Talk:Respect Party/Archive 1

message: Removed factually inaccurate statement about the name "having been adopted before the words it supposedly stands for were agreed." No evidence to support this view and it is in fact wrong.
*The RESPECT name was widely reported on the far-left in about November 2003, long before the meeting to decide what it stood for.  I've never heard anyone dispute this, which is why it doesn't have evidence beside it.  If you really don't believe it, just search through one of the papers which reported on its formation, or ask anyone who was around when it was put together. Warofdreams 17:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Tbone, please refrain from personal attacks. You haven't provided a source for your claim, all you've done is you referred to a book. You need to convince us that Galloway actually wrote about this subject, and you should quote what he writes. In any case, Galloway's account is not necessarily accurate, and it wouldn't justify removing the alternative account, it would only justify adding Galloway's account. But all this is pretty trivial anyway. - pir 12:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Tbone, why don't you just end all this bickering by quoting from Galloway's book? Your continued refusal to do so leads me to suspect that you either haven't read the book, or that it doesn't say what you're saying. - pir 12:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RESPECT The Unity Coalition

message: Removed factually inaccurate statement "Few trade unionists other than those linked with the SWP have joined the coalition". No evidence to support this view and it is in fact wrong.
*Well, a tough thing to quantify, so maybe best left out. Warofdreams 17:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Composition

message: Reinserted summary of Milwall by-election which is important in so far as it shows the evolving relationship of RESPECT with the Labour Party.
*Yes, it's fair enough to mention the result, of course, but complaining that Labour split the vote by standing is highly POV and if included at all should be sourced. Warofdreams 17:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History and electoral performance

message: Is this the same Linda Smith? Morwen - Talk 22:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. This Linda Smith, is treasurer of the London region FBU. --JK the unwise 10:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linda Smith 

message: (William M. Connolley 16:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 revert rule 

message: I deleted this as a policy: 'To attack other left parties, especially the highly successful Scottish Socialist Party, in standing against the SSP for the Scottish Elections in 2007, thus dividing the left and aiding the Scottish right.' The stuff about spliting the left vote could go in the critism bit, but I would like to know the sourse of the claim that Respect inteneds to stand against the SSP in 2007 as I don't think Respect has any polciy for the 2007 elections yet.--JK the unwise 12:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found stuff on this on the SSPs website.  It says they wrote to RESPECT to complain, wonder what the response was?--JK the unwise 13:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is some interseting discusion in the IST bulleten number 6. In particular this comment by Allen Green the nationjal secutary of SSP "despite our requests, RESPECT is still registered with the Electoral Commission to contest elections in Scotland (John Rees first put in writing that this was a mistake by the electoral Commission and Nick Wrack later put in writing that this is so no one else uses the name RESPECT in Scotland). Either way, it would be helpful for mutual relations if RESPECT were to respect the request of the SSP to remove the reference to RESPECT standing in elections in Scotland". Pg. 20 COMMENTS ON THE CHARACTERISATION OF THE SSP. I still don't think Respec' will stand in scotland. This seems to be the general impresion from the articles in the bulleten pgs  1 - 26. Nothing def' though.--JK the unwise 20:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future election Plans 

message: I've removed this suggestion as it is not specific about who the "left" are.  It ignores Labour and Green Party votes which would usually be seen as left, while not being specifically a socialist organisation - or anything to clearly place it to the left of them. Warofdreams 15:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Best left electoral performance

message: Given that (AFAIK) Respect isn't an acronym (maybe a backronym) - why is the title of this page in Capitals. Why does it use a Capital T for The. The use of upper case is just an affectation like the BBC's use of BBC ONE. On the website it is referred to as both RESPECT and Respect. Our BBC ONE page is hosted at BBC One. So I think this page should be moved. Jooler 08:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, do it. --Mrfixter 11:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment:A backronym is a type of acronym.--JK the unwise 12:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, think that this should be moved to Respect - The Unity Coalition for readability and per WP:MOSTM.  This looks like a cleared issue as far as discussion, but given that the discussion is so old, I wanted to call out before executing a move. ENeville 01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: I understand that aims, goals, etc. are from the organisation's website; however the inclusion of "we will" implies that the article is an endorsement of RESPECT.  Unless the website is copyrighted, the ideas expressed need to be quoted precisely; if copyrighted, this can be done as much as "fair use" allows, if paraphrased, this should be stated as "the group calls for ...", not as "We call for ..." or "We oppose ..."
Rlquall 02:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Think that some one just stright copyied it over. I have de-we-ified it, should be fine to use (fair use) as we are reporting their public statment. Alternativly you could undo what I have done and just put "They say" or somin' b4 all the sentances. Not sure it really fits the article as a list, perhaps it would be better if it reported their policies in a more encycolpedic style. The list was for the euro elections, they have since produced a mainfesto for the 2005 general election.--JK the unwise 08:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "We" 

message: I honestly do not see the point of having duplicated links in the external links section, or why what John Rees says about the future of Respect on that site warrants its own external link. If someone wants to find out about Respects future, they can find it themselves on Respects site. Come on, be a little reasonable. Note also that I came to talk, and did not just delete that link again, good faith an all that. --Mrfixter 10:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It provides information that is directly linked to the content of the article. The respect site is big. I see no reason why we shouldn't link to spesific pages for reference information. Assuming good faith=good thing :-)--JK the unwise 10:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is redundant and excessive to have a link to respects strategy for development. The size of the respect site is irrelevant to this article. The reason to not link to specific pages is because that policy would have no end. Why not link to every single press release? The respect website is already linked FOUR times in this article, we can afford to cut one, and to be honest we should delete the other duplicated link as well. This article is not supposed to be a campaign leaflet for Respect. --Mrfixter 11:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to diferenciate ilistrative links (like the link to the partys site) from links for the purpose of supporting info' in the article, i.e. references. The fact that references come from the respect site doesn't mean they are redundant. The whole article needs a load of work, but no point doing much till after thursday and the election creates more info'.--JK the unwise 11:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: References can be made in the article, as they are when providing a list of RESPECT candidates. That serves some sort of purpose. The strategy link serves only to link John Rees and an obscure, irrelevant article written by him on a site that is already linked. Please. Time for RESPECT cruft to go, and what happens on thursday will not make this link any more or less respectcruft. --Mrfixter 19:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What does cruft mean?--JK the unwise 19:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: loose trans. fan boy irrelevance, eg making an Ashlee Simpson article on her tour is considered Ashlee cruft...weird word i know...i thought it was a misspelt Crufts and used it in a wholly inappropriate context...--Mrfixter 20:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's leave the link to the Rees article. It is a position paper concerns the party's structure and role in general. A series of links on individual campaigns would be excessive, this is general enough to be informative.  If there were a Respect paper, we'd link to that too. DJ Silverfish 20:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 6 links to the RESPECT site. Getting rid of one link, a position paper, is the least of it frankly. An external links area that has two links to the same site is utterly pointless. Why select this particular position paper? Is it only to give John Rees a mention? It is unencyclopedic in extremis. --Mrfixter 20:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The position paper deals with party function and how a leader of the party sees its work. It is a marker for a POV that may be challenged or fulfilled after the election and would be useful in rewrites.  Perhaps some of the other links (which you haven't described) could be eliminated.  Perhaps not.  More not less information should be included, whenever possible.   DJ Silverfish 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the last deletion.  Note that other parties include similar information.  Not always in the same format, but the information is there.  See Scottish Socialist Party. DJ Silverfish 21:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Lots of the smaller party pages include links to manifestos and the like. Larger parties' pages may not do that because it can be assumed people know where they stand (or could even predict the language of the manifesto before they read it).  I would argue that the pages for larger parties should include a policy paper link or two.  If I can find any, I'll add them.  My inscrutable comment on party papers being useful for determining party POV is acutally pretty straightforward.  After the election result writers from different perspectives will produce post-mortems on Respect's perfomance.  I would expect a few of those articles to be included in the External links and that, since Respect will produce its own post-mortem, that will be included. If claims in the paper will be undermined or upheld by the election result, then it would be handy to have the pre-game analysis to contrast with the post-game analysis. DJ Silverfish 16:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not in the business of being a link depository for various RESPECT essays on the RESPECT site. If people are interested in reading more, the link to the RESPECT site is ample. Why not provide a link to every obscure pamphlet produced by RESPECT? --Mrfixter 17:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to like the link, but if other people find it useful, then it isn't redundant.  If Respect has a number of position papers on different topics, then these should be added under the heading "Respect publications." Your presumption to arbitrate what the project is about is beginning to sound like POV pushing. DJ Silverfish 17:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets try and keep civil, huh? I didn't realise excising totally redundant links was POV pushing, all I want is an encycolpedic article on RESPECT that isn't flooded with links to individual pages on a site that is already copiously linked to. --Mrfixter 19:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We shall keep it civil, OK. I made sure the publication links lead directly to PDF documents.  I changed the link names to make them more descriptive of what was being linked to.  So its a little more informative.  Again, the Labour Party (UK) entry has similar links, not as well separated. On the other hand, I agree with you (I think) that the footnote-like embedded links in the text could be eliminated. DJ Silverfish 21:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated links 

message: Sorry to nitpic but I'm not sure wether RESPECT is really a recursive acronym. I can't see the first letter referring to anything other than the concept respect (as in dignity -- not the party name) thereby there is no recursion. In contrast the recursive acronym, "GNU's not Unix", is recursive, because "GNU" refers back to the software (not the animal).
I'd like to get some responce to this before touching the site.
--Swift 00:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.--JK the unwise 09:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Good point. Warofdreams 10:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually...Not sure Recursive acronym page seems to support what your saying except that it includes as an example BASS — Bass Anglers Sportsman Society which seems to be similar to RESPECT - Respect, equality, etc. However since as part of the def' of a recursive acronym it says the lack of a termination condition both seem wroung.--JK the unwise 10:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RESPECT a ''recursive'' acronym? 

