| Revision as of 20:15, 21 July 2023 editJMF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,510 edits →Adding new polling data: cut off in my prime← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:26, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,049 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (40 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Vital article|topic=History|level=5|class=B}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{ITN talk|date1=28 August 2019|oldid1=912889854|date2=20 October 2019|oldid2=922195549|date3=31 January 2020|oldid3=938558671}} |
|
|
|
|itn1date=28 August 2019|itn1link=Special:PermanentLink/912889854 |
| ⚫ |
{{On this day|date1=2019-06-23|oldid1=903014427}} |
|
|
|
|itn2date=20 October 2019|itn2link=Special:PermanentLink/922195549 |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|itn3date=31 January 2020|itn3link=Special:PermanentLink/938558671 |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject European Union|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
⚫ |
|otd1date=2019-06-23|otd1oldid=903014427 |
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=B|importance=top |
|
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = y |
|
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = y |
|
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = y |
|
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = y |
|
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = y |
|
|
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = y |
|
|
|B-class=pass |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject European Union|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Economics|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=B |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} |
|
{{WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade|class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject European history|class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=Top}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Top}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Press|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-wikipedia-page-battles |title=A bitter turf war is raging on the Brexit Misplaced Pages page |last=Reynolds |first=Matt |date=2019-04-29 |work=]|quote=While Westminster remains mired in endless Brexit deadlock, over on the Brexit Misplaced Pages page things are even less amicable. Editors are parrying death threats, doxxing attempts and accusations of bias, as the crowdsourced epic has become the centre of a relentless tug-of-war over who gets to write the history of the UK as it happens.}} |
|
{{Press|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-wikipedia-page-battles |title=A bitter turf war is raging on the Brexit Misplaced Pages page |last=Reynolds |first=Matt |date=2019-04-29 |work=]|quote=While Westminster remains mired in endless Brexit deadlock, over on the Brexit Misplaced Pages page things are even less amicable. Editors are parrying death threats, doxxing attempts and accusations of bias, as the crowdsourced epic has become the centre of a relentless tug-of-war over who gets to write the history of the UK as it happens.}} |
|
⚫ |
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
{{off topic warning}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|Jun 19 2016 (5th)|Jun 26 2016 (25th)}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|Jun 19 2016 (5th)|Jun 26 2016 (25th)}} |
|
⚫ |
{{refideas| }} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
| Line 39: |
Line 36: |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Brexit/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Brexit/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Brexit/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Brexit/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Primacy == |
| ⚫ |
{{refideas| }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== Promises == |
|
|
|
|
|
I miss a separate section on the promises made to win voters over to Brexit. A list of Bullet points may do. e.g. 350 Mill Pounds per week for NHS. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:That can be found ]; it is linked from the article. ] (]) 10:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::There's also some coverage at the ]. ] • ] 12:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That said, this article does skip over the campaign and jumps from the agreement to hold the referendum to the result and outcomes. I think adding a (very brief) overview of the campaign itself (with the hatnote pointing to the referendum article moved above it), might be worthwhile here. ] • ] 12:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== crystal in lede == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, has ] been discussed or gone through RFC before? If not, I think I will remove it. Thanks ] (]) 06:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:CRYSTAL refers to editors forecasting the future. Afaics, the text is reporting forecasts, which is legitimate. It seems to be properly cited? --] (]) 07:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is presented early on in the article: |
|
::Its not limited to editors, and states "Misplaced Pages does not predict the future." The article is currently repeating predictions of pundits on what will happen to a nation in the future and in the lede (putting undue weight). Its way too much from my standpoint. ] (]) 11:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"Following Brexit, EU law and the Court of Justice of the European Union no longer have primacy over British laws." |
|
:::To clarify: it seems to me that the predictions made by the proponents and opponents ''before'' the referendum certainly should be in the article because they so informed the debate. I don't see how that is Misplaced Pages predicting the future, especially since those predictions were so divergent. I agree that any new predictions in the light of subsequent reality should not be included.--] (]) 12:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
