Talk:Respect Party

Archived Talk

/Archive 1

Removed section

Removed Section " Respect finished behind the Green Party in every region where both ran, and behind the BNP everywhere but London. However, in Tower Hamlets, Respect received more votes than any other party.

European candidates were put up contrary to Searchlight's analyis and advice (Searchlight Magazine, January 2004) which showed that support for a fourth party would generate "some scenarios in which the BNP might get elected with just 8%" StopBNPorg. This is as a consequence of peculiarities of the D'Hondt method proportional represention voting system. " from 'Elections 2004' on the basis that this is not information directly relevant to the actual electoral acheivments of Respect nor is it information which is directly associated with only the Respect organisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.67.71 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Re-deleted section on Searchlight as an anonymous contributor replaced it. Also removed statement; "In the Hartlepool by-election (September 30, 2004), Respect only came fifth with 572 votes and lost their deposit. Hartlepool does not have a large Muslim community and the result may be indicative of the very low underlying support it has within the non-Muslim communities that predominate in the UK." Because I don't want to have to start ranting on about all the successes we've had in all-white communties because some Secto feels like starting a fight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.127.57 (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Deleted Section:

"Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University described Respect's overall results as "easily the best performance by a far-left party in British electoral history" . However, both the Communist Party of Great Britain and Independent Labour Party received far more votes and won several seats in elections from the 1920s to the 1950s."

As it seems to cancel itself out.

"There is a strong correlation with the Respect vote and the Muslim population. Respect breakthroughs in areas without a significant Muslim vote were not demonstrated."

As it is clearly uncited and according to my own experience, untrue.

Total number of councillors

anyone know how many councillors they have now... there's a post from '04 saying 30 - but I guess they've made gains since then...

Communalism

In the article, there are allegations of communalism:

The British journalist Nick Cohen, writing for The Observer, has accused Respect of attempting to exploit in the Muslim community what he sees as "the sectarian identities multiculturalism inevitably promotes "<ref>Nick Cohen (2006). "Bigots, racists and worthless buffoons - so why do they keep getting elected?". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 April 2007.</ref> by affirming prejudices, particularly about Israel, which have widespread influence across the Islamic world. As an example Cohen cites the declaration by Respect's candidate for the mayorship of Newham: 'Israel has been formulating and directing UK and US foreign policy.'<ref>"Newham: THE MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF NEW LABOUR". Retrieved 23 April 2007.</ref>as affirming beliefs in a conspiracy theory.

Then this is given as some kind of defence:

Jacob Middleton, responding in the Socialist Review, notes Respect's success in certain areas with very small Muslim populations, such as Councillor Elaine Abbott's Respect campaign for the May 4th (2006) local elections in which the Respect party achieved second place by around 150 votes in the solidly white working class area of Riversway, Preston. They also came second in the Bristol Lockleaze ward in the same elections, in an area which is 86% white. He points out that even in Newham and Tower Hamlets, where Respect were most successful, Muslims form a minority, albeit a large one (24% and 36% of the population respectively) according to the most recent census.

But this doesn't make sense. The demographics do not refute the allegation that Respect candidates (at any rate one candidate as documented in previous para) have appealed to communalist, sectarian politics. Whether or not Respect candidates only stand in Muslim wards (obviously they don't), they might still appeal to communalism (as the Newham quote shows). BobFromBrockley 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohen is drawing attention to instances where he thinks Respect has exploited communalism. Middleton is responding by saying that even if it happened it is not a general feature of Respect's activities or platform. I don't see the problem. Zargulon 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Communalism seems to have more than the one negative meaning. I am against using ambiguous words on WP. I tried 'Targeting Minorities' as a heading. As it comes under 'Criticisms of Respect', I thought this could cover positive and negative targeting - and both types are alleged in the examples. The change wasn't accepted, however. Can anyone do better? The WP entry on Communalism doesn't shed much light on the article's use of the word. None of the examples directly use the word 'Communalism' either. ---- Matt Lewis (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cohen means the word as in "down with all forms of racialism and communalism!" (nelson mandela). That is, encouraging identity as the member of a community (in this case a religious rather than racial community). The much longer and better sourced of the two wikipedia articles is on that subject.

A leftwing critic (like Cohen) would prefer to encourage Muslims to think of themselves as having rights as human beings rather than as Muslims. A rightwing critic wants muslims to think of themselves as having rights as British citizens rather than as Muslims. Obviously there is some overlap between the two.

Regarding Respect, I suppose that the criticism is that Respect talks about respecting muslim culture, probably supported attempts to suppress the Danish cartoons, and so on. In other words, they focused on the specific greivances that Muslims have because they're Muslims (offending the prophet, headscarves, Muslim schools etc.) as well as the greivances they have because the terrorists we currently face happen to be muslim (arbitrary trial and detention, unfair treatment by police, rendition etc.) -- BillMasen (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But Cohen didn't actually use the word 'Communalism'. Wasn't his article more clearly an unmasked accusation of anti-Semitism? I can't quite follow your points on left/right readings, unfortunately. 'Communalism' clearly needs to be better explained (and defined) within the article.

