Open main menu

50 pence Brexit celebration coinEdit

Can someone add in a section and find out what happened to this>

50 pence Brexit celebration coin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been delayed - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/16/commemorative-brexit-coins-delayed-amid-confusion-date-departure/ Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting that the dates are 1973–1998. Is that just to mark it as a sample, or has Brexit really secretly been going on since 1998? SpinningSpark 13:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
As the caption says.... "A commemorative 50p was issued when the UK held the presidency of the EU in 1998". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Quitling?Edit

Can someone add in why leavers are also referred to as Quitlings? Is it linked to Quislings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is - but it's not a very widely used term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Unbalanced tagEdit

There was a lengthy discussion last month in March about a tag for the article to indicate that concerns had been expressed among various editors. The editor John Maynard Friedman stated on 17 March 2019: "Being bold, I have changed the tag from template:npov to Template:Unbalanced because IMO the latter is a better reflection of the dispute within Wikipedia terms."

A month later, I don't think the dispute within Wikipedia terms has yet been resolved. Indeed, there is nothing in the talk page archive or in the current talk page to state that the various editors who expressed concerns are now happy that the issues have been settled. Therefore, until there's a consensus that the issues have been resolved, I'm restoring the Template:Unbalanced tag which was removed from the article on 19 April 2019 (UK time). Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an argument that this amount of time is sufficient to contribute as much properly sourced balancing material as there is. However, given that this is fractious topic, I propose that the tag be removed on 17 May (no two week extensions!) as two months is certainly enough time for the challenge to be addressed: at the end of that time it will be reasonable to suppose that the article reflects the balance of opinion of wp:reliable sources (which may not be the same as reader opinion but that is not Wikipedia is about). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this recommendation. POV and other tags are expected to be temporary measures and are not intended to be a "badge of shame" for the article. The onus is on whomever tagged the article to propose and add balanced content within a reasonable time frame. If this time frame is not met due to inactivity or failure of the person tagging to address and correct the article content, then the tag should be removed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I think these are unreasonable tactics which prove that this article is unbalanced.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Brexit/Archive 7#Change of tag and the lead paragraph at WP:TPG. If you have issues re the article, please participate in resolution of these issues through improvement of the article as improvement is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:Unbalanced and Template:POV clearly states as Wikipedia Policy that, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." This is policy and is not unreasonable tactics. If the tagging editor cannot propose text or changes to address the reason for the tag then the tag can and should be removed after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I thought one of the main issues was not just the balance of brexit and remain positions in the overall text, but the prominence of the remain arguments in the lede, which has not (and it seems is not allowed to) be addressed Jopal22 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The article is titled "brexit" so it predisposes that much of the article will focus on leaving the UK since "remain" is assumed to be the status quo absent brexit. It just naturally flows that leaving would garner more of the articles focus since "remain" simply means maintaining the status quo (single market/customs union). More remain arguments and materials would enhance the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It was I who put the "unbalanced" tag on, not because I actually believe that the article is unbalanced (I don't), but as a way to break the deadlock over the POV (oh yes it is / oh no it isn't) pantomime. "Unbalanced" explicitly invites those who feel that one viewpoint is not adequately represented to actually do something about it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The tag you originally placed was removed by editor User:Sunrise several days ago. The newly placed tag was put there by User:Kind Tennis Fan, so it now falls to them to propose and assist in making the necessary changes to justify the tag. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
(Summoned by ping) Yes, that's correct. If a discussion about improving the balance of the article does not materialize within a few days (or materializes but stops later on), then any editor is permitted to remove it again. Saying that an issue is not resolved is not considered to be a valid reason to keep it. If the issue is intractable, especially on such a highly visible article, then it should be brought to the neutral point of view noticeboard so that it can be resolved. Sunrise (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have added and remain positions to the article lead in an attempt to deal with the unbalanced tag and the issue of a lack of remain arguments in the article lead. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't work. We'd need reliable sources for those positions (ideally ones that demonstrate that they're relevant and represent substantial mainstream thought on the topic.) And even then, they need to be added to the body before the lead. Also, even if we do produce opinion cites to support the idea that eg. people arguing for Brexit are arguing this (which is something we could mention somewhere), I object to placing it in the same paragraph as economists and other experts - it'd clearly be WP:FALSEBALANCE to try and weigh op-eds and the like against reputable scholars we can cite for statements of fact. We'd either need to find similarly weighty non-opinion sources arguing that position, or construct the sentence to make the consensus of mainstream economists more clear. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently there is no active discussion of any issues on talk; therefore, it's entirely appropriate to remove the tag. If you feel there are still issues, you need to start (or resume) discussions to try and resolve them - but the purpose of those tags is to alert readers of active discussions on talk that they can participate in, not to serve as a red mark against the article. More simply, if you want to restore the tag, you need to identify specific, actionable problems with the article that you think should be addressed, and actively participate in discussions about them. From a quick glance over previous discussions, I don't think there's an actual POV / balance issue; it feels like people are arguing for WP:FALSEBALANCE, ie. they want us to put "both sides" equally in the lead regardless of their coverage in reliable sources. That's not how WP:NPOV works - the final paragraph of the lead summarizes sections cited to high-quality non-opinion sources and mainstream experts, so we'd need similar sources disagreeing with them to present it as an active debate, and not just eg. here's an opinion columnist who doesn't agree with what the economists say. Mostly, if people do think there's a balance issue, the best thing for them to do is to try and find high-quality sources that represent the position they feel is omitted from the article. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the tag should be removed. There is a valid concern that the article lacks remain arguments in the lead, but I view this as more due to the nature of the article (it's about brexit and not "bremain") so it follows much of the article will focus on the leave arguments. But I also think the article is fine without them. Since I am involved in the discussion feel free to remove the tag. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, my sources for this content are the youtube videos of Jeremy Corbyn's speech before the House of Commons following the second Brexit vote. He cited fears of a recession and The Brexit minister is the source of the comments about free trade agreements post-brexit. My sources are UK lawmakers. I can quote the youtube video since the positions of UK MP's are certainly reliable and authoritative. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Brexit" page.