Talk:Brexit

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fedegarb, Jovanna13 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jovanna13.

Removal of Unbalanced and NPOV tags

Over the past 18 months or so, but particularly over the past six months, concerns have been expressed by a number of different editors about the neutrality of the article in certain areas and whether it is appropriately balanced.

On 12 November 2018, JASpencer placed an Unbalanced tag on the article, with the edit summary: "See Talk Page discussion (The Role of Economic forecasts in the lead and NPOV)".

During various talk page discussions last year, different editors expressed concerns. On the NPOV discussion in November 2018, JASpencer wrote: "Clearly the economic case could be in the lead, does it need to be in the lead where only the Remain arguments are allowed in the lead section, however coincidentally?"

T8612 wrote: "It is absurd to detail a process piloted by the British government without actually mentioning their stance. It is not "folly" to present the main argument of the government. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly presentation of the economic consequences of Brexit."

After an attempt was made to address balance in the article, but which was swiftly reverted, JASpencer wrote: "It's very disappointing that we simply saw a knee jerk undoing. Again we've seen another simple reversion to a text that may well reflect the views of the editor, but doesn't meet the requirement of WP:NPOV, without discussion on this talk page – or even an attempt to find common ground." JASpencer added: "There are clearly ownership issues with the page and this page does need to show that it's balance is disputed."

However, within less than five days the "Unbalanced" tag had been removed from the article by another editor and I'm not convinced that the issues of concern expressed by various editors had been resolved or common ground found when the tag was removed. Could I ask the editor who placed the Unbalanced tag, JASpencer, whether you felt the issues had been resolved when another editor removed the tag a few days after it had been put on the article?

The following month, on 6 December 2018, after further concerns about balance and NPOV issues were expressed on the talk page, RichardWeiss placed an NPOV tag on the article, indicating that there had been a dispute over neutrality. However, that tag was also removed by another editor as well. Can I ask the editor who placed the NPOV tag, RichardWeiss, whether you feel the issues concerned about balance and neutrality have been resolved?

Going further back in the article's history, in December 2017, EddieHugh had concerns about NPOV on the article and placed NPOV tags, but within 15 minutes the tags were removed by another editor. EddieHugh placed the NPOV tags again on the article and within less than 10 minutes the tags had been removed. I thought that the convention on Wikipedia is that things are discussed and common ground is found on the talk page to try to resolve issues before the tags are actually removed?

Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is not really needed because the article is not unbalanced, but incomplete. One editor thinks that it should only rely on academic studies, which are usually consensual about the fact that Brexit is a terrible mistake. The problem with this approach is that the political background is missing in the article, which does not explain the situation (eg. why do politicians still want to do it despite the experts' unanimous opinion against it?). For examples: Nigel Farage is only mentioned twice in the text, the first mention is about his resignation from UKIP, the second is his portrayal in a film. Boris Johnson is likewise mentioned two times. Jacob Rees-Mogg is not mentioned at all, but the ERG is mentioned once (without any explanation about what "ERG" stands for). Corbyn is only mentioned twice. Etc. These people are very important to the whole process, I dare say more than academic studies about the economy, or foodstuff and the NHS.

Once again, someone coming here to understand why Theresa May still wants to do this Brexit would leave confused and uninformed. T8612 (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I stopped counting the number of editors who had pointed out serious POV problems and who had then given up trying to fix them. The number reached double figures, then I gave up too, believing that it wasn't worth the aggravation of trying to interact with (a small number of) editors who, through their actions, showed that they had no interest in creating a neutral article or in building a consensus. Another editor commented on this a few months ago: "Any casual reader like myself can immediately see in the lead that this article lead is biased. Therefore thee 'biased' lead serves its purpose, like a cancer warning on a cigarette packet"; this is undesirable, but the alternative's been tried. I have no wish to get involved in it all again: anyone can read through the archive if they want details of what's wrong. Finally, T8612: you make very good points about what's missing, but then reach the wrong conclusion. Such omissions (all of which are on one side of the Brexit 'debate', of course) could readily be remedied through the ample RS available, so what you describe is a very good example of a lack of NPOV, which is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and "describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". EddieHugh (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Alas, indeed, everybody gave up attempts at neutrality long ago. I wouldn't know where to begin. This is typical of what happens to articles that evolve by slow-motion accretion of news of the day. Given that most news are gloomy, and academic views are gloomier yet, you get a decidedly negative article, whose readers can't help wonder why 52% of the UK public were so "stupid" or "easily fooled". — JFG ^talk 18:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Knowing how Wikipedia works, by the nature of this subject, I cannot see how this article could ever be perfectly balanced until years after Brexit has been over and done with. As I'm American, I don't claim to be familiar with all of Brexit's subtleties, but I can say I'm suspicious of anyone claiming they know all of them very well, and that there's nothing controversial in the article's coverage in any of them. Unlike most encyclopedias, Wikipedia can cover ongoing events, and that's great, but it will never do so perfectly throughout the event. Not having such tags seems evident POV in itself, and that reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Let's just admit this is bound to happen, tag it, and move on to useful editing. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is biased in favour of remain, as you would expect of the Wikipedia website. The claims about economic indicators and situation is well out of date, as well as being full of bias and outright lies.86.187.161.112 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are the pro-leave arguments?

I'm an American and don't know much about British politics. I looked at this article hoping tp unserstand the Brexit controversy. The article seens to be mostly about votes, polls, negotiations, the practicalities, post-Brexit scenarios, but it doesn't tell me what the underlying issues are. There's more on the harm Brexit would cause, but please add why it passed in the first place.

Here's a relevant column fron today's Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-more-we-learn-about-brexit-the-more-crooked-it-looks/2019/03/08/b011517c-411c-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html deisenbe (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not sure I fancy trying to write an NPOV account of the arguments for and against Brexit, complete with fact and logic checking, but if you want to try, or just want some personal enlightenment, you might like to look at the Washington Post article and https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2019/01/why-uk-cannot-see-brexit-utterly-utterly-stupid. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately Brexit is a very polarised issue, even on Wikipedia, with many of those wishing to remain seeing an unbiased view of brexit being it is a complete disaster voted for by the naive and mislead. This article from before the vote doesn't do too badly in summarising much of the points covered https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36027205 Jopal22 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The article 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum has some background detail on the arguments put by both sides. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point, Deisenbe. I was surprized to find that this article doesn't seem to mention one potential benefit of Brexit for the UK, yet it goes into great length about the potential harms of Brexit. This is even though plenty of potential benefits have been put forth by those who support Brexit. I'm not saying I agree with all the arguments, I'm simply saying that they should be given in this article for the sake of balance. That's one of the key policies of Wikipedia. However, I'd argue that the lack of pro-Brexit arguments in this article is a breach of that policy, and it should be tagged as having POV issues until that's dealt with. Again, we don't have to agree with the arguments, but we must note them – otherwise we're going against Wikipedia policy and harming its reputation.
Some pro-Brexit arguments can be found here, here, here, here and here. ~Asarlaí 20:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the process of the UK leaving the EU. Whether people think that is a good or bad idea and what arguments were made to support these stances before the referendum does not belong in this article but the one John mentioned above and the others you mentioned. To put it another way: The process is not affected by whether it was the right choice or the wrong choice, so everything in the article about the process should merely reflect that. So instead of slapping a NPOV-tag on the article, can you elaborate which parts are actually non-neutral (in terms of actual facts, not potential ones)? Regards SoWhy 21:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm quoting what I wrote above about the main problem of this article:

