Talk:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lead

EddieHugh has reverted my addition to the lead of the loss of the pound and that most economists think that Brexit would be bad for the economy (along with a balancing response from the Leave campaign). EddieHugh claims that it is selective to include this because it favours the Remain campaign, and thinks it would be balanced if we included that exports had increased in April. However, the source for this does not say that this is because of the referendum, and indeed my reading of it is that the increase in exports was despite, rather than because of, the referendum, whereas there are multiple sources saying that the pound and stock market fell *because* of referendum worries.

My response is that we should not leave important facts out of the lead to create some sort of artificial balance - we would not leave out of the Homeopathy article lead that homeopathy has never been proven to work just because it is not a balanced point. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't suggest adding exports data. I pointed out that including exports data selectively (as with adding only very recent stock market and fx moves) would introduce bias into a reasonably balanced lead. Including exports data, stock market and fx moves in the main text is good, but picking one or all of these (out of many bits of the main text that are not mentioned in the lead) is obviously being selective and their content is not balanced. The comparison with homeopathy is inapt. EddieHugh (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My point is that the effect on the economy directly attributed to the referendum has been significant - is this not worth recording in the lead? Nowhere in the sources for the article has it been suggested that the growth in exports is due to the referendum. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is. As I said, lots of things from the main text are not included in the lead. If the reason for including the part you want is that the effect (on the stock market & fx, not "the economy" as you suggest) has been significant, then there is a big problem: what is "significant"? ~2% FTSE movements are common – see this, for example, where the referendum is mentioned as only one reason among many for 16 movements of >1.5% in Jan & Feb 2016 alone. On fx, the long-term trend is for the pound weakening: the US dollar was >2 in 2007. EddieHugh (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This has a simple solution: we report what reliable sources say. We don't have to decide what is or is not "significant": we leave that to reliable sources. Reliable sources say there's been a significant shift due to the possibility of Brexit, so we should report that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

EddieHugh Stock market fluctuations might be relatively common, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't mention in this article that the specific reason given in reliable sources for the recent fall was worries about Brexit. A similar argument applies for the exchange rate - many reliable sources cite worries about Brexit as the reason for specific falls in the pound. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And those things are mentioned in the article, but there's no need to select them from all the rest to put in the lead. I'd prefer to put them in context in the article, too. If I have time... EddieHugh (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

So the question is whether the fall in the stock markets and pound is notable enough for the lead. I think it is, EddieHugh clearly doesn't, what do other editors think? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps you can suggest other things that are equally notable and are not mentioned in the lead? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's certainly something that should go somewhere in the article, so perhaps focus on that first as we can all agree there. Should it be in the lede? I think yes, but I can see arguments both ways. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is already in the article (in the Responses#Stock markets section) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I have discovered that a true Northern Ireland is a single voting area there will be announcements from the canteen centres there will be announcements of local totals for each of the 18 Westminster Parliamentary constituency areas so I have added a table in the results article with the eighteen constituency areas but I wondered if someone could draw up a blank map of Northern Ireland with these areas included at all?

Currently this map is on the results so if it could be changed this would be fantastic.

The source for this is from the electoral commission and can be found here, http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/206113/Media-briefing-EU-Referendum-count-processes-and-results.pdf on page five (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

Stupid Map

What's the point in having a map with voting shares up FOUR WHOLE DAYS before there's been any voting? It's stupid. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• • having the map up already will make it easier to edit in real time on Thursday night/Friday morning. Sae123 (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Referendum Toolbar

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Choice	Votes	%
No	0	0
Yes	0	0
Valid votes	0	0
Invalid or blank votes	0	0
Total votes	0	100.00

I have added this toolbar to the article results section however at the moment the toolbar can be used to a yes/no and we need the answers changing to leave/remain, can someone please correct and add a new Subroutine so it can be changed. Thank you (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC))

• Can't this be done with the existing option1= and option2= options? e.g.

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Choice	Votes	%
Remain	0	0
Leave	0	0
Valid votes	0	0
Invalid or blank votes	0	0
Total votes	0	100.00

Unfortunately this retains the yes/no green tick/red cross symbolism, but it does at least change the name of the option. —ajf (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• We could also put Remain as the “yes” option instead, e.g.:

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Choice	Votes	%
Leave	0	0
Remain	0	0
Valid votes	0	0
Invalid or blank votes	0	0
Total votes	0	100.00

—ajf (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Update: I modified the template to add a noicons= option, e.g.:

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Choice	Votes	%
Leave	0	0
Remain	0	0
Valid votes	0	0
Invalid or blank votes	0	0
Total votes	0	100.00

This way we don't imply that either option is good or a success. —ajf (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe try as models the tables in Australian republic referendum, 1999. Wikiain (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It could look like this:

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Country	On rolls	Ballots issued	Remain		Leave		Invalid
				%		%
England				%		%
Northern Ireland				%		%
Scotland				%		%
Wales				%		%
Total for UK				%		%

Obtained a majority for Remain/Leave of ??????? votes. Result: Remain/Leave.

Wikiain (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But Gibraltar feeds into the “English” count. That wouldn't feel right, to me. And why subdivide just by countries? England has many electoral regions. —ajf (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is only about format: this format could be used for regions if desired. Maybe add under "England" subtotals for each of the English regions, noting that SW England includes Gibraltar. To separate Gibraltar, one would have to subtract it from the English and/or SW English totals; but probably best not to have any figures here that differ from the official figures. Wikiain (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead balance

A second attempt has been made to add a final paragraph to the lead to make it lean towards supporting one side of the referendum. This time, selections have been taken from the Responses section, which itself is a summary of another article, Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. There are thousands of endorsements listed in that article and the original poster of the paragraph included someone as being in favour of remain when that person is officially neutral. I'm trying to assume good faith, but the changes made to the lead are too crudely one-sided. I removed the lead paragraph on endorsements, but it's been reverted by the OP. The lead was reasonably balanced before the first and second additions of a final paragraph, but not with (either of) them. EddieHugh (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As discussed in my edit summary, I think that the paragraph has the main figures on each side. Do you think that someone has been left out or included who should not be? If so, can you state this and we can change the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could suggest something else in the article to add to the lead which would restore balance? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

At 11:11, 16 June 2016 Absolutelypuremilk wrote: "A Remain vote is supported by most economists, the leaders of the USA and the rest of the EU countries, the Governor of the Bank of England, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the G20, the IMF, all living past and present Prime Ministers and the majority of scientists. The Leave campaign is supported by Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, UKIP, the UK fishing industry and James Dyson, the founder of Dyson."

I am wonderig if it is appropriate to use this sentence as part of the introduction of United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Basically the EU referendum will be held in order for the British citizens to be given an opportunity to determine their own future, and so the referendum is one of the purely domestic matters. Thus it is not so important whether foreign leaders, organisations and foreign nationals (living in UK) support the Remain campaign, or not; if he/she wants to write that Barack Obama (and others) have been supporting the Remain campaign, he/she can do in Non-European response section.Annihilation00 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important to note those in favour and those against - even if they are not personally allowed to vote they will still be affected by a Brexit Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that summary is salvageable. I'm being bold and removing it. —ajf (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for removal here - we have two in favour of removal, one in favour of changes to it and two against removal (including Walter Sobchak0 who has not commented, but re-added the content). I would therefore ask that you discuss on here and provide your reasons why you think the content should not be in the lead, so that we can come to a consensus, rather than simply removing it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

EddieHugh, the people listed in the paragraph are the people representing each side. If reality is not on your side, that's not my fault but the answer to this is not hiding reality under a rug. An edit war would only vindicate this fact. Please stop erasing the paragraph. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"reality is not on your side". I object to your assertion that I have "a side". The paragraph was clearly selective (look at the list of endorsements page and explain why the few people and groups that appeared in the para were chosen). They were not "the people representing each side"; they were a hand-picked selection designed to give the impression that one opinion was supported by people in the know and the other by mavericks or worse. That was weaving the rug in a biased manner, not "reality". EddieHugh (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Balance is in the eye of the beholder - but, might it give a more balanced appearance to link the arguments with the names of some of those on either side, and so set out the last two paragraphs (with minor tweaks) as follows:

Those who favour continued EU membership argue that in a world with many supranational organisations any theoretical loss of sovereignty is compensated by the benefits of EU membership. Those who want to remain argue that leaving the EU would: risk the UK's prosperity; diminish its influence over world affairs; jeopardise national security by reducing access to common European criminal databases; and result in trade barriers between the UK and the EU. In particular, they argue that leaving the EU would lead to job losses, delays in investment coming to the UK and risks to large and small business. A Remain vote is supported by, among others, the British government, leaders of most major UK political parties, most economists, the leaders of the USA and the rest of the EU countries, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the G20, the IMF, and all living past and present Prime Ministers.

Those who favour a British withdrawal from the European Union – commonly referred to as a Brexit (a portmanteau of British and exit) – argue that the EU has a democratic deficit and that being a member undermines national sovereignty. They argue that leaving would: allow the UK to better control immigration, thus reducing pressure on public services, housing and jobs; save billions in EU membership fees; allow the UK to make its own trade deals; and free the UK from EU regulations and bureaucracy that they see as needless and costly. The Leave campaign is supported by, among others, Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove, UKIP, most tabloid newspapers, the UK fishing industry, and some entrepreneurs including James Dyson.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be very good.Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Add the non-tabloid press on Sunday 19 June. Someone in UK could summarise the significances better than I. Wikiain (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Better than having a list in a separate para. But what's the rationale for this selection? There are also problems: what is the source for most tabloid newspapers? why "some entrepreneurs" when that means some entrepreneurs have the opposite view? the "UK fishing industry" is not really supported, the IFS is covered by "economists" and the IMF probably is too, the rest of the EU countries is not in the main text... EddieHugh (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

At this stage everything is susceptible of being called weasel wording. It is not a single person's onus to add the rest of the EU countries to the main text. The source for most tabloid newspapers is easily checked with any google search (which is the same as saying: referencing it would entail having thousands of superscript references attached to the sentence). Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. We should accept those paragraphs as a Solomonic decision.Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

So how many tabloids are on each side? (And how many tabloids are there?) EddieHugh (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This is the article we need to summarise in a couple of sentences. Any offers? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

No offer, but a suggestion: don't! Lots of other sections are not summarised in the lead. Issues are summarised based on a survey (mentioned on the main issues page; should be cited here too), history is factual, but there's no basis for picking out a few people/groups on either side. Don't do it and the problem disappears! EddieHugh (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and am comfortable with Asarlaí's edit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

At 18:34, 19 June 2016 Asarlaí wrote:

"Britain Stronger in Europe is the main group campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU, and Vote Leave is the main group campaigning for it to leave the EU. Many other campaign groups, political parties, businesses, trade unions, newspapers and prominent individuals are also involved."

It might seem that the second sentence is redundant, because it is obvious that many people are involved in the campaigns. In terms of the first sentence, I am not sure that it deserves to be used as part of the introduction.Annihilation00 (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The two organisations named have been designated as the official campaign organisations in the referendum - responsible for political broadcasts, etc. They are sufficiently notable and important to be specifically named in the opening paragraphs of this article. I also support Asarlaí's second sentence. It is not redundant - it provides information and, more importantly, a link to a much more comprehensive list of endorsements than this article could or should provide. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a good compromise – a safe option until after the event itself. EddieHugh (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

At 05:57, 22 June 2016, Mjsa deleted:

"Those who favour a British withdrawal from the European Union – commonly referred to as a Brexit (a portmanteau of "British" and "exit") – argue that the EU has a democratic deficit and that being a member undermines national sovereignty, while those who favour membership argue that in a world with many supranational organisations any theoretical loss of sovereignty is compensated by the benefits of EU membership. Those who want to leave the EU argue that it would allow the UK to better control immigration, thus reducing pressure on public services, housing and jobs, save billions in EU membership fees, allow the UK to make its own trade deals, and free the UK from EU regulations and bureaucracy that they see as needless and costly. Those who want to remain argue that leaving the EU would risk the UK's prosperity, diminish its influence over world affairs, jeopardise national security by reducing access to common European criminal databases, and result in trade barriers between the UK and the EU. In particular, they argue that leaving the EU would lead to job losses, delays in investment into the UK and risks to large and small business."

