Talk:Brexit/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Should this be in the lede?

I added this text to the lede which summarizes the contents of the body. The editor EddieHugh removed it and falsely claimed[2] that three other editors want it removed (when in fact it's just EddieHugh and Gravuritas, whose sole edits to this Wikipedia article have been to try to remove academic assessments of Brexit because of spurious non-Wiki policy reasons, namely a disdain for academia):

• There is strong agreement among economists and a broad consensus in existing economic research that Brexit is likely to reduce UK's real per-capita income in the medium- and long-term. Studies on effects that have already materialized since the referendum show annual losses of £404 for the average British household and a loss of 1.3% of UK GDP. Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from EEA countries to the UK, and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research. The size of the "divorce bill" (the sum of money demanded by the EU from the UK for the departure), future of Scottish secession, Britain's international agreements, relations with the Republic of Ireland, and the borders with France and between Gibraltar and Spain are uncertain. The precise impact on the UK depends on a "hard" Brexit (whereby the UK leaves the EU and does not join EFTA or the EEA) or a "soft" Brexit (whereby the UK joins EFTA, the EEA or enters into a special agreement with the EU that retains significant access to the Single Market).

Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarize the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to the talk page to engage, having abandoned the discussion above on this very topic. I invite you to withdraw the misrepresentation of what I wrote ("three other editors"; I wrote "I'm the 3rd editor"), personal attack on me ("falsely claimed"; the editors are me, Gravuritas and Saturnalia0), and the personal attack on Gravuritas, who has clarified his position above and who you continue to misrepresent. Then we can get back to discussing content in a more civil manner. EddieHugh (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, I'm sorry. Saturnalia, who comes to this article only to make bizarre reverts without any talk page discussions, did remove a version of the text from the lede (see here[3] where the editor fails to understand that Brexit has not occurred and fails to understand that there are three surveys). Gravuritas has made his hostility towards academia and economics clear in the discussions above. There's nothing to withdraw. If you have zero interest in discussing the lede (which makes sense given that your revert is absurd and baseless), I'll restore it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I did supply a reason in every edit and I did participate in the discussion until - if we're pointing fingers - it became a ciclejerk of known pov pushers who only came to this article to support your edits after they faced opposition. Also look at that absurd number of citations, it's WP:OVERCITE by the letter, the stuff about edit warring. I already said everything I had to say about them and I already proposed a common ground solution which re-words while keeping the content. You are trying to push for an edition without consensus and with opposition. I strongly suggest you start and RfC and get the opinion of uninvolved editors. I'm a bit busy lately so I'm mostly responding to pings last couple days and am likely to stay that way for a week. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"a ciclejerk of known pov pushers" <-- yeah... that's not gonna get you taken seriously. Also, didn't you proclaim to the world that you were done editing political articles?  Volunteer Marek  14:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think is serious or not. I thought we talked about the watchlist thing? I don't even remember what was the deal in the Milo article nor how it ended, if it ended at all. As I said please ping me if you need me, I'm currently not using my watchlist nor this website at all in an editorial capacity except when I'm pinged like I was today to this page. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I think this should be in the lead because the economic impact is probably the most important issue related to the Brexit. The numbers for the actual impact are helpful. Looks like good summary of the corresponding section. My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• No, the new paragraph should not be in the lead because (a) it summarises mainly speculative (predictive) parts of the article and is therefore unbalanced and (b) it focuses only on the British perspective and is therefore even more unbalanced and (c) the wording is unclear - will British households become "poorer" by 404 pounds per year relative to 2016, or relative to whatever income they would (speculatively) have had without Brexit? And if so, for how many years would this "poverty" last? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? Perhaps my point (c) illustrates just why this speculation is unsuitable for summarising in a lead. Let me conclude with a personal insult, as recommended by Wikipedia guidelines: the new lead paragraph sounds like it is written by someone who is panicked at the thought of Brexit. Not professional. Any panicking should be carried out in private, with curtains drawn. 95.121.128.107 (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

(A) Expert assessments are not speculative.

(B) The lede should summarize the body of the article per WP:LEDE. If you want Brexit stuff unrelated to the UK to lede, then add text to the body and if that text is substantial, it might get added to the lede.

(C) The studies on the effects that have already materialized that you're referring to are not "speculation". The lede should not go into the weeds of all the studies cited in the body. It should concisely summarize them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You are confuddling two things: effect of 2016 Referendum (not speculative, objectively assessable by experts), and effects of Brexit (2019 is not here yet, so any Brexit effects are by definition speculative in 2017/2018). As a generous compromise between these two positions, I am deleting your new paragraph, which no doubt represents a lot of hard British work all going to waste. Pity. If you want to prevent Brexit, you would do better to help reform the EU and make it more palatable to voters. I mean it. Panic is always a bad sign and makes the EU look weak. It is not. 95.121.128.107 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yea, please DON'T delete reliably sourced text. Volunteer Marek  14:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we first get in agreement about the text in the economics section (which has various issues, from wording to excessive citations and possibly WP:SYNTH, as pointed in the section below). Then, I'd be more than happy to start and RfC for the addition to the lead if there is still opposition. Heck, I might even support it if the text is good enough. So far there is not even agreement about the text in the economics section, I don't see how trying to forcibly include it in the lead does any good. Shall we focus on the discussion below first? Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

So what is the consensus here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday I made my very first contribution to this article. I reverted an edit which had deleted a clearly evidenced and relevant passage. The one this discussion is about. My edit was immediately reverted, and I was (1) Accused of Edit Warring. I mean come off it! How can my only edit on this article constitute edit warring? And (2) threatened with ANI. This comes across to me as bullying and not argument. But I would welcome any observations anyone else might have, as although in the years I have been editing I have not been accused of edit warring after only one contribution, maybe I have just been lucky and its all part of the rough and tumble. But it did feel intimidatory. Also felt as if it might be an attempt to "bite the newby"(which obviously fails as I am not a newbie)Daithidebarra (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the edit warring and ANI bits were directed at the overall pattern of reverting on the page (I count 12 in 24hours before the shutters came down), not at you personally. Unfortunately, you got caught up in that. It goes in cycles on this page; this particular cycle started on 1 November 2017. It might end by 30 March 2019.... Perhaps take it up on the talk page of the editor in question? EddieHugh (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Daithidebarra, you're good. The edit warring was mostly by Saturnalia0 with the help from some anon IPs. You did nothing wrong. Volunteer Marek  14:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Should the paragraph on economic impact should be included in the lead section? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Per Saturnalia0, above: there's an RfC on the economics section now, so we should wait for that to end, then move on to the knock-on consequences of the conclusions from it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits misleadingly imply that the consensus among economists is not current

In this edit[4], Saturnalia implies that the consensus among economists is something of the past, which it is not. It's poor writing. We would not write "There was a consensus among climate scientists that human activities contribute to climate change," we would write "there is a consensus..." even though there isn't a daily poll of climate scientists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. The sources are from a 2016 poll. Oh, they're mixed in with other sources unrelated to that poll (which The Guardian used in its alarmist article with the fearmongering wording you guys wish to copy here, but that the other sources did not use). Smells like WP:SYNTH to me. Trying to push a pov by adding excessive unrelated citations. And without consensus for it. Nah, I don't think so. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There are 11 sources cited there, all of whom support the language of an overwhelming or near-unanimous consensus. Three of those sources are surveys, the others are reliable sources who say there is an overwhelming or near-unanimous consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Are there?

1. Not really
2. Nope, nope, and nope. Oh, and look at that! The same source was inserted twice as if it was two different things.
3. No such language
4. Ah, finally! An alarmist article from 2016. Let's copy the words they used to Wikipedia because you know, we're sock puppets of mainstream media and must repeat everything they say word by word
5. "Majority", stressed it's from 2016
6. "Subscribe to read" The editor who inserted this as a source didn't even bother to change the title in the template, it reads "Subscribe to read" there also. I wonder if he or she even read the source.
7. Ah, another one! But what is this site? Doesn't seem mainstream to me. Probably should be removed per WP:OVERCITE.
8. No such language from Bloomberg
9. Almost unanimous, but stressed it's from 2016, that it could change, and that there have been criticism of the projections being "overly gloomy"
10. "Most"
11. Nothing in those lines by the NYT
12. Neither from The Independent, which I'm amazed hasn't been banned along with The Daily Mail for being the tabloid it is

So what we have in fact is a clearly alarmist piece by The Guardian, a post on a fringe website, and an academic paper mentioning something about "almost unanimous", 3 out of the 12 sources. The text I proposed mentions a consensus among economists, which is in line with most sources. So I'm not exactly sure why you insist on using the exact same words as only The Guardian and a fringe website use. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Alarmist piece by the guardian" is just your attempt at ignoring Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Same thing goes for your obnoxious comment "we're sock puppets of mainstream media". If you wish to give prominence to non-mainstream views find a different outlet for your POV (also it's quite ironic that you advocate for non-mainstream views while at the same time claiming sources you don't like as "fringe"). Your "subscribe to read" comment is irrelevant and reeks of bad faith. And in fact what is this "fringe website" you're referring to? Basically all you're doing above is, when confronted with eleven sources you don't like, you try your best to come up with one lame excuse or another to throw them out. This is textbook WP:TEND. Volunteer Marek  08:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

To say that there "is a consensus" is fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

If you got sources which indicate that consensus has changed then by all means present them. If not, stop bunktippin'. Volunteer Marek  23:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

From the beloved Guardian, Economists have revised their pessimistic forecasts for the rest of the year and 2017 following a run of figures showing only a modest dip and steady rise in activity since the June 23 vote. [5]. From another pro-EU newspaper, the BBC: Before last year's Brexit vote, there were warnings from many economists that the UK would suffer a catastrophic economic shock and be catapulted into recession by a Leave vote. As it turned out, those predictions were a touch pessimistic. and Last year, not all economists thought the shock to the economy would be so profound ... Last year, some economists were positively gung-ho for Brexit ... Prof Minford says that "the consensus was for a recession", but "we thought it [the UK economy] would be pretty much unaffected". So... Yeah, there was consensus in 2016, precisely what I wrote. What's the problem? bunktippin Not sure what that verb is but it sounds funny. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Minford is WP:FRINGE per the reliable sources that cover him. The text that you're quoting is in reference to short-term forecasts, which the article already covers. These are unrelated to the long-term forecasts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't see that claim of fringiness on the BBC article (sorry, forgot a link before). Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Financial Times: "Does the economic modelling add up? Almost certainly not."[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Although initial forecasts have been considered overly gloomy, consensus among economists is that the long term effect of Brexit on the British economy will be negative. Although there is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the effect, estimates range from 1 to a 10 percent reduction of UK’s income per capita, depending whether the country leaves or stays in certain free trade agreements with the UE. Then a paragraph about the effects felt so far (both the positive and negative ones, stressing the more relevant ones). What do you guys think? Suggestions to the text are appreciated. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The text that is already in the article is fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It takes the alarmist tone of an article among all the cited sources, as commented above, and fails to mention other aspects that are covered in the paragraph of the economics section such as the uncertainty about the size of the impact due to the unknown future of trade agreements. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You're edit warring to remove well sourced text. Volunteer Marek  07:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You are responding to reasoned arguments with inaccurate blanket assertions. If you don’t want to respond appropriately, don’t respond.

Gravuritas (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there's no "reasoned arguments" here. There's just a bunch of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT coupled with "evil mainstream media is being mean to my POV" nonsense. Volunteer Marek  08:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully the same sources whose "consensus" that turned out to be wrong on the short term effect are being cited uncritically on the supposed mid to long term effect. Several citations already in the article even not this EG: a b c "Subscribe to read". Financial Times. Retrieved 2017-11-22. "unlike the short-term effects of Brexit, *which have been better than most had predicted*, most economists say the ultimate impact of leaving the EU still appears likely to be more negative than positive. But the one thing almost all agree upon is that no one will know how big the effects are for some time."

I think a good compromise, given the consensus of the same experts was demonstrably mostly wrong in predictions that are so far probable or disprovable, that we should note those in the future from the same sources are suspect 68.33.17.32 (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

First, the predictions were about the effects of the vote, not the effects of Brexit. Second, which ones are these "same sources whose consensus turned out to be wrong"? Please be specific. Volunteer Marek  18:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the 'Economic effects' section and POV

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC was withdrawn by the poster. EddieHugh (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Does the 'Economic effects' section adhere to Neutral point of view (NPOV) policies? If not, are the changes required small or major? EddieHugh (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(For reference, I'm referring to the version that's current at the time of writing.)

Several editors have applied or reapplied a NPOV tag to the section, and it has again been removed, although discussions are ongoing. These discussions (above) have reached the point where there is little movement in sight. My position is that No, the section does not adhere to NPOV, mainly because of WP:UNDUE and WP:IMPARTIAL (eg, 1 sentence mentions short-term forecasts being inaccurately negative about Brexit, compared with 8 sentences of economists commenting on how difficult it is to make short-term forecasts and/or that long-term forecasts are easier; and only details that are supportive of research methods are given), Words to watch (eg, 'show', 'find', 'note' in reporting research, and a lack of hedging), WP:STRUCTURE (eg, reversing short-term and long-term chronology), and WP:SUBSTANTIATE (eg, "overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement" for 71%+).

While small changes to some wording would help, my view is that this would be superficial and not deal with the bigger NPOV problems, so Major changes to the section are needed. Please see the 'Justify the WP:NPOV tag…' section above, for more examples and fuller details (or ask if reading this page looks too much!). EddieHugh (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That's too vague for an RfC. The question posed should be specific. Volunteer Marek  07:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Also your characterization of the dispute is inaccurate. RfCs need to be worded in a neutral manner. Volunteer Marek  08:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The first question is specific to one section and one specific set of policies (detailed on one page at WP:NPOV). It's also worded neutrally, to be answered "yes" or "no". The second question is fuzzy on what "small" and "major" are, but editors have an intuitive feel for this and are free to explain their opinion. There's no indication of a preference for one answer either, and no need to answer it if Q1 is "no", so I don't see a problem with the wording of it. EddieHugh (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you have to specify WHICH part is suppose to be NPOV and HOW. Volunteer Marek  14:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I followed WP:RfC exactly. It states "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". What the RfC original poster thinks should not be included; instead, "If you have lots to say on the issue [...] edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement[/question] and signature". That's exactly what I did. (And obviously the 'Economic effects' section is specified.) EddieHugh (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but your question is ambiguous and open ended. How about the much more straight forward "Does a NPOV tag belong on the article?" and link to the version of the article which you believe has problems. Volunteer Marek  14:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Q1 is specific and closed (ie, answered Y/N). And there's a link. And it's more specific than "on the article". Q2 I've already covered. Let's just wait for others to comment. EddieHugh (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree that major changes are needed. A number of points have been well- made by EH further up this talk page. The section shows an exaggerated respect for economic forecasting; an exaggerated alarmist description of the economic forecasts; lots of inappropriate special pleading to justify the inaccuracy of the previous alarmist short-term forecasts; and an excessive prominence for one article on the economic effect so far, with its pseudo- precision creating an undue implication of accuracy.

Gravuritas (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What you are referring to as "exaggerated respect" etc is really "exaggerated" respect for Wikipedia's policy of WP:RS. Volunteer Marek  08:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As in, the continued absence of evidence to support the view that xyz person or persons has a successful record of economic forecasting? Interesting understanding of WP:RS. But I forgot: economic forecasts with a 10-25 year time horizon are ‘easy’, aren’t they, as well as ‘more accurate’? Easy in the sense of ‘The forecaster will have retired before events prove him wrong’. And your credulousness only extends to those who,predict doom.

Gravuritas (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please actually read the relevant policies WP:V and WP:RS. Your continued insistence that scholarly sources are not reliable is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Volunteer Marek  02:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please actually read the detail of the relevant policies and not the summaries of them. Your continued insistence that economic forecasting is a field populated by experts is tedious.

Gravuritas (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have. You're wayyyy past into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, with your ... tedious and continued rejection of scholarly sources. Feel free to ask about it at WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek  05:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s strange that anyone differing from your opinion is automatically in contravention of several WP policies. Conveniently, these purported policy contraventions mean that there is never any need for you to construct a reasoned argument. Must save a lot of time.

Gravuritas (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really strange considering you actually ARE in contravention of several WP policies. Not "automatically" but simply because you reject the WP:RS policy because you have some kind of problem with scholarly work in economics. Volunteer Marek  17:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the economics forecasting section (optimistically called economic "analysis") is not only unbalanced (sounds like a City banker's plea to allow him to continue his profitable operations at the cost of society) but useless (because it does not specify reference values or reference dates for the various predictions). 95.121.128.107 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Gimme a break. The only argument against this section has been "whhaaaaaa, I don't like what reliable sources say". You got one guy insisting that academic scholarship cannot be used (!) because... it's from academia. And you got another guy insisting that another set of sources shouldn't be used because they're... "mainstream". When you make absurd arguments like that, you're WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek  14:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I expect you missed the very valid argument about reference dates above then. The latest mumbo says GDP is down 1.3% for instance but doesn't give a time period. The dodgy dossier mumbo of George Osbourne prior to the referendum was mumbo-ing about 6% over 2 years. I, for one would like to see how many years that 1.3% is over and perhaps a comparison to Osbourne's pre-referndum mumbo so we can see the scale of mumbo jumbo the mainstream, academic, so-called "reliable" sources are spouting at us this time? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

A good compromise would be to note as part of any discussion in the text as to the consensus of experts, is that so far, in any term provable (short term where predictions were made and the consensus was demonstrably wrong) that the consensus has proven incorrect. This is noted in several of the references/citations already in the text. EG: a b c "Subscribe to read". Financial Times. Retrieved 2017-11-22. "unlike the short-term effects of Brexit, *which have been better than most had predicted*, most economists say the ultimate impact of leaving the EU still appears likely to be more negative than positive. But the one thing almost all agree upon is that no one will know how big the effects are for some time."

Since the citations support the fact that the predictive expert consensus has already been proven to be incorrect, this caveat of noting that the consensus was wrong in all testable metrics will be a good compromise for inclusion in both the lede and the predictive section. 68.33.17.32 (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, The section is wp:npov compliant & does not need altering -I rarely contribute to this page as being interested in Irish history in and having some practical experience of the Irish border issue during The Troubles, I've long been convinced Brexit won't happen. It doesn't benefit the UK, it's just a quick-fix way of solving an internal Conservative party dispute. Douglas Hurd has argued that these are a resurrection of the 1815 Corn Laws dispute which split the party. JRPG (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Marek, I advise you start listening to the substantial point made here, namely that your new lead does not provide any information (a) on the reference time [Is the UK going to be poorer in 2019? Or in the period 2020-2030? Or whenever?] and (b) on the reference value [Is the UK going to be 10% whatever poorer in 2025 than in 2019? Or is the UK going to be 10% whatever poorer in 2025 than it would have been in 2025 if it had stayed in the EU - in other words are your experts talking of 10% lost growth opportunity, or are they talking of 10% wealth lost in absolute terms relative to 2019 wealth?]. This is a really simple request to deal with, using your cited resources. If however you cannot be bothered to read up your own sources to provide this information on Wikipedia then please do not expect others to do your work for you. So I favour deleting your lead section, but I encourage you to do your homework and try resurrecting an acceptable version with the missing information filled in. 86.170.121.152 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The lede already says "medium to long term" which is a summary of the text. If you want more specific time frames, please suggest the appropriate wording. What you're asking for with the specific numbers is simply not how forecasting works. You can come up with an estimate but there will always be uncertainty - and this is properly noted in the text as well. In the meantime, please stop removing this text in the middle of an RfC (however badly formatted it is). Volunteer Marek  17:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The text also specifically references income, not wealth. Volunteer Marek  17:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Marek, as I feared, you want us to "specify the wording" rather than do the work yourself. No thanks. And besides, it is not wording you have to fill in, it is time periods and reference values. And that homework is yours to do, as I have stated. What is "medium term"? What is "long term"? You give the impression you either do not know or you do not care, or worse, that you do not understand the research and therefore are simply unable to improve your draft text. 86.170.121.152 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea what these "time periods and reference values" you demand are. We simply summarize what reliable sources state and that's what we're doing here. I can't really make sense of your objection - you seem to be saying "unless the sources say exactly what I want them to say in the way I want them to say it, you can't add this information". Nonsense, that's not how it works. See WP:RS. Volunteer Marek  18:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Close RfC. This RfC isn't specific. Anyone with a POV to push might agree it's not NPOV, hoping to get a blank check to add the TRUTH. On the other hand, anyone afraid of those POV pushers are discouraged to agree to allow any and all such changes, and may !vote to keep it as-is even if they don't agree it's NPOV. Either way this RfC goes, the article could be made worse. A new RfC with one specific change (or a couple of closely related changes) will help ensure a meaningful consensus to improve the article. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What we need is an RfC specifically about the sentence in the lede that people are trying to remove. Volunteer Marek  18:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Marek, I am disappointed you still refuse to read your sources. Just looking at the first two, I see that the first one speaks specifically of the UK becoming permanently poorer, and the second one speaks specifically of a ten-year forecast. Now please do your homework, even if you are not an economics expert, and go through the cited sources and come up with a factual lead. A lead must be informative and self-evident, without requiring the reader to read the article body or indeed the primary sources. That is how Wikipedia leads work. 86.170.121.152 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