One editor thinks that it should only rely on academic studies, which are usually consensual about the fact that Brexit is a terrible mistake. The problem with this approach is that the political background is missing in the article, which does not explain the situation (eg. why do politicians still want to do it despite the experts' unanimous opinion against it?). For examples: Nigel Farage is only mentioned twice in the text, the first mention is about his resignation from UKIP, the second is his portrayal in a film. Boris Johnson is likewise mentioned two times. Jacob Rees-Mogg is not mentioned at all, but the ERG is mentioned once (without any explanation about what "ERG" stands for). Corbyn is only mentioned twice. Etc. These people are very important to the whole process, I dare say more than academic studies about the economy, or foodstuff and the NHS. T8612 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: If this article is only about process, so much so that "the process is not affected by whether it was the right choice or the wrong choice, so everything in the article about the process should merely reflect that", why does this article contain so much speculation about the impacts of Brexit? For example, which aspect of process is served by speculations on the possible economic consequences of Brexit (of which there are currently several in the article)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with PaleCloudedWhite. If the article is only about the process of the UK leaving the EU, and not about the potential effects after it leaves, then shouldn't big chunks of it be removed? This would include most of "Domestic impact on the United Kingdom". If it's only about the process, then surely it should only include things that have already happened or almost certainly will happen because of the process – not things that some believe may happen (be they for or against Brexit)?
The facts and speculation here are overwhelmingly about the downsides, with none of the upsides or counter-arguments. The key points made by the pro-Brexit side aren't even noted: that after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees (all of which are facts). That's the issue. Again, there may be lots of downsides to Brexit, but by not giving the other side we're going against Wikipedia's key policies. ~Asarlaí 01:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that this article should only include things that have already happened or almost certainly will happen because of the process – not things that some believe may happen (be they for or against Brexit) per above comment, the article would certainly be improved by text with citable sources to support a description of the issue as after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees (all of which are facts) ? Are there sources such as NPOV reports of publications issued by the UK government, House of Commone or House of Lords? Qexigator (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Citable sources that adequately define for an inquring reader what the "underlying issues are", or why the result of the referendum was that the UK should withdraw from EU, are in short supply. The bulk of the article's speculative forecasts is in sections 8 'Domestic impact on UK', 9 'Impact on bilateral UK relations', and 10 'Consequences on bilateral UK relations'. Those forecasts are rapidly becoming out of date, but some of the information about them may be retained for historical interest for comparison with the actual outcomes. Thus, the lead states "The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself had damaged the economy....". Before long that will need to be updated to past tense, and removed from the lead, to be replaced with NPOV information about the current state of affairs after 29 March. Qexigator (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

As per Asarlaí, I agree that sections of the article that speculate on future possibilities should be removed or seriously reworked to present a more balanced overview. It's no wonder that non-UK readers of this article might be baffled as to the referendum result, when speculative information is presented in this way and certain aspects are omitted entirely (for example, there appears to currently be almost nothing on the post-Brexit regaining of UK sovereignty, despite the fact that this was a major factor in the Leave victory). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "regaining of UK sovereignty" exactly and what you expect to see in the article about that? After all, the article does already say that there are "759 international agreements, spanning 168 non-EU countries, that the UK would no longer be a party to upon leaving the EU" as well as outlining all the EU agencies it will no longer belong to. In fact, the who point of withdrawal is that EU law no longer applies. As for impact, facts and verifiable scientific predictions about what will (likely) happen after 29 March is something readers will expect to find. Here, too, I'd invite concrete proposals of what should be added. After all, there are things that are certain to happen, such as the UK losing access to any EU provided services if there is no Withdrawal Agreement. Again, this article should not be about why there is a Brexit, only about what happened and what will likely happen based on reliable sources. In that vein, I suggest those who see NPOV problems to clarify what exactly they want to see added and which sources they have to back this up. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"...scientific predictions about what will (likely) happen after 29 March" are predictions and speculations akin to the arguments given by the Remain side prior to the referendum, yet you stated above that "what arguments were made to support these stances before the referendum does not belong in this article". The problem with engaging in speculation in this way is that, to be balanced, the article will necessarily have to engage with the politics of the whole Remain-Leave argument, which is certainly not aligning with your previous statement that this article is about process. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Someone who was in favor of Brexit can (and sometimes also has) admit that there are negative consequences and someone who was against Brexit can admit that there are positive consequences. So why there is a Brexit can (and imho should) be viewed distinctly from what the predicted consequences are (for example, the article Aftermath of World War II does not contain the same information as Causes of World War II does, yet no one would expect this to be any different). So I ask again, do you have any reliably sourced information about what is likely to happen that aligns with pro-Leave arguments that you think is missing in the article? If so, please tell us and we can discuss changes. Regards SoWhy 13:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The language you use is revealing. Above you wrote "I suggest those who see NPOV problems to clarify what exactly they want to see added" (my emphasis). Want to see added but need to ask permission? Sounds like it. Immediately above you wrote "please tell us and we can discuss changes". Please tell who - the people who are permitted to edit the article? Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (allegedly). Editors don't need to ask permission to make changes. You're not a gatekeeper. I have scanned the recent article history and I get an impression of a recurring theme of certain editors only allowing "scientific" economic forecasts while disallowing political statements. Yet Brexit is as much a political animal as an economic one (if not more so), and to adopt this approach seems like a clever wheeze to ensure the article only presents one side. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to just edit the article and add what you think is missing. But the purpose of this talk page and this very discussion is to identify the alleged shortcomings, so it would be useful if they were actually named. So instead of focusing on whether you are allowed or not to just edit the article (you are), could you tell us, what exactly you want to edit? Regards SoWhy 15:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You've nailed it, @PaleCloudedWhite:. The article is a list of academic studies which completely ignore the political situation. It is almost impossible to find academic studies supporting Brexit because the consensus is that it's going to be bad (and I also think that). However the academic consensus on Brexit is almost irrelevant for this article, the most important is about the process, as @SoWhy: himself said above, and the whole process—apart from the official negotiations with the EU—is blatantly missing.

In a nutshell, Brexit was designed by Cameron to unify the Conservative Party, but it was not supposed to happen. Cameron's plan failed and now Theresa May is facing a stalemate because she cannot find a majority either way (Soft/Deal/Hard Brexit) and also relies on the DUP, which further complicates the process. Added to this the fact that Corbyn is a closet Brexiter, going against the majority of his party. Hence why the whole thing has been going on for three years without a solution. This is what should be detailed in the article, with the arguments for/against either solution to Brexit (Soft/Deal/Hard Brexit), as well the official positions of each political parties, groups or leaders, etc. Then academic studies can be used to contradict politicians' fantasies, but they shouldn't be the basis of the article. T8612 (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the general thrust of what T8612 says above, and would support some restructuring of the article on such lines. In particular, much of the speculation on the impacts of Brexit should be taken out or, alternatively, re-sectioned, trimmed and balanced, as it is a form of re-hashing of arguments given prior to the referendum. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the current version of the article would be improved by such restructuring and trimming, but, apart from anything glaringly out of date or POV, it may be better to leave as is, and to wait until 29 March (18 days:9 hrs, 27 mins, decreasing),[1] when we will know definitely whether "exit day" is an accomplished fact or not, and if not, what the position at that date has become. The current state of affairs is too unstable and shifting from day to day to restructure before then. In the meantime, as said above, the article would certainly be improved by text with citable sources to support a description of the issue as "after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees" (all of which are facts). Qexigator (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that they aren't (facts), this is more speculation. It depends on the withdrawal agreement and trade agreement if any. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case perhaps we should delete the article altogether, as it is not a fact that Brexit is a real thing. The people's vote could get it's way and Brexit could be averted. Jopal22 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

JMF: The issue is, of course, whether or not "after Brexit the UK will have more control over its own affairs and immigration, can make its own trade deals, and will no longer pay membership fees" after 29 March: the government is contending that the current proposed "withdrawal agreement" (with the declaration and joint instrument) would satisfy the referendum result in that respect, others contend it would not, and this issue is for further debate in the House of Commons today, Tuesday. Qexigator (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Brexit is also a proof if the people of the uk are still the sovereign of the country because the majority of the people voted to leave. If that dosnt mean anything to the politicans, then maybe the eu intractability already made a move into the way of thinking that most MP's and Lords do. Then people have no further interest into politic issues i guess. In germany we learn for today as the left party, which was ever against the eu state building, changed to be eu states supporter. One of the big left politican (Sahra Wagenknecht) decided to quit politics because of that and she is only in her 50's. That sovereign cover is one of the more important arguments that the PM also mention almost every time she is asked about the brexit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8A80:4CD8:7D28:B087:67E:A090 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

