BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail

Subject: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:30 AM

Take heed!

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

and

NOT FIT FOR FACTS: 20 TIMES THE DAILY MAIL WROTE RUBBISH IN THE PAST YEAR

I am never sure of Wiki 'facts' anyway but at least they seem better at checking sources and making corrections than some of our gutter press.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 03:49 AM

Interesting to read the link, which is from The Guardian:
Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group "generally unreliable".

The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.
I think that last sentence is intended to mean "Wikipedia's editors have raised concerns about quoting from both Russia Today and Fox news" I'm fairly sure that it is not Russia Today, or Fox News, which have raised the concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:06 AM

I would guess so too, Nigel. Hopefully they will come next, closely followed by the Stun.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:12 AM

Can't wait for the guardian to be put on the list as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM

What has the Guardian misreported then, Iains? Do you have any recent examples?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:39 AM

The Grauniad presumably has committed crimes against spelling (historic).

There has to be some oversight. I have had source references refused because of copyright reasons.
And for a blanket ban, consensus is the way. The Wikipedia way.
Another way would be a Snopes quotient.

All Newspapers print falsehoods. Some, occasionally by mistake, some regularly by policy. We call the latter comics.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:40 AM

He's scared that Wiki will end up being edited only by soft-centred inky-pinky sandal-wearing bearded guilt-ridden liberal apologists, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

A blanket ban is the start of a slippery slope. Who polices the policemen?
Does it mean Hansard should be banned because frequently politicians put a vicious spin on their responses in Parliament? Should it include any newspaper that is partisan?
Where does it end?
I regard it as a very dangerous development, and further censoring of the internet.
According to some sources the daily mail is the most widely read english language newspaper in the world. I have no way of verifying that, but if true, it makes banning it as a source even more dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:00 AM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:02 AM

Who polices the policemen? We do, you certainly do.

But put your truncheon away, you might hit yourself on the backswing. Dearie.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

:-) was for Steve.

As to where does it all end. Well, I think the answer to that lies in common sense. If a source is regularly wrong in its reporting then it should be doubted and double checked at all times. The editors of Wikipedia have a job to do and if they spend a large proportion of their time checking the Daily Mail sources, which should have been checked by the paper in the first place, then it makes sense for them to stop using it and save themselves a lot of work.

Hansard is false equivalence. They report what the MP says. Whether the MP is right or wrong is a matter for people to make up their own mind about but the fact remains that the MP said it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:11 AM

Well mr patronising red, if the vetting process we can all participate in works so well there is no need for a blanket ban now is there?

https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/09/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail/
maybe it is more to do with the munnee.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: DaveRo
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:12 AM

Iains wrote: According to some sources the daily mail is the most widely read english language newspaper in the world. I have no way of verifying that, but if true, it makes banning it as a source even more dangerous.

I agree about the un-wisdom of a blanket ban, but why does the fact that a newspaper is widely read make a ban 'more dangerous'? Just curious.

Seems likely to me that there is a correlation between circulation and inaccuracy - which may make the Mail an unauthorative source, and therefore deprecated - though not banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:16 AM

Dave Ro. Dangerous purely on the basis that it disseminates news(of a sort) to the greatest number.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:24 AM

D the G I disagree that Hansard is a false equivalence. You can read coverage of the same event in say the guardian or russia today. Two very different perspectives giving two very different accounts. It is very hard for any news source to have true independence. Someone some where pays the wages and generally they have an agenda that they will promote whenever possible. Truth is a very elusive beast and requires sifting and sorting of sources to come close to finding it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:30 AM