My expertise is fine, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't speculate on it. You might also want to stop it with the personal attacks in the form of "do your homework" or "I'm gonna shame you". First, you're actually not understanding what the sources are saying. Second, you're cherry picking seeing as how there's more than a dozen sources - this is also why the lede contains a general summary. Volunteer Marek  19:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A D Monroe III: I naively hoped that people would put their political views to one side. But wouldn't the same thing happen with a blow-by-blow attempt? Maybe my naivety was wrong and you are right. If there are further objections to the wording, or if the discussions continue to veer away from the actual question, I'll withdraw it. EddieHugh (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Marek, your expertise is clearly not fine, as you should have seen that your prominent and misleading lead claim of 404 pounds annual loss is a based on a single study, and secondly is a projected figure based on the Oct 2017 value of 3.0 percent inflation. The 404 pound loss can only come about if it is projected that the inflation continues at the 3 percent level. So it is a projection, not a materialised effect. It is the weekly effect of 7.74 pounds which is real in that month, and will be different for previous months which had lower inflation (down to 0.4 percent). I concede there remains the possibiity that the study author has expressed himself badly, but that is speculation. 86.170.121.152 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first, you're introducing straight up grammatical errors here. It's "show" not "shows". Second, you're not making any sense. Of course the claim of 404 pounds is from a single study - nobody ever claimed otherwise. You're so busy trying to play these "gotcha" games and tout your own supposed expertise that you're not even bothering to read what others wrote, and instead are fighting against some strawman in your head. Third... you are just completely not understanding what the source says. The inflation figure is NOT projected. It is the actual inflation rate. "we do not forecast the potential effects of Brexit. Instead, we analyse the effects that have already materialised". And it's not based on "Oct 2017 value". This is something completely different. What it does is explain where the rise between the vote and subsequent months came from, and how much of it can be attributed to Brexit vote. Likewise, it's not true that this cost is only valid "if it is projected that the inflation continues at the 3 percent level". The future inflation rate could be 100000%. Or it could be -10000%. Doesn't matter. The costs have already occurred. "Our estimates imply the Brexit vote increased UK CPI inflation by 1.7 percentage points in the year following the referendum" (my emphasis). And yes, this cost is born per year, since the increase in prices has already occurred. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And when one is ignorant of a subject one should keep out of the conversation. One should certainly not jump in and try to critise others' expertise. Volunteer Marek  20:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE. Volunteer Marek  20:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Success, I have finally provoked you into engaging with the source and admitting to a time period. I am now implementing it in the lead. What a battle. Keep up the good work and find references for the "broad consensus" and your other unclear lead claims. 86.170.121.152 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No, please leave the lede alone. You do not understand the source. You're edit warring against a couple editors. If you want to make an improvement, suggest it here first. Volunteer Marek  20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

And the point is, since you missed it, that the existing text already accurately summarizes the source. It was your own inability to understand the source that led you to make these unwarranted changes. Volunteer Marek  20:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly my point --> [7]! This too is wrong. It's not " a loss of £404 by October 2017". Where in the world did you get that? It's a cost PER YEAR. Per every single year going forward into the future. You have no idea what you're reading and writing. Please just stop editing this article for awhile and focus on the talk page. Volunteer Marek  20:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let me try to explain this by analogy since you're having such a hard time with this.

Suppose you have car insurance which costs you 1000 a year. You expect to be paying 1000/year going forward. Then you get into a car accident. The insurance company raises your premium to 1404/year. In the first year your extra cost is 404. In the subsequent years, your premium might go up or it might go down for other reasons but all changes are going to made on the basis of the new 1404 baseline, not the original 1000 baseline. So you are - and will be - paying 404 more per year. For all future years.

Or another one. You work a job making 30k per year. Your company decides to move you to a different department (Brexit vote) and cuts your salary to 29596 per year. You make 404 less in the first year. And all future pay raises or cuts will be made on the basis of the new 29596 salary not the original 30k. So you've lost 404 for all subsequent years.

This is what the study says and it's not all that hard to understand. Volunteer Marek  21:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Too late. Done. You do not have a monopoly on stubborn editing. Serious question: the author is hazy about whether he refers to the 12 months following the referendum or whether he is using his latest data point of 3 percent, which is Oct 2017. Any ideas what he means? It really is a rubbishly written source, but we have to live with it as long as it is cited here... (By the way you are wrong to project the 404 pounds into future years - think the possibility of deflation. The author is not making a claim about the future.) 86.170.121.152 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with stubbornness or monopoly or whatever and everything to do with the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about and you can't understand the source. You're. Just. Simply. Wrong. It doesn't matter if deflation happens in the future or not. It's irrelevant. See my explanation above. The whole point of the study is to isolate the effects of Brexit vote. And the effects of the Brexit vote have already materialized. Effects of other things (like Brexit itself, or the negotiations, or alien invasion) will of course occur in the future but it doesn't matter because that is not what the study - or this text - is about. Volunteer Marek  21:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Marek, You are now directly contradicting what you have said a few lines above, I quote: "paying 404 more per year. For all future years." If the study says that (and I doubt it), please give me page and line. (And by the way, you are still disregarding the theoretical possibility of deflation in your examples.) 86.170.121.152 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not contradicting anything, you're just not understanding. Again. "We find that the average household has to spend £7.74 more per week, or £404 more per year, to afford the same purchases". That means for all subsequent years. Again, see the analogy. The prices have already risen. They are higher. More than they were before. P(t+1)>P(t). Up up up. Because of Brexit vote. Any future changes to these prices will be on the basis of the new Brexit-vote-affected prices, not the old pre-Brexit-vote prices. And one more time - the "theoretical possibility of deflation" is completely and utterly irrelevant. You could have 10000000% deflation, where the Buckingham Palace sells for a 1000 pounds. It doesn't matter. Because it'd still be 404 pounds higher than it would've been w/o the Brexit vote.

The question about whether the author is talking about the 12 months following the vote, or by October 2017 is a bit more pertinent, although it too is irrelevant. The estimates are based on data up to Oct 2017. But the costs are PER YEAR. So yeah, they're for the period June 2016-June 2017. But also the period June 2017-June 2018. And June 2018-June 2019. And June 2019-2020. And so on. Years are funny like that. One happens right after another. Volunteer Marek  21:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, you've violated 3RR on the article by making 4 reverts in less than 24 hours so please undo your last revert. Volunteer Marek  21:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Marek, I think you are confusing the calculation base for inflation with the underlying economic cause for inflation. Say for example the Brexit vote initially causes inflation due to sterling depreciation (we both know of course that the Bank of England caused much of the sterling depreciation through its monetary policy immediately following June 23, but let us leave that aside for the argument), and causes the 404 pound loss over the first year. Then assume that same Brexit vote causes huge consumer optimism a couple of years later, so sterling rises, deflation sets in, and cost of living is cheaper than before the referendum. Would you still say that the Brexit vote caused a loss of 404 pounds? Of course not, because both effects would linked to the same event. Anyway, I now see where the fault in your thinking lies, so that was a useful exchange. 86.170.121.152 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you're still confused. The study is about the costs that have already materialized. Those costs are 404 pounds per year. For all years going forward. Other stuff may happen in the future. And it may have costs and benefits. But that would be a study of costs which have not yet materialized. A different study. About stuff that hasn't happened yet. So it's unrelated to what has already happened. Outside of sci-fi, time flows in one direction. (And as an aside - because as I keep saying, it's irrelevant - it's extremely doubtful that the Brexit vote would cause a change in confidence one way or another a few years down the road). Volunteer Marek  21:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

(And in regard to BoE's actions, since those actions were themselves caused by the Brexit vote, this is still the effects of the Brexit vote). Volunteer Marek  21:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

And seriously, self revert your fourth revert or we're going to a noticeboard. Volunteer Marek  21:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Marek, perhaps I can explain it differently to you: if the author had taken a different cutoff date, then he would have arrived at a different Brexit-induced inflation rate, and then the Brexit costs would have been higher or lower than 404 per year, agreed? So I disagree with the concept that the 404 pounds is some fixed value beyond the 2016/2017 period. (And clearly I disagree with your assertion that the BoE decision to weaken the pounds was an inevitable consequence of the Brexit vote. The article does not even mention the Bank of England's role, but as we both know, the article is rubbish anyway...) OK, having traded sufficient insults, do you at least concede that my version of your lead sentence is not wrong? And that the rubbish article according to your own quote is not explicit about projecting into the future? And that the whole sentence should go because these are Referendum/BoE effects, and not Brexit effects, which will take place after March 2019? 86.170.121.152 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you are still confused. If they had chosen a different cutoff date, the estimate of the materialized costs of the Brexit vote might be different but only due to the randomness in the data. Of course the costs over a 16 month period would be different from costs over a 12 month period, but on a per year basis the costs would still be roughly the same. Just like if you get in a car accident and the insurance company raises your rates from 1000 to 1404, then yeah, over a period of 20 months you're gonna pay 2106 which is more than 1404, but on an annual basis, today and in the future, you're still paying 404 more. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what this estimate is. As such I am going to once again ask you to refrain from editing the lede.

