Jump to content

Talk:People's Vote

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"various representatives of civil society"?

[edit]

What does "various representatives of civil society" mean? TuckerResearch (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The self-appointed "voices of the people" haha. Sumorsǣte (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an ideal phrase, perhaps, because it could be taken to imply that those with different opinions are uncivil (though personally I don't think that's the intention and the meaning of civil was "relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters" rather than "courteous and polite"). Bearing in mind that Talk pages "are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject", if you've got a better mass descriptor of a loose agglomeration of MPs, actors, comedians, business people, etc. with a common opinion, feel free to suggest it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since nobody can really tell me what it means, and you agree that it implies those who think oppositely are uncivil, I have changed it to the generic, NPOV "and several others." TuckerResearch (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to your rewording, but for the record I don't agree that the original wording implies that Brexiters are uncivil. I said it "could be taken to imply" that, which is not the same (and I explained why in my original comment). Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you agree it could be taken to imply that Brexiters are uncivil. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you choose to deliberately misinterpret it. Look, I think it's a bad choice of words because it is open to misinterpretation. But it wasn't a deliberate slight. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps linking civil society would help. --Boson (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Why not "and other public figures"? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I still don't understand "civil society" - are there barbarians that didn't get to speak?" Yep. Captainllama (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment above. "Civil" has two meanings and you are assuming one when the other was intended. There is no implication that Brexit supporters are rude or uncouth – "civil" is being used in its sense of "relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters". But since the word is ambiguous, there are probably better ways of expressing it. I don't have a problem with "and other public figures" or "and other figures from public life" or something. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my flippancy above. With respect, surely the term and concept of "civil society" is not difficult, obscure, or arcane? Surely to confuse the term with "civility" is obtuse? In the inevitable case of a reader who is unsure, I have acted on User:Boson's practical suggestion to wikilink the term. The connotations and nuances of civil society are germane to the article subject, more so than the vaguely defined term "public figure" or "public life". Captainllama (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This thread reminds me of the WH Auden poem: "Private faces in public places / Are wiser and nicer / Than public faces in private places". Words have different meanings in different contexts. Civil society is a stock phrase, it does not suggest that other people are uncivil. Nevertheless, I agree that it's an awkward phrase, and I much prefer 'and other public figures' as a more elegant way to say the same thing. GirthSummit (blether) 15:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that it is an odd phrase. To say "various representatives of civil society" implies that all of civil society is behind the issue. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a particularly odd phrase and I don't think it has the implication you take from it, but I've changed it to "and other public figures" which seems (to me) to convey a similar meaning without the potential for misunderstanding. On reflection, I don't even think "civil" is a particularly appropriate term here anyway (since the implication of "civil" is usually "not military" or "not religious", rather than "not party political", as presumably intended here). Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who

[edit]
The idea of the name "People's Vote" implies that the Brexit majority was fake. So its a pro-vote group that doesn't honor the previous vote. And there is a contingent of anti-Brexit people who don't understand the point of Brexit is that British monarchy and global democratic money don't mix. What do American and other non-British sources say about the rally? -Inowen (nlfte) 21:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, what does the political language look like? The anti-Brexit group is calling themselves pro-European. What is the composition of this group, is it sincere? Some may be, but other's simply may be anti-Brexit, with anti-democratic roots.
pro-Brexit anti-Brexit
"anti-Euro" "Pro-Euro"