Discussions about the layout of the introduction have been conducted, therefore I am wondering if it is justified to delete this paragraph without pointing out defects in this paragraph.Annihilation00 (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Previous version restored. EddieHugh (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

References

entitled to vote

As far as I know also all residents of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus are entitled to vote - why are they missing in the referendum results image? --Rabenkind (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong - see European Union Referendum Act 2015#Eligible voters. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: Actually, that's not a very good summary. Here -
To be eligible to vote in the EU Referendum, you must be:

• A British or Irish citizen living in the UK, or
• A Commonwealth citizen living in the UK who has leave to remain in the UK or who does not require leave to remain in the UK, or
• A British citizen living overseas who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years, or
• An Irish citizen living overseas who was born in Northern Ireland and who has been registered to vote in Northern Ireland in the last 15 years.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Citizens of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus who are residents in the UK. Their votes will be counted like everyone else, depending on where they live. -- KTC (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. --Rabenkind (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of pens

If you take your own pen with you into the polling booth and mark the ballot paper in ink is this treated as a spoilt ballot? There is a rumour circulating on social media that some polling station staff are going to use an eraser to change the exit votes as they are only made in pencil. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So does that prove exit voters are more prone to conspiracy theories? --Rabenkind (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Pens are allowed. The instruction is to clearly mark an x in the box pertaining to your choice. I voted using a pen this morning. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No you can use whatever you like http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-22/can-you-bring-your-own-pen-to-the-polling-booth/ Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots could I ask respectfully ask you why you did that? Thank you. Do we need to put anything into the article about this? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No. I don't see sufficient reliable sources talking about this as an issue in this vote. It's an unnecessary detail. Elections in the United Kingdom would be the appropriate place for a general issue like this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Anything added needs to be referenced, and a rumour on social media is not a reliable source. Also, worth noting that poling station staff don't have access to the ballot papers anyway. They go into a sealed box which is only opened at the count. SteveIkura (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This report includes the Electoral Commission's guidance - "By tradition, pencils are available in polling booths for voters to mark their ballot papers. If a voter wishes to bring their own pen and use that, it's fine. In regards to security, at the count there are statutory observers to make sure that they are carried out correctly. Campaigners are also invited to observe the counts taking place." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I always use a pen, enables a nice hard mark to be made on the paper and guards against interference of my vote. As mentioned above, social media gossip fails WP:RS. If the issue is raised by mainstream media, then it might be includable, subject to consensus. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Just want to point out you misunderstood meaning of consensus. A consensus is an attempt to include all legitimate concerns, not a process where a decision is simply based on majority of people supporting it. Wikipedia policies themselves say Wikipedia is not a democracy. 117.241.118.169 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As an admin, I fully understand what a consensus is. I can even accept when the consensus is not leaning to my way of thinking.

Anyway, the issue is now being reported in the mainstream media. Mjroots (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

POV

I am concerned about the POV of this article overall. It becomes, at some point reading down, simply a list of reasons why Brexit is a bad idea. There is minimal coverage of the reasons in support. The solution I would offer is to either A. trim down much of the article, especially all the talking heads saying it would be bad for the economy (which, as a related issue, is repeated too many times in the article), or B. give much more weight to support opinions. Considering how long the article already is, my instinct is to go with the former option. More coming momentarily. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If you, personally, are "concerned", the way forward is to suggest changes here, one at a time, and seek agreement, rather than simply reverting referenced and/or otherwise uncontentious text with which you, personally, disagree. See WP:OWN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, we must be careful not to introduce false balance here - removing the opinions of experts that you don't agree with is not constructive. If you wish to bring balance, perhaps you could add to the "Issues" section which is looking quite small. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's the entire point of WP:BOLD. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

From WP:BOLD "Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The section which appears to indulge in NPOV is the responses section - which basically appears to be a long list of those who have said remain. There are more endorsements for the remain campaign, but only significant interventions (in both directions) should be discussed in this article.

For instance, Obama's intervention was significant as it actually affected the debate, but does it really matter that Indonesia is against Brexit? The spin-off Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 is the best place to list the interventions that "don't matter".--Nilfanion (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the notable individuals and organisations whose views are significant enough to be recorded have been in the Remain camp. The article should reflect that, rather than trying to reach a spurious balance between the two lists by setting a lower threshold of "notability" for one side as against the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree (especially that NPOV does not mean "balanced") but my point here is some of the things included should not be discussed in this article at all, as being below a bar for inclusion. Its not a question of NPOV but information overload. At present there is a section which consists solely of "Indonesian president is against Brexit", with nothing else, and we give that equal weight in terms of section heading to the US which has a couple paragraphs discussing the US reaction.

The Indonesian president is no different to any of the other names at Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#International figures, why is he being singled out in the main article? It would be better to have a short list of the endorsements. Care also needs to be taken to distinguish personal opinion from governmental opinion.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I entirely agree that, in principle, the section should be trimmed, by excluding some of those comments that are of only marginal significance. But we would need to do it quite carefully - Indonesia is the fourth largest country in the world and an important trading partner, so I'm not sure it's a good example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This is moving away from an POV concern to a broader quality concern now. The section should try to get at the "big picture" not individual cases - that is hard to do because of WP:SYNTH but isn't impossible, as the news sources have done that analysis extensively. For instance, what's the overall European view on Brexit? There is a tendency to miss some of the higher profile cases, for instance Jean-Claude Juncker or Anthony Bamford. As for Indonesia, its just an example - but why mention it when we don't China or Germany?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking off the NPOV tag because it seems the issues here are rather to do with article size than neutrality. I would cull most of "Hypothesised results of a withdrawal" as not really having anything directly to do with the referendum (and may be completely off-topic if the result is "remain" anyway) and a lot of the "Responses" section can be culled, like the previous section, it already has a spinout article. I think we could chop 10K of prose off this and it would not be a problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Some Hypothesised stuff should have been in Issues, which is bizzarely under-done. Ritchie333 got rid of some of the extreme close-up examinations, but there's an ever-increasing pile of trivia and irrelevant detail (which contributes to the POV impression). I leave others to try to hack it all into shape. EddieHugh (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've had a read of the whole article. I agree with Ritchie333 that the neutrality tag can be removed. There is no serious NPOV problem that justifies the tag. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree the tag is unnecessary. Minor POV concerns can be raised on talk page and adjusted accordingly. Probably best to remove it soon since this is a high traffic article. Jolly Ω Janner 18:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. The article will be on MP shortly after the result is announced. There will be high traffic both in readers and editors so it is very likely that any remaining minor issues will be swiftly dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Current event tag

I removed this tag a little while back, because I can't foresee what major changes will occur to the article. Seems like there's just going to be an in/out result and gradual flow of responses over the next few days. Pinging @Mjroots: as editor who recently added it. See {{current event}} for guidelines. Jolly Ω Janner 19:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly a current event, with a healthy turnover of edits. The second bulleted point on {{Current}} states As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day... This is my justification for the addition of the template. Should there be consensus against this position, then I'll not stand in the way of its removal. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No Gibraltar in map

Why hasn't Gibraltar been added in the map as well? I'm sorry for not noticing it earlier. The region should be shown equally in the map. It shouldn't be omitted because it is far away from the UK. 117.199.88.199 (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see something that looks like it...Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@De la Marck: Oops sorry, didn't realise that. But it's because it's presented in very small size. Can someone enlarge it so it is better visible? 117.199.88.199 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Projection vs. declartion

"BBC News declared a victory for Leave at 4:39 AM (BST)." I changed this to "projected" a victory. Nothing has been declared. Media outlets project victories, or they predict results. BBC World Service radio is using the word "predict". Dcs002 (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

BBC now reporting that it is "mathmatically impossible" for remain to win. Official results can't be far away now. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Jenny Watson made her statement, so the times and projections are moot. It's officially history now. Dcs002 (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

The Flag of Northern Ireland was used from 1953 until 1973. Since then, it has had no official status and is not used by the current Northern Ireland government nor by the British government. --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The correct flag for Northern Ireland is the one for the United Kingdom as a whole. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the correct flag for Northern Ireland is none whatsoever. There is no official flag, and using the UK flag isn't neutral, it's a unionist symbol. —ajf (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As above. Neither of the main cliques in Northern Ireland consider it a "country", the one identifies with the British flag and the other the tricolour. The football team uses the 1952-73 flag, but remember that football is sectarian and many NI Catholics support or play for the ROI. Wikipedia's symbol for the NI Portal is a silhouette of the area because there is no consensus on a flag. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland states "The only official flag of Northern Ireland is the Union Jack, which is also the flag of the United Kingdom as a whole". Are you all saying that the article is wrong? Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any flag in that section - what value does it add? We can avoid the NI flag issue, by just removing decoration entirely.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Results map color - shouldn't leave be green?

Why is remain colored green and leave red? I know that this is not a "yes"/"no" question, but shouldn't the coloring be the other way around? In referendums, green is usually the color used for the population that accepted the referendum, while red is when the referendum is rejected. Wouldn't a "leave" vote technically be accepting the referendum, as there would be a change in the status-quo? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please contribute to discussion above, where outright replacement of green/red with something else is proposed.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, the map uses red for leave and green for remain, so don't just switch it out without changing the rest. I've undone your edit for now, let's wait and see what the consensus will be. Rchard2scout (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a fair and interesting point which you have raised - something I support. Brythones (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the above discussion, so I thought I was the first one commenting on the colors. Regardless, my stance remains the same. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Um.. what is your stance now? It was opposition to remain - green / leave - red? That's null and void now, or would you prefer to revert to red/green instead of blue/yellow?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

UK spellings

Could someone registered please adjust the spelling of 'Euroskeptic'? UK spellings are patently more appropriate on this page - and arguably for this word in any normal context.

Agreed. This is a page on a British thing, and a Euroscepticism has nothing to do with America at all. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The map

By voting region

By voting area

By voting area (shaded)

the same (voting area) in orange

the same (voting area) in red and green

Why was the previous more detailed map (United_Kingdom_EU_referendum_2016_area_results.svg) changed to the current one (United_Kingdom_EU_referendum_2016_area_results_2-tone.svg)? The former could at least fit the more in-depth article. Oh well, it has been reverted now. Any thoughts about which one should be chosen?--Adûnâi (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't change anything back or forth, but think the shaded map is too complex and detailed for the main article's infobox, and the colours don't follow our colour convention. It's fine for the results section and the in-depth results article, though. A medium-complexity results map, with three or four shades explained in a legend, might be the best solution. --PanchoS (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The green/blue map is utterly unsuitable for this article IMO. The colours don't match the article text (why green?) and you can't tell what colour Gibraltar is. I also favour less graduations.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we keep this within one discussion? This matter is already being discussed here Brythones (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Map granularity and shading ≠ colour scheme; also it doesn't seem there's much progress. Having a link to that related discussion, is a good thing though. --PanchoS (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have made a map simply be recoloring the excellent map of Mirrorme22 and Brythones, using the default orange color scale of Inkscape. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Fauzty: I understand that we don't have a clear consensus yet, but when replacing the map in the infobox, would you please use a more specific edit summary than "image position", and not mark it as a minor edit? Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

At the moment I prefer the current version to all proposed alternatives. Brythones (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Added red and green. Brythones (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also favour less graduations (... if I am eligible to vote here ...). --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

please add the brexit x flag, that has an x in the place of a star - thanks

No. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Disregard Yougov poll

The Yougov poll is not representative nor reliable, 1) because its sample size is much too small and 2) because Yougov even offers monetary incentives to participants. It is bound to be skewed. Any reference to it therefore needs to be deleted. --Cancun (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Effects of results on Stock Market

It would be interesting, given that some companies' leaders publicly declared they would vote to leave the EU, such as JCB, and others to remain, to see any cited figures for effects on shares in these companies - in short did pro-Brexit led companies fare differently to pro-Remain led ones?Cloptonson (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears the German and London Stock Exchange will continue to fuse, but the new HQ will now move to Germany. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Results of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Manually placed by Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

"United Kingdom of England and Wales"

Multiple news sources and political analysts have stated that in the aftermath of Brexit, Scotland and Northern Ireland will secede. This of course is due to their preference to be with the EU as independent republics.

