Talk:2016 Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement referendum

Infobox <title>

@Amberrock: Are you sure that this is what the <title> parameter is used for? The infobox documentation states "official ballot title", not referendum question. I suppose that this depends on the ballot?–Totie (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest with you, @Totie:, I looked at Scottish independence referendum, 2014 for reference and went by the example it set. I think that infobox does a remarkable job of making sense of the data in a way which makes readers immediately understand what went down on that fated day in September 2014. Part of that clarity was provided by the fact that the referendum question was contained within the infobox.

So, that's why I modeled the infobox on this article after the one from the Scottish referendum. I believe that somewhere in the infobox, we should place the referendum question in order to make the results of the yes and no vote intelligble to the reader. In my opinion, viewers should be able to see at a glance what the results of the respective yes and the no mean, without having to plow through the article text in order to find out what that question was. Of course I'm not opposed to better alternatives. So, if you don't think that question should be in the <title>, then were should it be? —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 17:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That’s a good question. To be perfectly frank, this is one of those infoboxes that I don’t like. It makes too many assumptions and does not provide for enough parameters about the subject, the missing referendum question being an example. I also saw that the infobox presupposes a choice between yes or no even though this is not what the ballot will state, strictly speaking. I am inclined to swap the infobox with {{infobox multichoice referendum}} because it offers a bit more flexibility. We can misuse the title parameter for the question.–Totie (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a completely fair point too.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed some changes to the template {{infobox referendum}}. If no response appears, I will make the modifications myself. It seems that not much has happened to it recently and it was supposed to be merged with the other template almost two years ago.–Totie (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent call. For what it's worth: I'm pledging my support. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary turnout

It is still too early to say whether turnout is higher than 30% or not and there are no final and official results yet, only preliminary ones. This should be mentioned in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.214.94 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 April 2016

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The most corrupt country in Europe

User:Hergilei invented some policies, which state that the "most corrupt country in Europe" can only be quoted as a part of the quotation, and started edit-warring to remove the quote. Apparently, they are unhappy with the fact that Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe. Here [1] is the direct quote from the campaign. but until they quote the policy which prohibit this I am going to oppose removal of the piece or putting it into quote. The policies in fact prefer prose over quotations.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, they can be presented as prose but they need proper attribution. You kept presenting these controversial statements as facts. And please stop throwing a tantrum "quote these fucking rules at the talk page".Hergilei (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a fact, check the Corruption Perceptions Index.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Perceptions are not the same thing as facts.Hergilei (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let us wait for other opinions, we are both above 3RR. I strongly oppose your position.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, you failed to cite the policy (quite expectedly, since there is no such policy).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Coming in with a third opinion, it's an assertion made by the party and therefore I think should be quoted per WP:NPOV. As noted, the corruption rankings are based on perceptions, rather than it being an official measure of actual corruption. As a result, I don't think it's NPOV to simply say Ukraine is the most corrupt country without couching it in some way, which would usually be by saying "according to the Corruption Perceptions Index". However, in this case it wouldn't really fit, so I think it's preferable to simply put it in as a quotation. Number 57 10:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of factual accuracy, the sentence is currently neither encyclopaedic nor notable. The argument should at least be explained and not just be taken ad verbum, solely because a small political party has said it. This article is significantly underdeveloped when it comes to the political arguments. Have a look at the German and Dutch versions. We should probably have two sections, one outlining the stances of certain political groups and other notable bodies and the other for the arguments on either side.–Totie (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am only for the expansion like this. However, I was the only person who added any arguments of the opponents of the agreement (before my edits, it looked like they have no arguments at all - why then did they get 60%?), and I immediately see that a user start removing some parts of my edits. I do not see why they are unencyclopaedic - the argument, before it was forcibly rewritten, was that ploitical support of the most corrupt state of Europe in undesirable. I saw this argument in the ad in the train station. I am fine with the rewording but I disagree that it should not be there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Number 57. That Ukraine is "the most corrupt country in Europe" is an opinion, not a fact. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, the source of this needs to be attributed in text, not passed of as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. If it's the most corrupt according to Corruption Perceptions Index, then say that. But things like "corruption" are so vague that there's no indisputable way to even measure it, let alone conclude who is the worst, hence the need for qualification. TDL (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is fine, and even if you think it is an opinion it was always attributed. Why is the only way to attribute it to put it in quotation marks? As far as I am concerned it is perfectly fine to say the same in prose, and this is exactly what I have done before reverts started.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be in quotations, prose is fine. It just needs to be attributed. But what you wrote ("based on the fact that it the the most corrupt country on the European continent") did not attribute the claim at all, it presented this as an undisputed fact in wikipedia's voice. Hergilei attributed it to the Party for the Animals here, but you reverted. If you don't like that solution, then cite some objective measure (ie rather than saying it is the most corrupt, say it has the highest Corruption Perceptions Index score.) TDL (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This was my original version, but Hergilei did not like it and started edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Which was equally problematic, as it presented Leon de Winter's option as fact.

