Talk:Respect Party/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Respect Party, for the period 2004–2007.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

RESPECT The Unity Coalition

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)

It would be good if you followed your own advise and asked anyone who was around when it was put together - like me for example. Rather than relying on gossip in unsourced far-left papers you base your remarks on. If you can provide one single source from an organisation or person involved in the formation of RESPECT to back up your claims please do.

I really am intrigued as to how else you suppose the name was decided. Really wanting to include Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environmentalism, Community and Trade Unionism in the name but deciding it was too long? Hey, wait a minute, we could use the acronym RESPECT! It's the only logical possibility. While most far-left groups do not support the coalition, reporting on how its name was decided (at a meeting) hardly counts as gossip or a criticism. If you really insist, I'll create a new section on the name of the group and can discuss how it was originally referred to (critically, by non-SWPers) as the "Peace and Justice Party", then George Galloway announced his Respect Unity Coalition (no mention of an acronym), which later became RESPECT - The Unity Coalition (to avoid the unfortunate RUC acronym), and finally the world was informed what RESPECT stood for, but it seems of perhaps marginal interest, so for the time being I've restricted that to this talk page. Warofdreams 11:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you are concerned (God knows why) to know how the name was decided you can read about it in George Galloway's biography: I'm Not The Only One by Galloway, George. Published/Distributed by Penguin. ISBN No: 0713998075.

Since you have this frankly implausible theory that the name is not a recursive acronym, please explain what it is - provide some evidence - since I doubt many people have access to that book.

If you are unwilling to research a topic before you post then you have no place on Wikipedia. The book is in print and available through all bookstores in the UK and online and contains a lenghty chapter on the formation of RESPECT including detail about the name from all people involved in the process.

Really? I have no place on Wikipedia? Says who? You have to accept that there are more views than just yours, and to allow the creation of an NPOV article. If you are familiar with this book and it provides the evidence you claim it does, please state it, otherwise I will have to suppose that it does not do so. Warofdreams 11:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The onus is upon YOU to provide proof for YOUR comments, not the other way around. Otherwise they are simply your bias point of view. Wikipedia is not a place where you make unsourced assertions and then challenged people to refute them. If you are too lazy to read up on the subject with the source I have provided then best you stick to editing the Green Party entries and leave RESPECT to people that dont have an axe to grind OK?

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)

Where have I attacked anyone? This is pretty trivial if you are uninterested in the truth. If I were to write that Charles Darwin was a peadophile you believe this should remain and be followed by an alternaitve 'opinion'. Come off it.

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)

I am happy to do so. I dont have it with me at work today. Marvellous how only the non-critical views of RESPECT require sources ;-)

Composition

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)

Removed paragraph about unsourced criticisms of RESPECT. This sort of stuff might take up space on every entry in Wikipedia if it were allowed but is best left on gossip websites like Indymedia not on a serious historical website.

Right then, I'll put sources in. Check out our NPOV policy - they are widespread criticisms and so should stay (along, of course, with RESPECT's responses). Wikipedia should provide a balanced overview of a subject, not a hagiography. The fact you don't like Indymedia is irrelevant. Warofdreams 17:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed comment about alleged reason for Greens rejecting RESPECT attempts at unity. The Greens never said it was because they felt they had a better chance of winnnig seats without RESPECT. Rather, they printed a statement on their website saying they would not be involved in a coalition that had the Socialsit Workers Party as a major component. This was cited as the reason. There was no mention whatsoever in the Greens statement about their ability to wins seats with or without RESPECT.

Fair enough. Numerous Greens said that (the "alleged" reason), and it seems quite logical, but it seems it was not an official line. Warofdreams 11:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History and electoral performance

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)

Reinserted the word "Protest" in reffering to Muslim voters. There is nothing to suggest that the vast majority of Muslim voters have any cultural or religous basis for supporting hard left politics. Indeed religous & cultural values of family, enterprise and anti-gay/lesbian attitudes would suggest a right wing pre-disposition.

Reinserted "Breakthroughs in areas without relatively large numbers of Muslim voters has yet to be demonstrated." This is an electoral fact as can be demonstrated by any analysis of Office of National Statistics (ONS) population statistics either at electoral ward level or Parliamentary constituency.

Inserted a modifed comment around Searchlight and removed the "North West" qualifier as the "fourth party" effect was equally applicable across the UK. The original Searchlight Magazine article is no longer available but a copy can be found at the StopBNPorg website [1]

Expanded "Searchlight" to Searchlight(Magazine) and created internal Wiki link to it. Specified and linked the "D'Hondt method" proportional voting system used in the European Union.

