Talk:Brexit/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 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 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 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, 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. . 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." 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 --> ! 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. 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

Why are people that support Brexit called Quitlings?

That Bus

Article needs more balance

Whitewashing of government assessment

Not plausible

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

Excessive lede

Consequences - WTO

Philosophical background

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

UK opt out

Brexit basis

Transitional period

394 days before brexit: live countdown

Large Remoaner March in London

750 accords internationaux

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

Protected edit request on Mai 1st 2018

Short description

post-imperial nostalgia

Countdown

Prospective

Map colours

Brexit in the parliament that is imposing it.

Unreliable sources

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI