Talk:Communist Party of Britain: Difference between revisions
Xenobot Mk V (talk | contribs) m Bot) Tag and assess for WP:WPUKPOL - May inherit class from other projects (report errors?) (Plugin++) Added {{WP UK Politics}}. |
|||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
THere already is a [[Communist Party of Great Britain]], which is a different organisation, from what I understand. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
THere already is a [[Communist Party of Great Britain]], which is a different organisation, from what I understand. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
:The UK (which "Britain" usually refers to) includes just 6 of Ulster's 9 counties. And even if you were right, it's completely irrelevant - unless you want "At least 1 Wikipedian feels that the party should be renamed" stuck in the article. |
|||
==Fair use rationale for Image:CPB Logo.gif== |
==Fair use rationale for Image:CPB Logo.gif== |
Revision as of 17:10, 15 January 2010
Politics of the United Kingdom Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Socialism Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Template:WikiProject Political Parties Template:Election box metadata
Electoral results
User:217.158.116.234 wrote: At the last general election in 2001 the CPB ran six candidates whose total vote came to 1,003. Is there a source for this? DJ Silverfish 20:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
CPB election results
2001 elections -- CPB vote reported in the Morning Star early May 2005 elections -- Full details of CPB vote and all other left candidates can be found at: [1]
only English-language socialist daily newspaper in the world
The Morning Star is exactly that. See [2]. All other socialist newspapers are either not in English (ie. Granma) or not daily (ie. the Weekly Worker). The Morning Star can claim to be definitely socialist because, unlike those who may be socialistic or left-leaning, the editorial board of the newspaper have to abide by Britain's Road to Socialism, and is, therefore, consistently socialist.
- So what about Newsline, published by WRP? --Soman 19:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- It's not availible in newsagents, consists of no more than half a dozen articles or pieces and is, effectively, a mouthpiece for the WRP's leading members rather than a newspaper per se. In addition to this, it's also a pile of poo... Drky500 13:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've changed it to "One of the only English-language socialist daily newspapers". Despite what you say above, I feel that the case for the Newsline not being a newspaper is very POV.
"One of the only..." is a meaningless phrase -- it could refer to one of two or one of ten million. Manormadman 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Manormadman
Does Newsline publish a daily print edition and if so, exactly what does it look like? If it lacks the following, maybe it isn't a paper, but only a newsletter or bulletin.
- Columnists (Morning Star features non-party members like Tony Benn as regular columnists.)
- Local, national, and international reporting
- Regular Sport, Entertainment and pop (non-party) Lit Review sections
- Editorial columns distinguished from news articles
The last might be tricky to define, but its a standard pretence for newspapers. If Newsline is only a few pages long it really isn't a paper. DJ Silverfish 19:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/index.shtml is Newsline. Make your mind up...
newsline is more then a few pages.
- Newsline is certainly a socialist daily. Furthermore, what about the Italian left dailies: Il Manifesto, L'Unita, and Neues Deutschland, the paper of the PDS? --Duncan 01:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahem, I believe they are not in English...Troublemaker1973 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Long term rivals
I have removed the reference to the SWP as a "long term rival" making claims that the CPB has an elderly membership, as those claims dont particularly come from the SWP. Anyway, the wording is not very Wiki, and should not be part of an article.
Hammer and dove?
The hammer and dove, wich I had never heard of before, should be properly explained - especially as the article hammer and dove redirects here. Does anyone know anything about it? --Axel Löfving 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The hammer and dove article was - apparently - deleted. I have rescued its content and put it in the hammer and sickle article under "Other similar symbols". Also I have altered the redirect so that it now points to hammer and sickle.
- Given that the result in the vote for deletion was only two in favour with none against, this demonstrates the value of setting a watch on articles that are felt to be important. Rugxulo 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Userbox
I created this Userbox for any supporters to put on their user page.
| ||
{{User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Communist Party of Britain}} |
Willy turner 05:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is a online encyclopedia, not a political party drive. Highcount. 12:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Innacurate Name
They should rename themselves Communist Party of GREAT Britain seeing as BRITAIN includes Ulster! It's very offensive that a so-called British party does not consider Ulster British. A seperate party for each of the main islands in the British Isles is nonsense anyway particularly how small each one of the parties is. One party to cover the whole of the British Isles is plenty. YourPTR! (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, actually Britain, or Great Britain, doesn't include "Ulster". The official name of our current state is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". From a Communist perspective, Ireland, including the six counties in Northern Ireland, is covered by the Communist Party of Ireland. But as is pointed out, Wikipedia is not a soapbox... Grmdy (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
THere already is a Communist Party of Great Britain, which is a different organisation, from what I understand. Ground Zero | t 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The UK (which "Britain" usually refers to) includes just 6 of Ulster's 9 counties. And even if you were right, it's completely irrelevant - unless you want "At least 1 Wikipedian feels that the party should be renamed" stuck in the article.
Fair use rationale for Image:CPB Logo.gif
Image:CPB Logo.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) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Political position edit
User: Political Dweeb is responsible for putting this edit into the CPB's policy on their position on religion. I just wanted to understand like any other person this political party's position on religion. Please tell me if this edit on this political party's position on religion needs improved in a way that is suitable. Hope someone replies thank you. Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.228.121 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've updated your edit for grammar. Grmdy (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)