Created section heading for "2004 Elections"

George Monbiot

Does anyone know what happened to George Monbiot? pir 05:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He is anti-marxist as far as I know. Secretlondon 10:30, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

He resigned on 13. Feb. resignation letter, Guardian article. pir 03:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

SSP

Perhaps a note is in order detailing the relations, if any, between RUC and Scottish Socialist Party? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I imagine that it isn't settled yet. No-one actually knows what respect stands for apart from the very basics. This also needs to say who has joined and who hasn't. Respect is as much a coalition as the socialist alliance is/was - its broader (some would say less socialist) programme may well stop some groups from joining.

As far as I know:

In Respect

Not in Respect

Communist Party of Britain (refused to join)
Socialist Party of England and Wales (ditto)

It will be interesting to see how many of the current members of the socialist alliance join. Secretlondon 20:01, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. This all sounds more like The Life of Brian than a viable movement (splitters!) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Green Party refused to join.
Alliance for Workers Liberty (part of the SA) refused to join because of the involvement of Galloway.
Communist Party of Great Britain (PCC) (part of the SA) has joined but is critical because they dont think its socialist enough.
The Muslim Association of Britain was represented at the founding confrence and has encouraged its members to participate, but isn't actually part of Respect. The MAB has said that it doesn't participate in political parties but critics have said that its because of the part of Respect's founding declaration that says "Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on...sexual orientation."Saul Taylor 05:35, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As far as I kow, the Green Party were never asked to join and are none too pleased that the anti-war vote which might have gone to their MEPs and GLA representatives will be split. The founding statement was agreed on by a very small group of people (Galloway, SWP,..) and there was no possibility for other groups to have any real input - what one might call top-down and undemocratic. People from the democratic platform within the Socialist Alliance tried to make some amendments at the founding conference but had no chance given the large SWP presence. pir 05:58, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About the Green Party: Salma Yaqoob talking to the Guardian, mentions the Greens, Green Party member Hugo Charlton tells the Greens wont be joining Respect, Green Party member criticises the party for refusing to participate, Guardian article about StWC, mentions the Greens refusing to join. Saul Taylor 08:08, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

for more information on the possibilies of the Green Party becoming part of the RESPECT Unity Coalition : this is the RUC view , this is the Green Party view. pir 07:53, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RESPECT offered the Greens a pact - if the Greens are strong in one area, RESPECT wouldn't stand, precisely to stop the anti-war vote being split. The Greens refused to have any kind of pact, although privately many Green Party members have said this is lunacy: If groups can agree together where to stand and not to stand, everyone can win.

Socialist Review article critiquing the Green Party position

(William M. Connolley 12:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)) The Green Party POV (and I'm speaking as a member) is that all the policies of respect were essentially already GP policies: most obviously anti-war. Respect "offered" the GP a placve in the coalition: the GP reply was why should we join you: why don't you join us?

Now that William has revealed his Green Partisanship

(William M. Connolley 10:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)) You can keep your partisanship

I understand much better why he spends so much time trying to edit the history of RESPECT. The hostility from the Greens towards RESPECT is well documented.

Could you perhaps document the well-documented hostility of which you speak?

The Green Party reply to RESPECT was a little more specific than William cares to mention. It said they would not form any agreements with RESPECT because it was dominated by the SWP.

Perhaps the GP reply should be on the page then, rather than us relying on your paraphrase of it? And as to RESPECT being dominated by the SWP... well it is. Are you disputing that?

I am.

Did they actually get any seats anywhere?

I can't recall seeing any report about RESPECT actually winning seats anywhere.... -- Kaihsu 14:49, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

That's because they didn't. Warofdreams 17:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think they have a handful of councillors or so, all of them people who defected from the Labour party AFAIL. - pir 09:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reply above was re: the Euro elections. They have a councillor in Preston (elected as Socialist Alliance) and one recently elected in East London. I think that's it, but it's possible that there've been defections from Labour as well. Warofdreams 10:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Without wishing to get into a war with T Bone again: shouldn't the lack of seats be in the article? If no-one at all has been elected as RESPECT, that is quite relevant.

They have about 30 councillors (mildly abusive comment removed) --213.121.207.34 18:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

We won 16 seats on May 4th.