And the article is perfectly fine, not rubbish (again - please respect WP:RS). The role of Bank of England is addressed in the study the article summarizes.

You've broken 3RR. Please self revert. Last chance and I've given you plenty. Volunteer Marek  22:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

For anyone still following this, Marek has finally grudgingly admitted that the Brexit-adduced inflation rate will vary with cutoff period (Marek puts it less clearly thus (my emphasis in bold): "but on a per year basis the costs would still be roughly the same." QED and good night. 86.170.121.152 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you are still not getting it, and I'm getting sick and tired of trying to explain it to you. I've exhausted my good faith. Please self revert or I'm reporting you. Volunteer Marek  23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing a section while its under discussion isn't a good way to reach consensus, and can be seen as being disruptive. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting for a more clearly worded RfC, but my view is that the Economic Effects section is fine as it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you address the specific concerns listed? EddieHugh (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Close RFC / keep current version (especially keep the current lead) per the comments above. An RFC cannot rewrite an entire section of this scale. It feels like this RFC is asking for a blank check for drastic rewrites, sight-unseen; what you need to do is produce specific proposed changes first, ideally tailored narrowly (drastic changes are hard to get consensus on) but focused on what you consider the key points going forwards, then, assuming you can't get consensus for it via simple discussion, go through an RFC to see which version is preferred. An RFC of "is this entire massive section biased?" is not reasonably actionable. To the extent that the complaints seem to actually be about the lead, though (which is something narrow enough to discuss), it appears to be well-cited to the point of absurdity, while most of the arguments against it seem to depend heavily on WP:SYNTH or a selective reading of the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll withdraw it. I point out that lots of the edits to the Economics section have been contested since they were added, as has the final para in the lead, so the WP:ONUS is on those who wish them to be retained. I'll add tags to highlight problem areas and see if narrower RfC questions can be posed. The lead wasn't even mentioned in the RfC, but has attracted more attention – further evidence of the inadequacy of my question. EddieHugh (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2017 (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.

Justify the WP:NPOV tag that was added to the economics section

Please provide Wiki policy reasons for including such a tag[8]. In the discussions above, there are chiefly WP:OR rants about editors' hostility towards economics, as well as desires to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE by adding op-eds by politicians and other non-experts as a counterpoint to the near-unanimous assessment of economists. In other words, editors are trying to violate WP:FRINGE, and when other editors don't allow them to do it, they add a WP:NPOV tag. The WP:NPOV tag is without merit.

(also, can someone speed up the archiving on this talk page - the talk page is getting unwieldy in size). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That about sums it up. The NPOV tags were added because... someone doesn't like what reliable sources say. That's like the OPPOSITE of NPOV. You need policy based reasons to tag the article. That means specifying the exact policy that is being violated and HOW. Volunteer Marek  14:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reasons are stated on this talk page and in edit summaries. Numerous editors have raised them. Removing the tag while the discussion is ongoing is disruptive ("Is tendentious"; "Does not engage in consensus building"; "Rejects or ignores community input"; and continuing to misrepresent another editor's views adds "Campaign to drive away productive contributors"). If you need it, I can type out the reasons again in summary here. But please respect the process and restore the tag. EddieHugh (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

These reasons so far are "I don't like academics and economists". What you need is policy based reasons. Volunteer Marek  16:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE, WP:UNDUE, WP:IMPARTIAL, Words to watch, WP:SUBSTANTIATE. I may have missed some out. I've had enough for today, but (again) I can provide more detail if needed. Yet again: please stop removing tags when a talk page discussion is in progress. It's not how things should be done. EddieHugh (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can type in wikipedia policies like this. Let's see... WP:GAME WP:TEND WP:NOTHERE WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT WP:LAME WP:POINT and so on and so forth. What you actually need to do is to explain HOW these policies are being violated.

For example. WP:SUBSTANTIATE says "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution". Are there "biased" statements here? I don't think so. Are any of the statements presented "without attribution"? No, everything is attributed. So why are you quoting this policy? Just randomly for shitz and gigglez?

Or WP:UNDUE. That says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". But that is precisely what you're objecting too! You guys are upset that mainstream, consensus views are being presented in the article and wish to remove them. You got it ass backwards.

So you gonna need more here to substantiate the tag than just randomly quoting policy acronyms. Volunteer Marek  20:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I politely offered twice to provide more detail. A simple "yes, please" would have maintained the spirit of cooperation. Instead, you were abusive. That's unnecessary. I'll list below, but it might take a while. EddieHugh (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

So (noting that the examples are just that and are not an exhaustive list):

• WP:UNDUE. eg, 1 sentence stating that short-term forecasts were inaccurately negative about Brexit, compared with 8 sentences of economists commenting on how difficult it is to make short-term forecasts and/or that long-term forecasts are easier/will be better; inclusion/non-removal/non-clarification of challenged material containing negative aspects of Brexit (eg, Oliver Wyman report, other ignored and/or removed tags), coupled with non-inclusion/removal of sources criticising such material or presenting positive aspects.
• Words to watch (also see WP:SAID). eg, using reporting verbs that exaggerate certainty (eg, 'show', 'find', 'note'; instead of 'indicate', 'support the theory that', 'suggest'), coupled with removing/not including standard hedges; using strong verbs of future certainty for forecasts/predictions (eg, 'will', 'would'; instead of 'may', 'could'), coupled with removing/not including standard hedges.
• WP:IMPARTIAL. eg, including supportive details of research methods used by economists (eg, "plausible, empirically based estimates"), while removing/not including weakening details (eg "It is hard to calculate the current cost of Brexit, because there is no obvious counterfactual" in Born et al.), and presenting the former details as facts by using Words to watch; adding "supposed" to "failures" when that is not in the source; emotive "slash"; sequencing negative reports on Brexit before more positive ones. More broadly, contrast the largely unqualified inclusion of Brexit-negative material with the 8 sentences of qualification added for 1 sentence of Brexit-positive material.
• WP:SUBSTANTIATE. eg, "overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement" of a negative thing about Brexit, when some sources give actual percentages, which are as low as 71%. 6 people have opposed this wording; 1 talk page contributor has supported it.
• WP:STRUCTURE. eg, reversal of standard chronology, thereby presenting apparently more negative aspects of Brexit before apparently more positive ones. A solution to this has been proposed, and agreed to by all contributors except 1.
• There may be more; apologies if I've missed something.
• Much of the above, considered collectively, also pertains to WP:BALL ("forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view"; emphasis added).

I hope (and ask again) that this delineation leads to Volunteer Marek's (or another editor's) first edit being to restore the tags removed from the article. These are serious NPOV problems with the Economics section and should be highlighted as such in the article, until resolved. EddieHugh (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@EddieHugh. I think your patient, detailed work deserves a gracious acknowledgement and actions from those who opposed it. In the absence of any such acknowledgement, I suggest that the NPOV goes in immediately and the edits (and/or a big revert) then follows quickly.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting into a third day: people can be busy with other things. It would be a good gesture of co-operation for the tags to be restored by the person who removed them. EddieHugh (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(1) The claim of WP:UNDUE is rubbish. What you're asking for is the removal of explanations by academic economists for the unreliability of short-term assessments (crucial context for readers) and the inclusion of non-RS content by politicians and non-academic economists. The goal is to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE and to violate WP:FRINGE.

(2) Partial agreement on WP:IMPARTIAL and Words to Watch. It cannot be stated in Wikivoice that the economics profession failed to predict the Financial Crisis, that's why the "supposed failures" is there. If you want to add "purports to show" to various studies, I'm fine with that, but other hedging language is either not found in the sources or intended to introduce WP:UNDUE uncertainty (such as "could", "indicate" etc.). The term "slashed" is used in the FT headline, feel free to change it to something else.

(3) Concerns over "overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement" are ill-founded. There are 11 sources cited that either use variations of that language or have surveys that substantiate the language.

(4) WP:STRUCTURE concerns are reasonable but incorrect. The most comprehensive research on the effects of Brexit should be listed first, and that research happens to be (with the exception of the studies on the effects that have already materialized) the long-term assessments.

(5) WP:BALL makes exceptions for assessments by experts. The Economics section not only cites a large number of studies and assessments by economists, but mirrors the language of RS news sources in how those studies, assessments and prevailing views are described. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. Very brief responses to your points, in sequence... 1) you've dismissed the broad problem out of hand, not mentioned the specific example, and assumed bad faith. 2) "supposed" or similar is not in the source. Social scientists don't say 'X will happen' when predicting. At most they say 'based on assumptions/circumstances A, B and C, X will happen'; more usually, it's 'based on assumptions A, B and C, X is likely to happen'. So hedges and/or statements of the assumptions are needed. 3) I update to 'two talk page contributors have supported it'. 4) I update to 'proposed, and agreed to by all contributors except two'. 5) I quoted the bit on experts, which states that there's no NPOV exception for experts.

As some people have restarted the reverts, three days have passed without the tags being restored as requested, and changing a few words here and there won't tackle the heart of the issue, I think we need to open this out to more views. EddieHugh (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I can see for (1) is that perhaps the background about the nature of short term forecasts should perhaps come first, before the actual forecasts. Volunteer Marek  08:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And on the other points requested? EddieHugh (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeated removal of NPOV and other tags

Tags have been removed yet again, with "I don't like it" being the accusation against their inclusion. There are lots of editors who have pointed out specific (policy-based) problems, yet one editor (Volunteer Marek) continues to remove the tags. To me, this is Disruptive editing. Please, VM, engage with the discussions. You asked for specific policy-based problems and they were listed. The default accusation of IDLI doesn't work. Engage, discuss. I'll give more specifics for each of the tags if you want them. EddieHugh (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No. We have had this discussion and the objections have boiled down to "I don't like what reliable sources say". You don't get to shame-tag the article because you happen to disagree with reliable sources. In fact, some the shame-tags don't even make sense. Please don't restore them unless you can justify them here on talk first. Volunteer Marek  22:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You asked for policy-based problems with the article, but now you refuse to discuss them? They're still there ('Justify the WP:NPOV tag...' section); you made a start by addressing the first of the 5 problems. Several editors have objected to the "overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement" line, but you removed the tag that challenged it; how do you justify removing it when the basis for its existence is well established and well supported on this talk page? You even removed 'not in source' tags! These things are self-justifying and mustn't be removed unless the problem has been dealt with (it hasn't); how do you justify that? EddieHugh (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the "not in source" tag because it is in fact in the source. Hell, the quote is provided right there. I also removed the "when" tag because that question doesn't make sense. Etc. These are the tags that I referred to as not even making sense above. Volunteer Marek  22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

In this edit you removed the tag for "supposed"; where in the source is that? In this edit you removed the tag for "long-term assessments of the post-Brexit period are more reliable"; I assume you are referring to this one. The quote you mentioned is "The results I summarize in this section focus on long-run effects and have a forecast horizon of 10 or more years after Brexit occurs. Less is known about the likely dynamics of the transition process or the extent to which economic uncertainty and anticipation effects will impact the economies of the United Kingdom or the European Union in advance of Brexit." That says nothing about the reliability of long-term assessments; can we choose a more accurate word? For "when", substitute "Clarify" (ie, over what period of time might Britain "lose up to £70 billion in reduced economic growth"). Would you be prepared to add that tag, or to deal with the problem? And what do you think about the "overwhelming or near-unanimous agreement" one? EddieHugh (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A week goes by without response. EddieHugh (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Banning edits from non-registered users.

Hi,

I've had a quick look through this talk page, and what has alarmed me the most is contributions from non-registered users, particularly when they denigrate users who are bringing something new to the table. They often claim to act in a NPOV spirit when it is clear that they are bringing their own biases to bear both on the article and the talk page. Here's an example of what I'm referring to from an IP address user;

"Explanation for other readers: what Soenke is referring to here is the German media strategy of telling Germans that the British voted for Brexit because they want their Empire back. Quite a lot of Germans believe this story." - 86.170.123.36 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Now, it seems to me, that the above IP user's dismissal of this contributor's concerns, whether or not we agree with contributor are highly problematic. And it's by no means an isolated incident. I have noticed both in the edits to the article and the talk page, one or two IP users making substantial edits over an extended period of time. I would like to motion for this article and the talk page to be editable only by registered users. I know that those wishing to cause mischief could circumnavigate this, but it would add a layer of protection to the article, to ensure it meets wikipedia's enclylopedic standards. I am beginning to become highly uncomfortable with the way 1 or 2 totally anonymous non-registered IP users are setting the tone, content and substance of this entire article - often undoing edits at a whim, or bullying other users into keeping their content by vandalising the page. This needs to stop now. EU explained (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi EU Explained. I am responsible for the sentence you have quoted above. I believe it is true but I agree it was inappropriate here, and it shall not happen again. In general, everybody here seems to get on fine. Let us keep it that way. 86.170.123.36 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please just create an account if you want to contribute to the article. I stand-by what I said, and I would like to call on anyone with the appropriate privileges to implement this policy for this article. I think we've reached a threshold. EU explained (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@EU explained Yes --Soenke Rahn (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course you don't need "to register". Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_not_create_an_account%3F

In my opinion pages should not be protected (IPs prevented from making edits) unless there is persistent vandalism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that, ironically, EU explained has been blocked indefinitely, as a sock puppet. EddieHugh (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, this article gives far more credence to anti-Brexit opinion than it does to pro-Brexit opinion. Given that the eventual outcome is still unknown, this surely amounts to some kind of bias. It must be remembered that Brexit was (among other things) a revolt against the establishment, so it can hardly be a surprise that establishment opinion is overwhelmingly hostile towards it. If, for example, you were to have asked members of the Catholic Clergy (circa 1500) what they thought of Protestantism, they would have told you, with few exceptions, that it would cause the Church to collapse and that mankind would go to Hell in a handcart; yet as history reveals, for all their wealth, power and erudition, they were guilty of group-think and were in fact wholly wrong about the matter. In reality, the only certainty about Brexit is that the predictions of an "immediate economic catastrophe" have been shown to be unfounded. To attempt to close down contributions which the authors disagree with smacks of censorship and is surely the kind of behavior that Wikipedia was created to counteract.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2017

Do you have reliable sources for predictions of an "immediate economic catastrophe"? If you do, then you should propose some text to be put in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggested inclusion from an IP: negotiations

The following is copied from a user talk page, and is suggested new material: any objections, anyone?

startquote Thanks for the offer Gravuritas. To update the Brexit article, two insertions are needed, one in the lead and one in the body, as follows. Please add the following content to the Negotiations section, last paragraph of Brexit#History:

Since the German federal elections in September, a German caretaker government under Angela Merkel had unsuccessfully tried to form a stable coalition with various parties. On 7 Dec 2017 new elections were averted when the German socialist party under Martin Schulz agreed to negotiate a coalition government with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic party, on condition that a "United States of Europe" be created by 2025.[1]

The following day (8 December), the UK and EU negotiators announced a "breakthrough agreement" to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships and on a 2-year transition period after 2019. The net payment offered by the UK is estimated at 40 billion pounds but is conditional on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".[2][3][4]

And please add the following sentence to the lead, just after "Negotiations with the EU officially started in June 2017.": In December 2017, all EU leaders agreed to commence negotiations on future UK-EU trade and on a 2-year transition period after 2019.

Thanks. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC) ^ Oltermann, Philip (7 December 2017). "Martin Schulz wants 'United States of Europe' within eight years". Retrieved 8 December 2017 – via The Guardian. "Brexit breakthrough: May pledges 'no hard border' as commission says 'sufficient progress' made". The Irish Times. 8 December 2017. Retrieved 8 December 2017. "Brexit: 'Breakthrough' deal paves way for future trade talks". BBC News. 8 December 2017. Retrieved 19 December 2017. "Brexit: EU leaders agree to move talks to next stage". BBC News. 15 December 2017. Retrieved 19 December 2017.

endquote

Gravuritas (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you change that to wikitext to retain the formatting and make it easier to access the references?

--Boson (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll try again. Copying and pasting is having some strange effects.

Thanks for the offer Gravuritas. To update the Brexit article, two insertions are needed, one in the lead and one in the body, as follows.

Please add the following content to the Negotiations section, last paragraph of Brexit#History:

Since the German federal elections in September, a German caretaker government under Angela Merkel had unsuccessfully tried to form a stable coalition with various parties. On 7 Dec 2017 new elections were averted when the German socialist party under Martin Schulz agreed to negotiate a coalition government with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic party, on condition that a "United States of Europe" be created by 2025.

The following day (8 December), the UK and EU negotiators announced a "breakthrough agreement" to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships and on a 2-year transition period after 2019. The net payment offered by the UK is estimated at 40 billion pounds but is conditional on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

And please add the following sentence to the lead, just after "Negotiations with the EU officially started in June 2017.":

In December 2017, all EU leaders agreed to commence negotiations on future UK-EU trade and on a 2-year transition period after 2019.

Thanks. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

References

What has German politics got to do with anything here?

Seems to be just feed for the english fascists who love screaming about the united states of europe. Doesn't really add anything to the issue itself unless it proves critical in remaking the german government and drastically altering future negotiations. Which it won't as its one quite loony opening demand from one German faction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:202C:A600:20AE:6A2D:1A1D:414B (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the direct relevance of the first para (it might become important later, though). There hasn't been a consensus on here for including or removing anything since at least 21 November, so just add it and see what happens. EddieHugh (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am against inclusion as worded because

• It gives undue weight to German politics and their relevance to Brexit (which is implicitly argued without support from the cited sources).
• If it were relevant, it would be too detailed for a section that is already too long. The section starts with the Main template, linking to a sub-article that should contain the details (which should here be briefly summarized).

In addition, there are a number of issues with the text, as worded:

• The unnecessary use of "on the following day" suggests a connection between the events.
• The suggested text does not correctly interpret what the cited sources state as facts.

For instance:

I assume "when the German socialist party under Martin Schulz agreed to negotiate a coalition government with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic party", is meant to be supported by the Olterman reference, which states "SPD delegates later voted overwhelmingly to allow their party's leadership to enter talks with the CDU. The vote means leaders can discuss options including a renewed "grand coalition", an informal cooperation or a formal agreement to tolerate a conservative minority government by not voting down certain parliamentary motions." Anyone following German politics know that a lot has been made of not (yet?) agreeing to "negotiate a coalition government" (as opposed to the alternatives mentioned above or new elections). I assume that "on condition that a 'United States of Europe' be created by 2025" is meant to be supported by "Schulz told delegates that he wanted EU member states to sign off on a 'constitutional treaty' that committed the bloc to take steps towards a federal Europe." I don't think it is legitimate to describe that as "on condition that ...".

The suggested text has "the UK and EU negotiators announced a 'breakthrough agreement' to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships and on a 2-year transition period after 2019." As I understand the sources, the term "negotiations" should be applied only to the transition period (of unspecified duration and starting in March 2019, not after 2019), and the talks about a future trade relationship are described as (preliminary and preparatory) discussions.

--Boson (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, so amending the inclusion in accordance with the comments above (apart from User:Boson's finessing of negotiations and discussions, which I think is unduly picky), would get us to something like:

On 8 December, the UK and EU negotiators announced a "breakthrough agreement" to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships and on a transition period after March 2019. The net payment offered by the UK is estimated at 40 billion pounds but is conditional on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"

and the lede addition becomes In December 2017, all EU leaders agreed to commence negotiations on future UK-EU trade and on a 2-year transition period after March 2019.

Any dissenting voices?

Gravuritas (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Some quibbles:

I would prefer to make "8 December" less prominent (or remove it). From an encyclopedic perspective, the provisional agreement at Commission level was superseded by the decision at European Council level, a week later; if we need an exact day at all, it should be the European Council decision.

I don't think we should have "breakthrough agreement" (both words) in quotes, unless we can attribute those exact words. As I understand it, Juncker called the progress toward an agreement (in the form of a "report" or joint statement) a "breakthrough" (though headlines may have journalistically called it a "breakthrough deal").

I don't like "to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships ...". (in that order and with "immediately). March 2018 is definitely not "immediately" According to the source "The first issue to be discussed, early next year, will be the details of an expected two-year transition period after the UK's exit in March 2019. Talks on trade and security co-operation are set to follow in March." The timing (not anything close to immediately) is important in the light of other statements that don't need to be mentioned in this article.

Also, I really don't think we should refer to discussions about trade as "negotiations" in encyclopedic style. This is not just nit-picking. It has been made abundantly clear that the UK cannot engage in formal trade negotiations until they are no longer a member. And talks on the "framework" for the future relationship with the Union (not just trade) cannot start until the guidelines are drawn up. We should be at least as picky as the BBC journalist who writes "EU negotiators won't have the authority to start discussions with the UK on future relations (including trade and also things like security and foreign policy) until another set of guidelines is adopted in March 2018. ... but it emphasises that formal trade negotiations can only begin after the UK has left the EU." [my emphasis]

I don't think we need "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" (and I didn't see it in the cited sources).

I'm not sure we really need details of the net payment in this article, especially since no specific figure (in pounds or euros) has been agreed, and I don't see a reliable source for "estimated at 40 billion pounds". If we include an estimate, it should be attributed and we should mention whether it includes the quasi-membership contributions during the transition. One of the BBC sources states "Downing Street sources say it will be between £35bn and £39bn, including budget contributions during a two-year 'transition' period after March 2019".

I don't think this needs to be in the lede at all, especially without context. It looks like just the most recent bit of news regarding the progress of talks.

So how about something like

In December 2017, EU leaders announced an agreement to begin the next phase of negotiations, with talks on a transition period after March 2019 to begin in early 2018 and discussions on the future UK-EU relationship, including trade and security, to begin in March.

possibly adding

No specific figure was named for the financial settlement, but UK government sources unofficially estimated it to be between 35 and 39 billion pounds."

--Boson (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Merry Christmas, Everyone. Taking into account the various comments, here is a new consensus version. Boson complained he could not find the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" principle of the negotiations - but it is cited in the Irish Times source. Enjoy. 86.170.121.254 (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add the following content to the Negotiations section, last paragraph of Brexit#History

Since the German federal elections in September, a German caretaker government under Angela Merkel had unsuccessfully tried to form a stable coalition with various parties, prompting EU leaders to criticise Germany's paralysis on EU reform and Brexit. On 7 Dec 2017 new elections were averted when the German social democratic party under Martin Schulz agreed to negotiate a coalition government with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic party. Schulz proposed that a "United States of Europe" be created by 2025 and that any unwilling EU members be "automatically" excluded.

The following day (8 December), the UK and EU negotiators announced a "breakthrough" agreement to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships and on a 2-year transition period after March 2019. The net payment offered by the UK is estimated at 35-39 billion pounds but is conditional on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

And please add the following sentence to the lead, just after "Negotiations with the EU officially started in June 2017.":

In December 2017, all EU leaders agreed to commence negotiations on future UK-EU trade and on a 2-year transition period after March 2019.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.121.254 (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2017‎

Why is this worth including? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. These kinds of announcements are full of sound and fury, but often signify nothing. Surely it is better to wait and see what is of enduring significance.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Much of the article is speculation and predictions ("forecasts" at times). The end of what was treated as phase 1 of the negotiations/discussions was very widely covered and is likely to be mentioned in future summaries of events, so should be included in summary form. The rest of the speculation, however... EddieHugh (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@86.170.121.254 there is no consensus to include the stuff on the German caretaker government. @Boson- I think your version appears to be non- controversial as far as it goes, (the controversy effectively being regarding what your version leaves out), so I suggest you make those amendments that you’ve drafted above.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I will add it shortly, and discussion can continue on any additions. --Boson (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are people that support Brexit called Quitlings?

I am seeing more and more in the media that supporters of Brexit are being called Quitlings? Does anyone know the origin of this term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Such as here. An analogy with Quisling, presumably. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

More and more? As in, deliberate use of the term has now risen beyond the misspellings of #quilting? Gravuritas (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The word exists - online discussions about Brexit don't generally focus on its effect on quilting. Some strong supporters of staying in the EU may, however, regard those who favour leaving as traitors like Quisling. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Scroll down the link you posted and you’re in the land of the Sewing circle. But, accepting that the word is being used, not as a typo, in some on-line discussions does not make the OP’s assertion regarding “the media”, true.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That Bus

I don't really have the energy to made additions to this article, but one thing I think this article is really lacking is a bit about that bus - I rather feel that the claim printed on the side of it is one of the central claims of the Leave campaign and has attracted enough media commentary to be worthy of inclusion. If anyone has a free image of it on tour, even better. Cnbrb (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Article needs more balance

Why is there no mention of the benefits of Brexit in the lead section? Why does it only contain negative (or neutral) information? Overall, the article seems light on reporting the positive aspects of Brexit. It seems to have been written mostly by people opposed to Brexit, and quoting only opinions that support that view. Many people believe that Brexit is and will be a Very Good Thing. Their opinions seem significantly underrepresented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.213.228 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for your claim that there are some "positive aspects of Brexit"?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

+1 I have been waiting for a couple of years to find aout what the benefits of Brexit are - nobody has explained yet. I'd love it if you could go ahead and do that. pablo 09:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ending 4 decades of incompetent fishery management, for one? Are you clueless as to why Iceland didn’t join the EU?

Gravuritas (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Good news. This is already mentioned at Brexit#Fishing. Of course, whether it will be any better after Britain leaves the EU is anybody's guess.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. So despite your implied statement, and Pablo X’s direct comment, is there any slight chance of some balance in the article as requested by the OP?

Gravuritas (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think editors on this page should remember that WP is not a solely UK site. Brexit#Fishing contains the sentence " Loss of access to UK waters will particularly affect the Irish fishing industry which obtains a third of its catch there." Presenting this as "good"or "positive" is looking at it entirely from a nationalistic UK viewpoint, obviously that would not be good for Ireland.Smeat75 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75- you make a fair point. I’d like to clarify that my point was simply that Brexit would end decades of incompetent EU fisheries management, which should be positive (for long-term sustainability, the ecology of the waters concerned, and maybe even the fish!).

Gravuritas (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The best pro-Brexit site I know of is this one - that's a good place to start on that. In particular, I like the idea that leaving the EU can allow us to rollback copyright to 50 years and stop - suddenly I can load samples of many Beatles' songs on their articles and claim PD. However, even that blog, written by a confirmed "leave" voter isn't exactly singing high praises about things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's quite a good Radio 4 programme, The Long View, which compares current affairs with historical equivalents. For example, for Brexit, they made a comparison with the times of Elizabeth I. In the same way, we might compare our articles to check their tone and balance. Equivalents might include the American Revolution, in which the 13 colonies left the British Empire. Singapore's exit from the Malaysian Federation also seems comparable and our best article on that seems to be Singapore in Malaysia. Andrew D. (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the benefits of Brexit in the lead section? Why does it only contain negative (or neutral) information? The lead section should resume the article. Mention of the benefits of Brexit in the lead section should only appear if there are benefits of Brexit in the article. Anyway, you cannot know effective benefit of Brexit as long as you do not have Brexit. What you can find is the expected or promised benefits of Brexit. ( « Les promesses n’engagent que ceux qui y croient » Promises only engage those who believe in them.).

• Anyway, there are various documented Brexit benefits promises for the UK:
  • What are the benefits of Brexit? https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-benefits-of-Brexit
  • The Benefits of Brexit https://www.equaltimes.org/the-benefits-of-brexit?lang=en
  • Benefits Of The Brexit: How A Brexit Might Actually Be Good For The U.K. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/benefits-of-the-brexit-how-a-brexit-might-actually-be-good-for-the-uk-cm632268
  • Where do the costs and benefits of Brexit come from? https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/where-do-the-costs-and-benefits-of-brexit-come-from/
  • Benefits of Brexit. https://theinternationalreporter.org/2016/06/15/benefits-of-brexit/
  • 10 reasons to feel positive after Brexit http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-what-next-reasons-to-be-positive-eu-referendum-jeremy-corbyn-a7104016.html
  • Brexit: What are the pros and cons of leaving the EU http://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit-0
• Brexit might also benefit to the EU, if we consider UK will give EU anything needed to avoid EU to suffer from any adverse impact from Brexit. Anyway I do not have verifiable source for this topic.
• Brexit might also benefit to third countries if we consider that it is easier to negotiate with smaller entities, and that third countries might ask Brexit compensation to not suffer from any adverse impact from Brexit. I believe an open letter might document this topic.

If we believe Michel Barnier, we should also benefit from those extra benefits:

• «By officially drawing these red lines, the UK is itself closing the doors, one by one.»
• «The British government wants to end the free movement of persons, (...) therefore (...) the Single Market.»
• «The British government wants to recover its independence to negotiate international agreements. It has therefore confirmed its intention of leaving the Customs Union.»
• «The UK no longer wishes to recognise the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which guarantees the application of our common rules.»
• «the only model possible is a free trade agreement, (...)»

If we believe donald Trump, Brexit is a “fantastic thing” for the UK, He “think (...) you (the brits') are going to have your own identity, and you’re going to have the people that you want in your country.”

If we believe TM: «UK-US free trade agreement in 'coming months'» + «boost US-UK migration» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of these do not qualify as reliable sources and in some cases it's hard to understand what you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing in lede

One editor is pushing a lede which is heavily unbalanced and uncited; claiming an established long term consensus on the economic implications of Brexit where one does not exist (as well as highlighting challenges whilst ignoring positive arguments in favour of EU withdrawal). A simple Google search finds dissenting opinions such as a report from PwC which claims that Brexit will not affect the long term future of the UK economy. Regardless, long-term economic forecasting is highly dependent on complex global factors and to present such material as an article of inevitable fact in the lede borders on irresponsible speculation. --RaviC (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The assertion that there exists a consensus or strong agreement on the effects of Brexit is abundantly sourced in the article. The PwC report is not an assessment of the effects of Brexit[9] and it's not done by academic economists. It's unclear who precisely authored the report (and what their qualifications are) and what the methodologies are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no need for citations in the lede if something is sourced in the main text. Which it is. And this isn't "POV pushing". It's material based on scholarly sources. Which beats "a simple Google search" (and your source doesn't exactly present "positive arguments").Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

References

• Most of the above discussion focuses only on economic issues. Economic forecasts are invariably wrong, as history amply proves. You may as well get a monkey to throw darts at a dartboard. The main benefit of Brexit (to the UK) is that Britain will once again be a fully independent country, able to control its own laws, borders, etc., no longer subservient to Brussels. There are obviously numerous people who advocate these benefits, and who could be quoted in the lead section, and indeed elsewhere in the article, to provide balance, but any such opinions would no doubt be immediately removed by self-appointed article owners on some trumped-up grounds, such as the sources being "not reliable" -- for "not reliable", read "does not agree with my point of view".

The "self-appointed article owners" are more professional than you think in their quest to bend Wikipedia towards their agenda. Yes, trumped-up charges is one method they use. But a clever ploy is to interrupt a discussion by starting a new irrelevant topic such as below. And another strategy, mentioned in the top of the Talk page, is to block IPs from editing the page, or by accusing them of being vandals and blocking them entirely. Wikipedia evidently is not capable of dealing with a small group of abusers if they are professionals. I have no solution to offer. The only thing saving the situation here in the Brexit article is that the abuse is so clumsily evident in the lead that even a casual reader, like you or me, is forewarned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:C3FD:BD90:DD6B:AE7F:FD12:46D2 (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing of government assessment

The user Gravuritas has removed text on the Government's own assessment of the impact of Brexit. The text is sourced to the Financial Times and Buzzfeed, which the user describes as "bent reporting". After having first tried to introduce language that introduces bias to readers and which could not be found in the RS[10], the user instead just opted to remove the text in its entirety[11]. The rationale for the mass removal is "Bent summary of bent reporting- cf “3 of the most plausible scenarios” with “every scenario”". Response: (1) The user did not tweak the language, which raises questions as to good faith. (2) "every scenario" reflects of the sources, but if the user feels passionately about using "the three most plausible scenarios", I would be fine with that. The only problem is that when we say "the three most plausible scenarios", we would need to write an additional sentence clarifying what those scenarios are. That's why "every scenario" is better. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

”Every scenario” is indeed in the headline, but the body of the text refers to “three plausible scenarios”. Only a propagandist can believe that such a distortion can be “better”. The govt has made a response to this leak, which a more balanced view might include some element of. The breathless reporting and your summaryof it should not disguise that these are predictions. Finally, the article refers to the ‘shortcomings” of previous predictions/analyses, which iirc were some of the previous ones that you have included in this section. Why do you not think that these shortcomings arepertinent to this section, alongside the new predictions?

Gravuritas (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"The government's new analysis of the impact of Brexit says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled" - it's not just the headline. Are you saying that because it considers three scenarios rather than all the infinite possibilities (a meteor might strike the earth! What happens with Brexit then???) then we can't use the source? Seriously? No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Unpublished and unverified information, sourced from Buzz website and repeated by others in unconfirmed reports.[12] If it exists could be no more than preliminary rough draft rejected by government and misreported. Wikipedia should not be used to push partisan political or commercial interests. Qexigator (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Both Buzzfeed and FT are reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted that, RS or not, the comment is not answered: Unpublished and unverified information, sourced from Buzz website and repeated by others in unconfirmed reports. If it exists could be no more than preliminary rough draft rejected by government and misreported. Wikipedia should not be used to push partisan political or commercial interests. Qexigator (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

+ The government informed the House of Commons in yesterday's debate on an opposition motion (after debate the motion was passed, unopposed by the government), that the document is a preliminary draft and does not constitute a meaningful commentary on the expected outcome of the negotiations. Qexigator (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Not plausible

Current edit-war like behaviour is based on mis-parsing of a sentence by my two esteemed opponents. The relevant study is described as studying “three of the most plausible scenarios”. That’s all. It only looked at three. The edit Snoo & VM are trying to insert includes the phrase “three of the most plausible scenarios examined..”. You can only use that phrase if there were more than three scenarios examined, and someone has selected the most plausible three. For a certainty, you need more than three for this to makevsense, and by implication, you need a lot more than three. So please cut down on the hysterical opposition to anything I do on this page, and get both versions of the sentence parsed and explained to you both by someone expert in the field. Gravuritas (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Gravuritas (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. I have zero interest in these tiresome WP:NOTFORUM debates that you try to engage in on the pros and cons of Brexit, and the limits and possibilities of science. Maybe go to Reddit or the comment sections on Daily Mail articles for such debates? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Surely the simple version is best: "in three different scenarios the UK economy would grow more slowly than it would if it stayed in the European Union." I have seen nothing to suggest that other scenarios were examined, notably the Goverment's "have cake and eat it" scenario. The Brexit select committee chair, Hilary Benn, pointed out that the absence of any modelling of the government’s preferred outcome was not just one of those things that civil servants had not yet got round to, but rather conclusive proof that the government had no idea of what its preferred outcome was.

No problem with the simple version above. @Snoo, just read the words and stop responding to what you think I wrote.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Further comment for those who clearly need it. The study says that three of the most plausible scenarios were examined. THREE SCENARIOS WERE EXAMINED. So stop pratting about with "three of the most plausible scenarios examined". You can't say that. That phrase means that a number of scenarios were examined, and the three most plausible were selected. The source does not say that. Presumably they considered (not examined) more than than three, selected three that they found plausible, and examined those three. Three, only three, that's three, i.e. 3, scenarios were EXAMINED. Geddit?

Gravuritas (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

That was not the only thing you in that edit nor the thing you talked about here. Since this is so complicated apparently, we go by what reliable sources use in their headlines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You should learn to distinguish the syntax used in headlines from the syntax used in normal written English, i.e. the body of the report. So no, we do not go by what RS ‘use in their headlines’, we go by what RS say in proper written English in the body of the report. If you try to copy a headline and use it as a normal sentence, you are liable to get buffoonery, which is what is happening in this instance.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands’ fishing industry exports almost exclusively to the EU, with 94 per cent of fishing exports

The Falkland Islands’ fishing industry exports almost exclusively to the EU, with 94 per cent of fishing exports by bulk heading to the single market in 2017. Fishing accounts for 41 per cent of the islands’ exports and two-thirds of the corporation tax received by its treasury.

The islands mostly export loligo squid to Spain, a seafood that accounts for 89 per cent of their exports to the EU.

Falkland Islanders didn’t even have a vote in the referendum.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-falklands-islands-single-market-trade-eu-fishing-loligo-squid-government-a8347696.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Excessive lede

I cut the lede paragraphs down: these are an introduction, not a place for detailed and contentious material. As I have been reminded that paragraphs in the lede do not generally get detailed citations attached, they cannot then be used for contentious material which required citation. All the material is found elsewhere, in the proper sections of the article. Hogweard (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, the lede should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" and "the presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Consequences - WTO

The only sentence in this section is incoherent: "The Brexit also raise one point with the WTO as some countries, including Australia and the United States disagree on the WTO schedules split agreed between UK and EU". Is there a way to rewrite this so that it makes sense? BBQL (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be: The Brexit also raise concerns within WTO members countries. For instance, while UK and the EU mutually agreed on split of WTO schedules with third countries, some third countries such as Australia and the United States disagreed on the modalities of such a split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Philosophical background

Some treatment of the philosophical background would be appropriate, since its a high level article, and talking about various referenda and treata misses the point, of the philosophical ideas at work, that Britain is a monarchy not a democracy, that it has Royals on its money not William Wallaces, and that this kind of money is incompatible with other money. Etc. -Inowen (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Sources? Note also articles listed under "EU history" in the book Brexit, Article 50, and other articles in "See also" section. Qexigator (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Political effect: The European farm funding budget faces a 10pc cut as a result of Brexit, while defence spending may be ramped up.»

On the Internet we can read: «The European farm funding budget faces a 10pc cut as a result of Brexit, while defence spending may be ramped up.» Source: https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/farm-budget-faces-cut-as-eu-may-raise-defence-spending-36676868.html

I did not see such a claim in this article.

Might be it could be added, because a 10% cut is quite notable.77.199.96.191 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

UK opt out

It looks like UK opt out are a first step to Brexit, or at least that

• UK opt out and Brexit obey to a same goal of remaining outside of EU.
• UK opt out ease the Brexit, by exluding optout topics from brexit negociation

As such, I assume that list and dates of UK opt out should be registered in this wikipedia article.

UK opt outs

Schengen Area	O (opt-in)	UK optout in 1997, with Amsterdam Treaty
Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union	O	UK optout in 1992, with Maastricht Treaty .
Area of freedom, security and justice	O (opt-in)	UK optout in 1997, with Amsterdam Treaty
Charter of Fundamental Rights	O	UK optout in 2007, with Lisbon Treaty
Social Chapter	F	UK optout in 1992, with Maastricht Treaty
Legend
O  – opt-out in place  F  – former opt-out that was subsequently abolished
"opt-in" – possibility to opt in on a case-by-case basis.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.12.218.135 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Brexit basis

It looks like the basis of Brexit have been planned since july 2003 by British tories.

This is an important piece of information which should appear in the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.66.183 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Transitional period

It looks like UK would like to negotiate a transitional period for establishing national trade agreements, once Brexit (withdrawal agreement) is effective. Should such a transitional period dealt with by this Brexit article, or by another more specific article? {{subst:Unsigned IP|— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Reference: www.leparisien.fr/international/brexit-londres-espere-negocier-une-union-douaniere-avec-bruxelles-15-08-2017-7193745.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

394 days before brexit: live countdown

Before Brexit

I did not see in article any reference to the number of days remaining till Brexit. I am wondering, if we could add some piece of information? My suggestion is the link [13] (how-long-until-britain-leaves-the-eu-live-countdown).

If we do not add such information, people might believe we negate the reality and the nearness of the Brexit. 77.199.96.191 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Per wp: crystal, we don't predict the future but only report the past. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

In the past, after long discussions to reach an agreement, a document has been written with this sentence included: «Article 168 Entry into force and application — This Agreement shall enter into force on 30 March 2019».