Well as I think I may have mentioned before, I occasionally pick up a free copy of the Daily Mail with my Waitrose card (I could get the Guardian, but I already get that, or the Times or Telegraph, but I already have enough bog paper). Yesterday's front page was about the soldier who murdered an injured insurgent in cold blood in Afghanistan. By the time you've read the first two tabloid-length paragraphs of the "report" it's crystal clear that the paper is solidly on the side of the convicted murderer. When I want the news I want the news, not the news mixed up with someone's opinion of it. I want to see that only in separate, clearly-defined opinion columns. Of course, the Mail isn't unique in employing that dishonest approach, and it's why it and its fellow tabloids can't be trusted. So if Wiki wants to exclude the Mail, that's fine by me. I wouldn't expect Wiki to glean aspects of education policy from the Bash Street Kids in the Beano either.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM

Hansard is not a newspaper. It is the official report of goings on on both houses of parliament. What it reports is always accurate. It has no bias or spin in itself and only gives verbatim copy of what was said.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 05:40 AM

Daily mail
It had an average daily circulation of 1,510,824 copies in November 2016. Between July and December 2013 it had an average daily readership of approximately 3.951 million, of whom approximately 2.503 million were in the ABC1 demographic and 1.448 million in the C2DE demographic.

That Mr Shaw is a lot of people in the ABC1mdemographic that do not share your opinion. and unlike you they buy Andrex.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:10 AM

So what? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Senoufou
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 06:24 AM

Well, I buy it Monday to Friday. I never read a word. I only extract the double page of puzzles, crosswords and Sudoku, which keeps me quiet for an hour (and gives my husband a bit of peace) The rest of the thing goes under the cat litter tray, (probably the best place for it!) and is also used for wrapping up food leftovers before putting in the bin.
I couldn't even tell you what the articles are about, who their columnists are or what so-called News it purports to convey.

So please don't have me executed... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:13 AM

D the G.
"Hansard is not a newspaper. It is the official report of goings on on both houses of parliament. What it reports is always accurate. It has no bias or spin in itself and only gives verbatim copy of what was said."

Very true but I am sure reams were written on Parliamentary reports of weapons of mass destruction used as an excuse to take us to war in Iraq, and later shown to be a massaged pack of lies. These conversations/debates were based on a false premise. Parliament was mislead and dodgy dossiers were used as a basis for the voting.
In reality that was a far greater crime than the daily wail getting things wrong on occasions.
Anyway if in search of quality reporting there exist other papers.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 07:35 AM

I am sure reams were written on Parliamentary reports of weapons of mass destruction used as an excuse to take us to war in Iraq

I am sure they were Iains but that does not alter the fact that Hansard only reports what actually happens in parliament. Hansard does not try to lead peoples opinions as the newspapers do.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:11 AM

I can't for the life of me think why Hansard has been invoked in this discussion. It is not a newspaper with an editor who decides what goes where, if at all, and how many column inches each item gets, and it contains no editorial opinion. Apart from redundancies and repetitions and occasional correcting of mistakes, it is, in effect, a comprehensive transcript of debates. It is an exceptionally reliable source of what is said. In complete contrast, the Mail's reporting routinely includes elements of campaigning for one side of an argument, with a tendentious style that, in effect, mixes news and comment. If plain facts are what you want, that approach is in danger of misleading. The soldier who murdered the Afghan insurgent isn't just involved in an appeal against his conviction (the neutral fact of the matter), he has "hopes for justice," the clear implication being that he has so far been denied justice. That is the paper's view, mixed together with the news report. The same reporter has another item in the paper which clearly implies that the conditions at the military camp in Afghanistan contributed to the state of mind that made him do the murder. The whole is intended to get us to side with him. There's no mention of the fact that all this was going on in the insurgent's own region or that their family had lost a son. Of course, that would have been tendentious the opposite way. But it might at least have provided balance. CP Scott said that comment is free but facts are sacred. Had he been around today he might have campaigned for full, not deliberately partial, facts, and that no-one should be in the slightest doubt as to whether it's fact or comment they're reading. Because the Mail can't seem to dispel such doubt, it has been correctly branded unreliable. And there are others.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM

Yes, sorry all. It was introduced thus by Iains -

Does it mean Hansard should be banned because frequently politicians put a vicious spin on their responses in Parliament?