We won 16 seats in Bethnal Green & Bow alone - We currently have around 30+ councillors with our one MP (needn't be named). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.127.57 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Linda Smith

Is this the same Linda Smith? Morwen - Talk 22:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope. This Linda Smith, is treasurer of the London region FBU. --JK the unwise 10:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3 revert rule

(William M. Connolley 16:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)) By my count, T Bone has broken the 3 revert rule today. Please don't do this.

Future election Plans

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)

This point is an interesting one, although it should be left out for now. Although Respect has, as of yet, no policy about the 2007 elections, I think recently Galloway, in a newspaper interview, called on Tommy Sheridan to join him in a new leftist party, criticised the SSP, and said that Respect would stand in the 2007 Holyrood elections. Although no official line has been taken, with Respect neither confirming or denying it, the fact that a major figure made these statements is an interesting one. But yes, it remains officially unconfirmed, and doesn't seem particularly needed in the article at the moment, and so should be left out. --MullHistSoc 17:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, the newspaper in question is the Mail on Sunday, on the 5th Dec 2004. --MullHistSoc 17:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found stuff on this on the SSPs website. [2] It says they wrote to RESPECT to complain, wonder what the response was?--JK the unwise 13:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

On the website of the evening standard, as part of an internet chat thingy, Galloway answered the question When do you foresee Respect actively moving into Scotland? by saying I don't - we are supporting the Scottish Socialist Party. [3].--JK the unwise 11:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Socialist Green Unity Coalition

I have set up a stub for the Socialist Green Unity Coalition, which the following organizations have joined:

Links to the SPEW's announcement page and the CPGB's article are there as well.

Best left electoral performance

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)

Page title

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)

I agree, do it. --Mrfixter 11:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment:A backronym is a type of acronym.--JK the unwise 12:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

"We"

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)

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)

Duplicated links

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What does cruft mean?--JK the unwise 19:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Including the extra link to the position paper is not including more information, it is merely redundant. Your comment about a marker for POV is inscrutable at best, could you elaborate? Also, the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem articles do not feel the need to have redundant external links to obscure essays by party activists. This talk about before or after the elections is nonsensical. --Mrfixter 00:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not convinced links are all redundent, see DJ silverfish's comments. Also remember Wikipedia is not paper so the prepumstion should always favour inclution. I have however removed some of the links from the main article and replaced with can be found on their website. The footnote like links however are references and as such should be left.--JK the unwise 16:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

RESPECT a recursive acronym?

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)

Agree.--JK the unwise 09:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Warofdreams 10:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

Name

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)

Manifestos and position papers

I'm endorsing the inclusion of Party publications in the External links section. Wikipedia entries for most other UK parties include this kind of information, and they should. It is true that the Rees articles are also presented in HTML format on the Respect website, but the site is hard to navigate and its difficult to find policy papers. We're performing a public service by posting them here. If someone wants to remove the links because he or she thinks they are "cack" then I presume s/he reached this conclusion by reading the statements via the wiki links. S/he ought agree to leave the links up so that others can reach their own conclusions. DJ Silverfish 14:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree (mostly). To be fair to Mrfixer they haven't been removing the links because they think they link to cack i.e. a load of rubbish rather because they think they are cruft which apparently means fan boy irrelevance.

As I see it there are two issules 1. Whether a web page should be considered one thing or a collection of things. If it is a collection then whats the harm in linking to the collection on whole and also particularly illuminating peices from the collection? 2. Whether the content of the article is fan boy irrelevance. This is hard to call. Personally I think an article by a leading member of any pollitcal party on the way forward for that party is definatly not cruft. The minutes of a region Respect meeting would be cruft. To give a non-political example: I dont think linking to an article by Ashlee Simpson's Manager (from the Ashlee Simpson page) about her future ambitions would nessisarly be cruft but linking to a paper on the same subject from a fan page would be cruft. --JK the unwise 15:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. IMO I think we should look towards the Labour Party (UK) article as a pointer as to what should be done about obscure and irrelevant party documents i.e. not link them. The link to the Respect site is enough. And why the obsession with John Rees? Anyway, I would like to build a consensus, nobody owns this article so lets work together. As a show of good faith, I will not revert or edit the external links section without previous discussion on the talk page. --Mrfixter 15:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to work toward consensus. It's appropriate to note that the Labour Party UK manifestos are linked via a non-party website: http://www.labour-party.org.uk/. That's OK, and it shows that Labour has supporters willing to shell out cash to host obscure and irrelevant party documents. So it seems there is interest in this type of thing. DJ Silverfish 17:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The Greens

