Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020/Archive 4

Discussion on the lead section
The current lead has many issues including length and structure. It was suggested by John Maynard Friedman we find a new consensus draft. My starter for ten on which I welcome comments below, alternatively also welcome alternative drafting suggestions 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

""The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations. The Government of the United Kingdom says that the act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It establish an Office of the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor the UK Internal Market. The legislation also reserves the regulation of government subsidy to business, provides the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its UK position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

The legislation was controversial during it's passage as it originally contained clauses that would allow the Northern Ireland Secretary of State to unilateral override the Northern Ireland Protocol These drew criticism from UK politicians, The Church of England, The EU, and US Democrats. The clauses were removed following negotiation with the EU over the implementaton of the Northern Ireland Protocol. The legislation was also criticised for its impacts on devolution. It faced multiple defeats in the Lords until the Government agreed Lord Hope's amendment creating a exemption regime based on the Common Frameworks programme.

UK Ministers have said the legislation was vital for the integrity of the union and the functioning of the Economy of the United Kingdom following the UK's withdrawal from the economic governance architecture of the European Union. As part of the UK's withdrawal many powers including those in devolved competence will transfer from the EU to UK and devolved governments. The UK government has categorised this and the UK Internal Market Act as a "Power surge" for devolution. Ministers in Scotland and Wales have disputed this calling it a "Power Grab" by Westminister and suggesting that the legislation will curtail the powers of devolved legislatures and potential create a regulatory race to the bottom.""


 * When you write a policy compliant lead it can be discussed. That is a clear and unambiguous violation of policy and is a non-starter. FDW777 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would fix the typos I've highlighed in bold below, perhaps FDW777 could explain the problems with the text or propose changes rather than the default of revert/no which has plauged progress on this article.
 * "It establishes an Office of the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor the UK Internal Market."
 * "The legislation was controversial during its passage as it originally contained clauses that would allow the Northern Ireland Secretary of State to unilateral override the Northern Ireland Protocol; These drew criticism from UK politicians" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.108.131 (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing has "plagued" progress. The issue is that you define progress as imposing your views on the article, choosing your own definition of what constitutes a reliable source, and claiming that sources which you don't like are written by arrogant people, or are not reliable, etc. What has prevented your own special definition of progress is that it is contrary to policy, as FDW777 has pointed out. The specific problems with your text were explained the first time you posted a very similar text. Perhaps you could explain what you think are the problems with the status quo text which was arrived at by the consensus editing cycle of >10 editors. Cambial foliage❧ 18:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue appears mainly to be the conduct of a couple of editors using the letter of Wikipedia policy (rather than the spirit) to prevent neutral, objective and informative content in this article... choosing ambiguous text where it isn't appropriate and removing objective facts where they were useful. Even the use of the term consensus is a stretch of an argument you're making at present.  The rest of your argument appears to be directed at someone else.146.198.108.131 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * IP user has made no comment about the text itself, so presumably like IP which started this section the reason for their objection is that they simply don't like it. That continues to carry no weight at all. Cambial foliage❧ 04:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the opposition you continue to find is due to WP:UNDUE prominence of Michael Dougan's opinion which was was presented as fact WP:NPOV when they feature heavily in opposition to the act. Like others, I seek to have a neutral and concise lead WP:LEAD which mentions key aspects such as mutual recognition and non discrimination and explains any restrictions rather than leave that concept ambiguous.  There is an effort you're essentially replying to, to reach consensus to which I have provided some typographical corrections; the text isn't perfect but it is still an improvement on what I've seen in recent weeks.  It would be useful if you could make some suggestions and attempt reach consensus rather than just use the term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.108.131 (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply repeatedly falsely characterising the published work of nine academics as "Michael Dougan's opinion" won't make it so. There is apparently some animus felt towards Professor Dougan though I don't know where it stems from; seemingly to the point of obsession with some IP editors. None of it has any bearing on whether his and 8 others' published work is a reliable source. Cambial foliage❧ 07:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Who are these nine academics? also nine academics doesn't make for a fact, in science that wouldn't even be the first sigma. You are the only one obsessed with Michael Dougan since you want to present his opinions as facts without assigning them to him.

As for the problems with the lead these were stated in the tidy up section conversation which you participated in have you forgotten? To summarise it is; out of date, badly written, flabby, gives undue weight, lacks critical information (like the actual contents of the Act) poorly structured and lacks succinctness.

There seems to be an obsession amongst some to push only negative views of the legislation which talks to some editors individual bias. The article should be neutral and not just be a poorly written version SNP press release. I am open to any constructive criticism or if you have an alternative draft for a new lead 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of the proposed lead in general but please be sure to fix the typos and cite sources which validate the text or you’ll get a predictable revert. 92.40.175.187 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your considered attempt to engage in good faith with the process of improving the article. I am disappointed that established editors did not recognise that before criticising your proposal. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis model is a well-established way to make progress. We should look at your draft on its merits and compare and contrast with the existing text.
 * Put simply, the requirement of the lead section is that it should fairly and proportionately summarise the body content. (For the long version, see wp:lead). Your first two paragraphs do that. A substantial part of the body describes the dissatisfaction of the devolved administrations: your wording there is not neutral because of the "framing" you put around it. Aspects of the Act were criticised by the former Lord Chief Justice and Queen's Counsels, especially on the 'no judicial review' clause which is a major precedent: you omitted that too. You have given undue prominence to Section 5, which in hindsight looks like a bit of a "ooh look! a squirrel!" to distract attention from other clauses and was never going to reach the final Act. The statements of government ministers about the validity or otherwise certainly belong in the article, but be disproportionate in the lead.
 * I hope you find that more constructive. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both that is really helpful I'll take another crack at a draft, but do feel free to edit it directly I'm in no way precious about it!

JMF on your comments, I will check the framing, but if you have any direct changes do make them, as sometimes we can't see our own bias.

