Talk:Labour Party (UK)

message: I reverted an edit (@Helper201) that describes Starmer as authoritarian that has now been un-reverted. I thought it would probably be best to discuss here than start an edit war. Here's the edit for reference:
He has been accused of being authoritarian during his leadership of the Labour Party, such as via not committing to overturn the Conservative Party’s anti-protest bill and via intolerance for dissent within the Labour Party; the latter of which has also been described as "anti-democratic and above all illiberal".
I reverted this on the basis that:
* This section counts as a WP:BLP, even if the article in entirety isn't: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia".
* That the description of 'authoritarian' is especially contentious and must be well justified as a WP:BLP.
* The sources used have an anti-Starmer slant and are all opinion sources.
* That undue weight has been given to the claims by relying only on such sources, and has not demonstrated that they have received enough media attention for them to deserve such weight.
* No balance has been given to these claims, though I myself have struggled to find any record of Starmer responding to claims of authoritarianism (maybe because they have not received significant attention...).
I would like to open up whether this sentence should remain, for discussion. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Having four reliable sources for something is enough for inclusion.
* Only 2 of the 4 are in any way classified as opinion pieces and that doesn't mean they can't be used, so long as they aren't making factual statements. The Wiki text added clearly states this is an accusation, therefore complying with WP:RSOPINION.
* 4 sources is plenty of weight. All the sources are reliable and each of the 4 sources have their own Wikipedia page, which requires notability to exist
* If you want to add some balance in then please expand upon this rather than removing it. Take this away and the only thing that even boarders on anything like resembling criticism is the sentence prior to this one about purges. Literally the whole of the rest of the section is unbalanced in a pro or at least uncritical direction of the Starmer era. 
Helper201 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I accept that the articles are reliable, however they must be regarded as biased sources of opinion given they related solely to claims. They do not demonstrate that these claims are widespread enough to warrant the weight given. Evidence of more widespread coverage of these claims in mainstream outlets would demonstrate this. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 2 of the 4 are classed anywhere on them as being in an opinion section or anything similar. It is fine to include statements of opinion as long as they aren't classed as fact, see: WP:RSOPINION. That's why the wording was very specifically and deliberately "has been accused of". I'd certainly say 4 sources saying the same thing is widespread enough for the inclusion of one sentence mid-article. It’s not like a whole paragraph is being made of this or that is placed in the prominence of the article's opening. Helper201 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keir Starmer as authoritarian 

message: Hi, I'd like to link the article Labour Party headquarters in the infobox in the same way Leader and Deputy Leader are linked, but I'm not sure how to do so. If anybody could help with this that would be great. Thanks! JamJamSvn (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The current headquarters in the infobox is also out of date. SirCake (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarters link in infobox please 

message: I’ve noticed that all the sources in the ideology section in the infobox are over a decade old. It’s especially relevant, considering the party’s recent ideological shift under Kier Starmer, with labour now holding similar stances to the Conservatives on many issues and much of the party’s left-wing being expelled or otherwise sidelined. Considering that the party has undergone multiple changes in leadership with substantially different political positions over since those sources were written, maybe it would be prudent to consider updating that section? 86.161.0.39 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we could do with some more up to date sources, but it still says on the back of party membership cards that Labour is a democratic socialist party (for now). Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. We really need some WP:SYNTH complying sources calling the party democratic socialist as a whole from the last few years. In regards to the above comment, having democratic socialism still on membership cards isn't evidence that the party actually still follows this ideology. Its highly problematic to use this as evidence given its not from a third-party, plus it’s just an old statement, not actually evidence of anything current. As far as I can see democratic socialism no longer stretches beyond a faction or factions of the party and is not a current ideology of the party as a whole anymore. Helper201 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Britannica.com still describes it as a democratic socialist party. The difficulty here is that the precise definition of socialism - democratic or otherwise - varies according to who you're asking. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

text: All successful political parties routinely update their policies to reflect changing times. Throughout most of its history, the party has not been particularly left-wing and has routinely purged more left-wing elements, such as the Militant tendency in the 1980s. TFD (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology update?