Talk:West Lothian Question

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Mission?[edit]

...or a little bit too obscure-local-political? P-Foster (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I see it as fitting into 3 - authoritarianism. And whilst it may seem parochial to the UK, the general issue applies over Puerto Rico and DC in the states as well as in Spain. WSC (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks on-mission to me, just very poorly written and in need of a shitload of work. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 21:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright then, let's link all of our mentions to the Westlothian question to this article. P-Foster (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Would the Funspace article be the West Loathing Question?

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are 'half-in, half-out' - and have to be specificially mentioned in legislation for it to cover them (hence capital punishment was abolished in Man decades after the rest of the UK, and certain exports banned from the mainland went through the Channel Isles and IOM).


212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?[edit]

I don't see this article fulfilling any of the main goals of RationalWiki. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I is a pretty strange article for us. Even though we have lots of politics stuff. Is this similar to right/left wing battles in the US? if so, maybe it is on mission?--Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete it. Hell, hust keep deleting articles until Blue has a stroke. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
She won't have a stroke. by her own description, she's wearing a red shirt and will beam down to a planet and...well... you know. --Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I like Blue. But yeah I am at a loss, though that could be sleep deprivation. Тytalk 02:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Oddly enough, i hate most of her changes, but actually really like her. She and i would probably enjoy a beer, but would have to say "only talk about cats and the last movie we saw". grins...Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
@Godot: As far as I can tell, it's merely describing how one region wields a bit too much power over a slightly larger region's politics. It's about as relevant as an article about the intrigue in Houston, Texas' city council. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Course, on that note, i'd be happy to delete almost every stub. They just sit there, and it's my own aversion to things like RED ! for me. Run from the stubs, run from teh stubs. Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (EC) to reply to stabby (I always read that as stubby till i just now typed it...) To me, any article can be "on mission" if some one has taken the time to really write it well and ask themselves "why is there here, at RW" "what am i trying to say that Wikipedia isn't saying". if people ask themselves that question, then odds are, there article will be easily on mission, and obviusly on mission. but i digress...Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of established articles after less than twenty minutes of discussion isn't how we do things. Or is it? You're all regulars and Stabby's certainly been here longer than I have. Maybe I'm becoming an anachronism. Is RationalWiki not my circle jerk anymore? Am I not part of this new culture? Blue Talk 02:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Mob mentality at work. 20 minutes is too fast. Тytalk 02:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually Blue, we've pretty much always done that. I've been here under two very different regimes, for a pertty long time the first time, and it's normal. that's why we actually have "revert" and sadly, "edit wars". It's not necessarily a good policy, but it's not anything new. Hell, Human slashed so much of my stuff without any comment from any one when i first started. you learn to get a thick skin, or come and midnight revert. grinsPink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (ec)
Actually, it's not my circle jerk any more. I was hoping to slip this one under the radar. I did things like that more often in the old days. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
As this has been discussed before it would probably be better to have a discussion first. Тytalk 02:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's get some coherent voting[edit]

Delete[edit]

  1. "Has potential" is meaningless unless someone steps forward and actually starts bringing the article into line. Otherwise, it's just passing the buck for a sub-par article. And sub-par articles, especially when RationalWiki is trying as hard as it is to shed the "just an anti-Conservapedia site" image, can only damage us. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. "Well I see it as fitting into 3 - authoritarianism. And whilst it may seem parochial to the UK, the general issue applies over Puerto Rico and DC in the states as well as in Spain." (from above) I also just find UK devolution interesting. Blue Talk 02:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Interesting yes, relevance eeeh... I can see it. Тytalk 02:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. --BobSpring is sprung! 07:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. If some of the more obscure US politics articles are worthy, this is definitely on mission. Scarlet A.pngsshole 13:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. politics, much less UK politics is not something I'm qualified to pontificate about. but as it stands, the article needs more focus to really be "on mission". Edit and keep; or don't edit and delete.Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 03:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

The wider discussion[edit]

Given the (old) discussion above - is there an article within which the WLQ and eg states rights (among others) are subheadings that would be within the RW remit? Anna Livia (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)