On the Lord Neuberger comments those do refer to the original clause 45 which only referred to the NI parts of the bill which was withdrawn by the government. So it would give further prominence to Section 5. I agree with you about criticism of section 5 but obviously it was very constitutionally novel and drew criticism. I guess there I was trying to reflect the balance of the criticism section which from Joe Biden to the EU, from the ArchBishop of Canterbury, to the Amal Clooney all focused on the section 5 ability to unilaterally break international law. However you are right that going forward the controversey that remains is on its so far yet to be seen impact on devolution (other that definitely reserving state aid/subsidy control it is unclear right now what impact the act will have as for example there has yet to be any incidents where it can be seen to have limited the DLs abilities). I actually thought providing significant focus to section 5 would be a compromise to Cambrial position in the tidying up section.

I guess that is a long way of saying what promenience do we give to section 5? during the passage of the bill it was certainly the most notable part, but obviously none of the offending powers such as the prevention of judicial review, made it into the final act. I'd welcome views?

Thanks again 80.42.39.51 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

""The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations. The Government of the United Kingdom says that the act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom and support the functioning of the Economy of the United Kingdom.

It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It established an Office of the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor the UK Internal Market. The legislation also reserves the regulation of government subsidy to business, providing the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its unique position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

The legislation has been criticised by the Labour party, Liberal Democrat party, some members of the Conservative party the Scottish and Welsh Governments and some academics for its impacts on devolution. As part of the UK's withdrawal many powers including those in devolved competence will transfer from the EU to UK and devolved governments. The UK government has categorised this and the UK Internal Market Act as a "Power surge" for devolution. Ministers in Scotland and Wales have disputed this calling it a "Power Grab" by Westminster, as the Act will regulate these new powers. They also predict that the legislation will curtail the powers of devolved legislatures and potentially create a regulatory race to the bottom. It has been welcomed by business groups.

The legislation was controversial during its passage as it originally contained clauses that would allow the Northern Ireland Secretary of State to unilaterally override the Northern Ireland Protocol and prevent judicial review of his decisions. This section drew considerable criticism from political figures in the UK, US and EU as well as The Church of England, senior lawyers and academics. The clauses were removed following negotiation with the EU over the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.” The Lords also repeatedly amended the legislation to lessen its perceived negative impact on devolution. The Government introduced an amendment creating an exemption regime based on the Common Frameworks programme.

The Scottish and Welsh government though supporting the common framework programme are still opposed to the Act. Both their corresponding legislatures refused legislative consent for the Bill, only the second time either legislature has done so. The Welsh Government has indicated it plans to challenge the legislation in court.""

I hope I've taken on board both your comments and amended accordingly. My one concern is that it might now be a bit too long. So do feel free to make trims, in addition to changes etc as usual. So again I do welcome any views, edits etc thanks! 80.42.39.51 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as when you posted the first two paragraphs of this, which remain very nearly identical, its violation of WP:NPOV cannot be supported. NPOV is non-negotiable and cannot be overridden even by consensus. As FDW777 has pointed out, that makes it a non-starter.
 * Edit: "it" > NPOV <i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 19:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to Who are these nine academics? They are the authors of the six publications discussed above: Michael Keating, Nicola McEwen, Katy Hayward, Michael Dougan, Daniel Wincott, Aileen McHarg, David Bell, Emily Lydgate, and Jo Hunt. If you are aware of scholarly sources which contradict what is stated in those publications please bring them to the attention of the talk page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 19:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , "cannot be overridden even by consensus." did you really mean that? The requirement to be neutral cannot be over-ridden by consensus but the text must be open to challenge on grounds that it already fails NPOV. 80.42.39.51's first two paragraphs are not neutral taken in isolation but neutrality can be achieved with balancing text, which the rest of 80.42.39.51's proposal still fails to achieve. They are a fairly accurate reflection of the Government's position. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to respond to the first aspect of this ping; you seem to agree with me, and you seem familiar with policy. I don't claim the text is not open to challenge; if what I said seems to imply that, I disaffirm that interpretation; though I really don't understand how my comment can be read that way. By "it" I mean NPOV, if that clears up any confusion.
 * 80.42.39.51's first two paragraphs violate NPOV in a way that cannot be overcome later on. The reason is that the intent of the bill is a matter of contentious dispute. Stating the opinion of one of the parties to the dispute in the first paragraph, even with attribution, and relegating opposing views to a subordinate paragraph was already addressed.
 * It's also a completely inappropriate way to structure the lead, by including the sides taken in the dispute in the very first paragraph. It should be in the lead, but that introductory paragraph should reflect simple facts and relevant scholarship. That is why I made . <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 20:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , first and most important, I am just another editor here, not the referee, boss or anything, just would like to see all voices being given a fair opportunity to contribute properly and independently sourced material to Wikipedia. Would you now compare your proposal side by side with the lead as it currently stands and see what it is that makes them different. I have to say that I start from the position that the current lead has had many hands to hammer it into shape so your version will not replace it. But you may be able to identify an essential point that is not properly represented. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , in what respect are the first two paragraphs NPOV violations? They read to me as quite factual and verifiable. They are not the whole story, but subsequent text can address that (which, as I said) the remainder of the text fails to do adequately. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is not neutral? I think the current text is the one that has clear problems with neutrality. Also JMF I don't think I ever suggested you were in charge? I just respected that you another IP have engaged in good faith rather than some of the less constructive behaviour of other editors

""The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with the regulation of trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations. It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It established an Office of the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor the UK Internal Market. The legislation also reserves the regulation of government subsidy to business, providing the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its UK position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

The Bill received national and international criticism due to elements that would have empowered the UK government to break the Northern Ireland Protocol of its withdrawal agreement with the EU. The Legislation also continues to face national criticism for its impact on devolution. The Welsh and Scottish Government in particular strongly opposed the bill and the former has announced its intention to challenge the legislation in court.”"

I have shorten and made as neutral as possible in the wording. All constructive contributions and views welcome 80.42.39.51 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have missed almost the entirety of the section regarding its passage through parliament. You've also removed the material covering what are currently the only academic sources in the article say about its fundamental purpose and result, without any justification given. I suggest that rather than trying to replace the entire lead wholesale, you might try suggesting amendments or additions to the individual sections. Crucially, you will need to indicate what policy is the reason for advocating removal or amendment. I agree with adding something about the market access principles, but I think that phrase should be used, rather than immediately introducing MOS:JARGON such as "mutual recognition and non-discrimination". You and I understand those terms but the casual reader is put off.