The U.K., as we know it, will be no more. Not even Great Britain will be spared! This analysis should be incorporated into the article. Cheers. --66.87.118.217 (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The article could mention the renewed push for Scottish independence, which is coming from the SNP leadership. The NI proposal, I think, was from one NI Irish nationalist, for a united Ireland, and was shot down in London and Dublin. Further speculation on the future of the UK doesn't really belong here. Wikiain (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the volume of informed (and uninformed) speculation that will arise and be reported in reputable sources in coming days, weeks and months, I'm sure there will be a need for an article on Implications of British withdrawal from the European Union - but it doesn't seem to have been started yet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

More petitions to secede

After London, Cambridge also has its own petition to secede now which has reached a thousand signatures within a few hours: [1] The signees comments indicate that they mainly fear for the EU funding for the university and the city's other research facilities. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Green check mark VS red cross --> POV cencerns

Why is the green check mark at the top of the infobox used for "remain" while the red cross is used for "leave"? Objectively speaking, wouldn't it be better and more NPOV if it were the other way around? The British people "accepted" the referendum by voting to leave the EU. If they "rejected" the referendum, that would have meant a vote for the status-quo, which is remain. Having the check mark and cross in the way it is now seems quite arbitrary and potentially POV. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed that - I'm going to try and remove the tick and cross entirely, as the referendum was fundamentally "A or B" not "yes or no".--Nilfanion (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

They are still there, though. Tvx1 16:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made the relevant change to the template to resolve. – Steel 17:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Steel, the green check mark is still there. Tvx1 18:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I know. Shortly after I removed the green tick from the template, someone manually added it to the article. I've been waiting for someone else to revert that. – Steel 19:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#Referendum_wording deals with the question of the referendum . So "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"[57]" Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Greenland

Out of curiosity - was there any mention of Greenland's withdrawal from the EEC/EU as a starting point (unless the online petition mentioned eg here [2] leads to anything)? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Media menitioned it. eWe could have an analysis page of the questions being asked of the Norway or Swiss model that mentions this?Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Civil society opinions

Hello, the article mentions the opinions of political and economic organisations. But what's the opinion of civil society organisations? Trade unions, human rights activists, environmentalists, churches? --88.147.99.47 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

afaik the general public don't matter to Wikipedia only official authorities do, although if there is a big enough amount of sources for the general public, feel free to add info I think :) --86.150.169.149 (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is important. For notable bodies with RS they ought tobe added.Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV 24/06 16:57

This article is about the UK leaving Europe, it is not about Nicola Sturgeon wanting independence for Scotland. Her comments may be valid in the reactions section, but placing her comments to the exclusion of others smacks of soapboxing. I have removed the comments to their correct place, but have been reverted without comment. For the record, no comments in the lede is what I would prefer and if there are comments then the president of the EU and David Cameron should get precedence over Sturgeon. Op47 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The Scottish Government's announcement of having started preparations for a second independence referendum in direct response to yesterday's events is the single most important outcome of this referendum, has received large amounts of media coverage, and needs to be mentioned in the lead section (where it is mentioned only briefly in the last section). If anything, it should be mentioned more prominently, not less. A prolonged process of renegotiating England's relationship with the EU which is likely to take several years and which could result in a situation not too different from today is not likely to profoundly change the EU, but (rural) English voters' decision to make Britain small again and trigger a new Scottish independence referendum will be of lasting significance. --Tataral (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The single most important outcome of the referendum is the UK will cease to be a EU member state. A potential Scottish independence referendum (both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament could prevent the SNP from actually calling one) is a second-order impact, on a par with Cameron's stepping down. For now, the immediate impact on the markets is the biggest consequence to date.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, the UK doesn't cease to be an EU member at all by this referendum alone, and they haven't even invoked article 50 at this point. In historical significance, the UK losing almost half of its territory and ending an over 300-year union with Scotland would be of far greater importance than anything that might happen to their relationship with the EU in several years' time, if the parliament should decide to leave the EU and if the UK should invoke article 50, and after the years of negotiations which would result from that (the results of which are unknown, but which are not likely to be a complete withdrawal from everything European as imagined by the English anti-EU far right). --Tataral (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This is all in the land of the crystal ball. We should state what has happened or what we know will happen before we go into speculation. We know it will lead to a change in the government, and it has had an abrupt effect on the stock market. It will almost certainly mean the UK is no longer a member of the EU (who knows what that distinction will mean). Any number of things are possible from Brexit, such as a snap general election, an end to the United Kingdom, and an end to the European Union. There is a similar chain of events around a Scottish referendum - if the Scottish Government decides to call one, and if Holyrood approves it, and if Westminster allows it to happen and after the years of negotiations Scotland ends up quite distinct from rUK then it is high impact. Otherwise - Scottish independence could be as much as non-event as Brexit.

Please don't try to guess at the historical significance of future events either - only the future can tell that. If an effective world government exists by 2100, or if World War 3 happens - both Brexit or a UK disintegration are unlikely to be significant (unless they affect those events).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The mst important part of this referendum is cearly that the process of Article 50 now has the legitimately to get theball rolling. Scotland's reactions are important and they can go in the appropriate place of the article. the lead merely SUMMARISES the article.Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the result should be higher up in the top section?

Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and have attempted a re-edit accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There are consistencies on election articles tha build upchronologicall.Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:INTRO. The most important aspect of this is the result, and that needs to be given precedence in the opening paragraph, rather than being lost within the third or fourth paragraph amid a description of less critical matters. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent table

The main table is inconsistent: the percentage 72.21% does not relate to the part of the registered voters from the total votes like every other percentage data in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.139.196 (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Farage's False Promise

In an interview with Good Morning Britain the day after the vote, Nigel Farage backed away from the Leave campaign's signature pledge to spend £350 million of European Union money on the National Health Service and called it a ″mistake". Similar back-pedalling comes regarding a reduction in immigration from other Brexit advocates. Many people voted for the Brexit based on knowingly false claims by the Leave campaign. That should be mentioned in the article. Stefanhanoi (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, maybe in "Issues" or "Debates, Q&A sessions and interviews." --Tataral (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland counting area(s)

There were a total of 382 counting areas for the election, which included Northern Ireland as a single area (see the electoral commision results). I know that individual constituencies did local counts, but the official count was just Northern Ireland as a whole. That makes me think we should just display a single area when discussing national trends (such as in the overall results map). However, when it comes to talking specifically about Northern Ireland, its fine to give the greater detail.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nilfanion: I agree with you on this! The official map should show Northern Ireland as one area and then the Northern Ireland section should contain the breakdown of constituencies. The NI result was announced in one announcement in Belfast. --st170e^talk 00:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Template for marking articles and text that should be changed when the United Kingdom actually leaves the EU

Is there a template that can be used to mark articles that should be changed when the United Kingdom actually leaves the EU?

As we all know, the UK hasn't left yet and it will take a while (years?) before it does, so changes that should be made in articles when it happens cannot be made yet.

The reason I write this is that I just stumbled upon List of European islands by area where it states that Great Britain is the "Largest island of the European Union". This is currently true and will continue to be true until the UK actually leaves the EU. But it might not be so obvious to remember that at that date that specific article about islands should be changed. And I imagine that other even less obvious articles, maybe about butterflies or whatnot, could show up where changes will be required when they leave, and that it would be convenient to be able to mark them already now when people come across them, so it will be easier to find articles that need changes when the time comes.

So I was thinking if there is a template that can be transcluded that would mark the article as requiring changes when the UK actually leaves the EU? I.e., a template that adds it to a specific category. Or, the category could just be applied directly, of course.

Or, if such a template (and category) doesn't exist yet, whether we should make such a template and category?

It could even be several templates, including an inline one that could span the specific information to be changed within the article so it could be even easier to locate the specific information when the time comes.

Maybe it could even be possible to state within the transclusion using another parameter what the inline text should be changed to when the time comes – in this case the text could automatically change on the specific date, using date-controlled automation in the template itself.

In the mentioned case about the islands (just as an example), something like this could be stated, meaning that the text would be removed automatically at the specific Brexit date:

{{until-brexit|Largest island of the European Union.}}

or (mostly to illustrate what a new text could be, even though probably in this case the text should just be removed):

{{until-brexit|Largest island of the European Union.|Was the largest island of the European Union until the United Kingdom left the EU in {{brexit-year}}.}}

Maybe a similar inline template could also be useful:

{{after-brexit|New text}}

to be used like this (again the example is not the best, but just for illustration):

{{after-brexit|Was the largest island of the European Union until the United Kingdom left the EU in {{brexit-year}}.}}

After the actual Brexit date has passed, all used template transclusions could be automatically removed by a bot and be replaced with the optional replacement text. There would be no hurry in this, as the template itself would have automatically replaced or added the text on the specific (currently future) date that the UK left the EU.

So

{{until-brexit|Largest island of the European Union.|Was the largest island of the European Union until the United Kingdom left the EU in {{brexit-year}}.}}

and

{{after-brexit|Was the largest island of the European Union until the United Kingdom left the EU in {{brexit-year}}.}}

could both be changed into this by the bot, with no human interaction required:

Was the largest island of the European Union until the United Kingdom left the EU in {{brexit-year}}.

What are your thoughts about this?

--Jhertel (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON — JFG ^talk 09:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It is worth compiling a list of affected pages (especially lists and templates), but changes to articles should be avoided until at least Article 50 is invoked, or better still when the actual date of Brexit is known. This is not a bot-friendly job, as many of the jobs require more complex tweaking. For instance if you remove a British entry from a top ten list you need to re-number the rest and identify a new number ten (as here). Images will need adjusting and so on. That makes me think best to mark the articles, not the specific text.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Politics does not change geography. Great Britain is the island formed of mainland England, mainland Wales and mainland Scotand. No need to change anything related to Great Britain should Scotland leave the United Kingdom. It will still be a part of Great Britain, which is still part of Europe, in or out of the EU. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

In geographical terms. Though the legal entity "Great Britain", along with "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", would cease to exist. Wikiain (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Update Londependence figure

Please update the Londependence petiton figure! There are legitimate secondary sources reporting they've reached the 150,000 mark within less than 48 hours: [3], [4], [5], plus the guy who's started the petition has opened a fund now to hold rallies and such: (again, can't link because change.org is blacklisted here). In the comments, people talk about the parallels with other city states such as Vatican City, Singapore, and Monaco, and about technicalities, such as that an independent London should immediately join EEA and the EU later.

Also, any reason to still not mention the "copycat" Cambridge petition when there are secondary sources reporting on it? [6] Again, it may also be relevant that the signatories mainly worry for the EU funding for the university and the city's other research facilities. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-binding?

I notice that there has been some back and forth about the presence of the word "non-binding" in the first sentence. The current reference used to support this wording (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887) doesn't seem to directly address the issue. Was the referendum binding or non-binding? Or perhaps something more complicated? Edgeweyes (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom (and hence the way European Union Referendum Act 2015 was [not] drafted) means the result cannot bind parliament. Then there's also EU Treaty, it is for the UK government to activate Article 50. The result of the referendum itself doesn't. UK Parliament can also just repel European Communities Act 1972 (UK), breaking its treaty commitment, but that doesn't provide for an orderly transition to all sides, and [probably] unlikely. -- KTC (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Theory and reality are often miles apart. Yes, Britain's parliament could theoretically ignore or try to subvert the results of the referendum. And in theory HM the Queen has the right to withhold the "Royal Assent" from bills passed by Parliament. In practical terms either action would almost certainly precipitate a constitutional crisis. Every single RS source that I have read (and that has bothered to address this scenario) has made it clear that there is close to zero appetite in Westminster for going down that road. In short, it aint going to happen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No - Tony Blair passed legislation thru parliament that stripped the royal family from ANY power of gov't whatsoever. The last vestiges are gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.4.61 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually he did nothing of the sort. Perhaps you are confusing Britain with Sweden where the King has indeed been stripped of all authority. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