POV tag bombing of article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have read through the entire article twice now and I fail to see what specific sections or text is POV. What I do see is basically a repeat of the conflict in the house of commons played out on wikipedia and all the disagreement between various factions involved in Brexit. Can whomever keeps tag bombing the article explain to me which sections are POV so they can get fixed? Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Brexit is a process with which the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union, an institution which many people feel is bureaucratic and has a clear democratic deficit. Each year the UK pays £13bn of contributions to the EU, whilst the EU only spends £4bn in the UK. Leaving the EU could therefore mean £9bn net saving in payments, and the ability for the UK to spend the remaining £4bn in a manner it prefers. Leaving the EU will also mean the UK would leave the Common Agricultural Policy, something that the UK has long wanted to change as it currently pays a subsidy to all farmers based upon land owned (which disproportionately benefits larger countries like France). The UK is looking at replacing it with a system that rewards efficient farming and good environmental practices. The UK will also repatriate a vast number of political ownership over items such as who can fish in British waters, and who should be allowed to gain residency in the UK. Many also see it as an opportunity for the UK to be a more outward looking nation, and develop its own trade policy, rather than have to work as part of the EU which is often criticised for having protectionist practices. The vote to leave the EU was seen as being disproportionately driven by those who are more disadvantaged, and feel ignored by mainstream society and the political class. Many felt their vote to leave the EU was the first time they had the opportunity to have their voice heard, but some people feel that because of their social class that they are depicted as ignorant and racist as a basis to undermine the vote.

You see what I did there. I could find a citation for all of the above, as it is factually correct, and I have used the word "could" to cover myself on items where the outcome is uncertain. Each sentence above is a fair statement, but having the above as the lede to this Brexit article would be completely biased as overall it does not represent the full range of discussions around Brexit. Note that I voted remain, as I see did others arguing for a more balanced article above. This is definitely not about a repeat of the conflict in the house of commons, as I and other people are not arguing for or against Brexit, they are just arguing for a more balanced, concise and informative article, something we should all support Jopal22 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to put the anti- and pro-Brexit arguments into the article if it's done in a NPOV way. Currently, the article features neither pro- nor anti-Brexit political rhetoric. The problem is when the pro-Brexit political rhetoric is used to rebut actual peer-reviewed studies and expert assessments. That's WP:FALSEBALANCE, and it's something that a couple of editors have been trying to add (e.g. "There's a consensus among experts that Y. However, Boris Johnson says Y is false"). Another problem is when the pro-Brexit arguments are solely added to the article while no anti-Brexit arguments are added. That's not WP:NPOV, and it's something that a couple of editors have been trying to add (e.g. solely add whatever Boris Johnson, David Davis and Dominic Raab are saying about Brexit while leaving out what David Lammy, Nick Clegg and James O'Brien are saying). A related problem is to adequately summarize pro- and anti-Brexit arguments - given that there are so many, it's going to be hard and we'd need to rely on high-quality academic sources to summarize the contemporary debate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So one of the arguments for Brexit was that the amount of immigration pushed down wages for low skilled. There is evidence that companies are having to increases wages as a result of Brexit. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-skills-shortage-wages-rise-net-migration-falls-cipd-report-a8489366.html

Another is replacing the Common Agricultural Policy with a much better system, where the objectives have already clearly been set out https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/brexit-leaving-eu-farming-agriculture

We should also outline what taking back sovereignty means, in context of historical examples, something set out well here https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/17-reasons-why-we-should-love-brexit/ Jopal22 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:You cannot summarize a current political debate with academic sources; newspapers ought to be used for this. I am telling it to you once again, but there is no falsebalance in reporting Brexiters' opinions, even if they contradict academic studies. By this logic every stupid thing a politician could say should not be reported on Wikipedia. I think that a section "academic assessments of Brexit" must be included in the article, which would make it clear that the consensus is Brexit is going to be terrible. Brexiters' fantasies should however be featured, as well as Remainers' (I said every party, including the debates within each party). T8612 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"You cannot summarize a current political debate with academic sources". There are countless academic articles and books that have been authored about Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Such as? Give examples of what RS on the political situation are acceptable for you. T8612 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Google "University Press"+"Brexit" and "Professor"+"Brexit". Look up Brexit on Google Scholar. Endless RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There are indeed endless studies on Brexit, but they mostly deal with the economy, or sociology, etc. They do not transcribe the opinions of political leaders, which we should detail in the article about Brexit. Hence why newspapers are the best sources to track their declarations over time. T8612 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Great argumentation. T8612 (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. A few of the numerous academic books that have been published about Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: These articles are not reliable sources proving Brexit's benefits. There is an academic consensus on the consequences of Brexit that cannot be challenged with news articles. What should be added to the article is the opinions and arguments made by politicians, Brexiters and Remainers, in which case news articles are reliable sources. T8612 (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(1) That article does not substantiate the claim that a Brexit-induced decline in migration has boosted salaries. (2) That's an op-ed by George Monbiot. (3) That's a random op-ed by a children's author (?). This is not what I had in mind when I said the article could cover both pro- and anti-Brexit arguments. Random op-eds. (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: This article is not covered by WP:MEDRS or any other restriction on the use of sources, other than the standard WP:IRS. WP:V states that "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources" - it does not state anything along the lines of "we'd need to rely on high-quality academic sources to summarize the contemporary debate" (as you do above). It is thus against Wikipedia policy advice to insist that only certain types of reliable sources are allowed to be used. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: Oh please. As a long time Wikipedia user, who has followed with interest this article over its development, this article gets repeatedly POV tag bombed, it goes to mediation and then the tags are removed. Why? Because every time this has happened there have been virtually no serious suggestions of what exactly this bias is, save that the article dares to give prominence to peer reviewed and published research on the consequences of Brexit over political speculation by this or that figure. It's very clear that what is intended to is either remove academic peer reviewed research or present other less reilable sources as false balance, all based on a rather false understanding of the heirachy of sources for social science based claims. Remove the tag and start acting in good faith to make suggestions on the talk page. But again, remove the tag now. As an aside, I've long thought that wiki needs a better way of controlling how these tags are use given their power to convey a message about the quality of content of an article to the average user. It is clear that in this case its being abused. 154.70.139.234 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The article already uses lots of non-academic sources about the potential risks and downsides of Brexit. Many of these warnings are left unchallenged, and some have been left in the article even after they’ve been dealt with (see under Rail for example). The Sport and Culture section is all based on speculation from non-academic sources, but it only notes the potential downsides and ignores the potential upsides mentioned in *those same sources*. That needs added. Also, the British government's website can be used as a source for information for what is likely to happen.
As I said, the article is overwhelmingly about the potential downsides and doesn't say enough about the potential upsides. The key points made by the pro-Brexit side aren't even noted, for example that the UK:

• will have full control over the laws that govern it
• will be free to make its own trade deals
• will no longer pay membership fees and could spend the money saved as it sees fit (noted above by Jopal).
• will have more control over immigration – the article focuses on the potential downsides of there being fewer EU immigrants, but doesn't note the potential upsides of being able to prioritize the immigration it needs and limit the immigration it doesn't need at a given time
• will regain control of fishing rights in its waters – this is vaguely hinted at under Fishing, but it barely notes the potential upsides for the UK and instead focuses on the potential downsides (mostly for the EU, even tho the section is meant to be about the UK).