 * Finally, two paragraphs above where you write How exactly is not neutral? I specify in some detail exactly how. So starting your comment with that question is not really engaging in the discussion, and is a bit like this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 21:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest mutual recognition and non discrimination are better know generally as they are terms the EU, Australians, and Canadian all use, and are known economic terms. Market Access Principles is just something UKG badged them as. I don't think you understand how British law works. Once an act has past it becomes the law, and the law is above the government, and whatever the governments intention may have been become irrelevant to how it will work in pratice Judges will simply read the face of the Act and what it states. I don't think anyone could say that How I've proposed it above isn't neutral or accurate. The SG and WG would agree it regulates trade, they just feel it restricts their powers as they couldn't impose regulation on goods produced outside their jurisdictions. So saying it regulates trade is accurate and neutral.

I think when comes to NPOV you have to perhaps step back and consider your own you have been involved with this article for a while and clearly not like the Act, and generally seem to take the approach British Government = Bad. You have had multiple editors post on here to say its not neutral or otherwise problematic just because you and other editors who have been on the site a while revert to your version doesn't mean that has consensus, this talk page shows it doesn't have consensus. This obsession with "policy" over what is good is unhelpful rules should be broken if they stand in the way, Arcturus pointed out to me that the most important policy is Ignore All the Rules. I am open to you suggesting an alternative new text to discuss below. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that it's totally irrelevant to the discussion, we'll skip past the patronising attempts to "explain" how you think British law works. This is an encyclopaedia, not a guide for the application of the law. We cover all aspects of the subject, not just those that might be useful to one group of people (who are also those least likely to read it). You've again totally ignored why your proposed text doesn't maintain NPOV.


 * You have had at least four editors revert away from your suggested changes. If an editor said to ignore all rules it is extremely poor advice: the rule is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia", you should ignore it. Rewriting a lead so that it no longer summarises the article, does not maintain NPOV, and is no longer impartial is not an improvement. If that's your basis for your changes you need to seriously rethink your approach. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 22:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My point on British law was so you understand that the he said she said approach becomes particularly irrelevant once the act becomes a law. In relation to your point several of the those editors have now apologised for their knee jerk revision, thanked me for my work and encouraged me to continue. One even highlighted how behaviour such as those displayed by you and other editors here are an endemic problem on wikipedia that limit the project overall. So perhaps consider if you are a positive or negative impact overall (that being said I do appreciate your apology regard Dr Lydgate but I don't think I should of had to bang my head against a wall quite so much to get there). The current lead is badly written and not neutral. If you want to take a swing at writing a new one I'm happy to read it, if you want to read edit mine with with some suggestioned changes happy to take a look at that too 80.42.39.51 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote two comments: hardly banging you head against a wall. The reversion was not knee-jerk but the correct response to edit which failed to meet the requirements of a WP:LEAD. Rather than simply WP:REHASH your statement "the lead is badly written" over and over and over again, which is unhelpful, pointless and rude, perhaps you can explain why and where you think the problems are. This especially as I have given you the courtesy of doing so for your proposed version on at least two occasions above e.g. . <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 22:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I want to personally thank IP User 80.42.39.51 for the persistence shown over this and happy to see that after newly two months there is some progress being made. The current lead is absolutely ridiculous and goes against every precedent set on major legislative UK articles. If someone could point me to another article of UK legislation that opens with the opinion of an academic, then please show it to me. It is very clear that the opinion within the lead is there because the editor who put it there wants this particular viewpoint prominently positioned, as it is not a statement of fact but just opinion. This Act makes specific provisions to ensure that there are no internal trade barriers amongst the constituent nations of the United Kingdom and it is simply the opinion of an academic that it restricts the devolved administrations powers. Therefore, can we agree that fact should be in the lead and the opinion of an academic should be placed elsewhere in the article, which is the current precedent of the Scotland Act, European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 and many other historical Acts.DrJosephCowan (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the lead is not the place for that opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not simply the viewpoint of "an academic" [my emphasis], repeating dishonest claims such as that are impeding discussion. FDW777 (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also point out it was a criticism of the bill as introduced not on the act that was heavily amended. As such it speaks to the general issue of the lead that it is a relic from when it was the internal market bill rather than an Act. 79.66.51.226 (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I ran this past user Acturus, who suggested it was NPOV for overly focusing on criticism so I have amended slightly below.

""The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with the regulation of trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations. It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It established an Office of the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor the UK Internal Market. The legislation also reserves the regulation of government subsidy to business, providing the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its UK position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

The Bill received support from business organisations. However, it received national and international criticism due to elements that would have empowered the UK government to break the Northern Ireland Protocol of its withdrawal agreement with the EU. The Legislation also continues to face national criticism for its impact on devolution. The Welsh and Scottish Government in particular strongly opposed the bill and the former has announced its intention to challenge the legislation in court.”"

Also I've just noticed my IP has changed I was 80, someone helpfully suggested I create an account and I will do, though every username I've tried is already taken!! 11:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.51.226 (talk)
 * Re: "no consensus". If editors genuinely believe there is no consensus for any particular changes or do not believe they can seek consensus through editing, the course of action is to revert to the last stable version, which is here. It is not to revert to an arbitrary point which they prefer because it misrepresents sources in the way they prefer. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 12:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is a significant improvement on the current article wording. There are some changes i would suggest but i think you are on the right path with this approach. One suggestion right away i would like to make is "regulation of government subsidy to business, providing the UK..." should change to "regulation of government subsidy to business and provides the UK G...". These two parts of the legislation are separate yet the current proposed wording sounds like one is an effect of the other. If necessary do it as a separate sentence. Another suggestion is the bit about international criticism should include a sentence pointing out the Northern Ireland Protocol part which faced criticism was removed from the legislation. I have some more suggestions but i do think your suggestion is a great start compared to the current article introduction. CoiledAmp (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

How can you claim that version is stable? you are constantly reverting edits on it, and its clear from the several editors above the existing lead doesn't have consensus and doesn't appear to ever had despite your claims PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If certain editors believe there is consensus from this RFC for change, the next step is to post at WP:RFCLOSE. FDW777 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You boys do love to quote your policies, do you think that is helpful to anyone or just a way to block improvement? PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It was perfectly stable before you came along and attempted to bulldoze your changes through. I ask you to stop this twin-track approach. The very act of starting this RFC is an acknowledgement there is currently no consensus for your changes, so you should stop attempting to force them through while the RFC is ongoing. FDW777 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No the act of starting the RFC was because the existing text was bad, and it was recognised it needed changing. I've only changed the lead in response to others changing the lead, perhaps you should look to your own actions and if they are good faith or if you are perhaps slipping into the mindset that you own the article?