There are also preparedness notice related to this date (see https://ec.europa.eu/info/brexit/brexit-preparedness_en )

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Total umber of days is not 394, but 729 days Source: https://news.sky.com/story/tick-tock-its-the-sky-brexit-countdown-and-its-time-to-have-your-say-10816578 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Large Remoaner March in London

WP:NOTFORUM: Inappropriate use of a talk page. User has been blocked indefinitely. Swarm ♠ 22:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Redacted)  Administrator note Original post redacted as prohibited material (using talk page as a forum). Swarm ♠ 22:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Even if you don't want to make your post vaguely neutral, please delete your comment about "autistic" people. This is highly offensive. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC) It would be very easy to put a sentence into the article at some point - "On 24 June 2018, the second anniversary of the referendum, an estimated 100,000 people marched through central London demanding a "people's vote" on the final deal", with the reference you have right there. But you are not really interested in that, you want to hurl offensive insults around instead.Smeat75 (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC) How about the "#FBPE" stuff? I mean, this is almost exclusively on Twitter, but nowadays social media is an influential tool. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC) @Claíomh Solais: A chara, wiki is not a rant space. If you want to do that, go elsewhere. Regarding your "autistic" tweets comment, the usage is highly inappropriate and I suggest you refrain from such use of said term in future! UaMaol (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Claíomh Solais has previously been blocked for personal attacks on other editors. I have added this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC) I've removed the word. Not at all okay. --Tarage (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Still calls the marchers "rogues" and "lepers" though.Smeat75 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC) And he's been blocked, so feel free to strike/delete the above and archive it. --Tarage (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

750 accords internationaux

According to Michel Barnier, British would be out of 750 international agreements on 30 march. This will not be a cliff edge due to the 21 months transition period, but I believe this is quite notable. Not a single word in wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.170 (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You lost me with the “According to Michael Barnier...”

Gravuritas (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

End of the second paragraph, the conversion of Central European Time to GMT in brackets: The bit in brackets says 2018 which is a typo. It should say 2019. 2A00:23C4:328D:1A00:F9C5:1A1B:FFEE:EA8F (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on Mai 1st 2018

In the following paragraph (proposed change highlighted), I feel like the second statement is anti-climactic. It prompted me to look at the source, so here's my suggestion for an improvement:

In November 2016 May proposed that Britain and the other EU countries mutually guarantee the residency rights of the 3.3 million EU immigrants in Britain and those of the 1.2 million British citizens living on the Continent, in order to exclude their fates being bargained during Brexit negotiations.[98] Despite initial approval from a majority of EU states, May's proposal was blocked by Tusk and Merkel, Merkel being concerned that it would hand the UK a significant advantage during Brexit negotiations.[99]

It's more or less a word-for-word quote from the source. I don't feel that it adds undue weight, especially considering the first statement's (admittedly muted) appeal to emotion. But I will not come back to argue the case, if the first administrator seeing this happens to not agree with me. I leave that to other editors. ForgetfulMe (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The source says "the president of the European Council, Mr Tusk, ... on Tuesday said that Mrs May and British voters had created "anxiety and uncertainty" for migrants. He told Mrs May she must trigger Article 50 – the formal mechanism for leaving the European Union – immediately to dispel those fears". The position of the EU at that time was that they were not going to discuss anything about what would happen after Brexit until the UK formally informed the EU by triggering Article 50 that Brexit was going to happen- "Mrs Merkel... maintained her position that there must be no talks before Brexit negotiations have been formally triggered by the UK." (Administrators do not control what content is added to articles, btw.)Smeat75 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Short description

According to oxforddictionaries.com Brexit means: "The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union." - not the planned withdrawal. The planned withdrawal would be the "planned Brexit". So it would appear that the "short description" template value at the top of the article needs correcting. Any thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It may depend on circumstances but, to avoid misleading the reader, I think it is appropriate for the short description to state explicitly if an entity is not known to be real (e.g. fictional, plausible, hypothetical, etc.) or if an event is not known to have occurred (e.g. supposed, planned, hypothetical, fictional). There may be a difference between what is appropriate for a dictionary definition and what is appropriate for an encyclopedia description. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, an encyclopedia entry may normally be assumed to refer to an object that exists or has existed, an event that has occurred etc. A dictionary might have one definition of "assassination", but an encyclopedia may need to distinguish prominently between an assassination that really occurred (e,g, the assassination of President Kennedy) and an assassination that was merely planned or advocated. --Boson (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I can see the logic of DeFacto's position - Brexit is indeed the act of leaving, not the plan to leave. But it hasn't actually happened yet, pigs might fly and it may never happen. However another argument is that it is a process that will take two to five years, perhaps more. So somehow we need a form of words in the lead that captures that essence. A good journalist could do this! The word "planned" is not accurate but it is not misleading, as omitting it would be. I'm very open to another wording. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

post-imperial nostalgia

Currently the article states:

Organisations such as CANZUK International have also championed the movement, stating that relationships between the four countries will flourish after Brexit. However, numerous academics have criticised this alternative for EU membership as "post-imperial nostalgia".

References

However although the last sentence is meant to represent a balance the sources do not support it. The quote is a newspaper article title (and so is likely to be the work of a copy-editor), but even if it is not the journalist/author of the opinion piece was Jeremy White-Stanley who is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography article and the Daily Times is published in Pakistan and owned by a politician. It is not a reliable source for the sentence (it does not mention any comparative studies) and the quotation is not one made by an academic paper or an article about the attitudes of academics about this subject: "However, numerous academics have criticised this alternative for EU membership as 'post-imperial nostalgia'.!" (MRDA).-- PBS (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Countdown

What is the correct countdown?

According to [14] and [15] and [16] it remains 320 days and 11 hours before brexit.

According to sky [17] it remains 320 days and 12 hours before brexit.

Which one is right and why?

Is it possible to add such a dynamic information in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Try the {{Countdown}} template!

It gives the same result as sky but a result different from other web sites:

{{countdown |year = 2019 |month = 3 |day = 29 |hour = 23 |minute = 0 |second = 0 |event = |duration = 1 |eventstart = unknown has started |eventend = unknown has ended }} gives:

unknown has ended (refresh)

I assume there is a question of timezone!

Yes, the timezone is documented. It's neither EU nor UK timezone, it's UTC, so:

{{countdown |year = 2019 |month = 3 |day = 29 |hour = 22 |minute = 0 |second = 0 |event = |event = Brexit }} gives:

Brexit has started. (refresh)

It would not be appropriate to add a countdown to the article, per WP:CRYSTAL. Nobody knows whether Brexit will actually go ahead on that date or be postponed. The facts surrounding the date and potential things that happen should be discussed in the article prose, and cited to reliable sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A date and time have been announced, therefore it would be informative to readers to compute the remaining time. A more flexible display option would be {{Time interval}}, yielding for example "−5 years, 7 months and 10 days" (hours, minutes and seconds are superfluous). I have added it. — JFG ^talk 12:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Prospective

Brexit (/ˈbrɛksɪt, ˈbrɛɡzɪt/) is the prospective withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU).

The first line. It is not prospective, it is legally signed, article 50 delivered and the Magna Carta which succeeds The EU law by many years. I don't want a civil war, but I will if it starts. Tensions are high, follow law. Follow legal procedure of The UK before commenting. It is too partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.7.85 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

References

I wish an admin would remove the above, utterly unhelpful, comment.Smeat75 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Map colours

I think that the map colours ought to be changed. It is misleading to have blue and yellow used for leave and remain as those colours are liked to political parties (Tories and WigsLiberals). It would be better if colours were chosen that were not associated with any main stream British political party. -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Those were the colours used by most of the media during their coverage of the referendum. It makes sense to leave it as is. --RaviC (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Brexit in the parliament that is imposing it.

It is said: «The people of Ireland will not find a solution to Brexit in the parliament that is imposing it.» according to Paul Maskey https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/sinn-fein-mp-british-parliament-irish-republicans-brexit

«On Brexit, Irish people in the north look to Sinn Féin, to the Irish government, the Irish parliament and to Europe to defend their interests.» (according to Paul Maskey also)

I wonder if wikipedia miss this point here, and only acknowledge the adverse point of view? Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? If we consider that Brexit impacts four nations from the UK, is a due weight given to each of them? or is an undue weight given to England? 77.199.96.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The U.K. is the nation. It cannot contain any nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The referendum was carried out on a UK-wide basis and not as individual nations. 'Undue weight given to England'? It is by far the largest and most cosmopolitan of the UK nations. It also has severe inequalities - via the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question - in its representation by the UK Government. I would suggest that 'undue weight' is perhaps given elsewhere, and it must be remembered that Wales voted to leave the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.161.238 (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I have deleted (again) an opinion-editorial piece from the New York Times as a citation from a section concerning economic studies. We must be very careful in choosing sources in such a contentious subject, and where referring to economic studies should refer only to those studies, not to opinion pieces, in whatever newspaper. They might have a place when describing public or journalistic reactions, but they are not academic studies. Hogweard (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The NY Times peices listed here does not appear to be an opinion peice. What do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the NYT source in the lede is not an op-ed. The NYT is a WP:RS and is a perfectly satisfactory source for the notion that a "consensus" exists in an academic field. I suggest you go to the Reliable Source noticeboard with your claim that the NYT is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an opinion piece to me. Regardless of that, using a piece from May 2016 to support a statement that “there IS [my emphasis] a strong consensus...” is clearly not tenable. Suggest this ref is deleted and, if found, replaced by sonething more current. Or change the wording to “There was a ....”

Gravuritas (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if it was an opinion piece, in this context using it to summarize existing research would be fine. Seriously, you guys still going on about this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous proposal. There's nothing to suggest that economists no longer hold these views. If we follow your advice, we would not be able to describe anything as a current consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus on anything to do with Brexit. That's a main feature of it. About one half of the country has one view and the other half roughly the opposite view.

That’s a ridiculous response. You need to demonstrate support for the statement, not ask me to disprove it. We now have nearly two years newer data on the economy of Britain & the EU. I think it is reasonable to use sources from 2017 in support of “there is”, but not so for mid -2016. @Marek- no it’s not existing research. It’s too old.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't cite every article and news story that's ever been published on Brexit - or every radio and TV broadcast that's ever been done on Brexit. It's ridiculous to ask for sources. There is a roughly 50/50 disagreement on Brexit.195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The NYT piece linked is not an opinion piece. It is in the "International Business" section and is a straight-news account. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)