I came here trying to find out about the major upheavals in this party, only to find that the page is protected and recent developments are not mentioned at all. Why is this article protected? There is no explanation on this talk page as far as I can see. Can somebody who has been granted the power to do so by the Great Panjandrums of Wikipedia please un-protect this article to allow it to be updated by real people who know about the subject. Which is the whole point of Wikipedia. Or used to be. GrahamN (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the history, you will see that the article is semi-protected for a year, because of persistent vandalism by sockpuppets. This prevents IPs, and new accounts, from editing the article; but does not prevent editors in good standing -- such as you -- from editing and improving it. All that has been blocked by this semi-protection is the plethora of libellous, racist, homophobic and otherwise disruptive edits to which it had previously been subject. No valid useful edits have been prevented. RolandR (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply, but this is crazy. A YEAR???!!! That is ludicrously excessive. And isn't it rather arrogant and discourteous of whoever did this not to bother coming to this page to explain themselves? "Semi-protected" is a misnomer. The overwhelming majority of people who visit this article and who have knowledge to impart on the subject now cannot edit it at all. It's all very well saying that editors in good standing like me can edit it but that doesn't help improve the article, because we evidently don't have the information the article needs. People with agendas and/or guilty secrets have now learned a simple lesson. It's easy to prevent inconvenient new facts being added to Wikipedia. All you have to do is post so called "disruptive edits" for a while (all of which which could have been very easily reverted by anybody, without fuss) - and then on cue the Wikipedia Militia will goose-step in and protect the article for you - for as long as you want. Marvellous. GrahamN (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has been a target of continuous malicious editing by anonymous editors each and every time it's been 'unprotected'. Its current status is the result of that. Given recent developments - such as Galloway's statement on rape, however construed, and Selma's resignation - it is likely to attract yet more fun and games by editors who are not well meaning. Galloway also likes to remind people how strongly he takes legal matters relating to libel making it doubly important that we don't allow editors to go wild unchecked. I think a year block is a bit "much" but there's very little choice. We have almost no wiggle room on this. doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So, let's not "allow editors to go wild unchecked", then. Let's all check the article regularly, and revert the crap. It's really easy, and anybody can do it. That's the glory of a Wiki. Please un-protect the article. GrahamN (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? What edits are being prevented? Do you have any evidence of your claim that people with relevant knowledge have been prevented from adding it? Particularly when our criterion for inclusion of material is reliability, not truth -- ie, that information must be confirmed by a reliable source, not by people's own knowledge. And nothing prevents you from adding relevant and reliably-sourced information to the article, nor are IPs and new accounts prevented from coming to this talk page and requesting that others add relevant material. In any case, if you want the article to be unprotected, you should contact the protecting admin or make your case at the page protection noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Fringe" caption

the above adjective is used in a caption to a photo of a RESPECT meeting. It is pejorative and NPOV and should be removed, particularly when appearing in the context of a brief photo caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.188.200 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "fringe meeting" is not at all pejorative or POV. It is the accepted term for a meeting organised by a third party (campaign, charity, or in this case political group) at a conference organised by another group (political party, trade union or, in this case, the European Social Forum), and in the context of the picture caption is accurate and relevant. RolandR (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested edit

The number of local councillors is not supported by the source given. The number currently claimed is 7, but they lost one a few days ago & five quit last year....According to the (out of date) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_make-up_of_local_councils_in_the_United_Kingdom they at one time had seats in birmingham, newham, bolsover & tower hamlets. The websites for each of those local governments list 0 respect councillors. Iliekinfo (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

antisemitism

The fact that Galloway refused to debate with a British Israeli guy you might think a very bad thing or a very godo thing. It has zero connection with antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.235.121 (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2014