::::The last line of the lede does not seem to be anything but negative predictions, not all sides. ] (]) 12:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The solution in that case is to add the positive predictions, surely? --] (]) 15:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Either, but I prefer Removal, as it seems to me the OP is kind of right. These were (they are not even are, they were made years ago) predictions, not facts. ] (]) 15:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Strong disagree. They should stay. It is a '''fact''' and an undeniable one at that, that there '''is''' (not past tense) a strong consensus amongst economists on these points. We don't also just "add positive" predictions, because that would be false balance. There is no strong academic consensus on these positive points. ] (]) 16:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: It is not false balance to report the predictions of each campaign, indeed it is unbalanced to fail to do so. We ''should'' have the "£350m a day for the NHS", "immediate trade deal with the USA", "easiest trade deal ever", "same benefits as we have now", "]" arrangement, "no border down the Irish Sea", "massive reduction in immigration". etc. But I'm afraid I must agree that it would be a CRYSTAL violation to give space to predictions made after June 2016 unless the predicted event has already occurred. --] (]) 19:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Luxofluxo, if there are indeed available sources that use '''is''' then we can swap out the crystal content for those. ] (]) 22:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::{{rto|Slatersteven}}, the ]s are that predictions were made and thus it is entirely valid to report each of those facts. It doesn't matter how long ago they were made. It doesn't matter whether they were right or wrong. (If events have proved them wrong{{snd}} and an RS says so, else it is OR{{snd}} then that is reportable too.) --] (]) 20:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Generally speaking we dont include predictions, this is the point of CRYSTAL and the policy is more important than whatever is going on here (appears might be ] or advocacy). ] (]) 22:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Adding more nonsense (in this case predictions) is exactly the definition of false balance. Remove it all from the lede. ] (]) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{rto|Jtbobwaysf}} I suggest that you have misread the policy. We don't include predictions as predictions, that certainly is CRYSTAL. The issue here that predictions ''were'' made on both sides of the debate leading up to the referendum and that they influenced how people voted. It is not CRYSTAL to record that those predictions were made{{snd}} the details of what they were are almost incidental but we have to say what they were. |
|
|
::::::::::] arises when the strong consensus is that "A" is the reality, that there is no significant evidence for "B" but nevertheless we give "A" and "B" equal treatment (see ]). If the debate we are having now were about the post-2016 "consequences of Brexit" judgements and predictions, you would be correct because the consensus in recent years is that these are and will be economically adverse with no significant contrary expert opinion. But it is not about that (and even if it were, we couldn't include it, per CRYSTAL). Before the referendum, each campaign made its own 'pitch' and we have a duty to record what those pitches were. --] (]) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::If you are asserting the predictions now have come true, then cite the come true part and drop the prediction. I havent misread the CRYSTAL policy and quoted it for you above. First you said it applied to editors and not to articles (wrong) and now are you talking about some sort of POVs on both sides and that makes the crystal ok, it doesnt. Policy is more important than a particular article. Please just drop it. If you dont consent, I am just going to run an RFC on the matter and waste everyone's time. ] (]) 03:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::No, please read what I wrote. What is relevant and should be included is that predictions were made by both campaign groups. That is an historical fact. The subsequent accuracy of those predictions is entirely irrelevant. This is not Misplaced Pages predicting the future, this is reporting the fact that predictions were made by the recognised campaigns. You are misleading yourself by looking at the content of the predictions rather than their existence. --] (]) 15:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*I removed it per ] "Misplaced Pages does not predict the future." If you can find some text that says it has already happened, then it might be ] for ]. Right now this crystal in the lede is a gross policy violation and undue weight. ] (]) 05:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:<s>And I will now revert that deletion.</s> This is a ] debate. You do not get make a unilateral decision on the conclusion of that debate while it is still in progress. --] (]) 15:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Although my point about pre-emptive action while a BRD debate is in progress stands, the specific statement you removed was an "after the event" prediction and thus a CRYSTAL violation. I agree with deleting it. So that leaves us with a gap to be filled for the campaign promises. --] (]) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::] is quite clear and always leans towards removal of content, especially when it is a clear policy issue. You need to find clear consensus to add predictions to the lede of this article and I dont see it. I also see that similar text in the article has ], making it look like the content might have been the source of an earlier ]. Thanks ] (]) 01:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact someone feels this needs to be asserted is troubling. The CJEU never had primacy over British law, and European Union law only had primacy as far as CJEU case law. The jurisdiction clauses in the treaty make this very clear, and supremacy is only a political assertion in a protocol. It really sounds like a childish understanding of the EU. The kind you would read in a British tabloid. I wonder if Misplaced Pages is supposed to be dumbed-down in this way? ] (]) 19:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Impact section cleanup == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Regions and Cities voting Remain == |
|
