Talk:Labour Party (UK)

New Labour Goverment 1997-2010

Sources "Nigel has written a key list" (PDF). Paultruswell.org.uk. Retrieved 23 July 2015 [38] is WP:SELFSOURCE.

No mention of racism in the Labour Party...

I find it a bit odd that there is no mention in this article about Labour charging different entry fees to a rally, purely on the basis of skin color. Surely, party-endorsed racism such as this (as opposed to racism from an individual party member) is noteworthy and should be mentioned within the article. Any thoughts? LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

One source mentioning a one off event of one day for a party over 100 years old is probably WP:Undue. Either bring more sources please or consider other edits. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are quite a few sources for this but, interestingly, it seems the main 'reliable' sources have not reported it at all (BBC etc). Don't know why that is as I don't think there is any question that Labour did this - the most reliable source I could find is The Times. The reason I raise it is because there seems to be inconsistencies in the way articles are written for political parties here on Wikipedia. Go to the UKIP article for example, and race is mentioned several times despite UKIP (again, as a party, not an individual party member) never having actually done anything 'racist' like Labour have here. I appreciate Labour has a long history, but surely things like this are noteworthy, especially considering Labour are a government-in-waiting. Or is Wikipedia a propaganda machine when it comes to politics? LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by racism. The article Antisemitism in the Labour Party already exists, but if you are talking about something broader then it will probably require more sources, it doesn't matter whether they are 'main' or not as long as they are reliable. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's because the recent one isn't racism... Melias C (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Further information: Antisemitism in the Labour Party

There's been some back-and-forth over the inclusion of a Further link to Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Pinging users who made edits to this line: @Brough87: @Speed74: @Snowded:

I don't think it should be included there, though it would absolutely be due weight to include material on antisemitism in the Labour Party in this article, as there has been a substantial amount of reliable source coverage. Template:Further "is typically used at the top of a section, when the topic of that section is covered in more detail by another page." It doesn't fill this role here — the topic of Corbyn's leadership isn't the same as Antisemitism in the Labour Party, though a lot of the latter relates to the former, and a part of the former relates to the latter. Template:Further isn't the same as Template:Main, but I think there's enough difference in the subjects to not include the link under Further. Elsewhere in the article the template is used to e.g. send you to New Labour or the leaders' premiership articles in the section about New Labour. Ralbegen (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who added it to "see also" if anyone has any views on that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally I strongly support its inclusion in "see also" until it's linked inline elsewhere in the article, at which point it could be removed. Ralbegen (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I am in favour of leaving it where it is. Sticking it at the bottom of the page suggests that it is more of an afterthought, rather than the fact that it is becoming increasingly related to his leadership (after all that's what many of the accusations are about). I am not saying that the section doesn't need some amendments, but I believe that many people associate anti-semitism in the Labour party with Corbyn's leadership; and I'm willing to cite sources to support that claim. Brough87 (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the "further information" tag is being used inappropriately, but I'll wait for a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. Speed74 (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You might have to listen to involved editors as well :-) We normally link to related articles to prevent bloat in the master one. This is just normal, if anything there should be some more.-----Snowded ^TALK 17:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you be content with the change to the "Main article" tag with a brief blurb about anti-semitism in Labour under his leadership? After all, many other articles; a prominent example being the Safavid dynasty, use similar tags in the main body to add more information regarding complex topics. Brough87 (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm Ok with that -----Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll give it a couple of days for other users to make their comments on my recommendation, and then I'll go ahead with it (if that's alright). Brough87 (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue would be with including material about antisemitism in the Labour Party with an inline link? Ralbegen (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't have an issue with an inline link, I was just trying to offer a compromise that pleases the most people possible. Brough87 (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure anybody's actually against including inline material, and it’d certainly be more conventional than the alternatives. Ralbegen (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering how controversial the issue is, this should not be placed here. The article is not called 'Allegations of Antisemitism in the Labour Party'. Placing it here makes it look like a matter of fact. Good reason to be suspicious of whomsoever it was that placed it here.Garageland66 (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are not in a position to have 'suspicions' of anyone given your history and your repeated WP:NOT HERE edits. Alssa1 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well regardless of the history of an individual editor, overall the section should obviously include allegations, but to use a main article tag is to imply that is the only issue in modern history. Don't buy that -----Snowded ^TALK 21:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Snowded it's clear that Alssa1 is an editor with a WP:NOT HERE agenda. There are many that have targeted Wikipedia as a propaganda battle ground. Garageland66 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You've actually been banned for a series of WP:NOT HERE edits. Alssa1 (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In two minds, on the one had it is (at the moment) a major controversy. But it has in fact only be one over the last couple of years (it does not matter if modern talking heads have dug up historical examples, what matters is the degree of coverage at the time). No issue with See also. But any inline link must be very carefully worded, and I am not sure that is possible (given it is a very recent and ongoing controversy).Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I added some text with an inline link, giving the text from the article lead. It was reverted by Snowded, who said "We don't replicate material from the articles at best we summarise with a link". I'm not sure why this is always true, for example many other sections have both a link and a summary of the linked article. Perhaps I misunderstood, did you want the summary to be reworded from the lead? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is an article on the subject we just need a few sentences here with a link -----Snowded ^TALK 13:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There is already a link. That's why the link was left on. There's no reason to replicate material from another article. Garageland66 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ideology

I'm not gonna get involved with the left vs. centre-left argument but I was just wondering as to what other people thought of adding anti-capitalism to ideology in the infobox with respect to this? Melias C (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That source doesn't ascribe anti-capitalism as an ideology of the Labour Party. Ralbegen (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Completely disagree. You have a senior shadow cabinet member here saying that he wants to destroy capitalism - it makes the Party anti-capitalist. Not to mention for the centre-left/left debate, calling the Labour Party centre-left is a farce and frankly false. The party has moved radically to the far-left, let alone left. This article needs to be edited to reflect the changing political climate of the Labour Party. Qaei ☎ 13:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the endorsements in the 2016 Labour leadership election, Jeremy Corby had 18 Labour politicians compared to Owen Smith's 107. One of Corbyn's supporters, John McDonnell, does not represent the view of the entire Labour Party even if he is the Shadow Chancellor. It is more accurate to say that the party is split between a pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn. It is also worth saying that anti-capitalism encompases the ideologies of Socialism, Anarchism and Marxism, anti-capitalism is not an ideology in and of itself. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That's original research. You need a reliable secondary source that draws the same conclusions you do. Also, it is an etymological fallacy to equate opposition to capitalism with anti-capitalism. In comparison, Protestants oppose to Catholicism, but we don't call them anti-Catholics. TFD (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

membership

So, where there's a downward arrow next to the membership number, I assume this means the number has gone down. But down since when? 3, y, 12, 24 months ago? The reader has no way of knowing, and even if you added this detail, it would still be meaningless/misleading, eg if membership was down a bit on six months ago but well up on one, two or three years ago. 213.205.193.114 (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)