message: I have changed references to RESPECT to Respect as that seems to be how the whole world and her monkey refer to the party. See for example BBC article or article from Respects own page or Socialist Review article --JK the unwise 17:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: *Tower Hamlets Councillor Muhammad Ghulam Mortuza joins Respect 
Newham Councillor Sarah Ruiz defects from Labour to Respect *
JK the unwise 15:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info to put into the article 

message: I have removed this line on why the greens refused to enter into an electoral pact with Respect
The basis of the rejection was that the Green Party had already selected its candidates via a constitutional democratic selection process which involved its members.
It was added by 20.138.1.245. It may be true (I've never herd it before) but it needs citation. Its not mentioned in this Green Party statment.
--JK the unwise 18:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Greens 

message: The assertione in the last edit that "Its main headquarters is in Stukeley Road, Forest Gate, east London." is at odds with the infobox thingy. Which is true? -- Tompsci 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone with the one in the infobox, as this is the contact address given on the party website. Warofdreams talk 01:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarters 

message: Made some changes to the Identity Politics bit, pointing out more Respect success in 'white' areas, and the fact that Newnham and Tower Hamlets are, if anything, more Christian than they are Muslim.
However, I'm not sure about the validity of the section of the whole. Respect is indeed often accused or practising 'identity politics' or 'communalism', but the one piece of evidence doesn't seem to back that up. For one thing, how can you determined what 'common Muslim sentiments are'? What's more, the identity politics page defines it as a movement that "represent and seek to advance the interests of particular groups in society". The group in question here is Muslims, but how does the suggestion that Israel formulates US/UK policy advance the interests of that group? --RobGo 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia NPOV, the important point is that the critisms are made rather then that they are true. I agree with your change of "Respect has been criticised for practising identity politics" to "Respect has been accused of practising identity politics" as it is indeed a matter of some debate that this is the case. However, rather then adding sentences like "Such accusations, however, fail to explain Respect's success in areas with very small Muslim populations", which could be critised by people who dis agree with that POV it would be better to have a sentence such as "Supporters of Respect argue that these accusations fail to explain Respect's success in areas with very small Muslim populations".--JK the unwise 08:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ye I see what you mean, and was a bit unsure about the 'fails to explain' bit when I wrote it. I think a better phrase could be used, but at the same time, I'm not sure it needs to be along the lines of 'Respect supporters say...', because you don't have to be a Respect reporter to recognise the inconsitency of saying that Respect practices identity politics to get Muslim votes, but then picks up large votes in non-Muslim areas too. I dunno, any further thoughts? --RobGo 14:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't the the fact that respect picks large up votes in non-Muslim areas itself invalidates the criticism (or accusation) that Respect has been guilty guilty of identity politics in some cases including the cited example. The criticism was not that Respect practices only identity politics. I am removing the final paragraph, since it is not a response to the actual criticism which was made. Feel free to complain, revert etc. Zargulon 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point with removing the last para. But I think my other points still stand. Namely how can one determine 'common Muslim sentiments', but perhaps most importantly, even if these are 'common Muslim sentiments', how does that make them identity politics, which as I said, is defined on the identity politics page as a movement that "represent and seek to advance the interests of particular groups in society". There are plenty of non-Muslims who think the Israeli lobby has too much influence (see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html for example, which says "in a poll conducted several weeks after the Senate vote on the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia, 53 percent of the [US] public agreed Israel has "too much influence" on American foreign policy", or http://www.foreignaffairs.org/public_agenda/foreign_policy_index_082005.pdf, which notes that 62% of Americans think that "US policies are too pro-Israel for the US to be able to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians"). Surely if Abdurrahman Jafar's statement 'panders' to any opinion, it is simply anti-Zionist, or indeed anti-lobbying opinion, which is quite different to some kind of pro-Muslim favouritism. What do people think? --RobGo 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right. The Identity politics WP article starts with "Identity politics is the political activity of various social movements for self-determination" . I think restricting identity politics to issues of self-determination is much too narrow a definition, and it also seems to be under active discussion on that article's talk page. I also thought having a citation for this criticism of Respect would help (maybe the original criticism used language other than "identity politics" which could throw more light on the argument) , so I put a citationneeded tag by it. I'm reluctant to prejudge the source but my guess is it will simply point to the correlation between being a Muslim and expressing the view that Israel lobby is too powerful (which is not contradicted by the existence of non-Muslims who also feel that way), and suggest that this correlation was being used cynically by the campaign, or that Respect projected one face to Muslims and a different one to the wider community. Zargulon 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Identity Politics" 

message: Moved the section on Respect's clashes with the Green Party from the section on 'composition' to 'Criticisms of Respect' on the basis that squabbles with the Greens are not a very accurate indicator of the actual composition of the Party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.67.71 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms/composition 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

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

text: 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.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And Galloway's Respect Renewal has a majority of the national committee. Secretlondon 00:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Excellent judgements. If only the left was a wiki ;-)  --Duncan (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Crisis and Split of Respect 

message: 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)
thread_title: campaigning

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks!--Duncan (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect address