Talk:Independent Working Class Association

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Independent Working Class Association article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Independent Working Class Association (8 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	1,326	1,326
Founding	3,597	3,597
Electoral performance	7,075	7,075
History	1,557	1,557
Campaigns	2,410	2,410
Cultural Impact	278	278
References	30	30
External links	384	384
Total	16,657	16,657

This page was proposed for deletion by Mitcheldean (talk · contribs) on 8 January 2010 with the comment:
An insignicant and virtually irrelevant fringe party. Some local IWCA websites have not been updated for over a year (Oxford) and others have vanished off the internet altogether (Thurrock, Harold Hill). The IWCA has been given very little media coverage and is rarely mentioned on websites, blogs, and internet forums. If there was semi-regular discussion about the IWCA on blogs and forums then this article may be worth saving, but the lack of internet coverage implies that the IWCA doesn't even register on the radar!
It was contested by Warofdreams (talk · contribs) on 00:54, 9 January 2010 with the comment:
(remove prod - importance is not temporary; party has attracted considerable attention, as refs demonstrate, and has elected councillors)

Red Action vs IWCA

Red ACtion is surely not *the same* organisation as IWCA? This is like redirecting IRA to Sinn Fein.

It appears that Red Action and the IWCA are one and the same based on statements by Red Action on their own web page. The IWCA however, is nothing more than a party trying to out BNP the BNP. Almost every article on their website blames Asians, Immigrants and Muslims for every single problem the working class faces. Take their article on the situation in 2002 when several Palestinian and Sudanese men were hospitalised by gangs of up to 50. The IWCA and Red Action all but blame these people for being attacked and find no fault at all in the mobs who attack them. Instead of condemning violence it backs up its support for the mobs who attacked these immigrants by quoting totally unsupported claims such as teenage girls pregnant by 'immigrants' (Realy Red Action, which immigrant? Which nationality? Who is this girl? What about the numerous teenage girls made pregnant by white working class boys in the same area is that not worth mentioning? I guess not when you are trying to blame every problem that white working class people face on Asians, Muslims and immigrants)

Red Action also has links to newspapers such as the Kirkby Times which openly advertises for the BNP and supports their election in the Knowsley area of Liverpool.

So much for Red Action being a party that fights fascism. Just more proof that left or right, there is little difference between the two on the political fringes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.191.184 (talk • contribs)

What a pack of lies. Still, anyone reading their website, as I just have, will see that for themselves. What's your agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.216.150.167 (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Independent Working Class Association 1.gif

Image:Independent Working Class Association 1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

Having a couple of elected councillors is insufficient to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Plenty of community group and resident's associations have managed to achieve this. IMO, only a political party with regular activity in 10 separate areas, or that which is regularly discussed on blogs and forums is worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Regular activity is defined by published coverage of the party's activities either by the media or on the party's website that has taken place for at least a year and the most recent event is less than 3 months old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.23 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a view with any consensus, but feel free to nominate the article at WP:AFD, if you really do feel that it isn't sufficiently notable. Warofdreams talk 17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms material

I removed this material, which seemed to me un-encyclopedic, un-referenced and OR. Editors who think it should be in should edit and reference it before re-inserting: "Indeed many critics on the left would deny that the IWCA sits politically on the Left at all - having more in common with some variants of Self Help Liberalism - with its enthusiasm for the Mondragon workers co-operative movement, and its single propaganda/electoral focus on local ownership and control of services by local people - at the expense of any coherent analysis of the bigger picture at national or overall system level (eg. the capitalist nature of society)." BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Independent Working Class Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]