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.[7]
--JK the unwise 18:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

20.138.1.245. readded this addition with the referance see exchange of letters in The Guardian Newspaper. I've done a bit of trawling but can't find this. I did find a quote from Green party chair Hugo Charlton. On the issule of a Green/Respect pact he said

Many in the Green party are very antipathetic to Respect. I've always argued for some sort of understanding with them, not least because we are both "fellow travellers" on the left, but the reality is that the closer you are ideologically, the more you compete for the same vote.
So any agreement at a local level, in the Green spirit of devolution, is up to local parties, but a formal, national alliance is out of the question.[8]

20.138.1.245's explanation doesn't wash for a number of reasons firstly Respect had been approching the Greens for some time, secondly though the Green Party is federal the leadership would have had a lot of infulence if it put forward the suggestion that local groups consider non-aggretion pact.--JK the unwise 17:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

20.138.1.245: I've found the references in the Guardian. So the Greens were following a constitutional democratic process or not?

The quote from Charlton seems a bit strange. He's claiming that because they're competing for a similar vote, they're less likely to agree on a non-aggression pact or an electoral alliance? Surely it would be the other way around, like with the SDP-Liberal Pact - similar vote bringing the two parties loosely aligned to each other to maximise chances. Charlton's statement just doesn't wash, for me. I think there's got to be some deeper reason (although the references to "hard-left" and "Trotskyist" in the above linked Green news story suggest they're afraid really of being linked to people like the SWP and Galloway so they can appeal to more fluffy liberals) Still, perhaps that's just the cynic in me. --MullHistSoc 11:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

left-wing

I don't believe this part is socialist or left wing at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.189.67 (talk • contribs) 7 Jan 2006

Then read the manifesto.

neutrality dispute

there seems t be a prevalence of straw man arguments put into the mouths of Respect critics - these are conveniently knocked down. It seems the article is pro-respect with an attempt made to appear neutral. I would welcome any changes that rectify this. --Jimbobalina2005 13:06, 9 May 2006

Eg?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.108.219 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 May 2006.

The article can only discuss critisms that have been made, and it seems fair enough to have Respects replies. Would you like to point us to some sources of what you might think are stronger critisms.--JK the unwise 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now but tomorrow I will outline my stronger criticisms.--Jimbobalina2005 13.10, 10 May 2006

These have failed to materialise in the past 10 days, therefore the tag will be removed. -- Tompsci 11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article fails to show any criticisms of the party. The truth is that much of the far left parties dislike Respect and their opportunist approach to win the hearts of Muslims and other minorities and preaching to them about Socialism. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... did u not see the 6 large paragraths?--JK the unwise 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha sorry. Obviously not! :) --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree, it appears that any attempt to write what Respect don't like gets pulled (no doubt they have a few members standing by the edit buttons!).Any attempt to label them "far left", gets pulled. Yet they are obviously not a mere "left wing" party (The Lib Dems and Labour are), but much further out, strange that the BNP is labelled (accurately) "far right" rather than merely "right wing", but applying the same criteria to Respect is not allowed.

Headquarters

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)

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)

Stukeley Road, i'm fairly sure, is the Newham Constituency office, whereas Club Row is the Tower Hamlets office, which doubles as the national one at the moment.

"Identity Politics"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Criticisms/composition

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).

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" ^{[citation needed]}. 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^[1] 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. Hús ö nd 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[9] or article from Respects own page[10] or Socialist Review article.[11]". 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 5 7 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. —Nightst a llion (?) 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".[12] 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 5 7 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. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DASH says not to use endashes in article titles. Number 5 7 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)

^ Cite error: The named reference sro1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[sro1-1] Cite error: The named reference sro1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

RESPECT The Unity Coalition

Composition

History and electoral performance

George Monbiot

SSP

In Respect

Not in Respect

Did they actually get any seats anywhere?

Linda Smith

3 revert rule

Future election Plans

Socialist Green Unity Coalition

Best left electoral performance

Page title

"We"

Duplicated links

RESPECT a recursive acronym?

Name

Manifestos and position papers

More info to put into the article

The Greens

left-wing

neutrality dispute

Headquarters

"Identity Politics"

Criticisms/composition

Removed section

Total number of councillors

Communalism

Requested move

Survey

Discussion

Requested move

Survey

Discussion

The Crisis and Split of Respect

campaigning

Blofeld connection?

Respect address

Cohen