KTC, I just want to mention that many readers of this article don't know anything about parliamentary sovereignty or other UK legal principles. For the benefit of us non-Brits, I think it's important to assume the reader doesn't know about such things, and leave the phrase as it stands. (I'm not sure whether you were actually stating a preference or simply offering an explanation though.) Dcs002 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Answering the question above as stated. I haven't even looked where in the article the phase is used. -- KTC (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The first line. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia hence technical and legal it is an advisory referendum. The plolitics of the issue (that it wil go through) is a separate issue.Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The non-binding nature of this (and most other) referendums in the UK absolutely needs to be mentioned. But I am not sure I would put it in the opening sentence. It might well cause readers to believe the referendum is purely advisory in nature. In reality the leaders of all the major parties, excepting the SNP, had pledged to respect and abide by its results. As I noted in my initial post above, Parliament can theoretically ignore the results of the referendum. In reality, as numerous sources have noted, any attempt to do so would almost certainly provoke a constitutional crisis. This is simply not going to happen and we can't leave readers under the impression that it is in any way a realistic possibility. I suggest moving the reference to the non-binding nature a bit father down in the lead with appropriate explanatory background. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I have no problem placing "non-binding" somewhere other than the first sentence, as long as it is in the lead. I also like Lihaas's use of the term "advisory referendum", but the uniqueness of this situation needs some explanation. It is de jure non-binding, yet it is de facto binding. I don't know whether an explanation of this nature is appropriate for the lead, but it should be somewhere in the article where it is obvious to the reader. If an explanation exists somewhere in the article, I don't see it atm. Dcs002 (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

After the Brexit vote there have been several statements from Argentina with claiming the Falkland Islands.--23:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)QuasiPerlach (talk)

Yes, there have been Argentine statements. But are they actually related to Brexit in any way? These just look like the regular ones that occur in the UN Decolonization committee, the sources provided for the Argentine position did not mention Brexit.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

They were published on 23 June 2016 and the Brexit is named as occasion.--QuasiPerlach (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The UN Committee passed a very similar one on June 25 2015. Just because the meeting was about the same time as the referendum, does not mean Argentina is reacting to the result. When we have a post-referendum reliable source that saying something like "because of the Brexit vote, the Falklands issue is more pressing" then its worth including.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Spellcheck

econmic is not a word, and I am unable to edit it. Would it be too much to ask that the elite, who can edit, use a spell checker?93.155.222.244 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! --st170e^talk 14:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

referendum is not legally binding

I couldn't find the part where it states the non-binding character of the referendum - did I read it over? [7] --Rabenkind (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No referendum in the United Kingdom is binding, due to parliamentary sovereignty. This referendum is no exception. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone in our international readership knows that referenda in the UK are all non-binding, but many of us are still following this very closely. UK officials who have spoken publicly about the results in media that I have been listening to (BBC World Service radio mostly) have been treating this result as if it were absolutely binding, that the people have spoken, and their will must be carried out. It might not be binding de jure, but it seems to be binding de facto. Dcs002 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no British referendum is technically legally binding but they are treated by parliament as if they were and as parliament is sovereign they are for practical purposes legally binding. A lot of things work like this in our country so it will only serve to confuse readers if you state it unless there is already widespread confusion about it and the article is clearing it up. EEEEEE1 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

My most recent edit explains the non-binding aspect and provides a useful citation (The Guardian) that discussed this aspect. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote: The simple answer to the question as to whether the EU referendum is legally binding is “no”. In theory, in the event of a vote to leave the EU, David Cameron, who opposes Brexit, could decide to ignore the will of the people and put the question to MPs banking on a majority deciding to remain. This is because parliament is sovereign and referendums are generally not binding in the UK. An exception was the 2011 referendum on changing the electoral system to alternative vote, where the relevant legislation obligated the government to change the law to reflect a “yes” vote had that occurred. No such provision was contained within the EU referendum legislation. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Article 50

This is currently an article on a short-lived Dutch party, but I think this should become an article about the process to withdraw. Currently, there's only one mention of it in this article, but I'm sure in time this would become the primary topic. Thoughts on its stand-alone notability? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Came here to mention this, need to mention the debate about the process of invoking it. Not before October it appears.Lihaas (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Started a move discussion for Article 50 here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a Wikepedia article about Article 50: Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union. Perhaps we should make sure there are links to that. Will that solve the problem re: inadequate explanation of the procedure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union Peter K Burian (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A new article just appeared discussing Article 50; very useful: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/who-will-dare-pull-trigger-article-50-eu Peter K Burian (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

UK renegotiation killed off

Cameron's renegotiation of the UK's membership of the EU has been officially killed off by the EU. Should this be in the article? Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Not certain where. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath? Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

OK I added a paragraph about that in the section Notification of intention to leave the EU. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Market reactions

Can we get some graphs of the market reactions? Preferably covering the full campaign period and aftermath? Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Brexit

I propose to rename this to "Brexit". Nobody in the entire world is going to look for and type in "United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016" and there are NO reliable sources using that term. It is a made up Wikipedia term. Those words can still be used in the first sentence of the article as a description. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a redirect from "Brexit". Wikiain (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Whiskeymouth: Please see the RM discussion here and add your vote and argument to the list. Thank you. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 05:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Whiskeymouth (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks: I've now removed the redirect from here. Wikiain (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Responses and Reactions

These two subsections are very similar, no? Should they be merged? plasma_turkey_48 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems Responses are in response to the proposal of the referendum, and Reactions is in response to the outcome? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Could we make that clearer in the subsection names? "Reactions to the result"...? Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Similarities with Scottish Independence referendum

I wonder if it is worth noting the similarities between the Brexit referendum and the Scottish Independence referendum in terms of their appeals to democracy, national identity, kicking the establishment and xenophobia. In many respects the only difference between the two (beyond the obvious disparity in resources and the fact that Brexit won) was that the fashionable metropolitan elite (and therefore the social media and the young) supported different sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.236.87 (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over Gibraltar

I noticed that recently the mention of Gibraltar was removed from the section on reactions to the recent referendum, citing the fact that this information is covered in the article on international reactions. However, Gibraltar remains under British sovereignty and is not simply a land mass claimed by Spain, and thus it would seem imbalanced to defer any mention of this reaction to a small section of the second article. A casual reader searching for this information would not be able to find it without scrolling through the voluminous second article. Secondly, all the other areas of Britain that voted for Remain are covered in the reactions section, in context of separation from the UK or of questions relating to the future of sovereignty. It would thus seem pertinent to mention the reaction of at least the representative of Gibraltar, within this main article. 116.216.30.52 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, not an "area of Britain". It's a special case, but its affairs should not be considered "domestic" within Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That said, they had the vote in the referendum, which I think merits placement. KieranTribe 14:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

UK influence in the EU

"The UK immediatelty lost influence in the EU. An extra summit was held amomg EU prime ministers a few days after the referendum, but David Cameron was only allowed to take part in a part of it. The European Commissioner Jonathan Hill from UK had to resign two days after the referendum, and his portfolio was taken over by Valdis Dombrovskis."

There are no sources quoted for the EU summit excluding DC, I've goggled the story, the only summit that is mentioned is on Wednesday (29th June 16), and is from Sputnik...

Also, Lord Hill chose to resign he did not have to. The whole section comes across as non-neutral and should either be removed (or heavily amended). White&BlueWasp (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that the wording was inappropriate, and Hill was already mentioned in another section. However, there may be some content here that would be appropriate: this cite quotes Hill and might be useful. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

Should they be domestic or international:? They sit in Dublin too.Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the answer is that they are de facto both, though no doubt they prefer in some ways to be considered as international. Can we not refer to them in both sections? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue primarily concerns somewhere that is, for now, part of the UK, so I suggest it should be domestic. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dublin is in Ireland and not the UK. Therefore this should be international. Op47 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

They also hold seats in the UK Parliament. A pragmatic approach would be to include them only once, in the first section that mentions them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for results colours

As a suggestion can we not use green and magenta as the colours for the results? The magenta colour with black text is not readable to the visually impaired and the green colour insinuates a "positive" result for "remain." I would suggest something like #FF5722 and #3F51B5 as the two colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.80.199.91 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

For others' reference, those look like   and  , respectively. —ajf (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to protest at the use of red and green. Roughly 8% of men have some form of red-green colour vision deficiency (by far the most common form of colour vision deficiency) where we find it difficult to tell shades of red and green apart. Of all the two-colour combinations to use for a map like this, red and green should be the last choice given how many people have difficulty with it.

As stated in the Wikipedia article on colour vision deficiency: "Designers should also note that red–blue and yellow–blue color combinations are generally safe. So instead of the ever popular 'red means bad and green means good' system, using these combinations can lead to a much higher ability to use color coding effectively. This will still cause problems for those with monochromatic color blindness, but it is still something worth considering."

This should likewise apply to the use of colours on maps. Given how prevalent this condition is, the lack of awareness when it comes to design is both surprising and unfortunate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walpurgis117 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point, and I've raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps seeking further advice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This has come up at least 3 times with regards to the EU referendum now - accessibility is an obvious problem, and at least prior to the poll, it introduces POV issues when it is not a yes/no question (as green = good, red = bad).

I think this matter relates to Template:Referendum, Template:Infobox referendum and just about every other template that uses and . A green tick and a red cross work just fine for a yes/no, even for colour blind users, but once your graphics start to use green for yes, red for no its natural approach to make everything else consistent with that. This suggests a global concern to me, which needs involvement from Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums.

I'd suggest the colour gradations added to the map by User:Brythones are themselves poor. It is borderline impossible to distinguish the colours at the extreme of the scale (   ), even if you have normal colour vision. You can only really tell those apart when there is a large block; the extreme colours should not be used in this map or any other under any circumstances.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally support the red/green distinction. The Leave campaign has adopted red within it's logos and campaign material: there is nothing inherently negative about a colour, people simply apply their own meanings to it. In response to User:Nilfanion's comments those colour distinctions have been used as part of various referendum maps including the Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, the Welsh devolution referendum, 1997, the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011, the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 etc. It is not without precedent. I disagree that those colours are indistinguishable, and question whether the Leave campaign will even satisfy the criteria of taking over 75% of the vote in any count area. Brythones (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Red/Green should be avoided in any and all maps - because of the accessibility issue. As for the 75% thing, you may be right - but if you cannot tell if Glasgow vote strongly for or strongly against Brexit, when a more mute colour makes it obvious why do so?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nilfanion - we should move away from red/green. We have 11 hours to sort something out! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be worth reviewing the various news outlets to see their colours of choice. That should give us lots of choices, and we might find one we like. Blue/Yellow is one I have seen a few times. This link simulates colour-blind view of the AV referendum article - the London map looks terrible.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Any change must be done by consent. If we are to change the colours on this article this would put into question the colours used in various other referenda, including the Scottish independence referendum. I support the red/green distinction as saturation of colour is more distinguishable than other colour combinations. I also see no bias in the use of red/green. Perceiving a colour to be biased is merely down to one's own social perceptions, it is not something we can purposely twist to make one-sided: it is a colour. Red can also be understood to be the colour of love or the colour of the United Kingdom, there is no bias here. The best alternative, which I do not support, would be   = Remain   = Leave, this has been adopted by the BBC in their coverage of the referendum. Brythones (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the saturation of colour between different shades of yellow isn't great, meaning the map will be considerably more difficult to read than it would be if it were coloured with red and green. Brythones (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to a map denoting the highest and lowest extremities of the scale currently used in the map, where North Ayrshire represents the high extremity for Remain, East Ayrshire the high extremity for Leave, South Ayrshire for the low extremity for Leave and Dumfries and Galloway the low extremity for Remain. The poor quality is due to the fact that it is a png file (to quickly upload the file and avoid doing so through wiki). I believe that the distinctions represented within the map are clear. Brythones (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Brythones:, the biggest issue with red/green is not bias (a secondary concern, if we can avoid any risk of it as well then great). It is accessibility - colour blind users cannot tell the difference, so red/green is not acceptable when it is possible to avoid it, it certainly is possible to avoid in this case. Please check the link in my previous comment, or use one of the colour blindness simulators to see how bad a red/green map is for about 4% of the population.

Ignoring the fact the dark colours are far too dark, there are too many graduations on those maps - which should show the summary not overly fine detail. I'd go for 6 colours (ie "weak", "moderate", "strong") not 22. Less detail actually makes the map clearer to read.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nilfanion:: I disagree, I think detail is important and that the scale is a good model to follow. I'm not colour blind, would the distinction of blue/yellow suffice instead? My concern with using blue/yellow is that different shades of yellow are often difficult to read. Brythones (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the scale in blue/yellow (low quality due to .png file). I can implement this onto the map if it is mandated by proper consent, although WP:RFC might be a desirable course of action as these changes should, in practice, apply to all other files using the same scale. Brythones (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I also note that the scale is difficult to read with the Tritan colourblind filter (see here). Brythones (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC is not really necessary to make any sort of change, as consensus can change - I'd only argue it was required if a previous consensus was itself formed via RFC. In this case, it may be better to get it "right" on a specific case, and then look to extend it. The existing colour ramp was developed for the AV referendum.