Regarding Cohen - in recent years, Cohen has identified more with Liberalism (sometimes Liberal-left - and has clearly supported neo-conservatism) - isn't it misleading - or a bit 'out of date' - to describe him as typically 'left-wing'? Like Christopher Hitchens, surely he has simply changed. He certainly is not a typical left-winger now at all (and is unaligned politically, even looking towards the Tories of late, apparently).

Like you say, the WP page on Communalism is spilt into two pages, which is not ideal, and highlights the difficulty of the word. My point remains that ‘Communalism’ is an ambiguous word - and hence not ideal for a fair WP. Wikipedia, for me, must have clarity - especially so people cannot slip-in their POV, via ambiguity. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have expressed "communalism" badly, but it really is not a difficult concept. The "muslim community has a right to muslim schools" would be an example of it. A traditional left-wing position would be that individual Muslims have the same rights as any individual to a good education, but no right to a government-sponsored "muslim" one. A communalist would believe that the "muslim community" has rights.

As far as the two wiki pages go, the one that this article refers to is well sourced and well used throughout the world (not just in south asia). It was used in the English-speaking country of South Africa to refer to the bantustan and other policies. The other communalism page has no sources at all, and in my opinion should be deleted. The word communalism is only used in this sense when politicians want to put an ism on the end of "community".

I am quite happy to explain communalism briefly within the article. However, "targeting minorities" is using 2 words where 1 would do. Moreover, it is ambiguous. Does it mean that Respect is encouraging the idea of communal rights, such as muslim schools? Or does it mean that Respect is protesting against violations of the individual rights of muslim and other minorities? Or does it mean that Respect is capitalising on hatred of Muslim (or Jewish) minorities?

I know which it means, but it would not necessarily be obvious to those who haven't heard of Respect.BillMasen (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I think your view is original research. For example, the USSR accepted the rights of the Jews to a homeland inside the USSR: that was certainly a view within socialism, and reflected rights. I think that we have to be very careful in the way that we use this term 'communalism', especially since the term is not well defined here. I have indended comments to make it easier to tell your views from Matt's. --Duncan (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is "within socialism", it is communalism. I never said that communalism should be called un-socialist in the article itself. All I said was that it was an accurate summary of Cohen's criticisms. As it happens, he uses the term himself when discussing the BNP's attitude towards whites. He directly criticises respect for using "identity politics". Since the whole point of his article is that Respect and BNP are equally bad for the same reasons, it is hardly original research to summarise his criticism as "communalism". BillMasen (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The ‘original research’, I suppose, is that you are explaining Cohen’s idea of ‘communalism’ in here, rather than in the actual article! Cohen, unfortunately, doesn’t quite explain it himself (in the example given, at least) – and you are padding his arguments with both the positive and negative uses of the word!

You have rightly said “a communalist would believe that the "Muslim community" has rights.” (the example you gave is to Muslim schools) and you compare this to a 'traditional left wing’ view that a Muslims rights should be the same as that of the wider community (though you concede that the left can accept communalism). All this, to me, is accepting the more benign definition of the word communalism, with perhaps some specific views on what constitutes left and right wing. Just as a simple example, there is a communalism.org website that also shows a benign use of the word.

But your actual reasoning for using ‘Communalism’ as a heading, is that the negative sectarian definition of the word is the one the ‘world’ regards as the best (as is defined in your preferred ‘Communalism (South Asia)’ WP article). You see Cohen’s attack on Respect as an attack on their divisive form of communalism, and how this is at odds with being a supposed left-wing party (Cohen compares it to right-wing neo-nazism).

Trying to make sense of these arguments up has had me scratching my head for hours!

It doesn’t help that the WP entry initially shows the benign meaning of communalism, with a separate link to the 'South Asian’ negative meaning. People (like me) will be typing the word into WP, to reference its meaning regarding the bold heading use - as it isn’t at all clear in the Cohen example itself!

On a current note, I think it is likely that many people would first expect to read about John Reese’s recent (and negative!) accusation of ‘communalism’ regarding the Galloway faction in the recent split (presumably accusing them of initially trying to stir up trouble between groups within Respect – specifically with an Asian group involved). The Communalism section could be an opportunity to deal with this, or either we must change (or clearly define) the word. Maybe ‘Ideas and criticisms of ‘Communalism’ within Respect’ could be a new catch-all title?

As I said to begin with, the alternative heading 'Targeting Minorities' may not be ideal – as I explained, I was trying to find a ‘cover-all’, as the examples given seemed to cover a number of issues. I did open with a request for a new example! Anyone any ideas? Perhaps we should separate the positive and negative ‘Communalism’ definitions, from Cohen’s perhaps more blunt accusations of anti-Semitism – as these all seem to converge here. Respect has a clear anti-war manifesto that includes by default the Muslim people. The parties very name is ‘Respect’ – it includes respect, equality and community – so is intrinsically communalistic (in the benign way). ‘Carpet bagging’ was another allegation that could be dealt with here – are Respect entitled to go where the votes are? (this could tie in the statistics that the originator of this discussion queried about).

