Talk:Communication Workers Union (United Kingdom)

Comment

I have to hold myself back from defacing this page to make it clear what the english public think of the CWU and it's members at the moment, moronic children currently holding the British public to ransom over matters they have little control over. The ones they do have control over - i.e. their pay, they can just as well find another job. Im sure these views are mirrored countrywide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.27.73 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the comment above be deleted (along with this one asking if it should) as it has nothing to do with editing the page. 82.2.124.179 16:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The comment reflects a view that has been expressed in reliable sources, and which should (in a balanced manner) make its way into the article.Mayalld 11:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

After meeting a shop steward from my local sorting office and hearing both his presentation and responses to questions, I am inclined the other way and am considering seriously switching membership from Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union. The Tory publication reading British public can look out for themselves I think. The rest of us need a union. As for the article, it does need to be taken away from the current events and into the realm of wikipedia. Jed keenan 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

While I am not affiliated with the union or the workers it represents, or the Royal Mail, I am affected by this industrial action as are most people in this country. However I would ask people not to include their views when editing this page. Stick to the known facts (as reported in national media), or the page will end up being locked for persistent vandalism. Parrot of Doom 12:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The article doesn't even attempt to maintain a NPOV, and reads as a blatant soapbox for the union position on all issues. This needs serious copyediting, or excision of 75% of the article to leave a NPOV stub. Mayalld 21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. I would recommend removing all references to strike action, and asking that people create a new article for this purpose. Its not even as if any attempt is being made to remain neutral - and the quality of the edits are extremely poor, unreferenced, and just plain rubbish. Parrot of Doom 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The specific article already existed, so I've moved the info, and had a go at a bit of cleanup on it. I'll give it a week, and then start removing the wildest unreferenced/POV stuff if nobody comes along to fix it.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communication Workers Union (UK). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311211534/http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/pages/member_unions to http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/pages/member_unions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communication Workers Union (UK). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820032423/http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/union.php?t=u&id=2 to http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/union.php?t=u&id=2

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) 12:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)