Yellow/blue scheme is better than red/green as it addresses the most common forms of colour blindness - but is not ideal for tritanopia. I'd be cautious about your suggested graduations. In particular pale blue is a colour to avoid because the sea is pale blue. While we can make the sea white, its better to pick a choice that still works when showing water is desired.

Any of the colour-blind safe schemes at http://colorbrewer2.org work just fine. Of those options, I'd probably go for the magenta/green scheme as that is close to existing practice and avoids pale blues. That's    in a two colour scheme.

I'd also like to split out the two points here (basic colour scheme and details of the colour ramp). The first point is the one that needs to be addressed. The second point is much more complicated and is a nuisance for professional cartographers. My comment that 22 classes is probably too many reflects standard cartographic advice, as too many classes can obscure overall trends. Using equal-intervals, as in the existing colour ramp, is also potentially problematic. Both of those facts (number of classes and interval selection) when treated properly will produce a much higher quality map than saying a priori "as many as possible with equal intervals".--Nilfanion (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nilfanion: That seems fair although this cannot be implemented until after the referendum. I think it is apt that we have a rough poll of contributors to gauge whether or not the proposal is more desirable than the current model. I would retain an equal interval scale omitting unnecessary extremities if possible Brythones (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say there is already rough consensus opposing the current - the inadequacy of red/green been brought up several times independently, and no-one has actually said lets keep the current. Pinging User:Jolly Janner, User:Mirrorme22 who have commented on colour issues previously. I will remove all existing red/green and replace with the pink/green shades I mentioned above.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest going with blue and yellow. That's what BBC will be using. Jolly Ω Janner 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I will edit the scale on the map before we get the declarations back at 12, basing the changes on the established consensus here. We have three major proposals on which colour scheme should be used in the map (and subsequently the entire article).

1)   representing Leave,   representing Remain.

2)   representing Leave,   representing Remain, as adopted by the BBC.

3)   representing Leave,   representing Remain to accommodate for colourblind users.

When declaring your support for your preferred proposal please provide your reasoning for this, and give your second preference assuming your choice does not pass. Please do not attempt to edit the referendum template or article until we have consensus. Brythones (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I support 1 primarily as changing the current format will subsequently mess the precedent set by other referenda, and 3 secondarily. When we change the referendum template this will impact OTHER referendum scales, which I do not believe is necessary... Brythones (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nilfanion: I think we should reach a consensus here before changing the Template:Infobox referendum Brythones (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That sort of thing is well within WP:BOLD, we don't need to be overly bureaucratic and demand a consensus for everything - red/green to pink/green is not a dramatic change; especially when you consider that both pink/green are very similar to shades in the existing colour ramp.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiki-policy is just that: policy. There's no hard/fast rule. Wikipedia is about consensus where an issue is challenged, so I say it's best to clarify and move on. Brythones (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's true but please remember that consensus can change. There's not that many articles (half a dozen or so?) which would be affected in any case, so the amount of work involved in adjusting those is hardly a big deal.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Anything but 1. No really, who cares about precedent, when that precedent is clearly unhelpful to colour blind users? I'd also point out the suggestion below to switch the colours completely to green for Leave is a viable and should be considered. That seems logical if you think about terminology, as if the result is Leave no-one is likely to say "the referendum was rejected" (but they may say "EU membership was rejected". I'd also note that Blue/Yellow is not ideal either - as blue/yellow colour blindness is still an issue and it clashes with the sea colours when you attempt to extend it.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Support 2 (as first choice) or 3 (as second choice). Option 1 should be discounted - if that presents a problem for other referenda, so be it - colour blindness is an accessibility issue which can fairly easily, and should be, addressed across WP - per WP:COLOR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that Blue/Yellow can work for tritanopia too, provided the colours are adjusted slightly (eg to   ). See colorbrewer for a fuller palette ramp - I'd support 2 as first choice provided that adjustment is made.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The result is a tie at 2 all, I will switch over to blue/yellow, giving 3-1 support for this. --Brythones (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

My preference is for 3, as I believe we should be accommodating colour blind users. Failing that, option 2, both based on the BBC precedent (for consistency, as many readers will be referring to the BBC as well as to Wikipedia), and on the perceived neutrality of the colours. I strongly oppose option 1. zazpot (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that's going into the map. However, right now it's very hard to tell between yellow and blue at the extremes of the scale. Remain seems to go yellow→green→brown→black, while Leave seems to go light-blue→dark-blue→black. Gibraltar voted overwhelmingly for Remain, but looking at the map I can't tell which way it voted unless I zoom in very close. I don't mind using yellow/blue, but I really think we should use different shades and maybe lessen the number of intervals.

Also, instead of basing the map on the Remain share of the vote (0% Remain at one end and 100% Remain at the other), for neutrality's sake shouldn't we base it on both the Remain and Leave share (100% Remain at one end and 100% Leave at the other)? ~Asarlaí 23:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Frankly I strongly favour using just yellow and blue (a single shade for each) on the map while the results come in. When we know the range of results, we can pick a sensible scale. If there are regions with 80%+ the graduations should cover out to at least that range instead of stopping at 75%-Nilfanion (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that's helpful: saturation of colour is very important. Is Newcastle-upon-Tyne as Remain as Gibraltar? No, they are poles apart but both voted Remain. Brythones (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just my two cents: it's going to get confusing if left as is. I agree with Nilfanion. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

One problem with setting the range beforehand is you don't know the results. Is Gibraltar the only region that will be 75%+? Its best to cover the full range from 0% to 100% until the final results are known, with graduations no smaller than 5% until the final score is in. Never mind that the extreme colours are awful and you cannot tell in a thumbnail if Gibraltar is for Remain or Leave.

I intend to upload an alternate map when the final results are in, to fully address my own concerns - and will let consensus determine if its superior from the live map.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea :) Brythones (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Brythones, strength of vote is indeed very important, and I appreciate the work you're putting in to the live map. However, my main issue is that (right now) it's very hard to tell the difference between Remain/Leave at the extremes. That can be solved by changing the shades and/or having fewer intervals. Nilfanion's suggestion of using one shade for each side until the full results are in sounds like a good idea. Maybe a compromize would be to cut the intervals down to a few until the full results are in? Ghmyrtle, Jolly Janner, Ajfweb, DaltonCastle what are your thoughts? ~Asarlaí 00:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Get rid of the colors above and below 30% and 70%, replace the slight yellow for not voted with a neutral light grey, eliminate the middle lightest yellow, and use a graduated instead of a uniform scale, so there are less colors to accommodate a wider variation. 50-51, 51-53, 54-58, 58-66, 66-82, over 82 (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 18 spacing). 2601:186:303:DCA1:DC95:7C57:5CE8:29D1 (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I really want to start linking people to this map, but I can't until the colors are readable. Of course it should be colorblind-accessible, but making the two ends black isn't that much more colorblind accessible than red and green. What ever happened red-purple-blue maps? Those work well for a reason (easily readable to everyone). I think there have been several good suggestions here, and I think there's a clear consensus that we need some kind of change. Please choose a better option and implement it. GeoEvan (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

2 colours only

I will be unavailable until the morning now. Before I go I have uploaded a two-tone map with the majority of declared results so far (to right). It should be easy enough to update, and I'd prefer to see this used in article than the map of many unreadable colours :)

Brythones, if you get a moment please use back end from my map to refresh your live one - its got much better code.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer the current map being used on the main page with 2.5% intervals and shades of blue and yellow. Admittedly, it's based on the key I used for the AV referendum, so maybe I am bias. I think the range is probably going to be pretty much spot on, but will have to see once the results are available. Hopefully no more than 10% of the counting areas lie outside of the 25-75% range. Cutting it down to 5% intervals wouldn't be too bad, but multiple shades are necessary in a situation like this, because it isn't a first past the post scenario. Jolly Ω Janner 02:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the two-tone map to show the full results, and I think it is a lot on the key point (whether the area voted to Leave or not). The new map is still flawed in colour selection: 1. The intention was for Yellow/Blue, so why have we gotten Green/Blue? 2. The extreme colours are too dark, and you really cannot distinguish whether they are dark green or dark blue (look at the complaints about it here and on the file's talk page on Commons). 3. The colours are not colour-blind safe, as despite intentions here those with tritanopia can't use it. Those 3 points are all unacceptable, and are independent of both the number of classes and the intervals used.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The full map should be included in the article now - and huge thanks for doing it. We can then, if necessary, continue to discuss the colours and the proportions here. But, the article needs updating ASAP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: Trying but failing to see where the text for the key is - it needs correcting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. There was an unecessary fork of ({{Infobox referendum}} to {{Infobox EU referendum}}, which I have nominated for deletion. The standard template allows the colours to be tweaked.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Can I still say that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

could we change the map, at the moment it is not really representative as the vote was counted from the overall number, for example the map at the moment suggests blanket support for either bremain or brexit, whereas the other map showed the proportion too. Other referendum pages on wiki use the old map (see the 1975 referendum and the AV referendum maps). (Fdsdh1 (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC))

Why have we changed to a two tone map? The previous version was far more informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.95.84 (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. The map with the shades presented the information much better. The map was changed by this edit. The message of the edit suggests that some kind of consensus was reached in the talk page but I don't see anything like this. -- Martinkunev (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

See comments by myself and User:Ghmyrtle above. There is certainly a consensus for Yellow/Blue - so why would we want a Green/Blue map? The two tone map is a stop-gap. A better map is needed here but will take time to develop. IMO, its better to have an "ok" map that shows less information, but shows it well, than one that shows a lot of information, but does so poorly.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

but that other map presented the information as it was, at the moment the current map looks like Scottish independence propaganda, Scotland was certainly more nuanced than this map suggests (leave: 1,018,322. remain: 1,661,191)! Central England was also far less supportive of leave than the two tone map suggests. We have to remember that the vote was almost 50/50.(Fdsdh1 (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC))

I agree a two-tone map is disappointing, it is a stop-gap as it takes time to develop a good map. Please think as if you weren't aware of the existence of the map with that detail - would you be annoyed? People certainly are irritated with the poor colours of that detailed map. The BBC's suite of maps puts ours to shame at the moment as it helps when you split voteshare out from result. I am starting to develop a much more detailed map - see the following sub-section.---Nilfanion (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Revered back to the old map as new one doesn't seem half as popular. I think the scale works better than I anticipated actually, the upper extremities are clearly visible. I think it would have looked better in red/green however. Brythones (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Popular is in eye of the beholder - I seen about half a dozen complaints about the poor colour selection on your map, and I've seen a similar number of gripes about the switch from detailed to basic.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

At the moment it is the choice of the majority. I see 6 for the current, 5 against, excluding around 3 thanks I have received for the map independent of this. It is clearly more satisfactory than a carpet block. --Brythones (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Majority has nothing to do with consensus, and you should know this. The important point is both have attracted significant number of complaints - so both are far from ideal. The ideal is "wow".--Nilfanion (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nilfanion, the current green-blue graded map isn't suitable. The colors are wrong, there's too many intervals and (most importantly) it's still very hard to tell between 'Strong Remain' and 'Strong Leave'. Some areas look almost white while others look almost black. The BBC have got it right. ~Asarlaí 17:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the map we currently have imo is better than the BBC which does not have any distinction on one map between leave and remain. I agree the extremities of leave and remain are an issue though. Perhaps use hue tather than tint. Yellow->Red for Remain, Blue->purple for Leave

Colour ramp

Option 1 colours

Option 2 colours

Option 3 colours

Option 5 colours

Option 6 colours

Option 7 colours

To faciliate discussion on the best colours for the map, I have created table below showing various options. This covers the range from 20% Leave to 80% Leave (with a catch-all category beyond this). I have also repeated the extreme Remain colour after the extreme Leave colour to ease comparison of these.

Leave vote %	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4	Option 5	Option 6	Option 7
0-20
20-22.5
22.5-25
25-27.5
27.5-30
30-32.5
32.5-35
35-37.5
37.5-40
40-42.5
42.5-45
45-47.5
47.5-50
50-52.5
52.5-55
55-57.5
57.5-60
60-62.5
62.5-65
65-67.5
67.5-70
70-72.5
72.5-75
75-77.5
77.5-80
80-100
0-20

I will be developing a map based upon Option 3 now. I will also make the back-end of this map easy to modify, so it will be trivial to adjust the colours. Option 3 is taken from colorbrewer2.org and is completely accessible for colour-blind users.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like no consensus was reached on this issue. I shall revert the map back once complete. I disagree with all colour scales mentioned: the first does not even flow in a discernible pattern. Brythones (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The first colour scale is the one used in your map.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded a version using the brownish/blue colours to the right. I feel it is a massive improvement on the existing maps (as well as being totally colourblind friendly). Gibraltar is now clearly a strong remain. The only thing missing is the legend, but that's easy and there is no point doing that while the colours are under discussion. An important subsidiary point - it is easy to tweak the colours of my new map with a text editor. There's a series of definitions at the start of the file which define the colour for each Leave vote %. For example if you replace:

<linearGradient id = "L50"><stop stop-color = "#543005" stop-opacity = "1"/></linearGradient> with

<linearGradient id = "L50"><stop stop-color = "#ff00ff" stop-opacity = "1"/></linearGradient>

Those areas with 50-51% Leave votes will become magenta.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no scale on the map, the scale intervals are too small, some results are wrong (eg. Aberdeenshire). I like the colour scheme but think it should follow the existing scale --Brythones (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have deliberately not added the scale at this time, but that is trivial to do so once done. That can't really be done until the scale is "locked-down".

The scale intervals are too small? Wrong term surely? They are considerably bigger at 5-10% compared to the 2.5% This allows them to cover the full range with a reasonably small palette. I think the intervals are more suitable than the 2.5% used before, though 5% across the range is not unreasonable. 2.5% across the range will result in too many colours - fitting the extras in forces you to go too dark or have pale shades that are so close together you can't see any difference anyway (losing any value from it).

If individual areas are wrong please say so (Aberdeenshire is a rounding error - 17 votes off 45%)

Main reason for the improved editability is its possible to adjust the colours very quickly once consensus has settled on exact things.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• too large sorry. I do not think it properly reflects the results in a detailed way as the current map does. The intervals seem to work quite neatly on the current map. Brythones (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

My viewpoint is too many graduations = bad, and that a more limited number makes a better image. It can look less pretty but it has higher value if you can distinguish the individual colours. Because of that I oppose any map that has too many graduations. In particular, there are no circumstances where I would support a map that uses the exact same graduations as the AV map (it can't stop at 75% when there are a number in the 75% to 80% range)

I suspect that's a point we need to agree to disagree on, but I am fine to work within any genuine consensus that develops here. If you can see how to extend the ramp sensibly, please do so and present it in the table above as a 4th option - that would be by more pale or intermediate shades not more dark ones.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nilfanion I like the scale and shades of Option 3, but I'd prefer using that scale with the blue-yellow color scheme of Option 2. We could then have a blue-yellow two-tone map and a blue-yellow graded map. In short, I think we should copy the BBC. ~Asarlaí 17:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea (having a graded map consistent with a two colour version is particularly attractive). I'll try and figure out a decent mapping - something that is easier said than done.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Asarlaí I've had a stab now at that; see above. I think the blue is good, but the yellow less so. My biggest concern with the blue is that range definitely overlaps that used for water.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that looks fine. Maybe the shades of blue and yellow (or the shade of the water) could be tweaked slightly, but I think it's better than the blue-green map we've got now. ~Asarlaí 21:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been covered. I'm a latecomer to the discussion. (TLDR) I prefer option #4. Remember that 10% of us men have color vision problems, and the most common color with which we have difficulty is green, and green in contrast with red is especially problematic. I have had difficulties with most of these color schemes because the extremes both seem dark and difficult to differentiate. (I don't see why we just don't use a grayscale.) Option 4 provides the best contrast for my brand of color vision problem, but I don't speak for all.

My main point: Remember a lot of us have green or red/green color vision problems. Thank you. Dcs002 (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: Since I brought it up, I found this link for assistive software for people with color vision problems on a NOAA (US Govt) page. It's free software, and here's the link: https://www.ryobi-sol.co.jp/visolve/en/ When the key and the map are not all on the screen at the same time, the software can't help though. It works on screen shots, and that's all you can see is a single screen shot. But in general it's been very helpful for me. Dcs002 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The map's scale must be clear and comprehensive: it must present the information in a fair and factual manner whilst also being accessible and easy to read. Within this balance we need to be ambitious, presenting as much information as we possibly can whilst also ensuring that the map is acceptable and readable for a majority of readers. I do not believe options 1, 2, 3 and 4 satisfy this criteria.

The number of areas which sit within each band of the current scale are:

• 75%+ Remain - 8
• 72.5-75% Remain - 6
• 70-72.5% Remain - 7
• 65-67.5% Remain - 4
• 62.5-65% Remain - 8
• 60-62.5% Remain - 15
• 57.5-60% Remain - 22
• 55-57.5% Remain - 17
• 52.5-55% Remain - 16
• 50-52.5% Remain - 25
• 47.5-50% Remain - 39
• 45-47.5% Remain - 51
• 42.5-45% Remain - 40
• 40-42.5% Remain - 37
• 37.5-40% Remain - 40
• 35-37.5% Remain - 23
• 32.5-35% Remain - 15
• 30-32.5% Remain - 16
• 27.5-30% Remain - 7
• 25-27.5% Remain - 2
• 25%- Remain - 1

So as we can see the upper and lower extremities have a deficit of areas. I suggest retaining intervals of 2.5%, with intervals of 5% towards the extreme ends of the scale, which will avoid making the extreme parts of the scale unreadable while also allow for a good deal of intervals which will provide more information to our readers than the other options shown. I have added options 5 and 6. Brythones (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with options 4 and 6 is that the blue is too similar to the background colour. Brythones (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Option 7 added: my personal favourite, taking the yellow/orange for Remain from option 6 and adding it with the blue for Leave from option 5. Brythones (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

16 is too many graduations. There is no real benefit to showing 2.5%, you could just as easily say every 1% or 2% is important. More colours is just eye-candy, not actually adding real value. I also think Gibraltar needs a distinct colour; there is a very clear break between 4% and 21%.

The blue leave shades should have a similar saturation to yellow remain, so if viewed as greyscale a 40% remain looks near identical to a 40% leave. The two-tone colours should be brought in line after the fact.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nilfanion: I disagree, two-tone is far too simple and unnecessary: as I have said the results need to be concise. I believe option 7 is concise. Attempting to simplify the map when it is not necessary is not helpful or desirable in my opinion. Brythones (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Option 7's scale seems to work with Deutan, Protan and Tritan filters. Brythones (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying 2 is ideal, I'm saying that 16 is too many. I would be supportive of 8 to 12 colours (one of which needs to be to cover the extreme vote of Gibraltar - its not right to give Gibraltar the same colour as Foyle), until you get into that range I will continue to oppose any suggestion. And please also use the better template map (provided by the option 3 map, it is a LOT easier to manage); extending it to cover the 0.5% brackets is trivial.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I can alter the map to give Gibraltar its own special colour if demanded. Working in 2.5's is the best unit measure in my view as it brings it neatly up to the mark in a satisfactory manner. --Brythones (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You can say that about any measure (eg why not use 3% :) ) but 16 classes is too many classes. Do not tie yourself to the 2.5 - that is just what has been used before.

Also note that in your most recent attempt the blues are too dark - A 70% leave vote should be about as dark as a 70% remain vote. That skews the appearance of the map as the Leave vote looks much stronger than the Remain.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree: I'd say that's relevant for option 3. Brythones (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Option 3 was may be slightly off, but its close. However, #7 is visibly far worse. Convert the images to greyscale: Stirling (66% remain) is then a middle grey, fairly close to the middle grey of Powys (54% Leave). In contrast, North Lincs (66% Leave) is almost black. Those colours are not remotely balanced.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Converting to greyscale only option 2 would suffice, and I think it's far too simplistic and misleading. Brythones (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, duh - converting to greyscale loses replaces two colours with one. Its an objective test to check the colours are good, not a serious proposal of an actual colour scheme. If a greyscale-test fails, then the scheme is no good. #3 is the only one to pass that fully, while #4 is fairly close. #1 and #5-#7 fail utterly.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Brythones, thank you for checking the deutan, protan, and tritan filters! I can attest as a deutanope that 5, 6, and 7 are all quite clear to me. I will not weigh in on the percentages(2.5% vs 5%) to be covered by each color, but I do strongly favor the gradations in 5-7. And if 6 is meant to appear even at the extremes on a grayscale, I would be more partal to #6 then, but still happy with either 5-7. Thanks all for considering color vision! (I don't often see that in other venues.) Dcs002 (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to re-post so quickly, but looking at the maps, I have to say that, while 5 & 7 are quite clear and easy to distinguish, it does indeed seem skewed in that the blues are darker, and they seem to represent a greater extreme in voting differences than the yellow(?) Remain colors. The Remain colors all look generally less striking, less sharply divided that the Leave colors. Again, that's just my color-impaired impression. Dcs002 (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dcs002: I agree re-Option 6, I think it's the best option so far only I'm concerned that the lighter blue shades are too similar to the background colour. I personally like the colour scheme, and think the new map for Option 6 I've added is suitable. Brythones (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded map to right, and will add this to article(s) as clearly better than existing version. It's the same basic hues as Option 6 above and is fully suitable for colour-blind users. However made the following tweaks:

• Precise colours have been adjusted to make them approximately equal lightness. Vote strength in the Central Belt now (correctly) looks comparable to the result strength in the East Midlands. Gibraltar is also visibly darker.
• Graduations are still symmetrical and give roughly an equal number of areas in each category.
• Removed the water colour; its not worth retaining when light blue is clearly needed for the map itself.
• Merged Northern Ireland into a single area, which it was for purposes of the official count.
• Adjusted size of the Gibraltar inset and legend to make them more readable at thumbnail scale.
• Adjusted legend text to be neutral (about remain and leave not just remain), and to ease translation (@Furfur: should be easy enough to convert to German if you wish).

I have also added to article now, and see no point adding to the table above (which is overly complex now and at almost all schemes included will never be used).--Nilfanion (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Nilfanion:, this is a really nice map and the color legend is much simpler and easier to read. Thank you for notifying and I will certainly translate it to German. One could do this using <switch> elements. Would this be ok? --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 07:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Furfur: Feel free to do so, I'm always keen to improve my SVG coding!--Nilfanion (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely superior than the previous version, although I would prefer option 6 to be implemented with the colour scale at the top-left enlarged, Gibraltar enlarged and darkened and the removal of the blue background. Brythones (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The graduations are too small in the current map. I will be updating option 6 and then uploading it: Northern Ireland should be shown by UK parliament area, as the results were announced as such before being announced as part of the Northern Irish count area. Brythones (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I oppose all of your suggested changes. The Remain yellows in Option 6 are too pale relative to the equivalent band of Leave blue, which as not true of this map. More graduations than in this map are not a good thing. As for Northern Ireland - there were 382 counting areas with Northern Ireland as a single area. The fact local counts happened does not mean they are the official counting areas of the referendum, which is what the map should display.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, no consensus has been met. Your map is a superior to the previous map but it is too simplistic: I believe there are far too few colour graduations. The BBC among many other media outlets have presented the Northern Irish results by UK Parliament constituency, which is how they were declared before being declared as part of the Northern Irish local count. Brythones (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus here that's true - as I have said we are going to have to agree to disagree on the number of graduations. That consensus will have to come from other people, arguing further with me will not achieve that. Frankly, most people will not care as this is approaching the point of being WP:LAME. Too many graduations is a bad thing, it may look prettier but it doesn't add value if it obscures the broader trends. Cartographers invariably recommend a strictly limited number of classes (7 is generally too high for a single tone map).

As for Northern Ireland, read the Referendum act (in my previous message). Yes there were local counts, and yes they were available first. But this is not a live map now, it is a map showing the full results. So it should show the official results, on the official areas used.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for either of your points: I think it is important that we inform our readership as best we can, ensuring that the map is CONCISE above all else. I have completed my proposal which is shown to the right. It works with the Tritan, Deutan and Protan colourblind filters. Brythones (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And concise means more - how do you figure that out? I could quote any number of textbooks which say why too many colours are bad, so I will choose one: "If a shading scheme has more than six hue steps, map users will find it difficult to recognize precisely which class is shown on the map, even when they compare it to the legend."

Seriously Northern Ireland was a SINGLE coutning area for the purposes of the EU referendum. Of course the BBC would have shown the results by constituency on the night - as a news outlet they aren't going to ignore a constituency declaration and say "we can't report it until the whole of Northern Ireland declares". We are not a news source, but an encyclopedia; we should report the overall results on the official areas used.

I sense more than a bit of ownership in your attitude here now, your work on referendum night was very good but it doesn't entitle you to have your image (if a better one exists).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In respect to your claims of ownership I refer you to wikipedia's BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy. You concede, as I do, that no consensus has been met on this matter: I don't see any justification in suggesting that this matter should be closed within the space of one/two days as "people will not care", or that claims that my version is better/your version is better: we should consult other contributors and attempt to reach some consensus on this matter. Countering your own point that colour scales should not exceed more than six hues I refer you to this Visual business intelligence newsletter on some guidelines on using colour, where 8 hue steps are used. In colorbrewer a maximum can be 9 shades may be used within sequential colour scale. Option 1's map is clear and readable in my view. As I have said before I believe presenting the Northern Irish results by UK Parliament constituency is perfectly reasonable as the count was conducted and declared in that manner before the Northern Irish local total was declared, and that it is in the interest of our readers to have this information represented on the map. Brythones (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no chance of us fully agreeing and if we continue to argue there isn't a chance that someone else will participate and the issue will never be sorted. I disagree with you on the number of brackets, but does it really matter? Edit warring over if a map has 11 or 16 colours is definitely WP:LAME territory. I'd never choose to have as many colours in your version, but its hardly end of the world. Likewise, if you step back a bit I doubt you really object to the more limited number in mine - its just you'd prefer some more. I'm pretty sure no one else cares!

The biggest issue remaining is if the colour palette is skewed, it gives the impression of bias. The greyscale (monochrome) on colorfilter helps to see this, if its not already visible to the eye. Compare the Borders and Northumberland: On "your" map they are near identical shades despite being 2 brackets apart (one in the 52.5-55% range and the other 57.5-60%). That suggests a skew to Leave, as Remain regions with a relatively strong result match the shade of Leave regions with a significantly closer result. On "my" map the Borders are correctly and visibly darker to the eye, despite less brackets being used. Mine isn't perfect as the shades aren't identical, but as each Remain bracket is closest in shade to the equivalent Leave bracket I think its good enough.

Northern Ireland is easy to fix on either map, but its really not worth the effort to fiddling with colours any more (unless both maps are unacceptably skewed). We should just use the map with the best balance to the shades, and if needed, adjust Northern Ireland on that map. Northern Ireland needs more input on a very simple question: Should the constituencies be shown or not?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The problems are...

... #some# leading figures on both sides lied and others did not think through logical conclusions, several issues were conflated into the referendum vote, and no plans were made for a 'low majority exit' vote with significant regional preferences. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A reminder that this is not a forum to debate this topic. Discussions should stick to improving the article. This is Paul (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Lead

WOW The lead is getting way to large and is rapidly approaching article size by itself, some if not most of it could easily moved into the body.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Calls for another referendum

I wondered if this might be worth a brief mention in the reaction section. A petition started this morning calling for a second referendum has apparently already surpassed the 100,000 signatures needed to trigger a parliamentary debate on the matter. The volume of signatories also crashed the Downing Street website. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely worth mentioning, for now at least in the reactions section. --Tataral (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

ok, I've added it. This is Paul (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of more referenda, the section about the Status of London should be updated. That other petition has also passed the 100,000 mark within less than a day, which is certainly more than "several thousand". I wish I could link it here, but seems like change.org is on the WP blacklist? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, is one *MILLION* signatures within a day enough to warrant an update of the figure here in the article? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

In a n-on-primary source.Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are indeed a number of legitimate secondary sources mentioning the passing of the one million mark: The Guardian, BBC, The Telegraph, Bloomberg It seems this is the fastest-growing petition in the entire history of the UK. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

What may also be relevant is that the petition is basically using Farage's own reasoning from before the referendum day: [8] Before June 24, Farage openly said that in case of a 52:48 outcome (which is exactly what happened!), he'd demand a new referendum for lack of representativeness and he'd only accept an outcome of two thirds. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The figure is past two million now. I guess the Farage thing is worth a mention, though I imagine he'll have a rather different opinion now. I'll see what sources I can find anyway. This is Paul (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Independent article be enough? After all, the Independent points out the inconcistency in the Leave camp to do with Farage's original statement, especially in relation to the fact that the outcome really happened to be 52:48, only the other way around than Farage had originally assumed. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"An online petition calling for a second EU referendum has stormed past two million signatures – amid claims it is being rigged by Remain voters.
The petition on the Government’s website has amassed more than 2.3 million backers since the Brexit vote was confirmed on Friday.
But the huge show of support for a fresh vote has prompted accusations that the petition has been “fraudulently” manipulated."please see here --93.130.135.132 (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If the petiton was really rigged, then it would be a rather sophisticated scam, as the geographical distribution of signatories pretty much resembles that of the Remain voters: [9] Though I must admit that that map showed it more obviously until circa the 1.5 or 2 million mark, as ever since then, the percentage of signatories from the Cities of London and Westminster has disproportionately grown, forcing the map to keep the darkest color to that place when priorly, it could also be seen in places such as Cambridge, Oxford, Manchester, Liverpool, Bath, Norwich, Newcastle upon Tyne, Belfast, and, surprisingly, Edinburgh (after all, Scotland's gonna stay in the EU one way or the other). It basically showed pretty much what one petitioner at the Cambridge petition has dubbed the "League of English Euro-cities" that we'll probably see pop up in case Brexit is gonna go ahead as planned. Also, is it really a "fresh" vote if the petition has been around since 2015 and only got traction once the referendum had resulted in Leave? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that the data for the petition can be received from here [10]. The Vatican has 40,000+ signatures for a population for ~1000 people. No sophisticated scam is necessary, clearly a bot is signing up false persons. It wouldn't also be surprising that the numbers are in general inflated. If false signatures can be signed up in the Vatican, then for those who are more thinking will change the locations to London, Westminster etc. 220.253.211.5 (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

How is it even possible for people outside of the UK to sign the petition? Or are you suggesting they enter a UK residence when actually they're from somewhere else? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Anybody can sign the petition, as long as you claim to be a British citizen or UK resident. The petition is worthless.
The Daily Telegraph:"Second referendum petition: Concern as call for new Brexit vote gains more than 39,000 signatures from Vatican City - population 800", here--93.130.135.132 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In response to 79.242.222.168

1) I presume the purpose of the other country box and allowing overseas users to sign the petition is so that overseas British citizens can still add their signatures. Even if those signatures are excluded and you restricted the data to persons from the United Kingdom it wouldn't stop persons within the UK signing up multiple times or non-citizens voting.

2) My principle suggestion is that the majority of signatures are not real persons at all. I presume someone has just written a piece of code to automatically add signatures. It would not be hard to do. I think the previous presence of impossible numbers of persons from certain locations illustrates strongly that this is the case.

It is worth noting that the group who is responsible for the administration of the petition has removed some of the overseas signatures that were impossible (Vatican City was previously 40,000 and British Antarctic Territory was previously 20,000). However the previous presence of these numbers show that a large majority of signatures may not be real persons at all. I think it is worth updating the article with the Telegraph Article submitted by 93.130.135.132 220.253.211.5 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I updated that section within the past hour. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: "Computer bots were able to use scripts that automatically signed up hundreds of thousands of fake signatures by using the same UK postcode - many of which were the Palace of Westminster's SW1A 0AA address." here --93.130.128.144 (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If we can find another source apart from Daily Mail then by all means this should be added, but since no other news outlets have reported this so far then I'd leave it out for now. This is Paul (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems unlikely as all signatories have to confirm their identity by an email sent to them. Just what you might expect from the Mail.Charles (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. One would assume the petition software would at least be able to detect duplicate email addresses, if not names and postcodes. In fact an easy test for anyone to try at home, I guess, even Daily Mail readers? I was assuming there was also some government bot checking names and addresses against the Electoral Register? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I didn't like to say it quite like that, but Charles does have a point. The only other article reporting this story I could find (perhaps the original source of it) is this one, and since we include the founder of that organisation in Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists then I'd question exactly how reliable that is. This is Paul (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, right! Just what you might expect form the Mail "A user on the infamous internet for 4Chan admitted orchestrating the sabotage after another noted the petition was rising “literally at 10,000 new votes per minute.”", here "The hacker said: “That was all me. I voted 33,000 times. Left a script running while I was taking a shower.”"--77.10.8.107 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Those article (the two we can use at least) quote the 77,000 figure, which is what we should report here. As for the Diana Express, well that falls into the same camp at the Daily Mail, I'm afraid to say – not a reliable source; and we've already included information about Vatican City. This is Paul (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"But it now appears likely that 4Chan hackers used “auto-voting” software to add in huge numbers of false names." --77.10.8.107 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

4Chan is also mentioned already, and once again this is a source we wouldn't use here, due to it being a red top, as well as questions concerning its reliability. This is Paul (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

77,000 votes represents less than 2% of the current total. Now that the count is being fully scrutinised, any further fraud seems very unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Just to clarify what I said earlier, the story I was referring to was the one about there being "hundreds of thousands" of fake signatures, which does not appear to be reflected in the majority of reliable sources. This is Paul (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the article should mention that "anybody" can sign the petition, not just UK citizens "or" residents (the latter not being eligible to vote in the referendum):
"The website’s only identity “test” is a simple checkbox asking to confirm you are either a British citizen or that you are a resident of the UK. While postcodes are required, street addresses are not and no proof of ID is needed.
People from different countries have been tweeting that they signed the petition. Mark Mennell, who is Australian and used to live in the UK, used his old postcode to sign. He said: “Anyone in the world can do it, it seems ... It’s a complete farce.” Meanwhile, some UK residents have been tweeting to encourage followers from other countries to use their postcodes in order to let them add their names to the list.", here --77.10.8.107 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't want to give this particular topic undue weight, which is what we risk doing if we add too much information. Also, this is not a how-to guide on signing Downing Street petitions. This is Paul (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently the article makes it look like, as if the petition was only signed by people who are eligible to vote in the referendum.--77.10.8.107 (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the article discusses the Vatican City incident at length, then I disagree. Such information might be relevant to an article about this petition, or on Downing Street petitions in general, but not here, not when the article is already almost 200K in length. Mountains and molehills spring to mind here. This is Paul (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Petition redirect

I may be inviting trouble here, but I've just created a redirect to this article from EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum, the title of the current Downing Street petition causing much discussion in the media at present. As I write this the number of signatories to this petition, calling for Parliament to debate the prospect of a second EU referendum, stands at 3,982,657, making it by far the most-signed petition since the site was launched almost a decade ago (the previous largest attracted its millionth signature in May this year). Although this petition almost certainly has no chance of reversing the results of last week's referendum, I believe it has attracted significant enough attention for us to consider an article about it at some point in the near future. However, any such article would, due to the nature of its topic, need to be closely monitored as it would undoubtedly attract those with strong opinions. I've given the redirect the title of the petition itself, though I don't know if that would be the most appropriate as an article title. Alternatively, on a wider scale there is scope for an article about the Downing Street petition process itself. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Now 3,985,147! A stand alone article could certainly clarify eligibility - e.g. that one does not have to be on the electoral register, but just be a UK citizen (which might in itself raise an interesting question, since it pertains to the validity of an official referendum)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC) p.s. is there an age requirement for "UK citizen"?