These points must be noted and any criticism of them must also be noted. Again, there may be lots of downsides to Brexit, but by not giving enough of the other side we're going against Wikipedia's key policies. ~Asarlaí 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Tag

Propose removal of the neutrality tag as the discussion of editors show there is no consensus of obvious POV in the article. What is debated is the choice of sources, which can be discussed, and that some sources are not properly balanced, and these matters can be vigorously discussed on the article talk page without tag bombing the article as the issue is not POV but rather what sources meet WP:RS criteria. Many of the sources are little more than WP:OR and speculation and which probably don't belong in the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal of neutrality tag. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The choice to only rely on academic sources de facto excludes Brexiters' arguments from the article, hence the NPOV tag. T8612 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If your proposed sources meet WP:RS then they should be included. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seems to be a concerted effort to bias this article with the ruse that only "academic studies" are allowed as a reason to reject anything that doesn't match their ideology, including other studies or factual items. Even though that is the premise of the argument, the article is allowed to contain passages like "The decline in EEA immigration is likely to have an adverse impact on the British health sector. According to the New York Times, Brexit "seems certain" to make it harder and costlier for the NHS, which already suffers from chronic understaffing, to recruit nurses, midwives and doctors from the rest of Europe." which goes unchallenged and cannot be classified as a "academic study". Jopal22 (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As long as your sources are not original research and they meet WP:RS then they should be included. Feel free to add them. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Content sourced to RS is perfectly fine. What I opposed was pulling random quotes from politicians from news items or from op-eds to summarize a political debate or to rebut academic studies. The NYT quote furthermore mirrors a Lancet study (which is also cited in the article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: as many editors over time have said the article is not neutral, there is a neutrality dispute, and the tag should remain until this is resolved.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As per T8612, Jopal22 and Jack Upland, and because the article is structured in a way that emphasizes criticism of Brexit. The article contains no section on the arguments given by both sides before the referendum, which is a huge omission, yet it goes into considerable and lengthy detail on the "impacts" of Brexit, even though these are necessarily of a speculative nature because Brexit hasn't actually happened yet. The way the article is structured now, combined with the issue over sourcing mentioned above, and with the insistence by at least one editor of presenting estimates as facts, results in the article basically making an analysis on whether Brexit is good or bad - something it should not do - with the emphasis being that it is the latter (bad), as indicated by comments elsewhere that it seems a mystery to readers why anyone would have voted Leave. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Views of Brexit supporters are either ignored or painted as ignorant. That is a far cry from neutrality. — JFG ^talk 08:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Views of Brexit supporters are either ignored or painted as ignorant. In that respect, the style and tone of the article follows that of parliamentary debate and reporting in commercial media and their websites, and other sources such as BBC. If there is a citable source about that, let it be included, briefly in the lead, and expanded in the main body in the usual way. Further, the article is overloaded with detail on the "impacts" of Brexit, even though these are necessarily of a speculative nature because Brexit hasn't actually happened yet. (per PCW above). Qexigator (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal of neutrality tag. NPOV concerns stem from editors' sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The same editors who complain about NPOV have tried to insert random assertions by politicians as rebuttals to studies in the article. The article neither presents pro- nor anti-Brexit arguments, yet there is a desire to solely include pro-Brexit arguments because of a false sense that the contents derived from RS, studies and academic assessments are wrong or somehow biased. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. The article should neutrally present Leave and Remain arguments, attributed to their authors when needed, without stating in wikivoice anything that is not strictly factual. I agree that speculation on future outcomes should be heavily trimmed, or forked out to a dedicated Consequences of Brexit article. — JFG ^talk 12:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support If the editors who keep "bias" tag bombing the article wanted to make serious suggestions of how to improve the article they would have - and could have - drafted paragraphs for their inclusion here on the talk page, even during this discussion. They have not. They have not previously either. Indeed what has come to fore - yet again - is that a certain subsection of editors, in particular PaleCloudedWhite, T8612 and Qexigator have repatedly tried to label academic consensus on the likely affects of the available Brexit scenarios as - and here I'm using their own words - "speculation" which needs to be "balanced" against the views of the proponents of Brexit. Here they are deliberately portraying academic research as being pro-EU or anti-Brexit or attempting to taint it with that brush to dismiss its findings or in order to justify having to "balance" them out. This is plainly presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Not only do I support removal of the tag, but I think tha the new doctrine for this article going forward, since it has been abused so often, is that use of it should be confined to being deployed after a talk page discussion, in which editors discuss actual drafts of substitue text they would like to see to combat these imagined "NPOV" issues. 41.170.83.205 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Can IP users vote in this kind of discussion?

On what you say: Academic research is almost by definition anti-Brexit since Brexiters' arguments are mostly fantasies and unicorn-chasing, but that does not mean we should not include them as well. You and Snooganssnoogans misunderstand what WP:FALSEBALANCE is. It is when minority or fringe views are presented as mainstream. It would be WP:FB if an editor had put Patrick Minford's works as commonly accepted among academia. The situation is different here, we're not saying that Brexiters are right, but that their arguments must be reported. They won the referendum after all, and the current mess is mostly their fault. As I said above and you have conveniently ignored: "Nigel Farage is only mentioned twice in the text, the first mention is about his resignation from UKIP, the second is his portrayal in a film. Boris Johnson is likewise mentioned two times. Jacob Rees-Mogg is not mentioned at all, but the ERG is mentioned once (without any explanation about what "ERG" stands for). Corbyn is only mentioned twice. Etc. These people are very important to the whole process, I dare say more than academic studies about the economy, or foodstuff and the NHS." A section on "academic studies on the consequences of Brexit" debunking Brexiters' claims is needed, but it cannot be the basis for the whole article, which should instead focus on politics. T8612 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is preventing anyone from adding text on the history of the Brexit process, including the important actors, the campaigning and political rhetoric. So far, every attempt to add Brexiteer rhetoric has been to inject them into sections on the impact of Brexit in attempts to rebut academic studies and expert assessments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal of neutrality tag. To complain that " The choice to only rely on academic sources de facto excludes Brexiters' arguments from the article" is silly. WP:RS- When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources....Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available. WP always prefers academic and scholarly sources to others, by policy.Smeat75 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Because of the peer-review process, academic studies will always be late on the news. If Brexit had happened 10 years ago, I would agree to only rely on academic studies. But as you know, Brexit is an ongoing event. The "When available" from WP:RS you quote is important. T8612 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is false. There are countless books and articles, either peer-reviewed or by recognized experts, on Brexit. It took me two minutes to find and link to a dozen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whether one thinks the article is biased or not, we can clearly see from this discussion that the article's neutrality is "disputed" – that's what the NPOV tag says. Its neutrality has been disputed several times by multiple editors. The issue has been made clear, the discussion is ongoing, and there's no consensus that the issue has been dealt with – therefor it shouldn't be removed.
  Also, the article already uses lots of non-academic sources about the potential risks and downsides of Brexit. Many of these warnings are left unchallenged, and some have been left in the article even after they've been dealt with (see under Rail for example). But let's try to keep that discussion in the section above. ~Asarlaí 16:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support - this tag is not a "I don't like the way this article is worded", all-purpose tag. Every politically controversial article has its neutrality questioned. That's what RfCs are for, not silly tags. There will always be some user(s) who will dispute the current version of the article. Due to personal biases, we will never achieve unanimous consensus. But this shouldn't mean political articles should have tags all over. If someone has reliable sources that document pro-Brexit arguments, then great, add the content yourself or start a discussion. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlike most encyclopedias, Wikipedia can cover ongoing events, and that's great, but it will never do so perfectly until the event's postmortem has been analyzed by many experts. Especially for a wide and complex subject debating speculative future effects, not having such tags seems evident POV in itself, implying Wikipedia knows what perfectly balanced means when the people involved do not, and that reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Let's just admit this is bound to happen, tag it, and move on to useful editing. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Although I support your overall Oppose position, I think it would be useful that contributors are familiar with the WP:NPOV guidelines. I specifically refer to "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral." WP:NPOV should be a temporary measure with a agreement by contributors to address the issues with the aim of removing the tag. Having the article tagged indefinitely because it is an ongoing event should not be for discussion here. Jopal22 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If protagonists wish editors to edit the article to address the NPOV issue, they should cease giving false reasons for reverting good-faith changes. This edit summary illustrates a disingenuous gerrymandering that is occurring here - reverting one word back to another with the summary that 'all these words are fine' is completely illogical, because it is a reason to not revert. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Editors are disagreeing, right here and now, on what "neutral" means. I agree that NPOV tags, as any tag, is supposed to be temporary and addressed quickly. But, for this article, because of the subject's nature, I don't see how anyone could even pretend that is possible in the foreseeable future. I suppose we could come up with a better tag than NPOV that tweaks its definition just for this article, but that's a waste of effort. I'd be suspicious of any editor declaring they fully and completely know what neutral means here; in fact, I'd suspect them of POV-pushing based just on that. Brexit isn't just another political view that gets just another article. It's a bizarre mountain-high dumpster fire of colossal career-ruining mistakes that spans ethics, nationalism, trade, global economies, society, and who knows what else. Let's admit that it's exceptional with no perfect neutral position (yet), and move on. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No. This is not a mere disagreement over a technical issue. The problem of this article is that a few—principally one—editors own the article (WP:OWN) and revert those who do not match their views of how it should be written. I have edited other very controversial articles, such as on the history of Palestine, and it went fine. A quick glance of this particular editor's talk page shows that I am not only one to have a problem with their behaviour. T8612 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article's neutrality is disputed by multiple editors. The discussions on this are ongoing. Why is there a rush to remove the tag before the issues have actually been resolved? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't disagree with you that a large number of editors don't like the article and are in disagreement but it's not necessarily over POV but a choice of WP:RS sources which keep getting bounced in and out of the article. The debate is in fact an WP:OR dispute and not necessarily a WP:NPOV disagreement. The issue is that the article is using the wrong tag, should be an OR tag. Quite a few editors want to include WP:OR and speculation from equally reliable sources as opposed to academic sources. It's more of an RFC issue and not POV. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Guidelines at WP:NPOVD state: "A NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved."

