Talk:Endorsements in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

British Overseas Territories Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Section for neutral endorsements[edit]

Would it be useful to have a section for individuals and groups which have chosen to remain neutral in the article such as many of the UK supermarkets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.206.59 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many businesses have commented on the referendum but refused to endorse either side. These were also included in the List of endorsements in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 article. Mirrorme22 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed U.S. politicians (censorship)[edit]

Some CIA agent here suppresses information about U.S. presidential candidates who support Brexit and whose sources clearly cite that they're anti-EU. That secret agent already once tried to suppress relevant information about EU-critical parties in the article Euroscepticism. Please block that agent forever and add the U.S. politicians back into the paragraph. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith in others' edits. Accusing editors of being CIA agents is both rude and preposterous. If you can be civil, you are free to explain why you think the citations that were given are sufficient, because I read them and they do not show Rubio or Cruz endorsing a Leave vote. Bondegezou (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I explain it as you know everything and your boss only tells you what excuse to tell me in order to suppress worthy information? All three sources stated clearly that Rubio, Bush and Cruz are in favor of Brexit. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the CIA, Wikipedia relies on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. That is why some US politicians have removed. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What shall that mean? Do you think I wouldn't know you're also a masonic agent full of hatred? There were reliable sources until you deleted them. You both suppress information which, according to you, is favoring Brexit. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the mention of Jeb Bush because the reference given quoted him as saying "Great Britain is a sovereign nation, and they must make this decision about their relationship with Europe on their own. The US should not be putting a thumb on the scale and certainly shouldn't bully an ally. That said, as president, if Great Britain made that decision of course the US would work with them on a trade agreement." That is not support of Brexit, that is neutrality. He doesn't say which side he supports - only that if the UK did leave, it would be able to make a new trade agreement with the US. Smurrayinchester 10:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota[edit]

This is the quote from Toyota: “We respect that the UK’s future relationship with the European Union is a matter for the British people to decide, and it is not our intention to participate in the campaign. [...] We have carefully considered the implications for our manufacturing operations, should the UK leave the European Union. We are committed to our people and investments, so we are concerned that leaving would create additional business challenges. As a result we believe continued British membership of the EU is best for our operations and their long term competitiveness.”

Does this actually count as endorsing neither side? They say "We will not participate in the campaign", but then go on to say that they think remaining is the right choice. Smurrayinchester 10:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an endorsement of Remain to me. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota says they believe continued British membership is best for their own operations and competitiveness. That means in this case Toyota thinks only of itself and not of the country/the People. So that's maybe an endorsement for Toyota workers, but not for the People of Britain. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need list it. We don't have to include everything. DrArsenal (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to include everything, but we do need a rationale for what to include and what not to include. As far as I can see, in this case, we have a reliable source clearly showing a major company supports Remain, so can't see why not to include it. That they're not actively campaigning seems beside the point. Zac Goldsmith's said he's not actively campaigning in the referendum campaign (busy with the mayoral race), but we still list him. Bondegezou (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. This article is for endorsements. On what grounds would we exclude Toyota? AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Society Letter[edit]

I have put the people from the Royal Society letter on a separate part of the list of people, as the names were getting confused much more the other "celebrity" people. It isn't not that they are unimportant, but it is just muddled with possibly better know people. 159753 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigning groups for professions[edit]

I notice that Scientists for EU now has a WP article. Should they be listed in the endorsements page or on the campaigning page? Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that notable individuals in that group be listed here, possibly grouped together under a sub-heading. I think it unlikely that such groups will be sufficiently notable to maintain distinct articles. Bondegezou (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by The Guardian[edit]

I see this article was covered by The Guardian here. Bondegezou (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Leave business letter[edit]

Akin to the Royal Society letter, section could a section be added for the 250 business leaders who signed the letter for the Vote Leave campaign or is this just pure listcruft? Here is a link to the full list of signatories: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/250_business_leaders_back_vote_leave_as_new_poll_shows_eu_stops_entrepreneurs_creating_jobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.9.202 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them have already been added. But many of them aren't notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. I kinda think that someone who isn't notable enough to have an article isn't notable enough to be listed here (unless there's a specific reason why their endorsement is significant). Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hitchens[edit]

Has Peter Hitchens officially endorsed the Leave campaign?

He has stated numerous times that he is against a referendum (he calls it an 'abdication' of duty), not because he supports remaining, but because a referendum is easily manipulated. He has also said that for the UK to leave, it should elect a party that will take it out with a majority vote in Parliament. Hipict (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey and Guernsey[edit]

Where should the endorsement of Jersey and Guernsey governments go in the page? The islands are not constitutionally territory of the UK or part of the EU. It thus, seems incorrect to group them in the 'Government' heading at the top of the page. --RaviC (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the precise constitutional niceties matter. They are governments directly affected by the vote. As a reader, I am not surprised to see them in that section, but I would be to see them elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they aren't independent states; they are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper endorsements[edit]

I've removed the following endorsements:

Remain[edit]

Il Sole 24 Ore ^[1]
The Kansas City Star^[2]

Leave[edit]

The Australian^[3]