And I tried to point out that was false equivalence for all the reasons stated before. It was a side track and we should now forget it.

What is interesting though is that the question I had asked as to why the Guardian should be included in the ban was never answered. I gather from that there is little or no evidence of them purposely misreporting for political gain?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:34 AM

Because mr shaw Hansard reports faithfully what was said. It does not differentiate between statement of fact and stated opinion. Newspapers have always mixed and matched between the 2.
Like a newspaper may claim, Hansard reports the facts. It does not follow that what it states is the truth.
Like a newspaper, the content of Hansard cannot always be trusted when
quoting opinions verbatim

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:52 AM

Pot and kettle?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:56 AM

Had to laugh at this from someone who admits he gets his news from the Guianard:

"When I want the news I want the news, not the news mixed up with someone's opinion of it."

That wipes out anything ever written by Seumas Milne, George Monbiot or Tariq Ali and a host of others then Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 08:59 AM

I really don't understand what you're getting at, Iains.

The Hansard reporters take down, word for word, what is said in Parliament. They don't put a spin on it, alter it, comment on it, or misreport it. Hansard is not a newspaper - it is a transcript of the day in Parliament. Now, what is said may be anything - pearls of wisdom or absolute bollocks - but the reporters have NO choice in changing it. That is what makes it different from a conventional newspaper.

In short, you may disagree with the opinions of the speakers whose words are taken down in Hansard - that depends on whether you trust the individual MPs or not - but you cannot say that they said something else entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM

That has always been known, Howard. Wikipedia is not and never has been a definitive source on anything which is why there are links to sources on anything it reports as factual. So you can look them up yourselves. Unlike the Daily Mail which puts forward opinion mixed with reporting as the true picture. The fact that some people do not check their sources is the whole point of removing the Daily Mail as a source. If the source cannot be relied on, neither can the fact. The linked Daily Mail article is just someone spitting their dummy out.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:31 AM

Will Fly. I said: "Hansard reports faithfully what was said. It does not differentiate between statement of fact and stated opinion."
Can I make that any clearer?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:49 AM

Dthe g, as you press the point:-

The guardian:
    An article about a conservation project to return mountain chicken frogs to Montserrat said that the endangered frog was the national dish of the island. Montserrat's national dish is goat water, a stew; mountain chicken is the national dish of nearby Dominica.

or
    The paper's editor, Philippe Remarque, called it a "stupid mistake", and apologised to Cruyff, the former Ajax and Holland forward and manager of Barcelona.

    "On behalf of Volkskrant I offer my apologies to Johan Cruyff and anyone who has been upset by this," he said. "The app was tested this morning with fake stories, and a technician came up with this as a way of testing a major breaking news story. By mistake it appeared with this headline."

or
A report on page 3 in Thursday's paper about the opening day of a case at the high court involving Nick and Christian Candy said incorrectly that they attended the hearing accompanied by bodyguards.
plenty more if you insist on boring everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:50 AM

Yes but that is not what you said originaly, Iains. The first mention of Hansard was by you and said

Does it mean Hansard should be banned because frequently politicians put a vicious spin on their responses in Parliament?

I took that to mean that Hansard was reporting the spin. Will obviously though the same. Maybe you should consider clarifying what you mean in a more friendly manner before you start to patronise others.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:53 AM

Anything that they have not apologised for or acknowledged as a mistake would do, Iains. Preferably something that affects peoples lives and world economies.

Please feel free to continue boring whoever you want.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:57 AM

Have you been having lessons off Teribus in being belligerent BTW? You have a long way to go yet but you are getting there.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 09:58 AM

Will Fly: The Hansard reporters take down, word for word, what is said in Parliament. They don't put a spin on it, alter it, comment on it, or misreport it. Hansard is not a newspaper - it is a transcript of the day in Parliament. Now, what is said may be anything - pearls of wisdom or absolute bollocks - but the reporters have NO choice in changing it. That is what makes it different from a conventional newspaper.