The issues are still ongoing and being discussed and therefore it would be premature, according to the guidelines, to remove the tag while discussions continue. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Change of tag

Being bold, I have changed the tag from template:npov to template: unbalanced because IMO the latter is better reflection of the dispute within Wikipedia terms. I don't think anyone is saying that the material in the article as it stands is biased of itself or that it does not reflect good and valid citations. The challenge is that it lacks a similar amount of quality material supporting the case for leave. This is exactly what the 'unbalanced' tag is designed to show, without the confrontational effect of the npov tag. As usual, wp:brd applies. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. T8612 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a unreasonable thing to do but I would challenge that adding a load of pro brexit text to balance the article is the best approach. One of the things that puts me off trying to balance out the article, is that the Brexit page is becoming one big dump of anything to do with Brexit. For instance, the economic discussion has a separate article, Economic effects of Brexit. The main Brexit article is becoming too long and difficult to read. In my view we should be making the page more concise so it provides an overview which the multitude of associated more detailed articles compliment. Stuff like a section outlining a selective set of novels should not be included in the main article! Jopal22 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Culture

A lot of the "Cultural References" section is not culture (documentaries) or not about Brexit (Daphne du Maurier).--Jack Upland (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the part about novels, another editor who is more familiar with what you are referring to can deal with the documentaries section. Mgasparin (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Study estimates

I removed text from the lead (here) because it was too detailed - the lead is supposed to be a summary. I also adjusted the same text where it appears within the main body, because it had previously stated that studies "show" certain economic effects apparent since the referendum, whereas careful reading of the sources reveal that these studies produced estimates of effects, which is not the same as 'showing'. Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit (here) with the summary, "show, found and estimated are all fine ways to phrase the findings of these studies", which of course is nonsense (why did they revert if the words mean the same thing?), and it ignores the different meanings of these words, which is why I reverted back. It is ironic and rather revealing that an editor who, on the one hand, insists on only using academic sources (see thread 'POV tag bombing of articles', above), should then be so sloppy about the choice of words to describe sourced information. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The text clearly belongs in the lede. Your changes did not improve the wording of the findings in those studies. It is perfectly fine to describe findings as "showing" or "finding" something. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Speculation about economic outcomes is indeed too detailed for the lead section. The rest of PaleCloudedWhite's changes were also useful, as they placed more emphasis on the attribution of the purported effects, thus being a step towards upholding NPOV. — JFG ^talk 15:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You should familiarize yourself with the actual edits in question rather than repeat the mantra that everything on Brexit is "speculation". There was no "speculation about economic outcomes", there was research into the actual economic outcomes that materialized. This content isn't even about expert forecasts (which is what most people refer to as "speculation"), which makes the comment all the more bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The speculation is not about the reported and measured economic indicators since the 2016 vote; it is about the inference that such economic indicators would have behaved any differently, had the referendum not occurred or had it yielded a Remain result. By definition these alternate universes are impossible to assess. — JFG ^talk 00:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say that they are impossible to assess with absolute certainty. The research studies acknowledge this and utilise methods to try and address this problem, but they still add caveats about their results, and state that they are estimates, likely subject to change. The one looking at output [14] states "It is hard to calculate the current cost of Brexit, because there is no obvious counterfactual" and "We will update our estimates on a regular basis as new data come in". The one about investment [15] states "there could be a Brexit dividend (a relief factor that conditions are not as bad as feared), and some postponed investment could be implemented if the conditions under which the UK trades with the EU warrant it. For this reason, it is essential to continue to monitor the effects of Brexit uncertainty on businesses. The effects could go either way". The research into inflation [16] states "Our estimates imply the Brexit vote increased UK CPI inflation by 1.7 percentage points in the year following the referendum. It would be wise to view the precise magnitude of this effect with some caution, but it is clear that the effect is substantial". I cannot access the research on trade without coughing up cash, but the abstract seems to be referring to future effects rather than realised ones, and it again refers to estimates - "We estimate the uncertainty effects of preferential trade disagreements. [...] We estimate that a persistent doubling of the probability of...". Considering this fogginess, and that the lead already has a sentence that states that the broad consensus of economists is that "the Brexit referendum itself had damaged the economy", it seems overly detailed to refer specifically to these studies in the lead. WP:MOSLEAD states that the lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph [...] As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes User:PaleCloudedWhite, you are 100% right. Part of the push back against people tagging this article for WP:NPOV is that those raising the issue need to advice on a path to create consensus to get the article to have neutrality. It is a bit overwhelming to deal with he whole article, but I think the first thing we should deal with if there is going to be an effort to improve this article is the lede. It is currently far too bloated and focuses on certain aspects in a way that creates bias. I would be happy to propose new lede but I am reticent to do so, as I'd be concerned that there would be kick back and straight rejection from some people that would make my efforts pointless. But to those who want the WP:NPOV tag removed, I think the first step would be for us to agree on the lede. That would be my proposed next step after the rejection of the WP:NPOV removal above. But my question is, would those who voted SUPPORT in the vote above be open the a significantly redrafted lede? Jopal22 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Plan to slash tariffs in event of no-deal Brexit

The government announced it would remove import duties on 87 per cent of goods entering the UK as part of measures aimed at prevent billions of pounds of additional costs being passed on to consumers. But business groups firmly condemned the plans as “cack-handed”, “madness” and "extremely worrying".

— Ben Chapman, The Independent, 13 March 2019

These plans would seem to warrant mention in the article.

Apologies if this has been discussed before. I did perform a quick search of this talk page's archives, but did not find such a discussion. Zazpot (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Throughout the Brexit negotiations process there have been various often-contradictory announcements and proposals of what the UK will do after leaving the EU. I think it best to wait to see whether the UK government actually implements any of those proposals before we mention them in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: thanks, but if a proposal is notable (i.e. covered at length in multiple independent RS, as the plan to cut tariffs is), then surely it would warrant coverage in itself? Zazpot (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC); 14:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The government has now published official documentation setting out the proposal. Zazpot (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be noted in the article. The article is already full of speculation about what might happen after the UK leaves the EU, especially under "Domestic impact on the United Kingdom". If we were to exclude this because it hasn't happened yet, then we should exclude the other things. Also, this isn't a suggestion or speculation but a commitment by the government. ~Asarlaí 17:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Asarlaí, thanks. Now done. Zazpot (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019

Add in Theatre section, as opening paragraph line:

In August 2015, Theatre503 staged the first theatre piece to explicitly explore Brexit. Screens by playwright Stephen Laughton is about a British-Cypriot family of Turkish Muslim ancestry. In one incident, the mother is abused in the street because she is mistaken for a Syrian refugee and this is explicitly mentioned as an effect of Brexit. Cdannadx (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Does not appear to be notable enough and there is nothing in the source about it being the first. In fact, the article itself only speculates, i.e. As far as London is concerned, it must be the first theatre piece to explicitly mention Brexit.. Plenty of works of art have referenced Brexit directly or indirectly over the last 2.5 years and unless they have had significant impact, they should not be included here. Possibly an article can be created to list all notable such works instead though. Regards SoWhy 09:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing lead for NPOV

In view of discussions above, perhaps we could reach consensus about the content of the current version of the lead's five paragraphs. Here is this contributor's[17] assessment for NPOV, and proposed trimming of detail which, if retained in the article, is better placed in the main body in appropriate sections. Others please add their own assessments:

• Para 1: OK for NPOV, but clarify that there is an ongoing debate about Brexit with a Withdrawal Agreement negotiated and accepted as an international treaty between UK and EU.