Further since no alternative has been suggested and my suggestion text has received more support than opposition I thought that was appropriate to change it. I'm happy to hold it and discuss further but I would expect the same from you and Cambrial so if you would revert the lead back to when you first changed that would be a good start on your part.

As for bulldozing again look to your own eye, you have offered no constructive edits only reverted others, that would be bulldozing. A brief look at the edit history shows people trying to improve the lead frequently only you and one or two other editors simple reverted their edits constantly. That isn't stability that is you browbeating people to get your own way. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Re the claim that this article doesn't look like other Acts, that's a complete misunderstanding of how WP:NPOV works. If an Act has come in for significant criticism, as this one has, then the article has to reflect that. That's what NPOV demands, not a dry summary of the text in the Act and its progression through parliament. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Various individual's definition of "improvement" or "better" differ significantly. The reason people quote policies is because many of them are non-negotiable, (i.e. NPOV, Verifiability), and others structure how disputes are handled. Your edits and behaviour indicate you haven't yet familiarised yourself with the most core content policies. We think you should, which is why they are often linked. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 12:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well in fact you and your friend FDW777 use them to try and claim some superiority of position. Its called the fallacy of appeal to authority as your arguments don't stand up on its own. and even your interpretation of those policy have been questioned by other experienced users. The current lead clearly violates NPOV. Also you and FDW777 behaviour would suggest you are breaching the tenet of you don't own articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_own_Wikipedia PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This article introduction is a complete mess for many reasons. It should all be completely rewritten. This is an article about an Act of Parliament and yet the introduction spends most of its time mentioning opinions on the legislation rather than what the legislation actually does. I have never seen an article on legislation written so badly. I think we should all work together to rewrite this introduction but we must remove the worst bits. The fourth sentence of the introduction is awful and has no place in the introduction at all. I am shocked one person's opinion is given such prominence when his view is completely irrelevant. This article introduction and the rest of the article needs a lot of work. I am glad someone has added a neutrality tag and i may add a few further tags if necessary because this article has a lot of problems that must be fixed. There is a lot of work to do here. CoiledAmp (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The whole point is that reliable references, many of them, dispute what the legislation actually does. And once again it's not "one person's opinion", it only says that because one particular disruptive editor who hasn't bothered to read the references keeps changing it to deliberately misrepresent exactly how many people say it. FDW777 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One person's opinion does not belong in the first paragraph of this article. The article must mention the range of views on the legislation but one person's view should not be given such prominence. The article introduction should state what the legislation does and have one paragraph explaining the different criticisms of it. Currently almost all of the introduction is different individuals or different governments stating different opinions. Its a total mess. We must separate fact from opinion. I have a lot of problems with the current article but that final sentence of the first paragraph in the introduction really is shockingly bad. I considered removing the sentence right away but i am prepared to wait for an agreement. Until then i have added some inline tags to that very problematic sentence. CoiledAmp (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It. Is. Not. One. Person's. Opinion. It only says that because it was disruptively changed by the person who started the RFC. FDW777 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then can we get agreement now to remove that sentence entirely whilst we work on the rest of the introduction? It currently does just state one person's opinion and that is a very big problem. CoiledAmp (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. lack of consensus results in reversion to status quo, not your preferred version, CoiledAmp. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 14:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why i put the tags rather than remove the sentence as its the status quo to avoid the potential for an edit war. Just to let you know (as you said IP before), i am not one of the IP editors above. I have never edited this article or commented before on this talk page. I have viewed the article a few times in the past couple of months and been disappointed with elements of it but not made any changes because there was too much wrong with it to even start. Now the introduction is far worse than the last time i viewed it and now an RFC has been started about the entire introduction i have decided to join the discussion to help improve the article. CoiledAmp (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The page as it stands at this exact moment is not the status quo. Last relatively stable version of the lead (≥7 days) is here. Editing has paused because a user has been edit warring after having been warned about it 2 days earlier. "IP" was a typo which was corrected before you replied, please don't read anything into it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus here is that the opinion of one individual should not appear in the lead paragraph of the article. Nobody is suggesting to delete it from the article completely, but there is a clear consensus that an opinion of one academic should not be in the lead, as though it is a matter of fact. I now suggest the following, remove the entire sentence regarding the opinion of one individual to another section and simply have the lead paragraph as:


