Talk:Industrial Workers of the World/Archive 2

Attorney General Thomas Campbell Clark
Clark was no longer U.S. Attorney General in 1950 having been appointed to the Supreme Court in 1949 so either it was another AG or was before 1950 if it indeed was Clark who declared the IWW "subversives". I tried to research this online to no avail.
 * good catch! i found a source for IWW having been placed on list; it could have been clark that did it because according to source, it happened in 1949. however, the source doesn't say who did it, so i rewrote the sentence so that it didn't say either.  a closer look at that whole sentence reveals many problems, though.  i'll continue to look into it.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * i found a source for its being tom clark that did it; it's just that the year was wrong. the sentence is far too long, but i can't yet find sources for the rest of the facts stated in it, so i'm leaving it alone for now.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy John's
I found nothing in this article about the unionization of Jimmy John's shops under IWW, except for a link in the link sections. This should be talked about in 2000s - present section. I am a wobbly member but I'm sure there is someone much more qualified in the wiki community, wobbly or not, hopefully wobbly, that can do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soco 79 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Communist front-group assertion
An editor has been trying to add something about the IWW helping to form the Comintern. I understand that the nascent Comintern invited the IWW of the UK, the US and Australia to the initial congress, but I cannot see that the IWW was foundational in any way. They were invited, that's all. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then alter the wording without just deleting the entire passage. For instance, the group being labeled as a communist front by the US government (the link in the text supplied went straight to the Wikipedia reference in question, so your attending revert claim that it lacked reference was untrue) is very obviously notable in the history of the organization (especially seeing as it explains the already-existing Red Scare writing, which otherwise appears parachuting out-of-the-blue). You are at 2RR, Binksterne.--02:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot use another Wikipedia page as a reference. Regardless, the bit you added about IWW being labeled a Communist front group was given the context of the whole Cold War, but the reference on that page says the time frame was 1955-56. The Cold War was a lot longer than that, so you are inflating the label. Bringing that bit of information to the lead section without any context or other kind of discussion is going against the guideline at WP:LEAD which says to add material to the article body, then summarize it in the lead. We don't add stuff to the lead section by itself.
 * I see the whole addition as WP:Undue emphasis on one viewpoint, and brought to the article without any kind of context, the result being a non-neutral telling of the IWW story. As you may have noticed, I am very firmly against non-neutral editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any credible rationale for being obstinately opposed to referencing a US government claim of an organization whose article already poses in conjunction with Red Scares.--03:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:HISTRS being the WP:RS policy relevant for WP:V, the fact that you're conducting WP:OR from WP:PRIMARY sources in order to insert your own mis-WP:WEIGHTed point of view into the article. The US government is not reliable for labour history.  If your propositions have any merit, then they will be discussed in post-war histories of the IWW.  This is not acceptable on wikipedia.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about "labour history" (your red herring attempt to conflate the subject). -- The USG certainly did say something about the IWW, and it therefore certainly noteworthy in an article about that group. References which are good enough for the communist front article are, ipso facto, good enough for here. Your opinion of the USG's veracity is irrelevant due to the USG's notability. The appropriate thing for you to do would be to drudge up something decrying the USG's assertion and include it as a counter-point, and juxtapose it all within the context of various Red Scares.--Mike18xx (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but PRIMARY sources cannot be used to produce Original research. "Other stuff existing" in another article doesn't mean anything. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It should hopefully be fairly easy to find a secondary source that covers the issue, but Fifelfoo's right, we can't use primary sources in this way on Wikipedia. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like an acceptable use to me. Where is the original resource?  Belchfire (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you click on the link, it will take you through to the original resource on the archive. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I typed "original resource" when I meant to type "original research". Nevertheless, and clearly, you need to learn what "original research" means.  Suggest you do some reading-up before reverting any more edits on those grounds. Belchfire (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims made in the distant past by states are not the history of industrial organisations. Editors using claims made by states in the past instead of the history of industrial organisations on pages that are about the history of an industrial organisation are conducting original research.  The correct place to source claims regarding the history of industrial organisations is surprisingly from secondary sources published on the history of industrial organisations.  It is that simple.  We do not do original historical research on wikipedia.  We do not search for and interpret original documentation. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your take on the policy is, ironically, original research. Suggest you read WP:PRIMARY and learn what it actually says. Belchfire (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is relatively simple, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." means that making original historical interpretations of US government documents that are primary sources should happen under the influence of reliable secondary sources. Guess what the appropriate sources are for a subject of labour history analysis?  Fifelfoo (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike18xx is making novel, unweighted interpretations of primary sources that reside nowhere except in Mike18xx's own mind. That's clear original research.  Mike18xx is not relying on secondary sources for WEIGHT.  This topic is clearly covered by a variety of scholars, and Mike18xx is ignoring the scholarly discourse on the IWW—labour history—in favour of his own inventions.  The interpretation of primary sources to produce history is a specialist skill, it is a non-obvious interpretation, and the skills required are not those of the encyclopaedist.  If Mike18xx wishes to publish novel labour history elsewhere, then we should wait to see if those publications meet our reliable sourcing criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Belchfire, I'm not sure if your comment above was aimed at me or Fifelfoo; if it was aimed at me, I reverted because pages 722-727 of the source concerned makes no reference to Communist fronts, or to a Red Scare (first or second), not does it say that the IWW was labelled as such in 1955; it produces a compiled list of "designated organisations" listed under an executive order 10450 between 1953 and 1955, and that's about it. WP: PRIMARY requires that " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." This is also why the guidance notes that "(m)aterial based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Hchc2009 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Espionage and the Roots of the Cold War, verify source
The following source is used in the article to say that IWW was controlled by the Comintern.



