This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Urquhartnite (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 17 November 2015 (→Requested move 17 November 2015: Commented.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:13, 17 November 2015 by Urquhartnite (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 17 November 2015: Commented.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Elections and Referendums C‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Politics of the United Kingdom C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Query
"The majority of the Labour Party leadership was strongly for continuing membership," but 38 members of the Government were to vote against continuing membership.Jatrius 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect the statement refers to the Cabinet, and in particular the senior Ministers (Wilson, Healey, Jenkins, and to a lesser extent Callaghan), though I think it should be sourced. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Article tone concern
I have a niggling concern that this article has fallen prey to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and is trying to write about the referendum in terms relevant to the European debate of today. In doing so it is dangerously close to endorsing a point of view, for instance the apparent surprise that the centre-right newspapers like the Telegraph and the Mail supported a Yes vote. If there was a referendum today, that might be a surprise, but it was certainly no surprise in 1975. Then the passage on the Labour Party's decision seems to be missing a crucial source - who says that if the special party conference had voted by over two to one, the party machine would have campaigned? Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Spectator anti-Europe.gif
Image:Spectator anti-Europe.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
UK Referenda
Unless I'm mistaken, this referendum is the only nationwide referendum ever to be held in the UK? If so, I think that merits some mention in the article, as this is a big difference between the UK and countries like the Republic of Ireland or Switzerland that have held numerous important referenda in their modern history. --Benwilson528 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Rigged
Why is there no mention of the fact that the referendum was rigged? (92.7.23.103 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
- If it is a fact then please provide a source. Road Wizard (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
All the sources say the vast majority of people voted for withdrawal from the Common Market, but the result was changed by the government. (92.7.23.103 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
- I have checked a couple of the sources listed in the article and they make no such claim. Can you please identify a particular source that supports your statement? Road Wizard (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Requested move 17 November 2015
 | It has been proposed in this section that 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum be renamed and moved to United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum 1975. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move |
United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 → United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum 1975 – The comma is normally dropped or omitted before the year in modern standard British English, such as when we in Britain (in the United Kingdom) have to write out the date in full with both words and numbers. No reason to "harmonise" every single title of articles about all of the World's elections effectively with American English. We don't have "New World Order" and "One World Government" yet, for sweet Fanny's sake! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose This is clearly in violation of the naming guideline WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums, which requires a comma to be used (as it is in all other referendum articles where the year is present, e.g. United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011). Additionally, I'm a native British English speaker and see no problem with the comma. Number 57 12:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am not a member of the NUT, and are you?! Well, anyway, if you are by your own confession a geek, you wouldn't really be the most grammatically-correct person, now, would you?! And didn't Jihadi John also have British English as his native or near-native tongue (bar a clear London ethnic/immigrant accent) as well?! Oh, well, whatever counts as British these days?! Mind you, some people probably did actually try to claim, in public, him as "British-born" to score left-wing political brownie point! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)