 * ”The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations. The act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom with provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles.” - which tells readers what the Act does as a matter of fact not opinion.DrJosephCowan (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone agrees that the opinion of one individual should not appear in the lead. The opinion of one individual does not appear in the lead, so please stop falsely characterising it as such. What appears is the legal analysis of multiple legal and political academics, published in a variety of scholarly fora. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 15:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:REHASH! Why is it that the only time Cambial Yellowing wants Wikipedia policy to be applied is to ensure that a deeply flawed article remains bias and misleading? Happy to effectively own the article at the expense of accuracy and NPOV, to make edits against consensus, revert to their preferred text several times and not engage other than in negative fashion. The only lack of consensus comes from two accounts constantly making ridiculous arguments and clutching at straws while claiming foul at all around. I notice they’ve posted a notice about edit warring on someone actually contributing, I hope it has the streisand effect. Many thanks to those spending time and effort to play Cambial Yellowing’s game and finally fixing this article. 92.40.174.237 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The current fourth sentence of the introduction does state the opinion of one individual. That is a problem. If we all agree the introduction should not include the opinion of one individual why is it still there? lets remove it. CoiledAmp (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Cambial Yellowing had the status quo of “restricted devolved powers” as a matter of fact for months which has probably misled thousands of people who have viewed this article, thanks to stubbornness and unwillingness to reach compromise. It is now time to stop digging in and remove this ridiculous statement from the lead paragraph from this article, which is clearly there because it sides with the viewpoint of yellowing.DrJosephCowan (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Published academic sources are considered to be reliable sources. If you think the legal analyses which agree on this point are "ridiculous" the thing to do is to show where other secondary published scholarship claims otherwise, not simply whine about how you don't like it. The only stubbornness is that NPOV and Verifiability should be followed: given that those policies are non-negotiable and cannot be overridden by consensus, that's appropriate. They are not obscure or arcane policy documents; if you read them you'll note that they are 2 of the three core content polices that form the heart of how Wikipedia is written. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is time to end this madness and move to finally have an article / lead which is informative, neutral and not heavily reliant on the opinion of one opponent to the act. It is transparent that Cambial Yellowing/FDW777 find excuses and selectively enforce policy (they often fail to adhere to themself) to push what is essentially propaganda on what is a legally defined act, of which the only interpretation would be undertaken by a judge rather than something the government can manipulate; yet every effort is being made by present it otherwise, mis-characterise or invite the reader to have suspicion.  There are implications for devolution and controversies, they should be included with detail rather than selective omission for effect; in a fair and balanced fashion alongside the actual effect of the passing of the act itself.  I am happy with the proposed text simply because it is easily a vast improvement over the forced "status quo" which was abhorrent to anyone with a passing interest in objectivity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.108.215 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The premise on which your argument rests (that it is reliant on the opinion of one opponent) is obviously and demonstrably false. It is already demonstrated to be untrue in the article. So your argument does not carry any weight. Please refrain from making groundless accusations of bad faith. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 19:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What the lead said when the Act was a bill
"The act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and to restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales can operate in practice".

Somewhat strangely the OP argues above at that this addition of theirs should stand. I will quote the last sentence of what their addition says, since it is at the centre of the dispute.

If new regulatory barriers to trade within the UK are created, the Act can be used as a sword or a shield to overcome them

Yet, for some reason they appear to object the "restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales and can operate in practice" wording despite their own referenced addition saying exactly that! The creation of "new regulatory barriers to trade within the UK" would be by the devolved administrations, and it says this Act can effectively disregard them.

This RFC is effectively meaningless due to the constant, ongoing, changes to the lead by the same editor who started the RFC. People aren't commenting on the consensus version of the lead, but one nobody wants. FDW777 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's insightful you characterize change ass disruption.

That is a good point you raise. No one is saying Michael Dougan or other academics opinions aren't important. So a compromise where their views are attributed and placed in the reactions section just like the Mason Pincent view is complete acceptable in my view. So I support that part of your proposal.

Have you thought about trying to be constructive FDW777 and proposing a new lead text that might be accept both from a quality and NPOV perspective, I'd be happy to look at it PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your RFC is an acknowledgement your proposed change doesn't have consensus. Therefore to continue trying to bulldoze disputed changes through while the RFC is ongoing is inherently disruptive, regardless of the content of the edits. It's not up to me to propose anything. FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No, its an acknowledgement that the old lead is badly written, not neutral, outdated, and overly long and hasn't really ever had consensus and that a new one is needed. Its my attempt to work with you and others to produce one that actually is useful and isn't misleading like the old lead. Of course why create anything when you can just bulldoze others work by reverting it constantly. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The previous lead had consensus, by definition of the term. It's up to those wanting to change it to demonstrate that the previous consensus has changed. You've yet to do that. FDW777 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From what i have seen there is big support for the article introduction not mentioning an individuals opinion in the first paragraph of the introduction. So i am not sure why we are keeping it in there? There is not consensus for the status quo. Most seem to want to see changes. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See below. Please stop making this false claim. FDW777 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It clearly didn't. Also concensus is a continually thing you can't claim it was reach once and then bank it. If consensus existed, which looking at the talkpage and edit history it clearly didn't, it doesn't now. I also don't have to demonstrate anything to you FDW777 you don't own the article. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you summarize the exact changes you want made and why? Theres a lot of whole lead sections but that is not very useful for me to analyze what changes are wanted. I'm thinking that if you can create a concise list of changes we can then hold a formal WP:RFC, wherein we !vote on a course of action. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An IP above posted proposed new wording at 11:56, 2 February 2021. Their proposal seemed a good starting point for the approach the introduction should take. A significant improvement on the current introduction though with further alterations needed. Everyones views on that as a starting point would maybe help. Theres a lot of problems with the current introduction but the biggest problem is the fourth sentence of the first paragraph. it is totally unacceptable that someonse opinion is given such undue weight. It does not belong in the introduction.  CoiledAmp (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I can do you one better at the suggestion of user John Maynard Friedman I drafted the below text that I think addresses the issues of length, confused drafting, and Neutral point of view

"The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with the regulation of trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations.

It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It established an Office of the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor the UK Internal Market. The legislation also reserves the regulation of government subsidy to business, providing the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its UK position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

The Bill received support from business organisations. However, it received national and international criticism due to elements that would have empowered the UK government to break the Northern Ireland Protocol of its withdrawal agreement with the EU. The Legislation also continues to face national criticism for its impact on devolution. The Welsh and Scottish Government in particular strongly opposed the bill and the former has announced its intention to challenge the legislation in court.”