I don't think the source is accurately represented by that statement; to verify I would like to know on which page the claim is made, and I would like to see a direct quote supporting the claim.

Other scholars have analyzed the Venona decrypts without concluding that the IWW was controlled by the Comintern, which is why I insist on knowing what support is in McKnight's book. Binksternet (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacks and women?
Note: moved here from my talk page, regarding this edit.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. I do not mean to disrupt your edits, so I will not pursue this point if you disagree with me, but I think (perhaps because of my own inability to articulate clearly) you misunderstood the edit I made in the article on the Wobblies. The article originally stated that the IWW and the Knights of Labor were the only unions to welcome Africa-Americans and women as members. That is not completely true, as the International Typographical Union (formed in 1869) also always welcomed African-Americans and women into its membership. I tried to add the ITU to the phrase stating that the Knights of Labor admitted women and blacks, and I tried to give two examples to prove this (Lewis Douglass and Juanita Dickey). If you think it is more appropriate to say the Knights of Labor and the IWW are the only unions to originally admit blacks and women, I'll leave it alone. But, I really think accuracy demands that the ITU be included, as well. Thank you. 24.9.74.139 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's totally reasonable. The problem is that the sentence in the article says that the IWW and the Knights admitted immigrants and Asians as well, so the way you put it in there made the sentence not quite make sense.  Without a source I couldn't see how to fix it.  I'm going to move this over to the article talk page so maybe others can join in too.  I think it's totally plausible that there should be a different sentence with this information.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is wrong to say that the IWW "when founded,...was the only American union (besides the Knights of Labor) to welcome all workers including women, immigrants, African Americans and Asians into the same organization." It is clear that the International Typographical Union also did that.  A famous African-American member was the son of abolitionist Frederick Douglass, while a notable female ITU member was Waneta Dickey of Akron, Ohio.  See Martin Lipset's book, Union Democracy for more information on this.  Shouldn't the statement in this article be changed?   24.9.74.139 (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me
that the Notable members needs some consistency. I favor just a list of link, no descriptors. Or something (or two or three) for everyone. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the list is bound to get pretty long, long enough to be split off into its own list article if it isn't given some strict constraints. Maybe splitting it off would be best, and have in place of the embedded list some kind of description of the significance of the IWW's broad reach and connection to various movements in its early years through today. Or something like that. I've been looking at the list for a while but I'm not sure how to address it properly and make it more useful. But in any case, there's a lot of names to list, even if we stick only to names which have articles, and it seems arbitrary which ones would be considered most notable to the article overall. Djr13 (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am about ready to just start making changes in the list. Like.. should not all folks singers be listed together, as opposed to a Finn getting a separate niche?  And more.  Carptrash (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In fiction
For the Win by Cory Doctorow introduces a nascent union of Internet workers called the IWWWW or Webblies, inspired by the IWW Wobblies. True to the IWW concept of share and share alike, this book is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 license. If nobody objects, I'll add this to the article. —Pawyilee (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No objections; the motion is carried. —Pawyilee (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Decline

 * Nonetheless, membership declined dramatically in the 1920s due to several factors. There were conflicts with other labor groups, particularly the American Federation of Labor (AFL) which regarded the IWW as too radical while the IWW regarded the AFL as too staid and conservative.[8] Membership also declined in the wake of government crackdowns on radical, anarchist and socialist groups during the First Red Scare after WWI. The most decisive factor in the decline in IWW membership and influence, however, was a 1924 schism, from which the IWW never fully recovered.

This presents a very superficial and blinkered view. The 1930s and 40s were a time of heightened radicalism, but the IWW failed to flourish. Most organisations have internal conflict, but this doesn't have to mean dramatic and lasting decline. Clearly, the rise of the Communist Party was a factor, as well as the IWW's congenital inability to handle politics.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wobbly Shop
I have modified this because the idea is to delegate people to functions (and they're without privileges, subject to immediate recall), rather than to install managers who would control workers. This very seriously misrepresents the organisation's policy. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.70.213 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just undid this edit

 * "but a near-consensus of members and academics reports it to come from a type of saw common in IWW-organised lumber camps in the early days of the union (1905-1924)."
 * on the theory that if there is "near consensus" then it should be easy to footnote. My copy of Rebel Voices, for example, says "origin unknown." Carptrash (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 09 March 2010 (UTC)

Industrial Union???
I attempted to change the introductory description of the IWW as an "industrial union", but this was reverted. There are industrial unions around the world - of transport workers, maritime workers, manufacturing workers etc - but the IWW is not and never has been one of these. It was (and still aspires to be) a radical organisation that favours industrial unions on the way to replacing capitalism with "one big union". But it is highly misleading to call it an industrial union itself. I suggested "labor movement", but there could be better descriptions. (To complicate the issue, industrial union links to a page that is not really about industrial unionism, but about the IWW, so here we have essentially a circular definition.)--Jack Upland (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is entirely incorrect. The IWW is a registered union in both the US (see dropdown here) and UK. It is the legally recognized bargaining agent for several employers, and organizes all workers in the same industry into the same union body, which is the everyday and legal definition of an industrial union. Wobdev (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems that the term "industrial union" as contrasted with "craft union" is a term of art denoting unions that organize workers by workplace rather than by skillset. The IWW in its heyday was certainly one of these.  Sources seem to back this up, as e.g.
 * and so on. That the IWW was meant to be a universal industrial union rather than an industrial union specific to one industry doesn't detract from the fact that they were explicitly opposed to craft unionism and were referred to by themselves and others as an industrial union in the very sense of the article linked to, e.g.
 * Perhaps there's much room for clarification here, but probably replacing "industrial union" with "labor movement" isn't very accurate without some detailed explanation? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * and so on. That the IWW was meant to be a universal industrial union rather than an industrial union specific to one industry doesn't detract from the fact that they were explicitly opposed to craft unionism and were referred to by themselves and others as an industrial union in the very sense of the article linked to, e.g.
 * Perhaps there's much room for clarification here, but probably replacing "industrial union" with "labor movement" isn't very accurate without some detailed explanation? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's much room for clarification here, but probably replacing "industrial union" with "labor movement" isn't very accurate without some detailed explanation? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's much room for clarification here, but probably replacing "industrial union" with "labor movement" isn't very accurate without some detailed explanation? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree about what industrial unions are. Or the fact that the IWW was in favour of them. The question is whether this is an appropriate description for the IWW in Wikipedia. As far as I can see your first two sources don't mention the IWW at all. The third describes it as one of the "radical groups" which were in favour of industrial unionism. The fourth does call it a union, but a "national revolutionary labor union", not simply an "industrial union". How about a "radical [or militant or revolutionary] industrial union movement"?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can see that I was unclear in my statement about the relevance of the first two sources, which were only meant to demonstrate the meaning of "industrial union" rather than anything about the IWW in particular. The IWW was more than a movement, though, as it actually had industrial union locals affiliated with it.  this (PDF) source describes it as a "central industrial organization" as a way of emphasizing its umbrella nature for local industrial unions.  How does something like that sound?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think its radicalism should be noted.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. Perhaps you can suggest a phrase?  It's important to remember that they actually did run local industrial unions, too.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A revolutionary organization of industrial unionism?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be nit-picky, because I can't think of anything better right now, but it seems to me that one can't have an organization of unionism. There's some kind of mismatch error in there.  How about "national revolutionary industrial labor organization"?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I would drop the "national".--Jack Upland (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I made an edit. See how you like it.  I'm not wedded to it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I decided to take the word "revolutionary" and run it through the IWW Preamble & Constitution test. Besides finding an old baseball card for Rusty Staub, I found "we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system"". This was shortly followed by "It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism." It goes on, but I feel, at least for me, that this is enough to justify the use of the word "revolutionary."  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PS, the Constitution (Article 1, section 4) is entitled Industrial Unions and makes it pretty clear that the IWW considers its self to be one. Or be composed of a bunch of them.  Carptrash (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We all seem to agree that "revolutionary" is essential, and that the IWW believes it's an industrial (as opposed to craft) union.  The problem (I think) that we're trying to solve is that the previous wording may have misled the reader since the IWW is an umbrella organization that local industrial unions can be affiliated with rather than, e.g., like the UAW, which is an industrial union specific to a certain industry.  I thought the previous wording was OK, but I see the potential for confusion.  What do you think of my last edit, which was essentially a proposal?  Please revert if you want to, as I'm not wedded to it in any way.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are fine with me. I did a bit of research on the "revolutionary" part and that passed with flying colors. Red, of course. Carptrash (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I just stuck back in a picture that was here for a long lime, removed for some reason, and now back. Carptrash (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's much clearer.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And just think, we did it by working together!
 * When the union’s inspiration through the workers' blood shall run
 * There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun
 * Yet what force on Earth is weaker than the feeble force of one but
 * The union makes us strong!
 * Solidarity Forever &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Followed this conversation as I'd wondered myself how one can possibly summarize this properly in so few words. To nitpick the chosen phrasing, while it makes some sense to avoid saying "industrial union" because it isn't itself specific to any one industry, to not call it a union at all implies (albeit subtly) that it does not maintain its own direct constituency of workers, but rather functions as a third party or a conglomeration, federation or supraorganization of unions. The interesting thing is that this is as true as it is false, as it does have federated administrative structures but a member of one such body is also directly a member of the organization in general. And in fact, one doesn't even need to be a member of any particular IWW industrial union to be a member of the broader organization.


