Talk:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

#FBPE on Twitter now on Wikipedia as well?![edit]

I refuse to believe that this is reverting entirely made in good faith [1], not by someone who basically declares himself as an anti-Brexit (LibDem) activist on his own Userpage anyway! More of the like of him and his like-minded co-editors (who probably all know each on Twitter with #FBPE or #PCPEU handles anyway) is no consensus! It reads like someone trying to keep the 'pre-agreed', 'pre-approved' version on Wikipedia, last edited by a bunch of LibDem and Open Britain activists before the 2017 General Election...I mean, for a start, who would actually write (and then feel the need to repeatedly restore) 'the United Kingdom (UK)' ?! ----- (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Referendum template[edit]

I have been forced to take my case here, it’s very simple which referendum results template do you pefer, is it this which was been put up in the last few days so it simply.

Choice Votes %
Referendum passed Leave the European Union 17,410,742 51.89
Remain a member of the European Union 16,141,241 48.11
Valid votes 33,551,983 99.92
Invalid or blank votes 25,359 0.08
Total votes 33,577,342 100.00
Registered voters and turnout 46,500,001 72.21
Source: Electoral Commission

Or would you pefer this?

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
Choice Votes %
Leave the European Union 17,410,742 51.89
Remain a member of the European Union 16,141,241 48.11
Valid votes 33,551,983 99.92
Invalid or blank votes 25,359 0.08
Total votes 33,577,342 100.00
Registered voters and turnout 46,500,001 72.21
Source: Electoral Commission
National referendum results (without spoiled ballots)
17,410,742 (51.9%)
16,141,241 (48.1%)

There has not been a problem until now with the template and frankly I am shocked that people would pefer a very substandard looking template to one that looks much more professional. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC))

It's not a question about what personal preferences are, it's about the fact that the first is the standard template created by {{Referendum}} and the second one is a non-standard one created by yourself and not used anywhere else (as far as I'm aware). If you don't like how {{Referendum}} displays the results, then suggest changes to it at Template talk:Referendum. Your version is also a pretty clear violation of WP:MOSICON. Number 57 19:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