I'd welcome your thoughts, Thanks PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong with the current lead? It seems to be longer, more descriptive, and goes into more nuance. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with the current lead is its mostly just stating different people or organisations views. This is meant to be an article about an Act of Parliament. it should say with clarity what the Act does and then have one paragraph explaining the notable criticism of it.At the moment the first paragraph mentions the views of one random guy. Then theres the view of the UK Government then the Scottish Government then Michael Gove then Devolved administrations. The final paragraph is reasonable though some small changes would be appropriate. But the first three paragraphs are just very bad and no other articles on Acts of Parliament take on the tone and style of this article introduction. It is biased with undue weight given to negative views of the legislation rather than neutral and factual with notable criticism. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's actually not much in the way of information about the act itself in the lead at present, key aspects such as "mutual recognition" and "non-discrimination" are not even mentioned. What the act "seeks to" do is highly contentious, it would be far better to simply state facts rather than the interpretation of any individuals, on wikipedia or anywhere else especially considering that this a law without wriggle room for interpretation.  Politicians are looking to promote significant and seismic constitutional change all the way to independence on the back of sentiment of laws such as these, Wikipedia should be neutral on these matters.  There is a lot of content on this talk page, probably too much for someone coming in fresh but you will find many objections to what is being referred to as the status quo, although how that has been maintained is in itself contentious.146.198.108.194 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not how NPOV works. That's like saying the article on German leader Adolf Hitler is negative compared to the article on German leader Angela Merkel. FDW777 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of legislation it is equal in status to other legislation and should be similar to other articles. The fact that you mention Hitler and Merkel sort of highlights a concern that this article is seeking to treat this legislation as bad vs other legislation which is treated as good or neutral. Many bits of legislation have criticism at the time but the article introduction is not entirely focused on that criticism. The introduction should mostly set out what the legislation does. Including its primary purpose (Mutual Recognition and Non Discrimination). Yes it should include notable criticism but that should be in one paragraph and not almost every other sentence of the introduction. CoiledAmp (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say I know what "mutual recognition" means beyond...the obvious? Don't the parties already recognize each other? How is that the most relevant bit? AdmiralEek (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The most important thing about the legislation is that it puts in law the principle of mutual recognition. The fact the introduction does not make this clear is one of the problems. Its the primary purpose of the law. Without this law there was not legal assurance of mutual recognition of goods or services within the UK as it previously (since devolution) depended on EU regulations. CoiledAmp (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The devolved administrations didn't exist before the UK became a member of the EC/EU, the EU Single Market enforced the principal of mutual recognition of goods and services. The UK has now left the EU and the devolved administrations are free to create legislation which might have prevented trade between the countries of the UK.  The UK Internal Market Act means that while those laws can be enforced within the nation they were created, they can't be used to prevent trade from other areas of the UK (essentially replicating the role of the EU for the UK Internal Market). I could go on but it'd probably be easier to read the article and sources which explain this.146.198.108.194 (talk)
 * ... also, the understanding of these principals explains the issue of the lead simply saying that the devolved administrations are restricted; without any further explanation, a casual observer could interpret the act as being a far bigger imposition than reality (especially considering that additional powers are being moved from the EU to the devolved administrations). Changing this text has been frequently blocked despite reasoned arguments and highly reliable sources.146.198.108.194 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice in the formal arguments below, some are falling into the trap of arguing whether the devolved administrations are restricted rather than simply argue to have a lead which spells out what are seen as restrictions by some. The old (steadfastly defended by highly questionable reverts) lead was deliberately vague, this is what should be sought to be rectified rather than be pulled into arguing the toss about who's opinion really counts / needs to be included.

So regarding mutual recognition that means that say a Scottish regulator recognises that a product made to Welsh standards is equivalent to Scottish standards and vice versa. It means a business only has to comply with the regulations of the part of the UK its producing in. So this where some of the academics say it would limit the scope of the devolved legislatures as they could regulate producers operating within their own jurisdiction and not prevent those from another part of the UK. However following amendment due to criticism like those there is now an extensive exemption regime based on the common frameworks programme PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"opinion of one person"
The bundled footnote containing multiple references at the end of the sentence follows, unbundled for ease of viewing.

I will confess to not having read all of the references, but it's clear from just the ones with quotes provided (#3, #4, #6 and #8) that it is not just Michael Dougan. And that's before I point out again that at right above the OP's own reference says the same thing. FDW777 (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So why is the article mentioning his name and his view? And why is it given such prominence? Yes the introduction should mention criticism but not an individuals and with such prominence in the first paragraph. It is giving those views significant undue weight even if other people agree with him. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the person that started the RFC has edit warred to say only his name after starting the RFC, confusing everyone. FDW777 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 You should read them they are interesting. FDW777 You agree opinion shouldn't be presented as fact and should be atrributed. As with the Mason example this is best done in the reactions section, which was missing a section. I've now added so these quotes can be expanded upon. I would point out that before your changes it said "some academics, particularly Michael Dougan" and that one of the sources being cited Dr Lydgate's predate the bill entirely as it was a response to the FCC call for evidence in December 2019! so it appears to be your changes that have made the issue of it being one man's opinion. I think the general consensus is that these opinions belong in the reaction section and not in the lead. Crikey you boys type fast I can't get a word in edgeways! keep getting edit conflicts! PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Where did I say any of those things you just claimed? Diffs are needed with exact quotes from me. Otherwise please strike through your incorrect comments. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For one: stay chill y'all, focus on the *content* not the *contributor*.
 * For two, like the "some academics" or "numerous academics" wording. We *usually* try to avoid that language as it is vague, but in this case, there is not shortage of folks who hold that position, so it is not inaccurate. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not even an opinion, that's what's so frustrating. Either the Act does contain legislation that restricts the powers of the devolved administrations (which it does, according to numerous academics), or it doesn't (erm, according to nobody in particular). This is fact not opinion. FDW777 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It clearly is an opinion and an outdated one at that, as it was about the bill which was heavily amended in its passage due to similar criticism particularly in the lords. So they don't reflect on the Act as it is now but on the bill as it was introduced. Or in the case of the Dr Lydgate cite before a bill was even suggested.