 * Now, from that I can see a possible argument that neither an organization that happens to be composed of workers nor an organization that happens to be composed of unions is necessarily a union, but at each level of collective association (workplace, industry, economy) it explicitly maintains a basis of "organization of workers who have banded together to achieve common goals" based on some defined commonality. Plus, it is legally recognized as a labor union in many countries (which is somewhat quirky when you think about the history of that).


 * But again, saying "organization" rather than "union" is only mildly misleading given the explanation that follows. As far as what would be most succinct, I'm not sure.


 * "Industrially-organized revolutionary international labor union"? Heheheh... Maybe just move mention of "industry vs craft" suborganization to a later sentence as it does with anti-capitalism, workplace democracy and the rest? I think this would actually help avoid implying not only that it is of a single industry, but also avoid the common misinterpretation of "industry" to imply "factories." djr13 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But then again, it says "industrial" right in the name, so that could just as well give it a high priority in explaining what that refers to. djr13 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Reconsidering this, I think the following would be most succinct and descriptive: "The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), members of which are commonly termed 'Wobblies', is an international, revolutionary labor union that was formed in 1905. The union combines general unionism with industrial unionism, being a general union itself whose members are also suborganized within the industry of their employment. The origin of the nickname 'Wobblies' is uncertain." This explains how the organization itself is not directed at a certain industry, but internally organizes along industrial lines. When poking around for an explanation I actually found a related quote to explain its basis as a "general union," which is directly related to its support of One Big Union (concept) even though this concept is more often cited in relation to craft vs industrial organizing: "one general union of the entire working class." Quote can be found for example in, and in this primary source. However, I'm not sure whether and how that particular quote should be integrated, as it was obviously more of a description of its intentions than of its results. djr13 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think what's there is good. It was the outcome of a co-operative discussion of various perspectives. The page on general unions cites the Australian Workers Union, which is very far from the principles that the IWW stood for.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The description as a general union is not directed at principles, but at a basic and succinct description of structure which is currently missing, glossing over it as an "industrial labor organization," a rather nebulous term in many ways. I have read the discussion above, and the proposal (and thoughts preceding it) is my contribution to it. djr13 (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed "revolutionary" from the first paragraph because it is vague and potentially misleading. Just as it would be an NPOV-violation to describe the AFL-CIO as "a liberal union", and preferable to simply describe its positions in value-neutral terms, so too should we describe rather than characterize the IWW's positions and practices. 108.83.145.137 (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're totally wrong. There is nothing evaluative in calling the IWW "revolutionary". The AFL-CIO encompasses a wide range of members, including self-described revolutionaries.  The IWW is fundamentally different. In any case, to remove "revolutionary" because it is "vague and potentially misleading" is profoundly illogical.  This edit leaves the decription of the IWWW as an "international industrial labor organization" which is very vague and highly misleading.  How about "radical"?  Is that better?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be comfortable with "radical" though to me the second sentence of the preamble could be classified as "revolutionary'. Or not. Carptrash (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * However later in the Preamble I find, "Instead of the conservative motto, A fair day's wage for a fair day's work we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, Abolition of the wage system." - which suggests that "revolutionary" is okay. Carptrash (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: I'm a member of the IWW. How is the IWW "fundamentally different"? There are no ideological requirements for membership (members are only [|asked] "to study the IWW's principles and make yourself acquainted with its purposes.;"). The IWW and AFL-CIO may in practice have different ideological compositions, and I think the rest of the article makes those sociological differences clear in an appropriately non-evaluative way. As far as the preamble containing the world "revolutionary": that describes an aim of the union, not the union itself. The [|AFL-CIO] describes itself as part of a "progressive" coalition in its preamble, but its entry does not describe it as "a progressive union" nor does it quote that self-evaluation. Wobdev (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