By the way, regarding using ‘one word instead of two’ - personally, I'm a big fan of using two words (or even three or four) over just using these single words, especially on Wikipedia. I'm very wary of 'in-speak' (especially in political matters) and believe we should think of the ‘wide audience’ at all times. Why intellectually bamboozle people? I believe we must all try and avoid being too ‘clever’ - which we are all vulnerable of, given the extraordinary rights Wikipedia offers us. I’m not asking people to appeal only to the lowest-common denominator – just to see WP as a people’s encyclopaedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy today. More on this later. BillMasen (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Meaning A of communalism is attempting to draw residents of a place together and address their common interests, regardless of creed, race, and so on. Meaning B is almost the exact opposite: addressing the common interests of a non-geographical group. All of the things I have mentioned would be examples of communalism B, the more notable meaning. Whether some of them are considered good (anger at Israeli treatment of Muslims) or bad (appealing to Islamic anti-israeli sentiment and using it against Jews in general (Oona King)) is not relevant: both are covered by the same meaning.

Is Respect capitalising on the fact that [i]Muslims[/i] have been killed needlessly in Iraq, rather than simply that a large number of people were killed in Iraq? This is communalist. Does it complain about the low standard of education that [i]Muslims[/i] receive, rather than the bad provision for poor people in general? This is communalism. Does it talk about the rights of muslim parents for their children to receive a muslim education at a muslim school? This is communalism. Some people might consider anti-semitism bad (I do) and muslim schools good (I don't). However, according to Cohen, the antisemitism is arising from the Muslim community, and Respect is capitalising on it.

I have not heard of this person Reese or his accusations. However, they do sound relevant. I would like to see them added. I agree that Cohen's use of the word is somewhat vague, and I would be happy to see more examples of the accusation.

As for using a "difficult" word, I believe that this word captures the meaning perfectly. I mean, in an article about Pythagoras Theorum, I prefer using the word 'trigonometry' to 'the study of angles'. I am not, however, against explaining what the word means.

I probably should have looked on the talk page before reverting. Perhaps contact with wikipedia has jaded me slightly :). BillMasen (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of your ‘Meaning A’ of ‘Bringing all people together and addressing their common interests’? According to my excellent large Collins dictionary; Communalism, in it’s benign sense, is about respecting communities within communities – and helping communities live side by side, each retaining their own rights. The Collins is clear on this and gives a few examples, though my Oxford simply says the ‘principal of the communal organisation of society’ – which is a bit ambiguous to say the least.

Your ‘Meaning B’, when explained by the Wikipedia article you favour, is 100% negative! It does not contain ANY positive factors at all! It simply seems to involve playing one community against another. This negative meaning is often used today, I agree – John Rees has used it this way himself. But it is always completely negative when used this way! (which is surely why Rees said it). I cannot see your own complicated definition here fitting in at all!

Bill, you seem to be combining ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ elements to suit your arguments, and often in a subjective way. It is ‘original research’ – which is actually against the rules of Wikipedia. You have your own hybrid 'communalism'!

We both agree that the primary Wikipedia article on communalism is poor, and that the Respect article doesn’t currently explain the word at all. My own initial confusion after reading the article, is the reason why I’m giving this time to it now. Wikipedia must be about clarity! Unless you are happy with confusion in the article – how can you still argue for keeping the solitary word?

Readers need better here.

John Rees, by the way, is the ’National Secretary’ of Respect, and is mentioned throughout the article! Respect has split at the moment – with Rees and Galloway leading the two opposing camps. It seems to me that your heart is less with presenting un unbiased over-all article on the Respect Party, and more with emotionally criticising a perceived ‘anti-Semitic’ aspect of the party! Anti-Semitism is often a misreading of ‘anti-Zionism’ in modern times, especially regarding the openly anti-Zionist (and anti-war) party, Respect. Respect focus on Palestinians rights, as they see the problem of Israel as central to a growing word-wide ‘anti-Islamism’ - which directly effects Muslims in the UK. Palestine is a major issue with all Muslims. I see this as a logical path, and agree with it 100%. ‘Anti-Zionist’ is not ‘anti-Jewish’ (I myself am one and not the other), and the attacks by King and Cohen have been considered by many as arousing racial tension themselves.