The simple fact is you won't know how it impacts devolved competence until its tested in court. Even a constitutional lawyer offering a view won't be definitive, because no one can be PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There you go again, misrepresenting Lydgate now. FDW777 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 I think you should look to the plank in your own eye. Your friend Cambrial even admitted the source was wrong up in the sources discussion. Perhaps you'd like to apologise? PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, she said it on 23 September 2020, two weeks after the bill was published. So your comment of Or in the case of the Dr Lydgate cite before a bill was even suggested is simply dishonest. FDW777 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Go read your friend Cambrial apology then lets see if you are big enough man to come back accept your mistake and apologise. I am not banging my head against a wall to explain it again. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly having you interact directly with each other is not going well. So if you will engage, I propose we do this WP:DRN style. You will each make a brief statement of what you think the issue is, and what you want changed, with sources if need be. You will talk in separate sections, you will not directly talk to each other, and we will avoid threaded discussion. I will attempt to then steer the conversation in a consensus forming direction, not taking an opinion myself. If the others involved would like, they can join in too, as long as this stays formal. This can be done on this page, or at WP:DRN. Would this be helpful to y'all? AdmiralEek (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, sorry its probably not a helpful way to go about discussing improving the article. I don't respond well to be called a liar and have faced constant hostility from some editors which just wears you down. I have tried extensively to engage and I don't think its just me FDW777 is like this too. I have set out a few times the issues. If you look back to my first post when I started editing the article. Happy to try any method you suggest to find a resolution. Its all so tiring. Could we perhaps do it at the weekend then everyone can take a break. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There is the Scottish Parliament's "Scotland and the UK Internal Market - Call for views", from February 2020. Before the Bill. Linked on that page is Dr Emily Lydgate and Chloe Anthony, University of Sussex. The quote from Emily Lydgate is in reference#4 above, and reads In that context, even though the new powers might not be used, I expect that the UK Government wants the legislation to be in place before those statutory instruments come into force, in case the common frameworks fall apart. What we are seeing is the UK Government responding to a threat by trying to centralise power or create a system that will function in case there is a problem...For example, England might authorise a new active substance for pesticides, or a new GMO, and would then be able to freely export those products to devolved nations, even if they had controls domestically. In so doing, England could competitively undercut producers and in effect undermine permitted divergence. I should not have to provide a point-by-point analysis to demonstrate that quote does not appear in the February 2020 submission. But, just for example, it doesn't contain the terms "new powers", "statutory instruments", "centralise power" or countless other terms in the quote. Why is that? Because the quote is from something she said in September 2020, after the bill was published.

I find the DRN suggestion potentially beneficial (with the caveat some ground rules may need to be established, to prevent problems like Lydgate coming up again). FDW777 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I would point you to Cambrial apology "Ok fair, the submission cited was written in response to the understanding of intent to publish legislation (following the Johnson manifesto and electoral success), not to the white paper itself. I apologise for the error." I guess we now know which one of you is more of a grown up at least PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There are currently four editors or more who have agreed that the lead of this article states the opinion of one individual with the clear intention of pushing a particular viewpoint on the article. It doesn’t matter how many sources you throw about, those are all opinions of the Act prior to it coming into law (hence the climb down and change from yellow). The fact is the Act prevents internal trade barriers amongst the constituent countries of the UK by creating mutual provisions, provisions which are globally renowned within the global economy. It is simply the opinion of an academic that this restricts the devolved administrations, that isn’t what the Act does; that is simply an opinion. Therefore, place the opinion of those academics somewhere else within the article and not in the lead. The precedent has already been set on every other major legislative article in respect of the UK, where the lead introduces what the bill does and doesn’t state the opinion or interpretation of what academics view the legislation as doing. We need the opinion of the academic removed from the lead, which is what the consensus is here by majority and for those opinions to be placed else where within the article.DrJosephCowan (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the academic point. This is the biggest problem i see with the current introduction. It gives undue weight to the views of one academic (yes some others may share those views too but thats not how the article is currently worded) and yet the article introduction does not even mention the term "mutual recognition" which is the primary purpose of the legislation. AdmiralEek in the discussion above asked about its meaning. The introduction should clearly set it out because that is the whole point of this legislation. Yet it doesnt. Instead the introduction is just a lot of different peoples and governments views all contradicting each other rather than stating the actual facts. Its a mess. Other articles on Acts of Parliament are not worded in this style or tone at all. CoiledAmp (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument reads as the following, you claim that you believe: undue weight is given to one academic, but actually you recognise that in fact it's the analysis of multiple academics, but because one editor has made the article say it's the view of one academic, we should treat it as though it is. That argument is very facetious, and does not hold up to a moment's scrutiny. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 23:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I've now created a academia section in the reaction section as along with business and political parties (two very key groups given the economic nature of the bill) this was missing from the old version of the article. I think these criticism all more suitable sit there were they can be expanded and attributed. Which I have begun to do. My one concern is that all the academics cited so far are from the DAs some like Dr McEwen have even worked for the Scottish Government so should that potential bias be caveated as in a way you could say her views represent the SG given her consultancy for them. What do people think? PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cambrial can say whatever they like. It is a proven fact the Emily Lydgate quote cited in the article is from after the Bill was published in September 2020, and not from an earlier paper from February 2020. It does not matter how many times or how many people say red is blue or black is white, that quote is from after the bill was published. FDW777 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't in the old lead for which you are advocating, so it seems you are the one trying to claim red is blue and rewrite history to fit your own world view, and despite being caught in a lie you press on. You are very Trumpian with your alternative facts etc PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * FDW777 The opinion of an academic does not carry weight for it to be placed as fact within the lead paragraph of this article. Please indicate where this is the case on any of the other major legislative UK article on Wikipedia. The lead paragraph should be entirely on what the Act sets out to do, which once again; is to prevent internal trade barriers within the UK with globally renowned factual provisions of mutual recognition and market access principles. It is the opinion of academics which say that the Act restricts the devolved administrations, but this isn’t fact it is opinion. Therefore, keep the lead paragraph in line with precedent and move the opinion of the academics and others elsewhere within the article.DrJosephCowan (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you'd read the first post in the section you're replying to before replying (which is generally a good idea) you'd know it's not just "an academic" [my emphasis], but "many academics". The "other major legislative UK article" argument has been dismissed, as being incompatible with NPOV. Just as the article on Adolf Hitler is more negative than the article on Angela Merkel, despite them both being about German leaders, the content of this article is dependent on what independent references say on the subject. FDW777 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Progress is now being made to the introduction by majority of consensus on here that says remove the opinion of the academic and place it somewhere appropriate. Please take a step back from this article and consider that you are actually the issue here.DrJosephCowan (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again : phrases such as this The lead paragraph should be entirely on what the Act sets out to do, which once again; is to prevent internal trade barriers within the UK with globally renowned factual provisions of mutual recognition and market access principles betray a total unfamiliarity with what a WP:LEAD is supposed to do, and what WP:NPOV means. Let's compare:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

DrJosephCowan

You don't get to simply reinvent how articles are to be written.