So the IWW isn't revolutionary; it just has revolutionary aims? I don't get it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also find your reply, "the world "revolutionary": that describes an aim of the union, not the union itself." to be rather obscure. Perhaps you mean, "the world "revolutionary": that describes an aim of the union, not this union member himself.?" Carptrash (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is still disputed, I raise again my proposed wording for consideration: "The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), members of which are commonly termed 'Wobblies', is an international, revolutionary labor union that was formed in 1905. The union combines general unionism with industrial unionism, being a general union itself whose members are further organized within the industry of their employment. The origin of the nickname 'Wobblies' is uncertain." Alternately, if "revolutionary" is disputed, the following might be better but a bit longer: "The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), members of which are commonly termed 'Wobblies', is an international, radical labor union that was formed in 1905. The union combines general unionism with industrial unionism, being a general union itself whose members are further organized within the industry of their employment. The philosophy and tactics of the IWW are described as 'revolutionary industrial unionism,' with ties to both socialist and anarchist labor movements. The origin of the nickname 'Wobblies' is uncertain." Any objections or thoughts on these? djr13 (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I put the POV tag on after the discussion of 2 July regarding "revolutionary". I think "radical" is an acceptable substitute. I think that calling it a "union" is misleading. However, this is IWW's self-description, and it is accepted by many people.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the change seems to be agreeable, I'll make the edit. Regarding the organization's basic status as "union," see this earlier comment: Not only that, but the article lists several clear examples of workplace organizing, including contract negotiations. Do you have a reliable source which contradicts this definition? I understand there are long-standing political disagreements between organizations like the IWW and other segments of the left on the topic of the role of unions and the role of political ambitions thereof, and I can't help but fear it is this conflict of perspectives you're leaning on. It would be great if there were an article which hilighted this historical political disagreement; for example, there is no article on the topic and history of "boring from within." djr13 (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The basic principle is that the introduction should fit the article. The article itself provides ample evidence of what I am saying. As does your initial comment. But there is no point in arguing with people who bandy about phrases like "entirely incorrect".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what part of the article or initial comment of mine you're citing to support "not a union." Please clarify. djr13 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said it was not a union, but that it was misleading to call it a union. The actual nature of IWW is hard to pin down, as your initial comment acknowledged. As for the article, there are many examples, but take Australia (where I happen to live, which probably affects my perspective). The article says: "Australian IWW tended to co-operate where possible with existing unions rather than forming its own". I don't believe the IWW was ever registered as a union in Australia, despite its presence here. Was it a union in Australia? It doesn't sound like a union.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You're entirely correct. But seriously, very good point. I'm not extensively familiar with historical or modern IWW activity in Australia. Non-US IWW topics could badly use expansion it seems, and tempts me to dig into it myself if I find time. Australia's had their start in "IWW Clubs," similar to the US's old "recruiting locals," but while they were actively involved in strikes and managed to get a couple fairly major unions to adopt the IWW preamble and constitution(!) I don't know if much of their economic action could be attributed directly to the IWW, other than maybe seamen?

