Talk:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

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.

References

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)

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)

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)

Off-topic

It is a shame that all discussions only circle around money. Instead: What is Britain against Russia, China, or the US? What is Europe without Britain? (May be cancelled tomorrow evening. Thanks for the patience so far). HJJHolm (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the EU declaring it to be time for a regime change in the UK.

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)