Your proposed lead uses only one source for what the bill seeks to do: the Conservative party in government. Wikipedia is not a press release, and treating it as a platform to put the policy announcements of one government as fact, and all academic legal analysis of the legislation as only someone's opinion, is an egregious violation of NPOV. Legal scholars examine the text of the legislation and draw conclusions based on their expertise in how the law operates, what extant legislation might impact it, and the real-world circumstances in which the law will operate. Their analysis is a reliable source for what the act does, and trying to claim that only government press releases/policy papers should be used to support what the act does suggests you either haven't read or haven't understood what NPOV means. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 00:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, the change to the lead regarding the inclusion of the provisions is not based on the opinion of the Conservative Party in Government; it is based on the legislation that is now in law. Let me make it clear to you what I meant, instead of you misinterpreting what I said and turning it into something it is not. The legislation creates renowned provisions, which are internationally recognised principles to prevent internal trade barriers amongst the constituent nations of the UK. That isn’t the Conservative Party line, it is fact; which has sat within the lead paragraph prior to any change I made “concerns trade within the UK to prevent internal trade barriers”. The only change that has occurred, is that the opinion of an academic has been removed as per the consensus above. The only additional piece of information added to the lead paragraph is adding the market provisions and principles, which are stated throughout the article as being central to the legislation to prevent internal trade barriers. You are once again acting like you own this article and trying to bring up old arguments. DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, I am not objecting to any criticism of the Act and I would be happy with the opinion of the academics to be present within the article. However, it should not be in the lead paragraph or entirely focused on the opinion of one individual. The fact you are basing my edit on accusations of political motive is ridiculous, when I am trying to be as neutral as possible for the good of the article. Maybe, it is time you take a step back from this article. DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't achieved consensus. Another editor agreeing with you is not a consensus. It is fact is not a valid argument, it carries no weight in your trying to achieve consensus. Your arguments which are variants of "I don't like" it carry no weight in determining consensus. Content is determined by verifiability, not what you claim is simply "truth". The same arguments apply because you haven't changed anything about your arguments for your proposed changes, and they still fall down in the same place. The sources cited in the status quo lead are reliable sources. They state that the act seeks to prevent trade barriers, create market access principles, and restrict the ability of the devolved administrations to legislate in certain ways. Those sources state the latter as equally significant a function of the bill. You don't get to simply decide this function of the bill shouldn't be in the lead; that isn't maintaining a NPOV. Maybe it is time you took a step back to understand what NPOV means before continuing to edit WP. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And again, I am not talking about the entirety of the “lead”, I am talking about the introductory paragraph. If I was talking about the entirety of the lead, I wouldn’t have said “paragraph” after the word “lead”. I’ve also been open to adding opposing views and have been subjective as possible. Stop twisting my words and preventing consensus on this article by quoting rules- as if you own the article. DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your words aren't being twisted. Your arguments simply don't hold water. I'm only bothering to point out the core content policies to you because your edits and the words you write here indicate that you're intent on ignoring them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 00:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Disingenuously quoting what I said and portraying it as something it is not, is twisting my words. I understand the rules regarding the lead, what I am discussing isn’t the entirety of the lead it is the introductory paragraph and how it should not have the opinion of one individual within it. My proposal to remove the opinion of the academic was backed my various editors, who agreed it should be removed from the introduction paragraph and placed elsewhere. The only additional content I added to the lead paragraph was what is already well and truly established within the article, which are the provisions around market principles.DrJosephCowan (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you rehashing your argument that the intro paragraph should not have the opinion of one individual within it again. Everyone agrees with this. Quit rehashing it. Just as the sources originally in that paragraph were reliable sources for the act "creating market access principles", they are reliable sources for it "restricting the competences of devolved administrations". No opinion of one individual in sight. You don't get to decide "I like that they say this", but "I don't like that they said this."<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 01:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles are not a matter of opinion, those provisions are a matter of fact within the legislation. It is the opinion of an academic that those provisions restrict the devolved administrations. However, that opinion should not be in the introduction paragraph of the article because the Scottish Government, UK Government and Welsh Government all have opinions too of what the legislation and provisions achieve. So, why should an academic that you agree with have a prominent position within the introductory paragraph? It shouldn’t. Stop thinking that the provisions are a matter of opinion, they aren’t. The provisions are in law and part of the legislation. You are mistakenly under the impression that those provisions are a matter of opinion. That is why the introduction paragraph should be left as is and the opinions should be placed elsewhere within the article. DrJosephCowan (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have it completely backwards. No-one thinks the provisions are a matter of opinion. What the act does to the ability of devolved competences to operate is a fact, and multiple independent reliable sources support it. Do you think the act prevents trade barriers? You claiming that it does this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 01:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cambial the issue that several users are trying to explain to you is that you are stitching on to the end of a factual statement the opinion of academics without attributing it as such and instead presenting as if it is factual, which is misleading at best. Further the opinions you want to include were of the bill not the act, so are outdated and much like the more extensive criticism of the NIP breaking clauses belongs in the reactions or background.

Trying to hide that those are opinions, presenting them as fact and giving them undue promienence and weight particularly is the problem.

The article has languished at a C grade for months, other editors just want to improve it and get its quality up please stop reverting those efforts and be constructive. Everyone has bent over backwards to try to include you and your friend FDW777 despite your behaviour.It can't all be one way. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)