Talk:Arthur Scargill

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Ah yes, the well-known pseudo-science promoter. Before replying please consider the possibility that there may be elements of sarcasm in this message.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hate figure among certain sectors of the population: accusations of attempting to bring down the country, 'the glorious Maggie Thatcher', saviour of the working classes from the depridations of MT etc, etc. If Ian Paisley and Enoch are in, so is cereal-head. (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think a self-described Stalinist fits in perfectly with mission statement 3 and can always be treated as part of the communism project. There is more to RW's mission than just pseudoscience. Even though I think this article needs some serious revision, I think it has a place here. --Danfly (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
We has a communism project? One lives and learns. So he's eligible under "3 Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism."? At a stretch I suppose. I guess you are arguing "authoritarianism"? But I don't see it in the article.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if there is a project actually. I just assumed it from the nav on pages about the subject. It comes from being used to the wikipedia MO. I honestly don't care if it's kept or not, so I won't be doing it. I'll leave it to the author to decide if he wants to make it more relevant. If not, then baleet it for all I care. --Danfly (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If Paisley, Powell and Thatcher are in, why not Scargill - given the amount of arguments for and agin he generated. (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Paisley is a creationist, so he is automatically on mission. Thatcher is there basically because bashing Christian conservatives is a primary function of this wiki. As I have said above, I think this should be allowed stay (especially since he is such a pivotal figure in Britain's political history), but I also agree with Bob that you should make it more relevant to the mission. Just make it more than a vague stub and give more detail to his political (and maybe religious) views. --Danfly (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


An article on a union head that actually mentions him being a socialist. Talsley (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)