An edit war appears to be about to break out over a quotation by a notable person that happens to be on YouTube. I cannot find anything on WP:RS or WP:RSE that rules out this medium, irrespective of the message, and frankly it would be crazy if it did. The only valid questions are these: [a] is the source saying what we report them as saying and [b] is the person speaking actually who we believe it is. In this case, I have no doubt that these tests are met. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Before addressing those questions, the pertinent one to ask is: should this information, if a good source can be found, be included? The person is an academic in the field of EU law, so if he commented on matters of EU law, he could be considered a useable/useful authority. However, in this instance, he was commenting on the history of political campaigning: "one of the most dishonest political campaigns this country has ever seen". His comments were not on his area of expertise, so the answer to the question is: no, his opinion should not be included. (Alternatively, we could choose to include the opinion of anyone who is considered to be an expert on anything, but that would be absurd.) EddieHugh (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree entirely if it were true, but in this case it is not. He is an expert in constitutional law. His specific challenge to the leave campaign is that they based their argument on foundations of constitutional law but these don't stand up to legal examination. So not only is it quite appropriate to report his assessment, it would fail npov if we did not do so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
All we are are looking for is a more stable report of his comments than a youtube posting.Charles (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree completely - if we could get it. Liverpool U has provided a transcript of his first paper but not of the second that I can find. Hopefully a future historian will capture it for posterity - Dougan is clearly referring to a script. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
If his argument is based on constitutional law, then this article should state that. Using the "dishonest" line makes it look like unjustified opinion covering any and all aspects of the campaign, which is pov. EddieHugh (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
His argument is precisely that almost all of the arguments from the Leave campaign were constitutional issues, since they touch on the relationship between Member States and the EU, which is one defined by the constitutional frameworks of both the EU and its Member States. For example, which actors take decisions (the Commission or the Member States), the procedure they use for them (QMV/Unanimity) are all constitutional issues - they are clearly defined in the rules of procedure of the EU. So, for example, it possible for him as an expert on EU Constitutional law to say that Leave were being dishonest over one of their central claims that the UK couldn't veto Turkish membership of the EU and that it was imminent - and possible for him to point out that defence is an issue requiring unanimity within the respective constitutional frameworks of each member state, and that the UK constitutional framework, as defined by the European Union Act 2011 requires the UK to hold a referendum on that issues with a positive result before approval, indicating that Leave was dishonest on that too. (And without wishing to fall foul of making this forum, I'd like to point out that these points aren't exactly controversial; I can go to the respective Wikipedia pages of these issues, eg, EU enlargement, that irrespective of the referendum, will tell me that this is the case.) So, whilst we have established he is WP:RS on EU constitutional law, I also think as, with his role as a fact-checker for different news sources throughout the referendum, and regular witness to Parliament and adviser to the government, he has WP:RS also to make a judgement on the amount of Leave's claims that were essentially issues within the realms of constitutional law, and so I vote to Keep the quote as is, though allow for an opposing WP:RS if found.
As for the source, I guess I'm slightly unclear. I can do a search for a transcript, but it would seem odd that I could, hypothetically, type up the transcript of the video, put it on the "biddidly bumkpin town - population 12 - newshopper online" website and it becomes a valid source for use on wikipedia, whilst a direct to cam piece of someone we've already established is WP:RS of a verified youtube channel of a law department of a UK university is not. As John Maynard Friedman says this does seem crazy. I did have a quick look at what Wikipedia has to say about posting youtube videos as sources before looking to fill the citation, and it does seem to indicate general aversion, but with exemptions where common sense applies. I say this an area where common sense would indicate we can utilise it. Luxofluxo (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
[Reply to EddieHugh, edit conflict with Luxofluxo]. I have added a sentence to clarify. I also wondered if the paragraph would be better placed in "5.7.2 Law and economics experts"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense; I've moved it to the Response section, as it's a response to the campaign, not from the time of the campaign itself. EddieHugh (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It's probably worthwhile mentioning that the original accusation of "dishonesty on an industrial scale" that you have since removed, was indeed made during the campaign, and so was from the campaign itself, in a lecture at the University of Liverpool, that was uploaded to youtube and went viral on social media, on 14 June 2016, 11 days before the vote. The youtube clip that now is sourced is a clarification of that assertion. Luxofluxo (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Good point about the timing. It's still probably best in the "Responses to the referendum campaign" section, as it's a comment on part of the campaign, unless we take that to be part of the campaign in itself. "described the Leave campaign as" could be changed to "described the Leave campaign shortly before the referendum as" if specifying a time period is desirable. EddieHugh (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Update: July 2018: I feel it was a reasonable request to suggest that a better source than YouTube would be preferable. The initial request on the article was only to suggest that YouTube is not ideal rather than removing the content. YouTube is not banned as a reference, however it is not generally encouraged or ideal as per WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources" and WP:YTREF: "Editors should consider if the content being referenced is truly encyclopedic if the best citation that can be made points to YouTube." The request for a better citation than YouTube was reverted / removed by the editor "Luxofluxo" on 1 June 2018 (UK time).
Other editors involved in this particular discussion (John Maynard Friedman, EddieHugh, Charles) are advised that the editor "Luxofluxo" was blocked indefinitely on 17 July 2018 (UK time) for abusing multiple accounts, following a sockpuppet investigation. Last year, in 2017, the editor was also blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and indeed created new accounts to post personal attacks on an admin, but he or she evaded the block and "Luxofluxo" has recently been blocked again. (None of the sockpuppet investigations were requested by myself). According to guidelines: "All edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted." Please see
Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Organisation of responses section[edit]

I don't have time myself but this section needs to be reorganised. We have UK economists, lawyers and NHS as sub-sub-sections under a "non-european responses" sub-section. Would someone oblige? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Voting demographics and trends[edit]

I have put the word institutional before the word education. All sources report solely about institutional education such as having a degree. There are other ways people acquire knowledge and become more educated, such as reading, visiting places, conversing with people and taking an interest in how the world works. It's far-fetched to say the average 20 year old with a degree is more highly educated than the average 65 year old that has accrued knowledge for far longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Bloomberg speech[edit]