The organization was of course declared illegal multiple times, and recently I remember reading something along the lines that either the modern Australian IWW isn't allowed to register as a legally recognized union, or declined to do so due to regulations substantially more imposing than, for example, the US and UK.$[cn]$

However, going by both past and recent events mentioned in the article and elsewhere, the IWW does generally operate as a union, even if a bit unconventionally, and even if inconsistently. Where other unions supplement areas they can't organize by political lobbying, the IWW apparently turns to community activism. I probably do agree with you however in the specific context of the Australia section, the article currently seems to describe that regional body as more of a recruiting organization than...an organizing organization, solidarity actions notwithstanding. djr13 (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever been close to entirely correct. I think you hit the nail on the head in your initial comment when you said, "The interesting thing is that this is as true as it is false". I would say the IWW sometimes operates as a union and sometimes operates as a quasi-political party (though they would strenuously deny that). And sometimes other things, perhaps. Australia has had a highly regulated "industrial relations" system in which unions have been forced to amalgamate etc. The IWW could never hope to register here. Also, according to the article, it only had 2 members in 1939. But I think the IWW could be described as protean, and that is partly why it disintegrated after the 1920s, I think...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what you're saying is true, semantics aside. However, since this is ultimately about semantics, whether the general organization (as opposed to regional groups within it) should be called a union, its history, philosophy and tactics seem pretty clear that it is a union with considerable bouts of downtime, rather than a political group with occasional forays into unions. I think the article and sources reflect this general point, although again specific regions and time periods within it vary considerably. For the overall organization, operating as a union is evidently significantly more true than false. djr13 (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is OK, so long as there is something like "radical" attached. Otherwise it is seriously misleading. For example, in the case of the archeologist Vere Gordon Childe which I discussed with you earlier this year, I thought it was misleading to say he had joined a union when he joined the IWW in Australia. If they see a passing reference to the IWW like this, most people are not going to read the whole article here to find out what the IWW is about, and they shouldn't have to.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Industrial Workers of the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://iwwscotland.org/category/crichton-campus/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

