Talk:Respect Renewal

Untitled

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

Respect Renewal is surely not a new 'political party'!

Repect Renewal is clearly not a new 'political party'! I am re-writing to try and explain it better, until its probable deletion (as this is covered in the main Respect article). Please improve the entry if possible - if it exists there is not point in this article being poor. The current version contained other non-allowed POV (points of view), like 'irreconcilable' and 'founding conference'. It had no citiations.

Before joining in Wikipedia, why don't people read the rules? I honestly don't think many people know what they are! I think Wikipedia assumes rather arrogantly that the whole world understands it.

Whatever may or may not happen in the future for Respect, things are in flux now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article and this talk page, and I still don't know what Respect Renewal is or whether it is notable. What it is, and how it is notable, need to be made clear in the article. The {prod} tag gives five days for the article to be improved. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually the PROD tag should only be used for clear cut deletion decisions, and that's why I've removed it. JASpencer (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've included more info - I suppose now they have created their own webite it could be kept until it the group eventually disbanded (the very title 'Renewal' suggests a temporary nature). On the other hand, Respect Renewal is covered in the main Respect article, so do we need this extra page? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't need an extra page. if this article remain, then it will only suplicate. Respect Renewal is a conference, and is essentially a faction in Respect. the notion that it's a party, or that it's members are not in respect, is a pro-SWP POV. --Duncan (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be deleted and the content absorbed into the main Respect page. --Charliewbrown (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have agreement to delete. Since the article is only being used for POV wars, I will merge this into the main respect article unless we lose consensus on that point. --Duncan (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - the article should remain. It appears that the Respect Split is permenant, and Respect Renewal is displaying many characteristics of a seperate political party. They have their own newspaper and website and are fielding candidates in the London Assembly elections seperately to Respect/SWP. Respect/SWP are contesting the assembly elections and have put forward Lindsey German as candidate for Mayor under the name "The Left List" as they don't have the rights to use the Respect name. I would also suggest that the article is notable - Respect Renewal do have a Member of Parliament, after all. Saluton (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue the discussion about whether the article should remain. What you say about Renewal is true of any party that has public factions: Both sides are standing separately, but the idea that the 'official' candidates have split from Respect is clearly a pro-SWP POV. The Militant tendency remained a faction of the Labour party, even when it had comrades as MPs and ran Lesley Mahmood against the 'official' candidate. --Duncan (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Respect split does indeed seem permanent. The SWP have set up a new party called "Left List". And they no longer have any interest in the name it seems. Btw, George Galloway is Respect's MP. The fact that he supports the Respect Renewal faction is neither here nor there in that respect. Thank you Duncan for undoing the blatant vandalism. When someone here has conclusive evidence, i.e. an entry in the Electoral Commission, showing that RR is a new political party, I'm happy to change the article myself to reflect that. --Charliewbrown (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Left List has an article devoted to it, which describes it as "a group resulting from the split within Respect", followed by a description of the split. Surely in the interests of a neutral POV, Respect Renewal should get similar treatment? And describing RR as a 'platform within Respect' seems contrary to neutral POV - only RR sees itself as a platform, it is de facto acting as a separate organization from Respect / Left List. This is an entirely different situation from, say, the SW platform in the SSP, which acted as a part of that organization until the formation of Solidarity. Gypsyscholar1 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, let's look at this article. It's a stub, not an article. Second, we are moving into the position where the legal continuity of Respect is becoming clear: the forces around Respect Renewal have the name, and the SWP and its co-thinkers are transitioning onto The Left List. This is rather like the discussion editors had about the Liberal Party, and the Catholic Church: it's the formal continuity that counts. --Duncan (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If this page needs to duplicate the Respect article, then it should merge

An editor has pasted in a huge amount of material into this page from the main article on Respect. That's ineffective: we link on Wikipedia, rather than duplicate. That means that material only needs to be edited in one place. Plus that material was about the split in Respect, which is an issue that involves a discussion on all sides and is thus better covered in the main article. Removing large and undiscussed duplications from a linked article is a minor edit. I have removed them, and the editor has restored them. They still duplicate, so I have removed them. However, it poses a question: if everything on that page needs also to be here, then perhaps these articles should merge? --Duncan (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article at present is an unsatisfactory stub and, moreover, I feel it gives a biased point of view to have an article on Respect Renewal without describing the subsequent schism. I did not simply replicate material from elsewhere: my thinking was to cannibalise material from another article as a starting point, and then (as I had only just begun doing) to tailor the content to be more specific to Respect Renewal. So that's where I'm coming from with these edits. I am interested to hear others' perspectives on how to improve this article and will hold off with further edits to allow DuncanBCS and others to comment. Bondegezou (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no-one else has commented! I've re-added a portion of the material I'd included previously, but re-written it to be more concise and more specific to Respect Renewal. It isn't merely duplicating another article now and, I hope, gives a context in which to understand Respect Renewal's beginnings and what has happened since. That said, I do hope other editors continue to develop the material. It is important to get the balance right when describing the schism within Respect, and I'm sure others will help ensure NPOV is met. All that said, a merger with the main Respect article may be appropriate, although I feel we should hold off from doing that until the dispute between RR and Left List/SWP has more clearly reached some conclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've won consensus, so I suggest that we discuss here until we agree. --Duncan (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia can duplicate information when it's necessary - guidelines for example do it all the time, and there is no strict principle against it when it is needed. I think this article should either be developed to give a weighed appraisal of what Respect Renewal is and entails - or merged. It's got to be one or the other, as we can't keep an article deliberately short - and Wikipedia is actually against deleting information (it favours rewriting and splitting). I personally would merge it and put a redirect to the Respect article, so another Renewal one can't be created. Respect Renewal needs to be fully covered in the Respect article in that case. If in the future things become more clearly defined, we can always reverse the merge. The awkwardness here is that this stub was created 'too early' imo - it's like an article section being split into an article, before consensus was reached on the section. It's never worked out. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Along similar lines to Matt, I can no reason to delete verified material from an article. Many Wikipedia articles overlap. Moreover, omitting any discussion of the schism in Respect, and Respect Renewal's part in it, is in clear violation of NPOV. The material I added is not a direct duplication (although it is based on material from elsewhere). DuncanBCS: you have not offered a counter-argument to the latest edit (which is not a simple duplication), nor commented on the NPOV issue. If we are to work towards a consensus, perhaps I could ask you to address these issues? Alternatively, suggest some alternate edits which will address the NPOV concerns some other way.

A merge may be appropriate in the long-term, although I think it is premature while Respect Renewal and Left List are still arguing over who are the true inheritors of Respect, but if people feel a merge is warranted, might I suggest they start the appropriate processes for discussing a merge? The possibility of a future merge is not a reason to keep this article curtailed in the mean time.

Consequently, being bold, I have added a further abbreviated version of my last edit. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Shall we start the "suggested merge" process (Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages)? An example of what happens to the page is here: List of United States journalism scandals. The templates can remain up if no consensus is reached. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a a lot of duplication on Wikipedia, but as a rule of thumb we work against it because it means the same information is in more one that place, and often that leads to a divergence between the two versions. We use redirections and page mergers to do that. Often we do need to flag up material from other pages, but we tend to do that by bringing in a few sentences and then linking out to the main article. I don't accept that there's a violation of NPOV here. I am not disputing POV in the edits, and I am not introducing any alternative text. I'm just against duplications and, of course, I am also against this page. Since that is clear, I am amazed that Bondegezou has reintroduced disputed material without gaining consensus. --Duncan (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Information

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