• Para 2: Maybe some of previous history before 2015 referendum result could be trimmed, but OK for NPOV.

• Para 3: Maybe some of previous history before 2015 referendum result could be trimmed, but OK for NPOV.

• Para 4: This has become the main purpose of the current article. OK for NPOV but could be trimmed, such as remove sentence beginning "A new government department,..." and sentence beginning "Cabinet agreed to the Chequers plan..."

• Para 5: Here NPOV is dubious, and there is an overload of out of date speculative opinion of economists. It could be trimmed thus:

In respect of economic consequences before the terms of the Withdrawl Agreement, if any, have been agreed, forecasts published in 2016 and 2017 proposed that Brexit couldThe broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term,and that the Brexit referendum itself had damaged the economy.. Studies on effects since the referendum show a reduction in GDP, trade and investment, as well as household losses from increased inflation. Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from European Economic Area (EEA) countries to the UK, and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research. As of February 2019, the size of the "divorce bill"—the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements—and relations with Ireland and other EU member states remains uncertain. The precise impact on the UK depends on whether the process will be a "hard" or "soft" Brexit. Analysis by HM Treasury has found that there is no Brexit scenario that is expected to improve the UK economic condition.

Qexigator (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The text that you're proposing for paragraph 5 is nothing but your fringy WP:OR. The text in no way reflects what the body of the article says or what the actual studies and assessments on this topic say. The intent seems to be to cast doubt on the consensus of research on this subject by describing it as speculation and by bizarrely describing this large body of research as "forecasts published in 2016 and 2017". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• I tried in this edit to add Brexiters' arguments (with sources), but it was reverted by the owner of the article. T8612 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Snoog.: Thank you for responding, but would you please let us know any word, phrase or sentence in my proposal above which your comment calls "nothing but your fringy WP:OR." Actually, of course, you have no way of knowing my own POV. For convenience, here is a breakdown of my proposed text:

• In respect of economic consequences
• before the terms of the Withdrawl Agreement, if any, have been agreed,
• forecasts published in 2016 and 2017 proposed
• that Brexit could reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term.
• Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from European Economic Area (EEA) countries to the UK,
• and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research.
• As of February 2019, the size of the "divorce bill"—the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements—and relations with Ireland and other EU member states remains uncertain.

Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

T8612: Thank you for responding, but I would not see the text you inserted as usefully in the lead, which I am proposing would be improved if trimmed as shown above. Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You deleted the language of a consensus among economists, your language inaccurately suggests that the only studies on this topic are "forecasts published in 2016 and 2017" (I suggest you actually read the body of the article before complaining about what the lede should say and then unilaterally trash the long-standing lede), your language falsely suggested that economists are just speculating by adding "could reduce" per capita income (when they are estimating likely impacts), you also added your own WP:SYNTH to suggest that the studies are bad because they preceded the Withdrawal Agreement (even though the estimates do account for both Soft and Hard Brexit scenarios, and there's nothing revolutionary about the Withdrawal Agreement), and you falsely claim that studies of the impact that has already materialized are "forecasts" of future impact (which again suggests that you need to actually read the sources in question before complaining about NPOV and then unilaterally changing the language). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay I have WP:BEBOLD and put together a rough draft of what I think the lede should look like. Please see User:Jopal22/Brexit. Just to note I haven't bothered agonising over detailed wording, correct links, or adding citations as I obviously don't know if I will get buy in for the change, and I'm not going to waste my time unnecessarily! But my approach is

• Paragraph 1: Very short high level very basic summary of brexit
• Paragraph 2: Very basic history of UK and EU, and the factual items around brexit
• Paragraph 3: Setting out the issues Brexit raises without going into detail
• Paragraph 4: An overview of the current position

The principles I think the lede should follow are:

• Anyone who reads it and knows nothing about Brexit or the UK or politics should be able to follow it
• Also it only keep to things that are relevant for the core facts, so whether the party in control is left or right wing, politician names etc is not important for the lede
• Only keep to core facts. By that I mean factual things that need no challenge or discussion to put in further context. So for instance saying "economist think GDP will fall by x%" might be a factually correct statement, but the conclusion is far from universally accepted, and you can't adequately cover the item without having too much text for the lede.

Note I am not saying things I have not included should not be in wiki articles, just not in the lede Jopal22 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Jopal22: The article's lead continues to be open to improvement by tweaks, trims, and updates in the usual way, but, given that brexit denotes the event when UK's membership of the EU ceases, and the UK acquires the status of a "third country" for any further negotiations with EU, the current version (subject to the "balance" notice) is better suited to outlining the present dynamic state of affairs than your proposed text linked above; and given that we do not know how the situation will be significantly changed from one day to the next, and require some corresponding adjustment to the article, much of the current version can be no more than provisional. In particular, the events of the next few days before 29 March will determine whether brexit will happen on that day or not, and if not, whether it will happen sooner or later according to whatever new agreement is reached between the UK and the EU. Qexigator (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Taking into note the NPOV tag put on this article, I note that at current, the derogatory term "Remoaner" is included as a definition in the article in the terminology section, under "Remainer", yet the derogratory term, "Brextremist" is not. I propose, and would find it hard that the request could be denied given both a multitude of Reliable Sources demonstrating its wide usage and the former's inclusion, that Brextremist is hence included, and the definition for Leavers now read's as follows, also using the anchor "Leaver", which is far more common than "Brexiter":

Leaver

Those supporting Brexit are sometimes referred to as "Leavers". Alternatively the term "Brexiteers", or "Brexiters" has been used by some media outlets. Likewise, the pejorative term "Brexitemist", a portmanteau of "Brexiter" and "Extremist" has been used by some outlets to describe Leavers of an overzealous, uncompromising disposition. 62.99.53.95 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Someone has absurdly put a note saying 'add information to correct the article' when of course, it's locked by its owners. This paragraph is biased: "Withdrawal has been advocated by Eurosceptics, both left-wing and right-wing , [8][9][10] while pro-Europeanists , who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership." The correct term(s) are things like 'remain supporters/remainers and 'leave supporters/Brexit supporters/Brexiters/Brexiteers'. These are the sort of terms used by everybody, politicians, media, etc. Brexiters are pro-European and are not eurosceptic.86.187.169.128 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding text on the history of the Brexit process (including political rhetoric on both sides)

Multiple editors have complained that the article fails to cover pro- and anti-Brexit political rhetoric, as well as the history of the Brexit process (e.g. the role of UKIP, Farage, Corbyn). This is an accurate complaint, as the article ought cover pro- and anti-Brexit political rhetoric, as well as the history of the Brexit process. However, other editors who dispute the research on Brexit then conflate the lack of political rhetoric with the article's well-developed sections on the impacts of Brexit, which is unhelpful and confusing. Here's a thread where editors can suggest and work out text to add to the History sections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for finally accepting this. I want to make it clear that I don't challenge the validity of academic studies.

There is a lot to say on political developments of Brexit, but it is necessary to first rework the structure of the article, as it is already 90k characters of readable prose and there are significant repetitions throughout the article. Section 6 "Developments since the referendum of 2016" should go after section 2 "Referendum of 2016", and be merged with parts of section 4 "Negotiations" and section 10 "Public opinion and comment". T8612 (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"Thank you for finally accepting this." I just want to respond to this snide remark: There has never ever been a point in time where I have argued against including RS content on the history of the Brexit process. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Garbage.