Why is there so little reference to the so called Bloomberg speech that was given by David Cameron in January 2013, this should be included within the article given it was so important in regards to the holding of the referendum, in fact should there be a article in it self for the Bloomberg speech at all? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC))

There is now a article on the Bloomberg speech which has been set up but needs lots of expansion. (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:E196:98A9:F60A:53F6 (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC))

Do we have "evidence of Russian interference in the referendum"?[edit]

The following sentence, in Wiki's voice, is in the lead: "There is also an ongoing investigation following evidence of Russian interference in the referendum." I tried twice (adding to the summary each time) to modify that to reflect what I think we can support in the article (here and here), but was reverted both times (here and here) by Yaris678.

Certainly the heading of the appropriate prose section uses more moderated language with - "Possible Russian interference" (i.e. not definite). The section itself contains the sentence "In December 2016, MP Ben Bradshaw speculated in Parliament that Russia may have interfered in the referendum." (which I thought summed it up). Other than that, the prose never actually discusses "evidence of Russian interference" as such, just that that Facebook stated that "Russian-based operatives spent 97 cents to place three adverts on the social network in the run-up to the referendum, which were viewed 200 times." and "The Observer had seen evidence that Leave.EU funder Arron Banks had met Russian officials "multiple times" from 2015 to 2017 and had discussed "a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines."

I don't think what we have in the prose supports the assertion of fact that there is "evidence of Russian interference in the referendum". The best I think we can say is that there is speculation that such a thing might have occurred, and I propose removing the sentence from the lead altogether, or modifying it, as I did, to reflect the article content thus: "There is also an ongoing investigation following speculation that there was Russian interference in the referendum." -- DeFacto (talk). 10:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"Speculation" certainly does not sum it up. Saying "speculation" without mentioning evidence suggests there is no evidence.
Our article states "After denying it for over a year, Facebook admitted in November 2017 that it was targeted by Russian trolls in the run-up to the Brexit referendum" and "On 10 June 2018, The Guardian reported that investigators from The Observer had seen evidence that Leave.EU funder Arron Banks had met Russian officials "multiple times" from 2015 to 2017 and had discussed "a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines"". This is evidence. One could claim that is is not conclusive evidence, but then no one wants to put "conclusive evidence" into Wikipedia's voice.
Yaris678 (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Yaris678: neither of those are evidence of "Russian interference" in the referendum. The Facebook story is a claim that there are trolls in Russia and the Guardian one is a report that journalists have seen evidence that a business man visited Russia for business discussions! I think we need to do better than that to justify the statement currently in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Change the wording to "investigation into possible Russian interference in the referendum": controversy avoided; neutrality maintained. Or cut it from the lead: it's not a major part of the narrative (at the moment). EddieHugh (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@EddieHugh: I'd support your wording, or removal altogether, as you suggest. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I have reworded it like this as there has been no further comment for a couple of days. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

More racism.[edit]

"In Wales, a Muslim woman" . . . "Other reports of racism" Muslims are not a race. This has been pointed out so many times before that this must be deliberate. AnnaComnemna (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: do not move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendumUnited Kingdom European Union membership referendum – It was originally called this before being moved to the title with the year at the end. The year would only be needed in the event of another vote. Unreal7 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"due to"[edit]