IWW affiliated to Comintern (at note 31)
This is simply absurd. I don't question that the cited source said it, but said source is clearly a lunatic. See, for example, the article by Industrial Worker editor Pat Read, "Chicago Replies to Moscow," originally published in the IWW's Lumber Workers Bulletin in 1945 but reissued several times including as a 4-page reprint that the union distributed well into the 1960s. In this, Read responds to a request from a Moscow library for copies of the newspaper in order to complete its archive with a blistering denunciation of the Communist Party and its crimes, including the murder of several IWW members. Anyone who reads the Industrial Worker in the 1940s and 1950s will be struck by the persistent references to "ComRats", and regular denunciations of Communist Party-dominated unions such as the "Nutty Moscow Union" which competed with the IWW's still quite active maritime affiliate. There was a brief struggle in the IWW in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution over what position the IWW should take in regards to it. It was completely resolved by 1924. On the one hand, the Comintern basically ordered the IWW to dissolve itself into the American Federation of Labor. On the other hand, the IWW after sending delegates to Moscow for the founding convention of the Red International of Labor Unions resolved not to affiliate to that body and instead published a pamphlet, The Workers and Peasants of Russia: How They Live, reporting on the dismal conditions being imposed on workers by the Bolshevik state. The IWW decided resoundingly against affiliation, and instead developed a working relationship with the International Workers Association founded in Berlin by syndicalist unions primarily in Europe and Latin America. See, for example, Fred Thompson and Jon Bekken, The Industrial Workers of the World: Its First 100 Years. JonBekken (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean note 32? What exactly are you asking for?  The one guy said there were CPUSA members in the IWW, and the sentence says that he said it.  It doesn't say that there actually were any.  In fact, it's followed by a sentence saying that another guy disagrees.  If you can find sources, and it shouldn't be hard, saying something like "most historians agree that the IWW was not controlled by the Comintern" or whatever we can put that in too.  But even if it's false that there was significant CP influence on the IWW (and I completely agree with you that it's false), what's the harm in quoting some guy, with attribution to him, who thinks it's true as long as it's not stated as a fact?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would question whether David McKnight actually said that. He is a reputable historian who has researched these issues extensively.  The citation does not give a page number.  Moreover, it is unclear what period it is referring to, since the Comintern no longer existed in the 1950s.  The following citation is problematic too, because it is cited because it doesn't mention the IWW.  I'm removing both of them.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That the source has been called a lunatic has no bearing on the inclusion of the material. Wikipedia has an obligation to include signficant minority views. We cannot and should not ignore published reliable sources based on individuals personal biases. There is also far too much america-centric bias in coverage of these issues. There is also way too much red scare bias in the current article. For example, the phrase "attempts by the Communist Party to dominate the organization" is used to blame the Communist Party for the IWW's struggles over centralization in the 1920s. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wisconsin general strike
The article should include information on the Wisconsin General Strike of 2011. This was perhaps the most successful IWW protest in nearly a century and it should be covered. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Carptrash (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Emma Goldman
I have looked through both this article and the Emma Goldman article and have found nothing to suggest that she was an IWW member. Anyone have a good source? With one we can put her back in the list of members. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Industrial Workers of the World. 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/20090828072626/http://www.neiu.edu/~reseller/ehpg9repst.htm to http://www.neiu.edu/~reseller/ehpg9repst.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041217015017/http://www.starbucksunion.org/ to http://www.starbucksunion.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Industrial Workers of the World. 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/20100221234620/http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/05/back_to_the_future_starbucks_v.php to http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/05/back_to_the_future_starbucks_v.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905045341/http://www.press.uillinois.edu/pre95/0-252-01963-6.html to http://www.press.uillinois.edu/pre95/0-252-01963-6.html
 * Added tag to http://www.iww.org/cic/history/V_St_John.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Anarchist cat
Not sure you guys should use in this role, as I point out at c:File talk:Anarchist black cat.svg Jeblad (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

kkk arrived in Oklahoma in 1921
The Ku Klux Klan first reached Oklahoma in 1920 and Tulsa in August 1921. on 1921 see  section 77 for elaborate detail by leading specialists. The 1917 group did NOT call itself the KKK (the newspaper headline writer added that--the reporter did not use the kkk term) it called itself the "Knight of Liberty." There were many such groups under various names. they were not connected to 1st or 2nd kkk klan., (the newspaper headline says it was like the at kkk--they did not know about the 2nd kkk yet). Wiki rules warn against trying to interpret primary sources like the newspaper headline--wiki insists on reliable secondary sources, which do not link iww and kkk in Oklahoma. see KKK talk page for more discussion. see also   Rjensen (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, so my question was actually about the source you deleted when you deleted the "members of the KKK" statement; however after a rather more careful review of the relevant section, though the document is about the KKK, this section is about the precursors to its emergence in the reason, so I'll concur that the source is reliable but the statement that the hooded thugs who attacked the IWW were members of the KKK is not supported by it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK great. :) Rjensen (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Another science fiction novel
I don't recall reading Cory Doctorow's novel, but there is another SF book from the 1980s or '90s that features Wobblies. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It does seem a little bit like WP:FANCRUFT unless the book was trying to say something about the IWW beyond, "these people exist." Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It centered around Wobblies/the IWW as protagonists. Partly I'm just trying to remember the title. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Current Wildcat Strikes
The NYT has taken note, given the labor activity at Google & Uber. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/business/economy/labor-book kencf0618 (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Splitting Canadian section
I think there is more than enough content for a content split of the Canadian section. The text on this page alone would make a decent article and it barely touches upon the peak of the IWW's strength prior to the 1930s. Would others agree that Industrial Workers of the World in Canada would make a useful article?--User:Namiba 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)