Talk:1964 Mount Isa Mines Strike
|WikiProject Australia / History||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Specific to the 'Communist Influences' section: This section is written in the form of an opinion article, and is not from a neutral point of view. Further, it lacks citations, and no opposing viewpoint is presented. The last line of the section, particularly, is pure conjecture.
For the rest of the article: There are insufficient citations - only one in-line citation appears in the article, and the resources listed under References are not from a variety of viewpoints - only the anti-unionist views are represented.
Further, as stated in the article on the International Workers of the World (IWW) article, specifically the 'In Australia' section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World#In_Australia), though several members of the then outlawed IWW were involved in the formation of the Communist Party of Australia in 1920, they departed from the organisation soon after, and by the time of the 1964 strikes had long since severed any ties with the Communist Party of Australia, and the Communist Party International. Even disregarding this, the section on 'Communist Influences' is explicitly written from an anti-communist and anti-unionist perspective, with the use of phrases such as 'If they had succeeded, the Communist Party would have had its thumb on the jugular of Queensland's mining industry.' - written both with partisan phrases, and conjecture.
The view presented is that the unionists aims were morally wrong and a threat to society - what should be presented is a factual and informative, neutral view, as per Wikipedia policy.
I understand this topic is still controversial, particularly with those who lived through or whose relatives lived through the strikes. It is important that both sides of the event are represented, from a neutral perspective that is judging of neither - except perhaps in a 'criticisms' section, which is not present. And even then, criticisms must be based on facts, not conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)