Most contributors will be aware that "due to" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead[2] is NPOV, and is correct according to the present state of the law of the UK and of the EU, irrespective of any assessment of the current state of political opinion from any source or OR. Word definitions on line say that by common usage "due to" = attributable to or caused by, or as a result of and similar. Qexigator (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Article temporarily protected for 3 days to calm this dispute. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Timrollpickering. I caught sight of a report at WP:ANEW, which was placed just a few minutes after your protection: Report posted, Report removed. I looked at it, and it seemed to me, just as it apparently seemed to User:Dr.K., that the article history indicates an IP ( and, obviously the same individual) edit warring very persistently against multiple editors, rather than a bona fide "content dispute". I have blocked the small range for edit warring and disruption. It's up to you, but if I were you I'd undo the protection. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC).
Thank you Bishonen. I agree with your rationale and actions. Based on that, I will restore my 3RRN report. Dr. K. 16:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, not much point in that, User:Dr.K., since I've already actioned it. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I agree. But I view this as finalising the paperwork. It also provides a clear picture of the background and justification for your actions. However, if you don't want me to do it, I'm good. Nice talking to you, as always. Dr. K. 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to tell what grievance this editor has with the term "due to" - it's clearly being used to mean 'scheduled to' or 'on course to' (which was the original wording of the sentence before it was edited). It's hard to see what justification there is for insisting that article says "will leave" (surely deity-level WP:CRYSTAL-balling) over any other perfectly acceptable and more accurate alternatives. Perhaps the original 'on course' wording would be better restored? Incidentally, as a point of information, the consequence of locking this article is that it is now frozen in the form desired by the disruptive editor. Bonusballs (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The reason why "will" is incorrect, while both "due to" and "on course to" are accurate, is the existence of (at least) the following possibilities:
  1. The notice of intention to withdraw may be revoked; that this is possible was confirmed by the ECJ in December.
  2. The 29 March deadline may be extended; this has always been known to be possible.
Likelihood of either of these things happening is a different issue. WP can report anybody's estimate of likelihood, but for WP to make such an estimate would indeed be WP:CRYSTAL-balling. Wikiain (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with your analysis. The size of the IP's POV can be discerned by the huge amount of edit-warring they engaged in, as well as the WP:NPAs in their edit-summaries and their talkpage. Hopefully the 72-hour block they earned will give them time to reflect on the quality and mode of their contributions. Dr. K. 23:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
And what is more, the indisputable fact against the IP's edit summaries is that if the exit happens on the due date, 29 March, that will be the inexorable result of EU treaty article 50, and the UK Act requiring the prime minister to give the notice of withdrawal prescribed by article 50 and its acceptance as such by the EU. Qexigator (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Parties that campaigned for leave/remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Parties that campaigned for leave during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 and Category:Parties that campaigned for remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, which is related to this category, have been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. If the category gets deleted and a list article is desired, the current articles in each category is listed below:

Thank you. -

Obama's statement[edit]

Regarding my earlier edit, it seemed undue to me to have four reaction quotes to one statement, all from the same side, in an already long article. Other than that, I think we can agree that it makes sense to have all the information on the subject in one place, and not in an "Investigations" section, since it's not subject to an investigation. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Great Britain[edit]

Section 6.1.1 is called Great Britain. It includes Skye, the Shetlands, Anglesey and the Isle of Sheppey. Should it be renamed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Usual convention in a wide variety of contexts is that adjacent islands are included with the mainland for summary purposes. So no, it should not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"not legally binding"[edit]

The present text states that in the Miller case the UK Supreme Court 'confirmed' that the referendum result was not legally binding. This might be taken to imply that someone had taken the contrary view. So far as I recall, no-one ever has, and it was not a point at issue in Miller. I therefore think the present text is misleading and the statement should be deleted. (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting unwanted data[edit]

With reference to:

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum: Revision history - Wikipedia

Earlier this summer [2019], the referendum results table included data regarding *both* "registered voters" and the "voting age population". Why has the reference to the "voting age population" been removed? This detail is relevant to the matter which is addressed by:

Dissatisfaction with parties is a reflection of the political system as a whole

The Hansard Society: Research reveals public disengagement

How many people have visited the bowdlerised version of the page and been denied the opportunity to see important data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

With reference to "not legally binding" above[edit]

With reference to:

"not legally binding" [ 19:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)]

I had obtained the impression that the UK Supreme Court had delivered the indicated 'confirmation' because the members of this illustrious pink elephant had the opportunity to participate in the discussions which the governing elite have amongst themselves. Is someone suggesting that the UK Supreme Court delivered their 'confirmation' simply because they were at a loose end and had an urge to remind people that they had arrived among the elite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)