--Inowen (nlfte) 22:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A month after the referendum, 11 July 2016, the philosopher Onora O'Neill appeared on A Point of View: After the Vote, in which she criticised the standard of public debate on both sides of the European Union decision and asked how this democratic deficit could be repaired. She said the following (my italics and bold):
"Unless the media make a range of views, and evidence, and arguments available and provide the context and commentary needed to assess them public engagement will start off on the wrong foot. If the media ignore, caricature or rubbish some positions, or sneer at, or deride evidence that they dislike democratic decision making is hardly likely to work well. Yet it is commonly assumed that the media have no civic duties and that a free press is simply a press that is free to publish whatever its owners and editors wish to publish provided that it is within the law. I think that this view confuses rights of self expression with rights to press freedom. Both freedom of self expression and press freedom are covered by the twentieth-century term "freedom of expression" but they are quite different. Rights to self expression are for individuals and we often follow John Stuart Mill in thinking that individuals should enjoy well protected rights to express themselves as they choose, which should be restricted only if their self expression is likely to harm others, as in Mills' famous example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, where there is no fire. But Mill did not think that powerful institutions including the media have rights to self expression, after all they have no selves to express. He argued that a free press matters for different reasons and above all because it can support discussion and debate by ensuring that the public encounter a wide range of relevant evidence and opinion and can check and challenge what they read, hear and see. Press freedom is essential for civic purposes rather than to enable the press to express itself. If we are to have adequate standards for public debate we need media that take their civic responsibilities seriously. The media often acknowledge this civic duty claiming that their task is to hold power to account but during the referendum campaign large parts of the media joined in the campaigning activities of the powerful, rather than in holding them to account."
Which begs the question - was any of the referendum democratic? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there restrictions on promoting a change of government in England? For example, free expressions which call for an end to monarchy. If so, then there is no point in listening to the subjects of that nation whom do not call for a change of government.-Inowen (nlfte) 02:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Inowen: There's an article on Brexit and an essay in my own user space, which describes some of the processes for removing party leaders/government involved in UK (rather than just English) politics Brexit101 that you might be interested in. Note: There are no primaries in UK politics so Theresa May can be replaced as leader of the Conservative Party and therefore as Prime Minister at any time. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
there are absolutely no restrictions on that. Indeed the leader of the labour party is a republican:: 109.145.59.85 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "People's Vote" is a kind of fluffy invention intended to disguise the fact that it is just another referendum. Another referendum is no more or less a "people's vote" than the first one. The article should make this a bit clearer. 109.145.59.85 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'People's Vote' is the name of a political campaign group - of course it's an invention, and of course it's intended to make their desires sound reasonable and democratic (or fluffy, if you like). And no, there are no restrictions preventing UK subjects from calling for an end to monarchy - there are groups within the UK campaigning for just that. However, let's stay focussed - this talk page is for discussion about improvements to the article, not general discussion of the topic. GirthSummit (blether) 06:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever are you talking about, "calling for an end to monarchy"? Let's stay focussed. This thread is for discussion of the points raised, which are relevant to the article, not for your random ramblings. 109.145.59.85 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look two comments above your previous one - it's not all about you. GirthSummit (blether) 08:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Soubry and Michael Brunström

[edit]

I'm reverting this again as I've added a speedy deletion tag (WP:G11) to the article Michael Brunström If the article's creator thinks Brunström's article should not be deleted for G11, they may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion" and explaining why they believe the page should not be deleted. Also the only source is his own (unverified) Twitter account. I'm also deleting Anna Soubry, she is already named in the article as a backer of the campaign so I'm not sure why she is being singled out for a second mention here (the Sky article mentions multiple supporters and would be WP:OVERCITE to include it as a third reference). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Brunström's article deleted in this AfD. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wooferendum

[edit]

see c:category:Wooferendum for images of a recent protest. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with 2019 People's Vote March

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems may not pass the criteria of WP:N(E) to have an individual article B dash (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PutItToThePeople listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PutItToThePeople. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

[edit]

@MichaelMaggs: I'm not sure why People's Vote needs a short description when Leave Means Leave doesn't have one, particularly when "UK campaign group" doesn't really say what the group does. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The Vintage Feminist:, you can find more details of Short Descriptions, and their purpose at Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions. Most articles don't yet have one, but eventually almost all will. I've added one to Leave Means Leave now, as well, and added back the description here. In both cases I've used text from the article lead, which I expect represents current editor consensus. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MichaelMaggs:, I understand the purpose of Short Descriptions it is the text that I think is wrong. If all UK campaign groups are to be given a short description of "UK campaign group" and all UK pressure groups are to be given a short description of "UK political pressure group" then it would be better not to add short descriptions as they are not accurate enough. The most important thing in both articles is one is pro-Remain and the other is pro-Brexit. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Vintage Feminist: The descriptions don't all need to be the same, but they do need to be short as they are intended to supplement the title, not to be a complete article-description in their own right. I've added a little more detail to both, but don't think that 'pro-remain' would be right here as the organisers are are very definitely not giving a public platform to those who are arguing for immediate A50 revocation. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelMaggs: I prefer new one but I do think it be even better if it were blank as per WP:WikiProject Short descriptions#What if a short description is redundant? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't see any reasonable argument that a SD is redundant here, which is the situation when a SD might be left blank. "People's Vote" on its own conveys very little to an uninitiated reader; the additional text "UK campaign group ... " tells the reader what type of entity this article covers. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All I see from SDs is a magnet for vandals diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's just as true for Wikipedia itself, so... Captainllama (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sold on SDs generally, I just see them as a solution in search of a problem, so... --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, probably better to bring it up there rather than here. Captainllama (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019 Election

[edit]

I've removed a lengthy, unsourced section about the December 2019 election because it seemed to be going into far too much detail for an article about this subject. A short, referenced section mentioning the People's Vote campaign's reaction to the election (if they had one) would probably be a good thing, if it could be sourced properly. Please discuss content here rather than reinstating the section. GirthSummit (blether) 10:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Vote&oldid=1207039115"