Interesting question. Presumably not, since apart from giving your name and postcode, all you need when signing it is to tick a box confirming you're a UK citizen, then click on the link in the email it sends to your chosen email address. This is Paul (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. If there were a requirement, one might expect to see it clearly displayed. I can't believe there are sufficient resources normally in place to check the ages of all those who tick. I'd be very interested to know many of the 4 million+ were under 18. But it seems we will never know? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Stock Markets

As we try to be an encyclopedia and not a newspaper (or stock ticker), let me suggest that we delete references to sudden stock changes. I inserted a comparison of the UK indices with the other major European markets to see the relative changes--other market fell more. I relied upon the stats of a well-respected financial editor [ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/brexit-worse-europes-economy] and it was removed. I understand, it was mentioned in passing in an opinion piece. But then I looked at one year charge of all the major indices, the the fluctuations during the year were much greater. This may be noise. Let's wait. BTW, exchange rates are another matter. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what you mean, but the overall "sudden stock change" (the largest in history in one day) [11], regardless of when the noise abates, will always be an encyclopedic part of this event fallout. Together with the currency change and the ratings change. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

From June 14th the FTSE went up in anticipation of a "remain" vote as people "buy on the rumor." It lost some but not all of the gain in one or two days but is still up since the June 14th low. News stories don't do an analysis. When the analysis is done the "correction" to the head-fake "remain" polls will be talked about in context. Incidentally, the DAX is slightly below its June 14th low. The net change is a normal fluctuation. When history is written by an intelligent financial analysis, the stock index story will told correctly or completely dropped. We are falling into the news-trap. While we can't do original research we should be more than "transcription monkeys." We should hold off until everything is in. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The unprecedented loss in history will always be the unprecedented loss for the rest of history. Sure someday, something else might come along and best it, but that will be still the worst day, up until that day, and will always be unprecedented with respect to what came before it. Now, whether there is a bust or a boom following in the months ahead will be a part of history too someday, but not in an article on the immediate reaction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm genuinely baffled that anyone could make arguments a market fall wasn't relevant to include as a reaction to the Leave vote because the market had risen in anticipation of a Remain vote and because other European markets also fell in reaction. I mean, those are arguments for why it is relevant to the vote. The June 14th low was the date the Leave campaign stormed ahead, incidentally; obviously the possibility of leaving had been priced into stocks for a while Dtellett (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What big drop? The FTSE dropped 2.5% for the day after the vote. That's nothing. A correction is 10% and bear market is 20%. The drop was sudden because the information was a total surprise. There was another 2.5% down day and as of this moment the FTSE has gotten all of that back. The real story is the DAX which is still down 5%. That's what was in the link I provided. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

An expert on television last night stated that the FTSE 250 Index is the best indicator of the effects on the UK economy. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point. [12] That tells a very different story than the FTSE 100. But that's my point. We need to do more research and wait until this is sorted out. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, now markets are anticipating government stimulus, why government stimulus now, because in part the historically huge [13] sudden drop worldwide. Still, nothing now or going forward will change the fact that that happened. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The BBC are now (6 pm) reporting FTSE 100 closes above pre-Brexit level. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we provide external links to the relevant stock markets, e.g. [14]? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the relevant time period[15]. Because sources make the unmistakable direct connection between the historic drop and the vote we do in the vote article. But things going forward about where and why of stocks are a whole host of other intervening things -- not the vote, but multiple intervening stuffs like the price of oil, government actions/inactions, etc. Then too, at some point we also have to pivot away from the vote article and go to the Brexit article to discuss the ins and outs of who/what/where now. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You probably realised the time period can be user-set. I was thinking of providing this as a tool for readers, rather than using it to support content. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a frozen frame because won't it just move on and on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My intention was to provide a source which is ongoing. It was just a thought. Perhaps WP is not the place for this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As a general principle, we have to be careful not to mislead the reader by the choice of what we write and how much context we provide. An investor may know the importance of looking at the time period: if shares go up 2% a day for a week and then drop by 10% in a single day, it may be appropriate for a daily newspaper to report just the 10% drop; however a weekly may report that share prices are virtually unchanged over the week. Also the general reader might need to be made aware that five increases of 2% followed by a drop of 10% does not leave the price unchanged. Also the reader may need to be made aware of the translation effect of the exchange rate: shares on the London Stock Exchange might be up on the day because they are priced in sterling but down for international investors because the drop in value is effected by the falling exchange rate. If the rules on original research mean that we can only present the raw facts, we may occasionally choose to present no information rather than knowingly present misleading information. Journalists have different goals and readerships, so we can't just follow what the sources say without exercising editorial judgement. --Boson (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point. Here in the UK, we have a history of Sunday newspapers offering more details and context to the week's events. It will be interesting to read the Sunday papers this week and the reporting of the crash if, e.g. the FTSE continues to rise. It would be nice if we could limit our content to using these Sunday papers so that we are not adding day-by-day changes. However, I realise this has next to no mileage in it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You both have good points. And thanks DrChrissy for pointing out the value of the FTSE 250. Here's another article on the misleading value of the FTSE 100: [16]. Perhaps we should have less on the FTSE 100. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Joint statement

In the section Racist abuse and hate crimes there is a sentence With Anne Hidalgo, the Mayor of Paris, Khan released another statement highlighting the "shared history, shared culture, shared challenges and the shared experience of being one of just a handful of truly global cities." My reading of the article here is that the joint statement relates to "the way forward" and has little if anything to do with the racist crimes. I therefore deleted it, but this has been reverted by another editor. Please discuss whether this should remain in the article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the joint statement was actually published in the Financial Times and they say, "In cities we celebrate our diversity and see our differences as a great source of strength. Our cities are places where everyone, whatever their background, can feel at home.".Zigzig20s (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't access that - it is pay-walled. Even so, that quote is a general statement and not necessarily related to the increase in racist crimes seen shortly after the referendum. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

THe statement can be accessed for free if you search google for "In cities we celebrate our diversity and see our differences as a great source of strength. Our cities are places where everyone, whatever their background, can feel at home" (in quotes). It still looks to me like a general statement which makes no specific reference to the racist incidents. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's a context. The Evening Standard article explains the context.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the context is clearly the resulting effects of the referendum in general. The Evening Standard chose to place this in the context of an increase in racist crimes, which I do not believe was the intention of the 2 mayors. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"diversity", "differences", "background"...Zigzig20s (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So where is "racist", "hate", "abuses", "crimes" or "Increase"? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Instead there is "diversity", "differences", "background". Please read the Evening Standard article to understand the context. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

But the words I suggested are not in the original source. The Evening Standard was making a connection between the two where none existed. There are already concerns that this section of the article is too long and it is partly for this reason I deleted it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not too long at all. No need whatsoever to trim it. It could probably be expanded. And yes, diversity means diversity. No need to go around in circles about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

???Racial hate crimes section???

Someone just added that section. I am tempted to Delete it. But perhaps others feel it has merit. Comments? Peter K Burian (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I would remove it too. This is just a summary of key reactions. Sadly, minor racist hate crimes occur daily in the UK and there's nothing in the article to suggest a major increase. Jolly Ω Janner 17:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This has been acknowledged by Baroness Warsi and a Labour MP will raise the issue in Parliament. There have been more than a hundred hate crimes specifically about Brexit. The main targets seem to be Poles (slavophobia) and Muslims (islamophobia). Wikipedia is not censored, and there are reliable third-party sources about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend condensing it and focusing on the fact that it was debated in parliament. Certainly don't need the details of a single incident. This is a very large article and really ought to focus more on the referendum and not anything and everything related to it. More than welcome to find other articles where it may be appropriate. Jolly Ω Janner 18:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely appropriate and relevant here.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I hate to delete a section someone has added and would not do so without strong support from many other editors. (It's too soon to tell since we have not had many comments about this yet.) I recommend Jolly's approach: "condensing it and focusing on the fact that it was debated in parliament. Certainly don't need the details of a single incident" Peter K Burian (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I added some additional specifics, already covered by the Independent citation. Needs more work however. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The two anti-Polish/slavophobic incidents were widely reported in the media and investigated by the police. I think the section should be expanded and not condensed. These 100+ hate crimes are a direct result of Brexit, as the perpetrators mentioned the referendum each time.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Zig, Breaking away from the European Union will have dramatic ramifications not only in the UK but other countries. So far, an estimated 2 trillion dollar loss to the economy, for example. Smaller topics may deserve coverage too, but not at great length, in my estimation. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, your opinion is not important. We rely on third-party sources on Wikipedia. The uptick in racist hate crimes has been widely reported in the British press.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining how Wikipedia works.... Next week we will know if any other editors have strong feelings about this topic or not. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Seen the number of incidents explicitly linked to the Leave outcome and the widespread coverage in national and international media of them, I agree with Zigzig20s that the article needs to mention them. I would also agree that we need to avoid focusing on individual incidents unless covered heavily. Whether the section needs expansion will depend, I guess, on whether there are further incidents and coverage. Morgengave (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely have a section and there is no need to focus on the Parliamentary debate. Reliable sources are reporting on this and clearly linking the reports to the referendum result. Some mention of specific incidents seems fine to me. How else do you illustrate what has happened? Bondegezou (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

2-3 trillion dollar loss to the economy, but "In Wales, a Muslim woman was told to leave after the referendum, even though she was born in the United Kingdom." Life is a bitch. --93.130.135.132 (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

These are anecdotes, and those which have been reported must go through due process. There is no reason to document each one, and certainly not to expand such a peripheral section. Just say how many were reported, and give the police/political reaction. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bondegezou that those widely reported incidents should be restored to illustrate what is happening all over the country as a direct result of the referendum.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have undone this edit and restored referenced content. Please start an RFC if you disagree, but do not delete referenced content again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zigzig. These have been prominently reported by reliable sources in the UK: e.g., front page of The Guardian website, front page of Sky News, front page of BBC News' England section. As ever, we must follow reliable sources rather than the personal priorities of editors. Bondegezou (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There should be no mention of racial hate crimes unless they are determined as directly related to this referendum. Maybe the fact hate crimes are being reported after the EU has to do with race being important to the media in the aftermath, rather than it occurring owing to the referendum or its aftermath. Correlation does not imply causation. --Sardinefig (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The linkage between race hate crimes and the referendum is up to reliable sources to decide, not us. And reliable sources are making the link, so we should report that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of good sources easily found. The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) has said that there has been an increase in reports to True Vision, a police online hate crime reporting site. Between Thursday and Sunday there were 85 reports - a rise of 57% compared to the corresponding four days four weeks ago. The NPCC said the figures only take into account reports made through one mechanism, and this should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57%.[17] Although there appear to be more incidents of racism in recent days, it is not clear whether there has been an actual increase since the referendum, or people are just reporting it more.[18] Bazza (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This is also relevant. Bondegezou (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Twitter is making the "linkeage" not reliable sources. The rise in racism cannot be linked to the referendum in any way.--Sardinefig (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is complete and total consensus in third-party sources that it is. Confirmed and condemned by the Prime Minister, Polish Ambassador, Mayor of London, etc. This is not debatable.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I live in the UK right now and this is all over the news at the moment. Discussed several times on the radio just during my journey home. As far as I can see, all reliable news sources have one story about it, some have many. Yes they make the link directly. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this section is being included on basis of a few overhyped piffling incidents, can we have a section stating the remainiacs stood on the right honourable Jo Cox MP's grave in order to win sympathy for their camp? In the interest of fairness and non-biasedness of course...--Sardinefig (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find any reliable sources echoing your personal opinion. So, no.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If you look at zigzag20's userpage,, you find he has called people racists for deleting a black persons wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zigzig20s/Archive_11#September_2014. I wouldn't trust him on mentioning racial hate crimes in this article, he is clearly massively biased in his own left luvvy opinions.--Andanotherthink (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment. Instead, we rely on reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Australian republicanism

There is a paragraph in the article entitled "Australian republicanism". I removed it; Zigzig20s reverted that. It seems to me not to warrant coverage. The link to the referendum result is tenuous. It is not something that has received sustained reporting from multiple sources, as other elements of the article have. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE both suggest to me that it should go. Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth getting the opinion of an Australia-based editor on this to see whether there has been any significant perceived change in the size or influence of the longstanding republican movement at all, as opposed to some people who had always held republican views using it as an opportunity to comment. There's certainly no logical connection between EU membership and Australia's symbolic links to the UK (these obviously pre-date the EU, and are entirely unrelated to any minimal benefit Australians might obtain from the UK remaining in the EU). Dtellett (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a response to the Commonwealth "dream", but it's been removed. So perhaps we could remove this too.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from Oz. That was just the leader of the Australian Republican Movement doing a bit of piggy-backing in a sympathetic newspaper for which he is a (mainly sports) columnist. I don't think he proposed that Australia leave the Commonwealth of Nations, but that the Brexit vote shows Australians how we could be more independent-minded about sharing the British monarchy. His plea was never likely to attract much attention since there was a federal election on (happening today, 2 July) and the monarchy is not a significant election issue. So I agree that the section didn't belong. Wikiain (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)