Talk:Labour Party (UK)

Removal of content

Michaeldble removal of reliably cited content with reasoning such as "Trivial" is ownership behaviour. See point 4. "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." Helper201 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This seems like an uncivil and counterproductive way to go about things, if you'd had an issue with my behaviour please start a discussion on my talk page in future first. As that same policy states: "Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. All editors must follow the official policy about discussing disputes and avoid edit warring."

Regarding the content, the history section should only contain major events in the party's history. Therefore removing information because it is trivial/not a major event seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. A few councillors resigning is not a major event in the party's history. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant no offence. The best place for this discussion is here as it is relevant to this page.

"Regarding the content, the history section should only contain major events in the party's history", according to whom? That is a self-imposed restriction. There is no such rule or restriction. Also, this is 20 councillors, which is more than "a few". Regardless it matters not about the numbers as there is nothing detrimental about added such correctly cited information to this page. Helper201 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology.

The history section is ultimately a summary, it makes very little sense to include events that have had very little coverage purely because they are correctly cited - there are far more considerations than this. If this is the case, we could easily include events such as the sacking of Andrew Glynne or Starmer's HIV test in the last week alone. I think we should be far more selective about what we include to avoid issues relating to WP:Recentism, WP:NOTNEWS and giving undue weight to minor aspects of a subject.

It would be interesting to hear the viewpoint of other contributors too. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would also note that there are currently over 6,400 Labour councillors. Michaeldble (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

No problem.

The problem is there's not really any better place to put this information. I would've added it to the old page "Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer" but that page no longer exists. If you can suggest a better place to put this information then I'm all ears, but this certainly seems the best place to me. I'd also argue it’s not that recent and its certainly noteworthy news, otherwise you wouldn't get a big, national and reputable news source such as the BBC dedicating a whole article to it (i.e. they didn't just mention it in passing). Also, it’s not undue weight to give literally one line of information to a subject in the middle of the page. It’s not like this is being added to the article's lead or that a large paragraph of information is being added about it. Again, we're talking about a single line covering an article by arguably the largest British news outlet there is. I also don’t think it’s fair to straw man my argument with propositions of other suggestions I haven’t proposed. Helper201 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Michaeldble a reminder regarding the above discussion as I haven't heard from you in almost a month. Helper201 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I don't think we have to put it anywhere. Being covered in a reliable source is not the only criteria for inclusion. We'd be giving undue weight to a very minor aspect of the subject - a story that even the most politically engaged will have probably missed. It definitely wasn't my intention to straw man your argument, I just wanted to demonstrate that a summary of a major governing party's history would be unreadable if we include every news article relating to the party solely because it is covered in a reliable source. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

So what is this content that was removed? --Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Jonjonjohny this paragraph in the section "Return to government (2024–present)":

In January 2025, twenty elected councillors in Nottinghamshire quit the Labour Party, saying the party had "abandoned traditional Labour values" and were opposed to polices the party had enacted since coming to power after the general election, such as scrapping the winter fuel allowance for certain pensioners.

Here is the link to the edit itself. Helper201 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Michaeldble, with all due respect, I really don't think that response adequately addressed what I said. I explained why its justified, why here, attempted to compromise by being open to a suggestion of a different location for the information (be it on this page or another one), and explained why it’s not undue weight due to its length, location and the reliability and notability of such a major source of which is being cited. Helper201 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's an insignificant movement because there has been a lot of councillor resignations across Britain. Browtrowe was a big one, but so was Leicester and I think there was cases in Hastings, Stroud and Lancaster (I'm probably wrong there, but their has been a few cases of mass resignations). They've happened both because of Labour's shift to the centre and right on policy, or because of Gaza specifically. I think that in this main party article, it could be a detailed paragraph covering the who phenomena since Starmer became leader. In the History of the party article it could be more detailed in the chronology of it. What do you think? Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Helper201 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

References

SDLP

for ages this has listed the SDLP as an 'affiliation' without any sort of source or clarification, I've tried in vain to find any sort of evidence of there being an agreement between the two parties, and it seems like maybe there used to be one. Either way I don't think this should be included 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:C58D:1481:4E26:17F0 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It says that Labour supports the SDLP in NI, not that they are affiliated. The claim, made in the body of the lead is supported. It explains why Labour does not run candidates in NI and why they tell people to vote SDLP if they are asked who to vote for in NI. TFD (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Position on the EU

Labour will rejoin the EU. 2001:1C01:4009:D00:18CC:615D:5326:C030 (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source backing up this claim? everything I can see from a search suggests they were ruling out the possibility after the election, and there doesn't seem to be anything recent that I could see on the prospect of directly rejoining. Rexo (talk | contributions) 13:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Historical ideology

Hello everyone. I would like to ask you, should Democratic socialism be added as a historical ideology of labour party? There is a lot of sources that say Labor was originally democratic socialist party but it became more moderate over time. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: (summoned by bot). Thanks for asking. Has there already been a discussion topic on this? Please link it above. Dw31415 (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No. This is the first discussion about adding historical ideology. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhoIsCentreLeft I believe you have misunderstood the purpose of an RfC – they are more of a "last resort" to resolve larger issues than simply a venue to ask questions. For this reason, it is recommended to try discussing a topic before opening an RfC (see WP:RFCBEFORE). I have removed the RfC tag here – editors may still weigh in with their opinions, but if this hasn't been discussed before we don't need to frame it as an RfC. Toadspike [Talk] 17:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment (Summoned by bot): The infobox is lengthy as it is. Not every last detail needs to go into the infobox. TarnishedPath^talk 23:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source? The term democratic socialism came into use during the Cold War to distinguish socialist parties from communist ones.[1] The Labour Party adopted the term democratic socialism in its 1995 change to Clause IV. The ideology of the party has remained the same since then. TFD (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)