Will, what's supposed to happen is (from the Terms of Reference of Hansard as defined by a Commons Select Committee): "...which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes (including grammatical mistakes) corrected, but which, on the other hand, leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument."

That's what's supposed to happen. In fact Hansard doesn't always report accurately what's been said. There have been several instances in the years since proceedings have been recorded when the official Hansard record has indeed been proved to have been edited in ways HAVE left out things "which have added to the meaning of the speech".

Also, if an MP does say something which is later proved to be inaccurate, then the "copy of record" of Hansard kept in the Commons library is amended to reflect this.

You're substantially correct, but there's a bit more to it!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 10:53 AM

D the G. the thread was about the Daily mail being unreliable as a source of news:
"The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."
You look hard enough and many newspapers could be tarred with the same brush, either wholly or in part.
My reason for comparing newspapers with Hansard is that accurate reporting of dialogue from a reputable source does not guarantee the veracity of the recorded content. It is merely a transcript of the proceedings. If those proceedings contain lies, spin, bullsh*t, then that is accurately recorded. Just like certain newspaper articles truth is relegated to the back row. All sources can be suspect and need consideration even Hansard. That is why I used it as an example as far away from the mainstream media as it is possible to get.

Also Wikipedia can come up with some howlers when first posted, although I will concede they are generally corrected quite quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Stu
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:00 AM

"My reason for comparing newspapers with Hansard is that accurate reporting of dialogue from a reputable source does not guarantee the veracity of the recorded content."

I'm beginning to think you're not getting this at all. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:03 AM

D the G. the thread was about the Daily mail being unreliable as a source of news:

It still is.

You look hard enough and many newspapers could be tarred with the same brush, either wholly or in part.

It's that 'wholly or in part' that is significant. Comparing chicken frogs in Montserrat to stirring up hate against migrants or Muslims is comparing apples to blue nosed baboons.. The editorial team of Wikipedia seem to agree. You do not. Ne'er the twain and all that.

Hansard was brought up by you. You have explained your comment. It is now a non issue.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:22 AM

That wipes out anything ever written by Seumas Milne, George Monbiot or Tariq Ali and a host of others then

I don't understand, Teribus. Steve said he wanted news clearly separated from opinion and comment. The people you identified (and quite possibly the host of others) write in sections clearly identified as comment, not news, when they use their name. Now, for all I know, they also write anonymous articles in the news section, and if they mixed news and comment in that I am sure Steve would object to the mixing there.

It is virtually impossible to write any news article without some degree of bias. Even selecting which articles appear and which do not has an angle. However, the point about the Daily Mail is that, *in the opinion of Wikipedia* it does not try hard enough to eliminate the biases.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:34 AM

There is a difference between confusing the national dishes of two neighbouring Caribbean islands, reporting accurately things which are said which may be inaccurate, and making stuff up to blacken the reputation of an entire segment of society. The Mail of course has form from the 30s, when it was a different segment. It is true that other newspapers, notably the Sun and the Express, are guilty of fabrication, and if I were wikipedia or anything to do with it I would not use those as a source either.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:37 AM

Had to laugh at this from someone who admits he gets his news from the Guianard:

"When I want the news I want the news, not the news mixed up with someone's opinion of it."

That wipes out anything ever written by Seumas Milne, George Monbiot or Tariq Ali and a host of others then Shaw.

Those three are not news reporters, Teribus old son. They write comment columns that are clearly distinct from news reports and which are always on separate pages. Next time, engage your brain before you type and do try to follow what's going in.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 11:57 AM

Thanks, DMcG. We actually cross-posted in spite of the 15-minute time lag between us. I got interrupted half way through!