You boldly added some content, which was reverted. The next step in the WP:BRD process if you disagree with the removal is for you to demonstrate a WP:CONSENSUS for change on the talk page, not to try to force disputed content into the article by starting an edit war. TDL (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. I presented de Winter's opinion as opinion. But it was reverted anyway. Fine, add whatever content you want. I see that nobody here cares about WP:DUE - after all, referendum showed that 60% of the voters opposed the referendum, and before my edits, there were zero arguments against the agreement and plenty for agreement - which means that the article was (and actually remains) grossly unbalanced. But to be honest I have more important things to do in Wikipedia that to fight for commas and quotation marks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the discussion above. If you believe it is about commas and quotation marks, then you've missed the point. It's about WP:NPOV and properly attributing claims. The first portion of the sentence was attributed and sourced to de Winter, but nowhere in the various iterations of what you wrote did you properly attribute the "most corrupt" claim. The way this was written strongly implied that this was de Winters' argument, but it's not mentioned in any of the cited articles.

There's no need to make personal attacks. No one has suggested that the addition of arguments against the deal was not an improvement. I certainly agree that some balance is needed. But we can't just ignore the WP:5P to do so. TDL (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just taken a peek at Ymblanter's version and, yes, it was certainly in good faith and could be read as part of the attributed text but could be read as a little ambiguous, therefore it can also be loosely construed as "the most corrupt country in Europe" as being part of the Wikipedia content. I think that the use of quotation marks better illustrates the fact that it is a lengthier piece of attributed text, so could we please stop all of the reworking and reverting. I've just given it one tweak for the sake of fluency... and it's fine as it stands. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Valid votes

It's a bit nitpicking, but the template ({{Infobox referendum}}) does not include blank votes in the total of valid votes. But a blank vote is considered a valid vote in this case. (See the offcial dutch text: [2], 79 d + 81). For example, if yes=40,000 votes, no=60,000 votes, blank=25,000 votes, the result would be 48% no, which means less then 50%. Invalid votes are only used to calculate the turnout. --wimmel (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I fixed it by adding a ‘other’ field. I cannot change the label for ‘Invalid or blank votes’, however. You might want to ask for this here: Template talk:Infobox referendum.–Totie (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed that now as well! L.tak (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927185807/https://www.kiesraad.nl/nieuws/inleidend-verzoek-referendum-over-associatieverdrag-met-oekra%C3%AFne-toegelaten to https://www.kiesraad.nl/nieuws/inleidend-verzoek-referendum-over-associatieverdrag-met-oekraïne-toegelaten

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

What is orgs?

Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

In what context?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

investigating the people of this orgs.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks for noticing.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Rest of the story post referendum is missing

The rest of the story after the referendum is missing that explains why and how the tweede kamer and eerste kamer signed the treaty anyway. I know that the rest of the story is not part of the referendum, but it has to be explained somewhere in Wikipedia and this article seems the most logical place. Andries (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This has to do with Mark Rutte's narrow road (Ducht "geitenpaadje") and the sheet with clarification to the treaty (Dutch "inlegvelletje") Andries (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but with reservations. There is no form of follow-up in the article so long as it doesn't slide WP:OFFTOPIC. Currently, the article reads as having no particular context which does not follow the construct of other articles on referendums, nor is it edifying for the reader as it appears to be a referendum held in a political vacuum. As with articles such as Australian republic referendum, 1999 and United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011, there is more information on the background, plus an aftermath section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The start of the referundum is difficult to explain and not even the Dutch Wikipedia explains it. It is difficult because there was no real reason. It took place in an atmosphere of euro-skepticism and anger against what people saw as elite politicians who decide things without real democracy. So some people seized on the first available opportunity to obstruct the EU which happened to be the Ukraine-EU agreement. Andries (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

With regards to the aftermath, the anti-agreement parties were either quite indifferent about the agreement or lost seats in the parliament in the 2017 election, with the exception of Thierry Baudet's Forum for Democracy. See for a start. Dutch article describing the election results for the agreement Andries (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35976086 Kaihsu (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thesis about reporting by journalists

https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/34667 by Thijn F.A. van Veghel 2016-06-21 "Het referendum dat de journalistiek niet wilde - Een onderzoek naar de berichtgeving over het Oekraïne-referendum" /The referendum that journalists did not want: research about reporting about the Ukraine Referendum.

What struck me in this thorough treatment is that journalists were unable to understand the treaty because it was unusual for them and too complex. So they consulted various experts, but they were unable to check what the experts said because they did not understand the subject. This was one of the reasons why the journalists considered the treaty as unfit for a referendum. Andries (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian influence

I propose to remove Anne Applebaum's article in Slate about Russian influence because it is early (April 2016) and hence somewhat superficial and in addition it somewhat contradicts itself. Instead I propose this later ( Jan. 2017) article in NRC with a lot of info from the AIVD. Yes, the drawback is that it is Dutch instead of English, but detailed knowlegeable articles about all these many Dutch websites and parties do not exist, as far as I know.

Yes, I think this is fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This New York Times article by Andrew Higgins (journalist) is newer (16 Feb 2017) and I think better than Anne Applebaum's article in Slate (April 2016). Andries (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

References