"The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK's real per capita income in the medium term and long term,[14][15] and that the Brexit referendum itself had damaged the economy.[16] Studies on effects since the referendum show a reduction in GDP, trade and investment, as well as household losses from increased inflation.[17][18][19][20] Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from European Economic Area (EEA) countries to the UK,[21] and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research.[22] As of November 2018, the size of the "divorce bill"—the UK's inheritance of existing EU trade agreements—and relations with Ireland and other EU member states remains uncertain. The precise impact on the UK depends on whether the process will be a "hard" or "soft" Brexit. Analysis by HM Treasury has found that there is no Brexit scenario that is expected to improve the UK economic condition.[23]" - All this is out of date and 100% biased in favour of remain.86.187.161.112 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case, add some up-to-date analysis from reliable sources. JezGrove (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Anything put on by a non-Wikipedian would be immediately removed by a lefty (Wikipedian).86.187.165.253 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really following this, and I'm not an economist and I don't know how broad that broad consensus is, but a bit of googling turned up this and this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Forbes is certainly a respected source for financial matters.86.187.174.164 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a self-published op-ed by a pundit. The author does not have a PhD in economics nor any peer-reviewed publications on any related subjects. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So the NPOV tag was removed...

So, on 11 March, Octoberwoodland said the NPOV tag was unnecessary. Then, on 14 March, Octoberwoodland proposed removing the tag. 8 opposed (including me), 5 supported. On 17 March, the tag was removed, and Octoberwoodland closed the discussion (hatting it) saying that the UNBALANCED tag was more justified. It is not for a supporter of the status quo to make that decision. This itself is unneutral and unbalanced. I am not British and have no direct interest in Brexit, but this kind of editing shows why the NPOV is justified. There was no reason to remove the NPOV tag given that a majority supported it. The editing of the article should be open, and not controlled by a small group.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jack Upland is correct about faulty closure by Octoberwoodland, but UNBALANCED is sufficient warning and, in my view, acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As an observer of the debate but not a participant in it, I believed (and continue to believe) that the UNBALANCED tag more properly reflected the discussion, which is why I put it there. It addresses the question that led to all this flaring up again - that the article has a wealth of properly sourced, coherently argued, material that says that Brexit is a bad idea, but there is a dearth of equivalent material to the contrary. The even-handedness (or otherwise) of the article has not changed by the (IMO) better tag but merely that it states more constructively what editors need to do about it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • As was correctly pointed out, it's not about votes, but consensus. The moment the tag was changed, the discussion became moot and the consensus of editors, even those whose voted for the tag, was that there was not any obvious POV. Those who voted to keep a tag in the article got their way as the article is still tagged but now accurately which tells editors what to work on. If anyone disagrees they are free to revert and keep discussing. I did not change the tag, other editors did and in doing so rendered the previous discussion as moot. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • As I said, this shows why the tag is justified.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
        • "The editing of the article should be open, and not controlled by a small group." - This is The Wikipedia and that is how it 'works'. EVERYTHING is not "open" and is "controlled by a small group."86.187.165.253 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Yes, to be fair, this article is not open for general editing unlike most others, which is most regrettable and temporary. The reason that editing is limited for the moment to registered editors is that there have been serious problems with vandalism and disruption. But if you want to contribute, you will be very welcome - all you need to do is register for a user name. But please be aware that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and has no interest in our personal opinions: whatever we add has to be backed up by a reliable external source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
            • all you need to do is register for a user name; or alternatively make an edit request on Wikipedia. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
              • Yes, of course, my mistake. Though I would like to think that someone who wants to participate actively would prefer to cut out the middleman but I accept that this is not always a trivial hurdle to jump. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
        • The tags, while they appear similar are subtly different. An NPOV tag expresses an exclusionist viewpoint by inferring some text is not neutral and needs to be rewritten or removed, while the unbalanced tag is an inclusionist viewpoint stating that specific text or views are absent and require addition to complete the article, which is exactly the situation here. The article is missing a balanced amount the pro-brexit arguments and views. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
          • We could do with less cliquism.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Meaning? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

New polls ? Related subjects included.

Any kind of polls made in 2019 that is related to Brexit, could and should be given a chapter here, I think. From the outside it's very difficult to understand what's going on in the House of Commons. Most of the Tory party MPs' vocabulary appears to have shrunken to one single word - "no". Watched a spot at France 24 in English, and solely based on that, it seems like ordinary people in the UK understand less and less. And during the last couple of weeks more or less nothing at all. Brexiters and remainers alike. Wouldn't the final outcome be a better subject for a referendum than the one held ? Any polls on that ? And where is that Nigel Farage now ? He said "it's just to negotiate" , but not even he could anticipate the problems to be inside the Parliament alone. Any modern polls on UKIP ? Boeing720 (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boeing720: if you know of any such information being discussed, and given weight, in reliable secondary sources then you could add it yourself, or bring it here to discuss, and see how it goes down. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I could and would, but I have no access to British media. Swedish SVT and Tv4, Danish DR and Tv2 + France 24 in English, that's all. Boeing720 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Boeing720. There are many, many up to date polls on Brexit, including ones that go into great detail. Just needs a search engine to find them.86.187.174.164 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Here for example: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/uk-poll-results/ 86.187.174.164 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Extending Article 50

As far as I can tell, UK MPs aren't due to vote on whether to accept either of the extensions (12 April with no deal, 22 May with deal) offered by the EU Council on the evening of Thursday 21 March until after they have voted for a third time on whether to accept Theresa May's deal. Until that happens, the leave date is 29 March - and if they reject an extension it will stay as 29 March. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeee...sss, probably, maybe. MPs were unable to elicit much information from the government spokesman in the House of Commons today, so Hansard will not reveal much. How the government proposes to conduct the business of the House next week will be disclosed on Monday, but the Prime Minister or another spokesperson may give some information of intent before then, perhaps in Sunday newspapers or broadcasting media. Exit day remains 29 March, unless, before then, HoC resolves otherwise and authorises the government to accept and agree one of the options offered by EU in a way that is valid in both UK and EU law. Meantime, it is reported that government departments are busy with contingency planning for "no deal", whenever that may happen. The House of Lords will also have a part to play. Qexigator (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The extended dates of Withdrawal are now in UK law without a vote of the House of Commons. This is because of two reasons, the first is that the section of the European Withdrawal Act that lays down the exit day as the 29th of March has no Commencement Order, hence, it is not current UK law (this is why on legislation.gov.uk it is marked as "prospective" law and put in a grey box). Second, the UK has now accepted these dates in accordance with EU Law, which still has full effect in UK law per the European Communities Act, this is explicitly specified in Paragraph 12 of [[18]]. Further, the EU withdrawal act states in Paragraph 4 Section 25 that "The provisions of this Act, so far as they are not brought into force by subsections (1) to (3), come into force on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes.". No such regulation has been made, and so the exit date is NOT UK law. [[19]]

as set out in the letter from the Permanent Representative of the UK to the European Union, Sir Tim Barrow, of 22 March 2019, it has agreed, in accordance with Article 50(3) TEU, to the extension of the period referred to in that Article and to this decision,

The British Government has now confirmed the extension per [[20]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanmayersweet (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

- Ethanmayersweet (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

When a RS reports that the EU has confirmed the extension, that should be made clear in the article. Currently, the lead section says, "The EU has proposed that the date will be postponed to 12 April 2019 if the UK fails to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement, or to 22 May 2019 if the UK ratifies the Withdrawal Agreement,[1][2][3][4][5]" I'm interested in this, but I'm not following it closely enough to be sure that I'll catch that when it happens. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, does it stay at March 29, as apparently there can't be a third vote on the Withdrawal Agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The legal and political position may be moot, but, per comment above, if the extension declared in the EU Decision as now published (see link above) has the status of a directive effective under the as yet unrepealed ECA 1972, the date could be held to be postponed to 12 April or to a later date if before then the stated condition is satisfied. That was what the EU proposed, as the formal documents disclose. The wording of the present version of the lead would cover the situation if tweaked from "is scheduled" to "was scheduled" and if "proposed" is changed to "decided". See "External links": EU Council decision, 22 March 2019, extending the negotiating period. Qexigator (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The UK Government have confirmed the new dates [[21]] Ethanmayersweet (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Of the two parties, the extension terms as set out in the EU Decision were proposed by EU. As above said, that was what the EU unilaterally had proposed (in absence of UK): THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 50(3) thereof, Whereas:...(12) As provided for in Article 50(4) TEU, the United Kingdom has not taken part in the discussions of the European Council concerning this decision nor in its adoption. However, as set out in the letter from the Permanent Representative of the UK to the European Union, Sir Tim Barrow, of 22 March 2019, it has agreed, in accordance with Article 50(3) TEU, to the extension of the period referred to in that Article and to this decision, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:... Qexigator (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If I'm understanding it all correctly, there can be no further extensions beyond May 22, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Qexigator (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: sure there can be, if the UK asks and the European Council agrees to it. 22 May was picked because European parliament elections would have to start in the UK on 23 May if they stay in beyond then, so a longer extension requires more of a commitment, that's all. Also, the UK can revoke Article 50 altogether, which means not leaving, and returning to the full membership status that existed before the referendum and before Article 50 was invoked. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The EU keeps moving the goalposts, since they obviously don't want the UK to leave. But anyways, as you've pointed out, the current departure dates are 'No deal - April 12' & 'Yes deal - May 22'. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead cleanup

According to MOS:LEAD, the lead should "contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs." This lead is five paragraphs long, and several of those paragraphs are unreadably dense. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 23:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The whole 5th paragraph of the lead should be deleted. Emass100 (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved the fifth paragraph to the section which discusses brexit and the economy. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This is great, but the lead still contains a lot of non-essential details as well as links. These should be removed. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 04:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried to put together a skeleton of what I thought the lead should look like here User:Jopal22/Brexit (rationale above), but it didn't seem to get any support. Obviously it would need updating a bit and citations added etc. Jopal22 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There is so much that can be cut from the first four paragraphs of the lede (in particular, all the pointless sources). The content in the fifth paragraph should absolutely under no circumstance go. The lede should summarize the body of the article, and an enormous part of the article covers expert assessments on the impact of Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't realised it took so much space in the article. As such, I'm proposing we split these sections from the article. I think it is those sections that are causing people to feel the article is unbalanced, so splitting the article might be a way to remove the tag as well. Emass100 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There's no need to fork that content. It's entirely due weight. The section that can be split entirely is the "Cultural references" section, which is just a random assortment of cultural references. Other sections of the article can also be trimmed considerably. The impact sections are actually fairly concise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"Current events" tag added to article

This article really might as well be replaced with the information "Brexit is the proposed exit of the UK from the EU, it is utterly chaotic at the moment and nobody has a clue what is going to happen". I don't see why it needs a tag "unbalanced" ie, the xenophobic morons who support this evil lunacy feel the article does not sufficiently represent their views, or "the lead is too long", who cares, better to let readers know that not a single person on earth has a clue about how this is going to play out right now, so I added a "current events" tag and took the other unnecessary ones off.Smeat75 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The previous discussion clearly shows that there is a consensus that the article is "unbalanced" or "not neutral". Your opinion that other people are "xenophobic morons" is not particularly relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections Domestic impact on the United Kingdom and Impact of Brexit on bilateral UK relations be split into a separate page called Impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom. The current page seems WP:TOOBIG and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Emass100 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely do not fork this content just because you don't like what it says. Those sections are actually very concise, unlike virtually every section of the article, which can be trimmed considerably. I mean, for example, the "cultural references" section is just a random assortment of cultural references which do not need to be in the main article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

But these sections are huge, with 25,636 characters, which makes them bigger than both the articles economic effects of Brexit and Impact of Brexit on the European Union. I feel that such level of detail on the impacts of Brexit is more information than the average person would want in this article. They could be replaced by a WP:SUMMARY of the key points.

I refute your claim that I want to fork this new article because I don't like its content. I, full disclosure, believe that Brexit has been and will continue to be a catastrophe for the UK, as the experts reported in these sections say. I do, however, believe putting the entirety findings in another article, and keeping the main conclusions here, would fix the WP:UNDUE issue of this article.Emass100 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I also refute your claim that these sections are any more concise than the rest of the article. They are essentially a dump of what anyone notable and reliable said about the effects of Brexit on the UK.Emass100 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed a bunch of content in the impact sections. More content can be trimmed in the 'aviation' and 'road traffic' sub-sections, but I honestly don't know enough about the topic to determine what belongs or how to write it up more concisely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I won't engage in edit-warring, but I disagree with the removal of content you did today. A lot of things you removed per WP:UNDUE, such as the creation of pro-european parties and the conclusions of reports by lobby groups, meet the WP:GNG and merit inclusion in the separate article. Emass100 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If the concern is that the article is too big, then the obvious first steps are to (1) cut redundant sourcing (for some reason, there are 4-10 sources used at various points in the article for non-controversial statements of fact), (2) remove the contents in the 'cultural references' section, (3) trim 'Impact of Brexit on bilateral UK relations', in particular the recitations of a lot of statements by politicians, (4) merge the entire 'public comment' section with the 'negotiation' section (except the redundant parts which should just be deleted), and (5) trim mundane text from various other sections. The fact that the first thing that you want to remove is the extremely well-developed and concise impact sections (one editor has already bizarrely claimed that the cited sources engage in WP:OR (???) and that it's "little more than speculation", which demonstrates where the true sentiment comes from for wanting to remove this) is strange to say the least. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(1) Cutting redundant source doesn't reduce the prose size, which is what matters per WP:TOOLONG. This is wasted effort, and potentially dangerous as these sources don't always exactly have the same information. (2) yes, this whole section was essentially a repeat of Brexit in popular culture, and so I boldly removed it. (3) This history is notable and valuable, and keeping it in a separate article would be beneficial. (4) No, and I think this diff was out of place. Emass100 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that my concern is not only that the article is too long, but also that this section takes a disproportionate amount of place in the article, and would benefit from having its own article, like economic effects of Brexit and Impact of Brexit on the European Union. Emass100 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I have trimmed the 'Domestic impact on the United Kingdom' section considerably. It's now 40% smaller than it was a day ago. Any concerns with size should be satisfied. Note also that multiple other sections are filled with trimmable content, so the rest of the article could easily be trimmed additionally if editors genuinely have size-concerns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really. With 69,424 characters of prose, this article still clearly falls under the "Probably should be divided" category according to WP:SIZERULE. Additionally, I feel you removed way too much notable content from this page. While some of your rephasing/deletion of redundancies were definitely needed, I feel that most of what was removed still has encyclopedic value and could be reinstated, or find a home in a separate article. Emass100 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The section is 40% smaller that it was a day ago and you still want it removed? Also, WP:SIZERULE clearly says about ">60K characters" that "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". Brexit is an enormous, intensely discussed and covered topic with wide scope, so of course the article will be enormous. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That the scope of the article is large is all the more reason why it shouldn't focus on particular aspects unduly. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Four short paragraphs on the economic impact of Brexit is undue? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Removing 40% of that section was not the answer. I'd rather these whole sections in a separate article with a summary of the key points here than half of it here and the other half removed completely. Emass100 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The article currently summarizes the key points on the impacts of Brexit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And you don't have any comment on Wikipedia's size policy stating "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but ideally, we should aim for "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed". True, we can always justify adding length. Per example, this article could be more focused on the referendum, the history of the development, and the negotiations, but all these details have been forked somewhere else. The only reason the impact on the UK had such a large section of this article is that these sections hadn't been forked in another article as of today. Emass100 (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Agreed with Emass100. I support a split. Many of the content are notable and it would be appropriate forking. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I do agree that at some point it may make sense to split the article content out. We need to avoid speculation and sources which are a lot of WP:OR since most of the assumed impacts of Brexit are little more than speculation at this point. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment A new article would likely include most of the notable content from these sections that was removed per WP:UNDUE today.Emass100 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I have thought for some time that this would be an appropriate forking. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support I have stated before that I believe the 'impact' info is disproportionate - this article should not be an assessment on whether Brexit is good or bad. I also concur with comments made by Emass100 above, that recent removals of text and sources have not been productive. [A qualifying note, should the split occur: many 'impacts' are forecasts and predictions that can only be seen to occur if or when Brexit happens, and their exact nature is dependent on many future variables.] PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support In addition to forking, I agree with Emass's other statement that earlier versions of the article were more concise and professional. In particular, the attempt over the past months to impose an artificial "left-right" political narrative on Brexit events sounds more like a teenager's tribal tantrum rather than a serious encyclopaedic effort. (Full disclosure: I am pro-EU, but not this type of EU). 86.161.54.90 (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)