Talk:Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU petition

The petition
Why can't I add a link to the petition?Globokivisoki (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The domain is blacklisted to avoid advocacy. It could be whitelisted for this article, see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Should this be incorporated into the article about article 50 or Brexit? Fourdots2 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say that, if anything, Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom or People's Vote could be two possibilities. Having said that, the petition's status as having accrued the highest number of signatures, may mean it meets WP:GNG. This is Paul (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:This is Paul, the petition has become a significant event in British politics and for now, meets WP:GNG. However we will not be able to gauge the petition's effectiveness or outcome for months to come. It could be that the petition achieves nothing in which case I would be happy to the page merge into Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom or People's voteAlbrighton Titon (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hidden
Indicating where "it's hidden" would have been a more helpful step than just reverting and keeping me in the dark. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Rate of signatures
Noting the total number of signatures at a particular time is only half the story. It would be most revealing to graph the total signatures as a function of time. From this it should be easy to eyeball the trend lines and the current sign-up rate. As they say, a picture tells a thousand words. I am sure that this data exists somewhere, is anyone interested to see if we can extract this data and build a graph? Enquire (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Graphs I've seen are https://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~tkerby/revokea50.html and https://odileeds.org/projects/petitions/241584
 * The JSON data direct from https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584.json doesn't (as far as I can see) have any time data but https://odileeds.org/projects/petitions/241584.csv is updated every 5 minutes now. Some of the early data is reconstructed from screen shots.
 * Eyeballing shows a slow increase from 12 midnight to about 7:30 in the morning and a faster, but pretty consistant, increase during the rest of the day. :Chaotic Doire (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how reliable this is as a counter, but this is pretty interesting to watch. Someone brought it to my attention and I've dipped in and out over the last couple of days. It shows the speed at which the votes are being added, and tends to increase and decrease during the day. I doubt we can use it here though.
 * This is Paul (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great link to the Open innovation with data (ODI Leeds). I will try to upload graph on that, if no one beats me to it...
 * Enquire (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * https://splasho.com/petitions/index.php?petition=241584&&sfns=mo


 * https://www.livefrombrexit.com/petitions/241584


 * These are both pretty good Fourdots2 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Graph as a function of time showing some very linear trends during work and lunch hours is available here but wikipedia is blocking the Petition Track site for some reason 'petition dash track dot uk/check-petition/241584/week' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonjinn (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A target article
The existence of this article & the ability to keep it neutral (while the Brexit process has yet to conclude), will be quite problematic. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And no doubt for a good while afterwards as well. This is Paul (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The title
The article currently starts: "The Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU petition is a petition posted... [on gov.uk]", no doubt obeying all the rules, but incredibly ugly. I think the title would be more readable as "Petition to revoke..."; it certainly needs the word petition somewhere, or it ends up as an invocation instead of a noun phrase. I'm going to boldly rewrite the beginning, but welcome comments. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019
Reliability of the petition

It is debatable whether the BBC is a trusted source given the investigation being launched into BBC on bias https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6775061/BBC-faces-probe-biased-reports-pointless-stories-claims-not-impartial.html.

Channel 4's far more in depth analysis of the petition concludes that it is possible to sign the petition multiple times - twice with the same email address and also via multiple email accounts https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-the-stop-brexit-petition-reliable

A similar petition was hacked in 2016: "EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum, We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum." Evidence of the hack can be found here showing the use of a Python script to perform the hack https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/128422/is-the-uk-parliament-e-petition-system-trustworthy and has been corroborated by numerous national UK publications and confirmed by the Petition.Parliament.UK site itself https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-the-stop-brexit-petition-reliable

The 'Petition Track UK' website also shows an unusually linear trend during the early stages of the petition receiving mass signatures. Zonjinn (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Daily Mail is not a reliable source. The Channel 4 article is a great deal more nuanced than the above summary, but it could be referenced; however, everything it says would apply to all petitions at the government site. There is already mention of prior petitions having been affected by bots; the details of a particular hack that has been fixed do not seem relevant here. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

accusations of interference?
Why no mention of the accusations that some of the votes on the petition are not genuine? there are numerous sources for that accusation - the BBC website for example has discussed this. The article should at least mention this somewhere - and I'd also be happy for the article to also link to things that dispute the accusation (for which there are also sources including - again - the BBC website) 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:A411:AD8:234:BF5E (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"Walsall North, saw just 2.6 of the electorate signing the petition."
"Walsall North, saw just 2.6 of the electorate signing the petition."

In fact, it is 2.9% https://www.livefrombrexit.com/petitions/241584

"Notable supporters" section
I propose we remove this section as otherwise we need to balance it with a section listing all the notable people who did not support the petition. Views? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, especially as it's a list of the usual anti-Brexit campaigners and doesn't tell us anything new. This is Paul (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment a list of "notable people who did not support the petition" would hardly be notable (would not necessarily imply opposition and would be the population of the planet, minus 6 million). A list of people who specifically opposed the petition might be. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)