Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
"A bitter turf war is raging on the Brexit Misplaced Pages page". 2019-04-29. 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.
Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers. Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Misplaced Pages:Summary style.
That said, it does go on to say...
Readable prose size
What to do
> 15,000 words
> 100 kB
Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
> 9,000 words
> 60 kB
Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.
> 8,000 words
> 50 kB
May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.
Each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters
I am completely unfamiliar with this topic, so I am not the person to edit this and create new articles, but I'm sure one of you knowledgeable editors is perfect for the challenge.
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.
I would be happy for some feedback so I can come up with a revised edit.
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.
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". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:15, 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 Brexit#Public opinion since the Brexit referendum 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.
It is very important to distinguish between opinions on whether the decision was right or wrong (on the one hand) versus whether the UK should rejoin (on the other). So we really need to have both graphs. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I have added the graph on the rejoin question for now. Unfortunately I don't have the technical know how to create a similar graph for the other question. But I could gather the polling data for that and create a table similar to the one used here. I am not sure where we exactly this table should go though. The Brexit article seems long enough already, and this one is specifically about the rejoin question, so it would not be ideal either...
Indeed, explanation is given by the British "Explanatory memorandum to Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023":
Assimilated law
will be domestic law, which was previously REUL, but without the application of the EU law interpretive features applied to REUL by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“EUWA”), namely supremacy, general principles of EU law and rights retained under section 4 of EUWA
— Explanatory memorandum to Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023
Does this mean that the British Retained EU Law keep kind of "supremacy" with application of the EU law interpretive features?
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
