Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum

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

create "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum"[edit]

create "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum" or a Timeline section within this article? X1\ (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to "Foreign interference"?[edit]

Pure speculation, fantasy, conspiracy theory etc. Page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sem999 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After watching Brexit: The Uncivil War, the role of billionaire Robert Mercer ("Mercer played a key role in the Brexit campaign by donating data analytics services to Nigel Farage").[1] and Andrew Breitbart. This is not to dilute the Russian stuff, it would be a completely additional section.

The big problem with all this stuff is that it was covert and the evidence is circumstantial. I know there are people who believe that "Europe" interfered too so we will be critically dependent on reliable sources (aka "the mainstream media"). If it is in the Daily Telegraph, then it would have to be reported equally.

Am I opening a can of worms here? Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Russian interference. Most of the timeline should be deleted as it has nothing to do with the article subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.55.49 (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cadwalladr, Carole (May 7, 2017). "The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked". The Guardian. The article has a disclaimer stating: "This article is the subject of legal complaints on behalf of Cambridge Analytica LLC and SCL Elections Limited."

Reverted vandalism[edit]

Undid 3 edits by thesensetalker 79.79.231.203 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

un-discussed title change of this article: revert and discuss[edit]

@RaviC: revert the title of this article until it is discussed properly. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Can an article title be changed without discussion? with comments by Crouch, Swale and Levivich. X1\ (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the log for this page, this was the original title for the article. I don't see any discussion here about the move which was done before. --RaviC (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: there should have been discussion then too. It is your change that I saw. X1\ (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RaviC, that's only part of the page move history. Here is the rest:
  • 10 Jan 2018: Page created with title "Russian interference in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum on exiting the European Union"
  • 12 Apr 2018: Page moved to "Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum"
  • 8 Jan 2019: Page moved to "Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum"
  • 16 Jan 2019: Page moved back to "Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum"
  • 14 May 2019: Page moved again to "Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum" (by RaviC)
That the page has stayed at "Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum" for over a year, from 12 April 2018 to 14 May 2019 (except for a week in January), is consensus by WP:SILENCE for the title. I agree with X1 that you should revert the move, and if you think it should be moved, start an RM. Leviv ich 21:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done that. --RaviC (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Leviv ich 21:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the topic to say what the best title is but I agree that being at a title for over a year counts as a long standing title, especially when the article isn't that much older and its a recent event. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 May 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the article to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum → Alleged Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum – per WP:NPOV - nothing has been proven in a court of law; until such actions are proven, the article title should not suggest that they are an incontrovertible fact. RaviC (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Both a Commons select committee and a US Senate committee have clearly stated there was interference. I believe that is sufficient to justify the present title.Charles (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A legal case on this matter - Wilson v Prime Minister, was thrown out by the court. The allegations of a committee (headed by a People's Vote campaigner in respect to the DCMS Select Committee) hold far less weight than that of a court of law. --RaviC (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to resort to an ad hominem attack, you must know that your case is weak. The Select Committee can make an assessment based on balance of probabilities and their report is detailed and clear (see citation). The High Court did not give any finding of guilty or not guity on Russian involvement since it is irrelevant to the substantive point of law that they had to consider. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(In case it is not generally known, guilt in a criminal case must be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In a civil case, the balance of probability is used). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RS. "Nothing has been proven in a court of law" - doesn't matter, we follow sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article isn't titled this way because it's an incontrovertible fact, but because that's how the phenomenon is commonly identified, including by key sources like those noted above. Requiring something to be proven in court is not the standard by which Wikipedia articles are titled. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for same reasons as already given. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is only an allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good answer. If the responsible Select Committee, on considering the evidence, came to a conclusion on the balance of probabilities, then it is without doubt the most reliable source for this article. To argue otherwise needs an impeccable source of equal standing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An allegation is an allegation until proved. Also (as far as I know) the actual investigation is still ongoing, only interim (I.E. unfinished) reports have been issued.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proof is only required in a criminal case (see above). In this case, the Select Committee has heard the evidence and decided that it is probably true. In any case, my opinion and yours are of no importance: we report wp:rs. So if you want to contradict the Select Committee, you need a equally reliable source.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. One red flag is "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". Collins, as an anti-Brexit campaigner, has a very clear conflict of interest in this case. --RaviC (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do RS say it happened or that a parliamentary committee have said it has?Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose per Volunteer Marek's comments. X1\ (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Updated: Additionally per Charlesdrakew, Huwmanbeing, John Maynard Friedman, Levivich, and The Vintage Feminist X1\ (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marek and Huw. It doesn't matter if it's proven in a court of law, or if Wikipedia editors think it is "alleged" or not, it only matters what the RSes say. I don't see evidence that the RSes refer to it as "alleged interference" as opposed to "interference". (See, for example, the links I posted in the AfD of this article.) The viewpoint that there was no interference can be handled in the article in accordance with WP:DUE, but renaming the article would be undue. Leviv ich 21:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the quote in the "After the 23 June 2016 vote" section from the 2018 January, a US Senate minority report : The Russian government has sought to influence democracy in the United Kingdom through disinformation, cyber hacking, and corruption. While a complete picture of the scope and nature of Kremlin interference in the UK's June 2016 referendum is still emerging... etc. It's explicit. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons cited above. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

add report withholding?[edit]

X1\ (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this. X1\ (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone started a new section and I have expanded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Web sites advocating Brexit all seem to have dried up - May be ad rem[edit]

Many of the primary web sites advocating for Brexit seem have vanished. This is not original research on my part but I though it may be ad rem once we can see the Russian interference report.

--

• Here’s the website of Britain’s Future, who spent £434,721 on Facebook ads in 2019 to promote a hard Brexit - https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1277962443017211912?s=20 • Here’s We Are The 52%, who spent £52,273 on the same issue - https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1277962625150644227?s=20 • Save Brexit, who spent £43,642 is now just a cookie notice and a redirect to a Kanto URL - https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1277963330770989056?s=20

Then we move onto the 2019 General Election • City Action spent £40,534 on ‘pro-business' ads during the 2019 election campaign. No posts since December 11th. They’re now a GoDaddy holding page and a dead Gmail address - https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1277965371924819974?s=20 • ‘Capitalist Worker’ spent £37,790 between being set up on November 4th 2019 and December 12th. A couple of cursory posts since, but it doesn’t really exist any more. They even managed to get most of their ads taken down - https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1277966650734596096?s=20 • Parents’ Choice spent £43,835 attacking Labour’s education policies, then disappeared. It’s now just a privacy notice. (Richard Tracey, the named data controller is a former Conservative MP and was formerly then-• London-Mayor Boris Johnson’s “Ambassador for the River”) - https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1277968423599759365?s=20 • The Campaign Against Corbynism keeps on rolling, after spending £50k on ads during the election campaign (but nothing before and less than £1k since). Still no idea who they are - https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1277964366441111560?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.181.108 (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Fake News. Is Boris lying?[edit]

This is fake news. Are you saying Boris is lying? * Boris Johnson: There is 'no evidence of any Russian interference' - 20 Nov 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribDigita (talk • contribs) 22:20, June 10, 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum&oldid=1205135839"