Talk:Respect Renewal

message: I agree with the proposal to delete; this is a conference of members of Respect. Setting up a separate page is a pro-SWP POV. --Duncan (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Repect Renewal is clearly not a new 'political party'! I am re-writing to try and explain it better, until its probable deletion (as this is covered in the main Respect article). Please improve the entry if possible - if it exists there is not point in this article being poor. The current version contained other non-allowed POV (points of view), like 'irreconcilable' and 'founding conference'. It had no citiations. 
Before joining in Wikipedia, why don't people read the rules? I honestly don't think many people know what they are! I think Wikipedia assumes rather arrogantly that the whole world understands it. 
Whatever may or may not happen in the future for Respect, things are in flux now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the article and this talk page, and I still don't know what Respect Renewal is or whether it is notable.  What it is, and how it is notable, need to be made clear in the article.  The {prod} tag gives five days for the article to be improved. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually the PROD tag should only be used for clear cut deletion decisions, and that's why I've removed it. JASpencer (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've included more info - I suppose now they have created their own webite it could be kept until it the group eventually disbanded (the very title 'Renewal' suggests a temporary nature). On the other hand, Respect Renewal is covered in the main Respect article, so do we need this extra page? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need an extra page. if this article remain, then it will only suplicate. Respect Renewal is a conference, and is essentially a faction in Respect. the notion that it's a party, or that it's members are not in respect, is a pro-SWP POV. --Duncan (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this page should be deleted and the content absorbed into the main Respect page. --Charliewbrown (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, let's continue the discussion about whether the article should remain. What you say about Renewal is true of any party that has public factions: Both sides are standing separately, but the idea that the 'official' candidates have split from Respect is clearly a pro-SWP POV. The Militant tendency remained a faction of the Labour party, even when it had comrades as MPs and ran Lesley Mahmood against the 'official' candidate. --Duncan (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Respect split does indeed seem permanent. The SWP have set up a new party called "Left List". And they no longer have any interest in the name it seems. Btw, George Galloway is Respect's MP. The fact that he supports the Respect Renewal faction is neither here nor there in that respect. Thank you Duncan for undoing the blatant vandalism. When someone here has conclusive evidence, i.e. an entry in the Electoral Commission, showing that RR is a new political party, I'm happy to change the article myself to reflect that. --Charliewbrown (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that the Left List has an article devoted to it, which describes it as "a group resulting from the split within Respect", followed by a description of the split. Surely in the interests of a neutral POV, Respect Renewal should get similar treatment? And describing RR as a 'platform within Respect' seems contrary to neutral POV - only RR sees itself as a platform, it is de facto acting as a separate organization from Respect / Left List. This is an entirely different situation from, say, the SW platform in the SSP, which acted as a part of that organization until the formation of Solidarity. Gypsyscholar1 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Firstly, let's look at this article. It's a stub, not an article. Second, we are moving into the position where the legal continuity of Respect is becoming clear: the forces around Respect Renewal have the name, and the SWP and its co-thinkers are transitioning onto The Left List. This is rather like the discussion editors had about the Liberal Party, and the Catholic Church: it's the formal continuity that counts. --Duncan (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect Renewal is surely not a new 'political party'! 

message: After its 2008 conference, this article needs to give mor einfo. How many members ? How many local groups ? etc Johncmullen1960 (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Information