There is too much bias here – we must broaden this part of the article. Nick Cohen, in my opinion, is an anti-Islamism who has made his recent career out of cynically blurring Zionism with, effectively, Judaism – partly to consolidate the ‘rights’ of a secular Zionist Israel, and partly to whip up racial tension, thus weakening Muslims (and perhaps the ‘left’) in general. I am no fan of his, and want to say that his arguments do not constitute a ‘good sense’, though his attack on Respect must of course be included in the article. Being so controversial, he ought not be used as a fulcrum for wider arguments, such as over the meaning of communalism. The valid response of ‘hypocrisy’ to the anti-Jewish slurs, in fact, needs to be properly covered in the Respect article – as to many like myself, it is those who scream ‘anti-Semites!’ who are ‘whipping’ things up.

My argument of ‘lack of clarity’ still stands. Bill - are you planning to add anything explanatory to the Communalism pages, or the Respect page - or leave them as they are? I didn’t want to get too involved in another WP article (I spend too much time in here already) but I suppose I could delve further. I can’t stand edit wars though – so I’d rather work things out here first. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, there is no need to fire so many exclamation marks at me(!) And since we're citing policies at each other, assume good faith. It is not your business to accuse me of subverting WP to attack Respect, or of "being happy with confusion". Your sanctimony ("Readers need better") is uncalled for. Because I am trying to improve the article, just like you.

As far as antisemitism is concerned, Cohen definitely accused Respect of being antisemitic, so accusation that is staying in the article. Of course, any rebuttal from a reliable source must go in too (and there is one there already). However, my point is I am not trying to sneak in an accusation of antisemitism via communalism: as you have said, the accusation stays, communalism or no communalism.

You ask me to justify the two meanings of communalism that I have offered. If you remember, we were discussing the different meanings offered in two wikipedia articles. The article that is currently "communalism" clearly deals with meaning A: This article deals with the use of the word communalism in the sense of a force uniting people into a community. If you believe that this definition (A) is nonsense OR and should be deleted, that's fine with me. Because this is certainly not what Cohen or anyone else means when they are attacking Respect.

You are correct that neither Cohen nor the communalism (B) article mentions the "good" communalism of muslim schools et cetera. But then, I am not currently arguing that such things ought to be included under the heading of communalism. Cohen is accusing Respect of playing communities against each other, and the article defines communalism as playing communities against each other. You say that the communalism B article is 100% "negative", and it is. But this is, after all, part of the section labelled "criticism" and not the part labelled "respect policy".

If I come across sources calling muslim schools communalism, I will put this in, but not until then.

My dictionary says one meaning is loyalty to one's community rather than to wider society. Since you want to question my good faith, I'll scan the page if you want. If you object to the word communalism, which you view as good, being used to denote criticism, I'm afraid you don't have a case, because Cohen uses it in the sense currently employed in the Respect entry. The communalism B article agrees with the sense in which Cohen used the word.

I have not found any example of your "good" meaning: "respecting communities within communities – and helping communities live side by side, each retaining their own rights". If you want to substantiate it with sources and put it in the communalism article, feel free.

I favour linking the heading to the B or South Asia article. I also believe that the B article should be moved to simply "communalism". In summary, communalism should be the heading because: 1) meaning B, whether or not it includes the "benign" communalism that you offered, is the primary meaning of the word; 2) meaning B is what Cohen was referring to when he used the word communalism. BillMasen (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ironic (I hope) lecture on sanctimony.

Regarding Cohen’s accusation of anti-semitism, it was me who included the (John Rees!) rebuttal you refer to! Unfortunately, it was me who also wrote the initiating line; ‘Cohen… states (Respect) is anti-semitic.’ I can see now that Cohen doesn’t actually ‘state’ it at all – he just strongly infers it. I’ll correct that after writing this.

Regarding your words on the negative meaning of communalism - you’ve been all over the place with your multifarious ‘Meaning B’! You’ve pulled meanings in and out of it like rabbits from a hat! I can’t believe you’ve just questioned whether I accept a negative definition actually exists, after all I’ve written on it! All it means is pitching communities against each other for some kind of gain, or exploiting the existing tensions.

I think I understand WP’s first definition of communalism (the positive one) differently to how you see it. “A force uniting people into a community” maybe short and a little ambiguous – but to me it suggests a singular community (such as the Muslim community). I don’t see the ‘state’ (or some larger group) as the ‘community’ here, and it certainly says nothing of the ‘all creeds and races’ etc you have attributed to it!

Their use of bold on the word ‘uniting’ isn’t instructive, and the article does need improving for sure - but surely not removing! Why ask whether I want to remove it? And why would you want to either - especially when you say your own dictionary essentially agrees with it? And why offer to show me the scan of your dictionary – to prove what? Certainly there should be only one all-inclusive Wikipedia communalism page – I agree with that at least!

Readers do need better here!

I wrote that because the ‘Communalism’ section is simply confusing - I wasn’t being personal, or ‘sanctimonious’! (and as Colin Dexter once wrote, exclamation marks are part of the rules – forgive me if I can’t sound properly dry, but I am having to use the written word!). I’ve spent a long time on your arguments – and ‘communalism’ remains for me a confusing term for readers. In writing that line I was also stressing my point that what is best for the ‘reader’ must take precedence in Wikipedia - not just what is preferable to an editor! Surely you do agree on that? Clarity is essential.

Regarding ‘assuming goof faith’ - surely we passed the need to keep doing that? I did originally do it. I got to the tone of my last entry because it became apparent that you hadn’t actually read the Respect article, when you stated you hadn't heard of John Rees. You didn’t take the opportunity of hearing the name to read it either! I also could not (and still cannot) understand your defensive attitude towards keeping the single heading. You admit it leads to confusion, yet insist it’s the ‘best’ one to use! It doesn’t make sense to me. You say now you are working towards ‘improving the article’. But the whole article? In an unbiased way? I honestly just can’t see it – sorry! I did originally ‘assume good faith’, after you initially reverted my speculative title change. Since then I have decided to question your motives, but only because of the subsequent discussion, and the kind of arguments you’ve used. I’ve learnt that there comes a need to push forward in WP - so I’m not worried at all about becoming too direct when I think it’s right.

We are clearly in deadlock here. I’ve decided to add the article to my ‘list’, and I’ll make some changes soon – initially (and judiciously) under the ‘Communalism’ heading. I’ll include an explanation that fits Cohen’s drift. I’ll also have to improve the WP ‘communalism’ page, unless you want to do something there yourself – it obviously cannot be left as it is. My first edit will be to rectify my mistake of calling Cohen’s implication of anti-semitism an actual statement. On reflection, Cohen is hardly daft enough to make such a direct charge! Unfortunately, I absorbed his horribly insidious ‘Jewish conspiracy theory’ charge, and then read a number of comments (in the ‘comment’ section below it) on how the ‘anti-semitism card’ is being played by him. Obviously, I made an error that needs correcting.

I’ll be ‘being bold’ (the WP motto) from now on, and dealing directly with any improvable edits that are made to the article - and wasting as little time in here on these kind of loopy discussions as possible! All this over a single word! --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What is ‘communalist’ here?

From the Nick Cohen article;

---

“Searchlight, which has spent more time analysing and fighting British fascism than anyone else, says that wherever the BNP does well, you hear the same communalist grievances. The white British aren't allowed to celebrate their lives; housing departments discriminate against them; when there's a racist murder of a black by a white, the media go wild, but when the roles are reversed, there's silence. Once the sectarian identities multiculturalism inevitably promotes get hold, it doesn't seem to matter how bad the politicians who exploit them are, as Respect's success in London's East End shows.”

---

When I really look at this, Cohen’s use of ‘communalist’ seems to directly relate to the word ‘multiculturalism’ - and hence the positive form of communalism (even if he is just a touch cynical of it). Cohen actually doesn’t use the exact word ‘communalism’ in the article at all. He does say that Respect exploits “the sectarian identities multiculturalism inevitably promotes” - and such exploitation can clearly be conveyed by the negative definition of ‘communalism’ if so desired – and we currently do so with a negative ‘Communalism’ heading (even if the 'negative' aspect is currently only assumed!). But surely Cohen already defines the word ‘communalist’ in a positive ‘multicultural’ sense?

Cohen's argument to me is thus: The separate ‘identities’ that ‘multiculturalism’ promotes only lead to 'communalist grievances' (he gives examples like perceived biased murder reporting), which 'inevitably' leads on to sectarianism - which is then cynically exploited. He ends the paragraph by bemoaning the fact that “it doesn't seem to matter how bad the politicians who exploit them are, as Respect's success in London's East End shows.” This resulting ‘exploitation’ on it’s own can obviously be called the negative definition of communalism (the ‘community vs community’ meaning) - but surely not when the positive ‘multicultural’ form of the word has already been used in the description leading up to it?

In the other example of the word’s use that we currently have, however, John Rees does say ‘communalism’, and clearly in the negative sense of the word.

To me, of the two examples, the Rees quote is happier with ‘Communalism’ as a heading (although it still just assumes the one ‘negative’ sense), while the Cohen article doesn’t sit with it at all, as the heading simply jars with the article (even if positive 'communalist' and negative 'communalism' are two different words – they still jar). And even if they share the same negative meaning, it's hardly ideal to have a heading which can support two current meanings that are almost complete opposites (and many other meanings that seem to have become outdated too - eg. federation of self-governing communities, an electoral system for separate ethnic groups, and advocacy of communal living).

I favour removing 'Communalism' from the heading, and putting an explanation of Rees’s negative meaning next to his quote. Cohen’s points are pretty clear when you read the article’s paragraph on him, and clear enough when reading his article too. He doesn’t need further explaining by having 'Communalism' as a heading – it is surely confusing more than enlightening

I have currently changed the heading to ‘Communalism and Racism’, as ‘anti-semitism’ to me denotes clear racism, however it might merge with negative communalism..--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a few points: I never said that "the word was confusing but I wanted it anyway". I do not believe it is confusing. All I did was contrast it with the word trigonometry, and how that word ought to be used in a pythagoras article even though some people don't know what it means. When you referred to John "Reese" I thought that you were referring to a different person from John Rees. I should have read it again and I would have realised, but it is a bit much to accuse me of not reading the article. Your positive meaning of communalism is not supported by wikipedia or the dictionaries. Therefore, it is not relevant. I didn't say you were claiming communalism "had no negative meaning". Just that you thought it would be confused with your positive meaning. I was pointing out that this positive meaning (similar to multiculturalism) has no currency anywhere and thus could not cause confusion. You are right that Cohen mentions both multiculturalism and communalism in the same breath. However, I think he is saying that multiculturalism will lead to communalism. It is the greivances which are communalist: complaining about perceived unequal housing provision, etc. He does not present them as being the same thing, but that communalism is an unintended consequence of multiculturalism.

You are right about one thing: this is a lot of time to waste over a single word.

I again ask you to refrain from attacking my motives. If my edits are as wrong as you think they are, that should speak for itself (without! any! breathless! exposition! from! you!).

You are right that I have only concerned myself with one section of the article, but I see nothing reprehensible in that.

I suggest that we both try to make the article as clear as possible and lay off the talk page until we differ about what to actually write. BillMasen (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So you think Cohen simply means that the grievances are communalist? Fair enough – it’s simple but it works. But it means that Cohen himself is now out of the equation over the article accusing Respect of communalism – ‘Communalism’ is now solely your own choice of word to describe Respect’s alleged exploitation of the ‘grievances’. I’m complaining that the word has two meanings, and is therefore confusing – and you can’t draw on Cohen now if he didn’t say the word directly about Respect! Wikipedia has to be accurate with these matters.

I believe you are simply wrong to say that Wikipedia doesn’t support the positive version of communalism that I detailed. The WP page clearly suggests a positive community-uniting communalism to me. You are adding the ‘wider’ to ‘community’ – not Wikipedia. The South Asian page more clearly gives the negative meaning.

Isn’t it a bit arrogant to declare the ‘only’ relevant definition of communalism used today? The fact that Wikipedia doesn’t deal with communalism in a simple way is proof of the existing complexity to me. Who has changed the WP article? It’s been in a settled state for a while.

I’m sorry you were thrown by my 'John Reese' with an 'e' slip – a force of habit with me. The John Rees accusation of communalism that you obviously just missed was actually in the ’Communalism’ section, but I apologise for saying you hadn’t read the whole article – that was a bit of an assumption.

My obvious problem with your communalism / trigonometry comparison is that there is only one meaning to the word trigonometry. It is a curious ‘long word’ to pick as a comparison, I must say. I’m reminded of those 70’s-era sociologists, who categorised people to the point where they often seemed to lose sociology to mathematics, and reality in their formulations. ‘Communalism’ has actually had many meanings, which isn’t untypical for this kind of word. Wikipedia is especially vulnerable (and attractive) to those who force diverse matters into conveniently neat ‘catch-all’ terms. Other editors often seem to leave what they don’t quite follow. This lingo is like a curse, and the left is stuffed with it already. It is reductive, unfriendly, usually unnecessary, sometimes ‘way-out’ and often (like now) simply misleading. Respect (the article’s subject) is a ‘peoples party’, and I have argued for the readers’ understanding from the start. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was No move. Húsönd 03:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RESPECT The Unity Coalition → Respect Party — WP:MOSTM. This concept was previously proposed and discussed and no direct objection was offered. ENeville 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Oppose. Current name reflects organisations real name. Issue of whether it is nor is not a party is disputed: for example the minority respect party Platform campaigns for Respect to become a party.--Duncan 08:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support decapitalization of espect. Zargulon 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose move - current title correctly reflects name of organisation. Decapitalisation possibly acceptable - organisation's website and literature is inconsistent in this matter anyway. Guy Hatton 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• After reflection Oppose - though not with any great strength. --JK the unwise 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I don't understand, are you just suggesting putting Respect in lower case or are you suggesting changing "The Unity Coalition" to "Party" ? Zargulon 09:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the words in the name. They could be Respect - The Unity Coalition as previously proposed, or something else. Respect Party is one of the alternate names already listed and, as it's a unique term, it seems to be the de facto identifier in common usage, so that's the name I proposed here. The main point is just the normalisation of capitalisation, to avoid the featured status referred to in WP:CAPS. ENeville 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... not sure. As I noted before (Talk:RESPECT The Unity Coalition/Archive 1#Name) I think that inside the article it is better to refer to them as Respect rather then RESPECT as "as that seems to be how the whole world and her monkey refer to the party. See for example BBC article[1] or article from Respects own page[2] or Socialist Review article.[3]". How about Respect coalition for the article title?--JK the unwise 12:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with the current title? --Duncan 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It has too many capital letters. Zargulon 16:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many for what? I don't see us changing CD-ROM into lower case, for example. --Duncan 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your prognosis for CD-ROM. Zargulon 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

RESPECT The Unity Coalition → Respect The Unity Coalition — I take it that proposed moves are assessed on the narrow basis of the exact name proposed, as opposed to alternative names raised in discussion (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I endeavored to make it clear that I was proposing a change on capitalisation, and it seemed respondents appreciated the point, and that such a change was within the realm of reasonable possibility. Therefore, I propose that, to meet editorial standards regarding capitalisation (WP:CAPS), this article be moved to Respect The Unity Coalition. —ENeville 04:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Suppport Zargulon 08:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Capitalisation not needed, though adding a dash between "Respect" and "The" might make the title clearer (i.e. Respect - The Unity Coalition). Number 57 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support with dash Guy Hatton 11:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Respect – The Unity Coalition, as this is the only typographically correct rendering of the version you propose. —Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support with dash. --Checco 13:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

(BTW, I apologize for previously putting the move tag on the article page. ENeville)

• As per the party's constitution, "The name of the organisation shall be Respect - The Unity Coalition".[4] Bold text mine, all else a direct quote, so no changing of case. That reads far better to me than the current title or the proposed alternative, as "Respect The Unity Coalition" is a coherent sentence fragment, and could cause confusion if the article is so named with no separating dash. It'd read more like an instruction than an article title. --DeLarge 10:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Ditto as per above. Number 57 11:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• As above. Guy Hatton 11:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• As I've stated, it should be an endash. —Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DASH says not to use endashes in article titles. Number 57 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This article has been renamed from RESPECT The Unity Coalition to Respect - The Unity Coalition as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Crisis and Split of Respect

Wow! You folk really deserve a barnstar for this. You have covered a POV minefield very effectively, and with amazing concision. Many thanks. --Duncan 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we are wrong to say it is Galloway that has left when both are claiming to be Respect. Secretlondon 00:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And Galloway's Respect Renewal has a majority of the national committee. Secretlondon 00:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As Respect has split, both sides are claiming rights. I have removed the line which says Galloway has left - as Galloway denies it! It is an SWP POV that Galoway (et al) have left by default - but it is too subjective a thing for WP to claim they have left Respect! They have to sort it out between them. We CANNOT see Wikipedia abused by following any one political camp. Who knows what will happen? ---- Matt Lewis (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent judgements. If only the left was a wiki ;-) --Duncan (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

campaigning

Much too much of this article is dedicated to elections. But Respect has been involved in many other activities (Defend Council Housing; Stop the war coalition ; Build fightign unions). These should be reflected more fully in the article Johncmullen1960 08:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld connection?

Has anyone else noticed that "RESPECT" is an anagram of "SPECTRE"? —Ashley Y 05:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

and satan is an anagram of santa?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.105.213.11 (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Respect address

Is it POV to suggest that the office is 9 Club Row? In practise, the party is split into two public factions, both of which main to be Respect, and one of which is at 9 Club Row. I suggest we remove the address. --Duncan 09:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The address registered with the Electoral Commission is now 209 Coborn House, 3 Coborn Road, London E3 2DA. 86.156.31.205 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Duncan (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cohen

There was a long section about Nick Cohen. He is not significant enough for such interest.If a series of referenecs could be found, by all means go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncmullen1960 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As much as I personally dislike Cohen I have to disagree on his lack of significance. There are a number of British journalists similar to him - Littlejohn, Hitchens and others too. They are all vociferous, and attack from a (supposedly) liberal-left high-ground.

Regarding his (rather vague) points; whatever his political motives, the criticisms on their own are logical enough - though I take your point that other examples of these attacks are hardly flowing. I don't think it's fair to remove parags that lack multiple citations though - not immediately anyway. The parag does kind of cover (and answer) a number of things - it might even prevent further bloat in the future. Wikipedia does tend to become 'inclusive' in the end (in a referential way) - it seems to be the natural way it pans out.

A genuine consensus has been reached on the Cohen parag, anyhow - though the whole article could no-doubt benefit from extra work, of course. Certainly more positive things on Respect could be included (as you have pointed out yourself) to counter balance it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I tend to agree with John on this. It's not that notable. Where is the consensus discussion? Can you point me to a diff? --Duncan (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you want a diff, Duncan (you mean the diff on the watchlist?). In my eyes, consensus can work between two people on Wikipedia. Everyone who reads it and doesn't join in are still part of the consensus - whatever the result or action is, they agree with it by default, to me. I could see you were critical before, but wasn’t sure of your stance. Consensus is always flexible of course, and now you are vocally joining with someone else who doesn’t want it, things have clearly changed.