These are newspapers that are not published or widely sold in the UK, so while they might well express an opinion one way or the other, they aren't really endorsements in any useful sense. (Also, the column from The Australian looks like a personal opinion rather than an editorial position). Smurrayinchester 12:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Brexit would lead a crisis-ridden EU toward "uncharted territory"". ItalyEurope24 - Il Sole 24 Ore. Retrieved 18 May 2016.
^ "A stronger united Europe is good for America — and the world". 28 May 2016. Retrieved 29 May 2016.
^ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/greg-sheridan/brexit-would-give-britain-control-of-its-borders-again/news-story/3a0de68075f42186f62293af2b8ebdc8?nk=bf73ff7db80a97bce040cfcd88961b60-1464456866

Notable letter signatories[edit]

In regards to a few recent edits: Wouldn't it be fair to trim the letter signatories who don't have wikipedia pages of their own? Wouldn't that be a good way to distinguish notable from non-notable signatories? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. We can say "a letter signed by X people, including the following..." and then just include those with their own Wikipedia articles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, with the business leaders' letter to The Times, maybe we should include people if their company is notable? Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. We can then re-add the notable economists, historians and lawyers in those letters (they were cut in one of the previous edits). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: that makes sense to me. Generally, if someone is notable, i.e. has an article, list them; and if not, don't. I think exceptions can be made when someone's position is notable in this context even if they are not as a person, e.g. the Swiss ambassador doesn't have an article, but I've long left him in the list because that role is significant, particularly given Switzerland's relationship with the EU. Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come late to the discussion, but wouldn't it be better to keep all the names, but hide them as per the following example? This keeps the information for those that are interested in the individuals (in which case they may be interested irrespective of any WP article) but just shows the key element of the letter, i.e. a group of people etc have signed a letter. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signatories to talkpage example letter
John Smith Fred Doe Albert Bell Dan the Man

Some of the letters are co-signed by people of no notability whatsoever. I think the letters are worth noting, I think the notable signatories are worth noting, I think there are cases where maybe a hidden box like you suggest would be very useful, but I also think there's no point in listing at all some of, e.g., the healthcare letter signatories. (COI: I know at least 3 of the healthcare letter signatories.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point, those involved in healthcare may wish to see the full list because of connections, I, on the other hand, don't care to see any names, the fact the letter exists is sufficient information. My solution was a compromise and too late as actions had already been taken. No matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations[edit]

The organisations list includes numerous organisations formed for the purpose of campaigning in this referendum, most without Wikipedia articles. I suggest these are (a) not notable and (b) it's trivially obvious that a group created to vote for Remain or Leave supports Remain or Leave respectively. Let's trim them! Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armed forces[edit]

I'm busy elsewhere, but it would be good to separate out Armed forces and security services for Leave, to match the Remain sub-section: there are enough people. Also note that Guthrie has switched sides, so should be moved from Remain to Leave: source. EddieHugh (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Barnes[edit]

John Barnes, former professional footballer.^[1]

Removed the section above as the text does not support his inclusion. John Barnes makes a narrow point about Leave benefiting England in a pure football sense. He also says:

"But I think the decision has to be taken without sport in the agenda, it has to be for the good of the people. It’s much more important for us to make our decision based on what will happen to the country."

The quoted article cannot be construed as a general endorsement of Leave. 31.185.170.5 (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has declared for Remain.

http://news.sky.com/story/1715366/barnes-denies-gove-claim-he-backs-brexit

Jonknight73 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/david-james-and-john-barnes-brexit-would-boost-homegrown-english-football-talent-a3262991.html

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk: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. —RMCD bot 05:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump description[edit]

I note that Donald Trump is described as 'President of the United States and entrepreneur'. However as he was not President at the time of the referendum I am not sure it is appropriate to describe him thus. Indeed Theresa May is described as Home Secretary and Emmanuel Macron as Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs of France, rather than the higher offices they went on to hold. Dunarc (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161114003001/http://www.bca1960.com/index.php/bca-news-mobile/377-who-will-cook-your-indian-curry-by-nick-robinson-presenter,-today-program,-bbc-2.html to http://www.bca1960.com/index.php/bca-news-mobile/377-who-will-cook-your-indian-curry-by-nick-robinson-presenter,-today-program,-bbc-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governments and endorsments[edit]

The article currently mentions that all three crown dependencies endorsed remain, while I know that governments Guernsey and Jersey did endorse remain did the Isle of Man government officially endorse remain? The article says yes but doesn't cite any sources. Also the article mentions that the Government of Malaysia endorsed leave but doesn't cite a source, is this true or not? Also was there any endorsement from the Government of Northern Ireland in the EU Referendum? C. 22468 Talk to me 00:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Brexit would lead a crisis-ridden EU toward "uncharted territory"". ItalyEurope24 - Il Sole 24 Ore. Retrieved 18 May 2016.

[2] "A stronger united Europe is good for America — and the world". 28 May 2016. Retrieved 29 May 2016.

[3] ttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/greg-sheridan/brexit-would-give-britain-control-of-its-borders-again/news-story/3a0de68075f42186f62293af2b8ebdc8?nk=bf73ff7db80a97bce040cfcd88961b60-1464456866

[standard.co.uk-4] ttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/david-james-and-john-barnes-brexit-would-boost-homegrown-english-football-talent-a3262991.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]