Hi, I tagged ] with an additional cleanup for ] tag. The section now has multiple problems and needs urgent attention. It seems that old info (prior to Brexit) was left in that is both outdated and also were speculations of what might be the impact. We are a wikipedia and cover what has happened in the past. There should be plenty of sources on what has been the impact (not an expert myself) but I am sure there is something. Maybe the section needs to get chopped in half or more if there are not ] of what has actually already impacted, not speculation by thinktanks on what might happen sometime if ever. ] (]) 06:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:In principle yes but it is important to record what the official campaigns declared would happen. We don't have to say (and without RSs definitely should not say) how accurate those predictions turned out to be. Rees Mogg declared of one such that it would take 50 years to see the result. So the weeding will have to be fairly carefully done. As for the rest, ] also applies: indeed it is arguable that we shouldn't even attempt to write such a section before 2066. --] (]) 15:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::You seem to be more knowledgeable about this subject than me. Pontifications by notable people should be ok to include (normally I use the if they have a wikipedia article to test that). But we dont summarize what these people pontificated about in wikivoice implying that wikipedia is pontificating about the future (we dont do that). Most of the section should cover actual measured effects after the Brexit, as full sections about future guesses is not encyclopedic. ] (]) 01:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''"The electorate voted to leave the EU with a 51.9% share of the vote, with all regions of England and Wales except London voting in favour of Brexit"'' |
|
== Adding new polling data == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is factually incorrect as Monmouthshire, Vale of Glamorgan, Gwynedd and Ceredigion voted remain as did several cities other than London. ] (]) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
I recently added information regarding polling in the Section "Public opinion since the Brexit referendum", (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brexit&oldid=1166454093) which was removed. I believe up to date polling numbers are an important addition to this article, especially considering that the poll in question had a differently worded question than the older poll. |
|
|
⚫ |
:Source? ] (]) 17:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The problem is the word "region". The underlying assumed model is the ], with Wales treated as a tenth region. Nothing new there. Subdivisions of "regions" are not considered. --] (]) 17:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove "Inpact" section? == |
|
I would be happy for some feedback so I can come up with a revised edit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section is unavoidably OR because the assertions in it, although cited, are subjectively selected. It seems to me that if the section is to stand, it must be based on npov and rs assessments which, imo, won't and can't exist before 2036 at the earliest, 2091 <s>is</s> if Rees-Mogg is correct. |
|
<nowiki>Thanks in advance ~~~ </nowiki> ] (]) 19:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
I propose that we delete it. ] (]) 15:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:@], I removed it per ] as I think it needs mainstream reliable sources reporting it to give it due weight. -- ] (]). 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:UNsure but agree we should not use any sources published within (say) 10 years of Brexit, as this should be a historical overview of its impacts. ] (]) 15:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Thank your for your quick response. I added the aggregate poll on purpose because it is more representative than individual polls and the last survey cited was also an aggregate of six polls from the same source six months prior. |
|
|
|
:I know that there are many aspects of Brexit that are not yet clear, but even so, many people will want to know immediately what the impact is already. Therefore, I think we should leave this section for the time being and discuss it again once about three months have passed. ] (]) 15:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I could also add this poll instead (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-referendum-rejoin-eu-b2250813.html). It is included in the initial aggregate polling I cited, but was specifically cited by the Independent(^), the Express (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1716280/poll-second-brexit-referendum-spt), Politico (https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-brexit-fail-new-poll-nigel-farage/ ) and the Economist (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/07/19/brexit-was-wrong-say-57-of-british-voters). |
|
|
::<nowiki>~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't agree that it is undue of itself, it is factual and there is no reason to question the reliability of the source. It is not obvious what "mainstream reporting" could do other than attach an OpEd. |
|
|
::What is more of a concern is that the whole section ] is a muddle of two different ideas (a) was the UK right or wrong to leave? and (b) should the UK rejoin?: they need to be separated. (The three graphs in the first section dealt logically with the separate concepts but have not been updated since 2020. Two of those graphs should really have closed in June 2016. with just the right/wrong going forward.) |
|
|
::So perhaps the way forward is to contact the author of the original graphs to ask the right/wrong graph be updated and an additional graph created for rejoin. |
|
| ⚫ |
::Does that help? --] (]) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::WinkingWikiWiking, the Express is deprecated, not a reliable source. The Economist is solid and could satisfy DeFacto's request for "mainstream reliable sources reporting it". --] (]) 20:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
This is presented early on in the article:
"Following Brexit, EU law and the Court of Justice of the European Union no longer have primacy over British laws."
The fact someone feels this needs to be asserted is troubling. The CJEU never had primacy over British law, and European Union law only had primacy as far as CJEU case law. The jurisdiction clauses in the treaty make this very clear, and supremacy is only a political assertion in a protocol. It really sounds like a childish understanding of the EU. The kind you would read in a British tabloid. I wonder if Misplaced Pages is supposed to be dumbed-down in this way? 2A01:4B00:9004:EB00:85C6:3454:F264:B207 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This is factually incorrect as Monmouthshire, Vale of Glamorgan, Gwynedd and Ceredigion voted remain as did several cities other than London. 86.1.53.178 (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This section is unavoidably OR because the assertions in it, although cited, are subjectively selected. It seems to me that if the section is to stand, it must be based on npov and rs assessments which, imo, won't and can't exist before 2036 at the earliest, 2091 is if Rees-Mogg is correct.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