I am uncomfortable with the entirety being removed myself, simply because I personally do see Cohen (as a critic of Respect) as notable (and representative of others too) - even though, for me, many of the comments he makes are nothing more than examples of his carefully inexact personal dislikes and anti-Islamic/pro-Israeli political bias. That's the world we live in though - he made the comments and many people share his sentiments (if not all of his points). Cohen went on to publish a book on the subject (What’s Left?), and the Observer said after printing an extract, “Cohen's piece sparked a huge response both online and in print.” – and then printed a number of ‘political thinker’s’ responses (citation 27 in the parag). By saying Cohen is ‘not that notable’, I can see you mean the point-by-point notability is too weak, but I personally think Cohen himself is relevant enough.

Cohen and his type in reality get the vast majority of media coverage and support - even though they pretend whenever they can that Islamists and the ‘left’ unfairly get it all. Though I’m trying to be neutral here, the left-winger in me wants to see them dealt with head-on, and not avoided. I argue Cohen’s notability, anyway.

Maybe Lammy’s ‘carpet bagger’ accusation to Galloway (see Lammy page) could be brought in too. As well as making the article more comprehensive, it could also help to show how unfair it is to attribute ill-intent to a small party, for actions that are also natural behaviour (ie standing where the support would be etc). Would you agree with including Lammy to expand it? I found the Communalism heading a bit of roadblock at first (though I’ll accept it now), but I can give it a go when I’ve got the time if no one else does. Most 'borderline' relevant criticisms end up included sooner or later. I think it’s just a quirk of Wikipedia that criticisms so often appear before many of the positives – but Wikipedia is clearly an inclusionist place – the wider ‘consensus’ itself dictates that. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

: : I simply do not understand by what criterion the criticism can be removed as non-notable. All that WP requires is that, when describing a viewpoint, we name a prominent adherent from a reliable source. That is there. BillMasen (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you have to much more careful here to win consesus. You have made a comment that does not engage with my comment, and then reverted. That is not winning consesus. --Duncan (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, Is Cohen's criticism abour Respect notable for this page? Firstly, he is one author who cleaely has a personal crusade to push his POV. It's not clear to me that his comments reflect a noteable and widespread criticism of Respect. Second, its not clear to me that it's really a criticism of Respect specifically, and therefore somethign which is best discussed here. I think Cohen is part of a general debate on the left about Islam, secularism and Islamaphobia. I just don't see how it can be best reflected here. --Duncan (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with it or not, Cohen and What's Left have received sufficient coverage (and criticism) to be considered notable. Indeed, a reasonable case could be made that he has been the most notable critic of Respect. LeContexte (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

: Cohen is a pundit who writes comment pieces. He is allowed to "push his POV". Wikipedia is supposed to represent his criticism dispassionately, and I believe that the section does that. If it doesn't, then the answer is to change what is there, but that doesn't mean it should be removed.

: As far as notability is concerned, Cohen is representing a considerable body of "progressive" opinion, some of which Matt listed above. Personally, I think that even if he were the only one saying this, it would still be worthy of inclusion if it is from a reliable source, which it is. At present, I do not think that there is anyone trying to "list every article about respect". In any case, this could only be a problem if there were large numbers of articles saying the same thing, which you say is not the case. BillMasen (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, I can see why you feel as you do, but it still makes sense to include it to me. Respect claims to deal with Islamophobia (and the things you mention) head on - so what we need to find is better responses to Cohen from within Respect itself. If the article was as long as the Galloway one then maybe there would be a better argument for excluding it - but it isn't all that long at all for a political party. As has been said, Cohen's POV is now well-enough known I feel, and is shared by others too. The fact that he backs it up with little other than is own generalised rhetoric doesn't strictly make any difference - providing there is relevance to the Respect party, which I think there is.

I personally think Cohen's article is basically a slightly veiled all-out attack on Respect - I don't think he is bothered about the BNP at all - but that is just my opinion, and Cohen can be frustratingly hard to pin down. I've read the bloody thing about 30 times now, I think. When I first read it, I amended the passage to better show the holes in Cohen's arguments (neutrally of course!) - but more citations of others, esp Respect, picking holes in it would be a lot better, as I've said. I suppose a line showing someone else sharing Cohen's view would give it extra weight too. For consensus, anyway, I would guess it needs modifying now at least, otherwise we could get ping pong. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to re-adding the material? It would appear that its detractors have disappeared. BillMasen (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Contributers here have simply asserted that Cohen reflects a notable current of opinion but as Matt points out above, these is not even a useful response to Cohen from Respect. Were it notable, then its more likely that there would have been such a reply. --Duncan (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be the Observer that Respect generally refers to, rather than Cohen himself - I suppose because the paper is generally pro the invasion of Iraq. I've found another later column by Cohen they all justifiably when ape over - Galloway in particular. I'm looking at tying it in if it fits. I'm planning to stick something amended up tomorrow, and take a chance that it will stick.

Cohen's 6/6/04 Observer article

Respect's response

Another example of Cohen starting with the BNP to whip up emotions then ending with an generalised attack on Respect - the guy is such a sleaze he really is. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

POV edit by Picquant

I am amazed at this diff [5] 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.[6] --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[7]. --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[8] 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 office@leftalternative.org". 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)

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.