There are lots of hidden biases even in the best papers. Someone has decided how much prominence to give a news report, what page it goes on, how long it should be and whether it goes in the paper at all. The same applies to news bulletins on the telly. News is produced and presented to us by human beings. I can excuse factual mistakes that are made by accident with no attached agenda. I want to think that they are doing their best to present news to me in order to increase my knowledge and inform my opinion, not make my opinion for me. I won't read papers that I suspect are trying to do that. In my experience, that precludes every tabloid in this country except for the "i," and it also precludes the Daily Telegraph. As I've said before, it pays to get information from several carefully-chosen sources, not just one. If only everyone had done that before that confounded referendum, and before the US election, we wouldn't be in this bloody mess now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 12:29 PM

That is a very bizarre stance you take mr shaw. You imply all those that voted for Trump and Brexit did so from ignorance. Many would dispute your assumption. What infallible source did you use to arrive at such a sweeping delusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 12:33 PM

A deal of defensive hysteria going on here
It is inaccurate to claim that The Mail has been "banned" - Wiki has said they are ceasing to use it as a source of information because of its record of inaccuracies - fair enough
As an information provider, Wiki is duty bound to ascertain that their information sources don't fall below a certain level - they have judged that The Mail has fallen below that standard.
Wili isn't particularly biased in one direction or the other, in my experience, so it can hardly be accused of embarking on a "slippery slope"
The comparisons with Mansard are ludicrous - if it didn't include all opinions, right or wrong, it would be in neglect of its duty and embarking on censorship.
Rational Wikki describes THe Mail as a "Fascist Rag" - not far from the mark, in my opinion, given its history with "Herr Hitler" and 'British Union of Fascists' and its more recent manipulation of the truth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Peter the Squeezer
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 12:46 PM

Some years ago, I set a pub quiz.

One of the questions was "What is the name of the official journal of (UK) Parliament?

One team answered "Tribune".



Oh - if only!!

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Jim McLean
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 12:50 PM

Just before the Scottish Indy referendum, the Scottish Daily Mail's headline was Cameron saying "Don't tear our family apart". On the same day, the English version's headline was "Why don't we tell the Scots to shove off".

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Iains
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM

Jim the introduction of a pitched roof into the thread has me confused. Can you enlighten me?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:29 PM

You imply all those that voted for Trump and Brexit did so from ignorance. Many would dispute your assumption. What infallible source did you use to arrive at such a sweeping delusion?

And what infallible source do YOU use to REFUTE such a "sweeping delusion"[sic], pray?

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:31 PM

A reference to a Mansard roof I presume Iains which, considering it is pretty obvious what Jim was on about and was a simple typo, is neither clever nor witty. Another trait of your role model that you have picked up I'm afraid.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 17 - 01:47 PM

"That is a very bizarre stance you take mr shaw. You imply all those that voted for Trump and Brexit did so from ignorance. Many would dispute your assumption. What infallible source did you use to arrive at such a sweeping delusion?"

Well let me put it to you this way. No rational person, with all the information to hand about Trump's history, attitudes and pig-ignorance, would have voted for him. "Rational" is quite important in that context. So yes indeed. If you voted for Trump you voted out of irrationality and/or out of a deficit of information. Which is a polite way of saying ignorance. Likewise, any rational person who had a good idea of the history and workings of the EU would have been extremely worried about the tissues of lies which were the modus operandi of both sides of the argument and either refrained from voting or voted for the safety of the status quo. To vote to leave into a completely unknown and danger-ridden future was a decision based on ignorance which fuelled vulnerability to specious and dishonest arguments. If it's any consolation to you, I imagine that millions of people who were well short of being fully-informed also voted Clinton or remain. Incidentally, I read last week of a study that demonstrated a good correlation between good education and voting remain. Bet that'll get you going. And if you call me deluded one more time I'll give you grief about the deficiencies of your posts every time you post. The fact that it will be a very major operation won't put me off.