Comments:Thousands march in anti-Brexit protest, London
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Correction to Article | 2 | 12:09, 6 April 2019 |
| My new comment test 1 | 1 | 23:20, 3 April 2019 |
The article states that England joined the European Union in 1973. While there were treaties and such prior; I'm curious how they joined an organization a full 20 years prior to it's founding. The EU and European citizenship were established when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993.
Maybe that should be corrected...and maybe the "journalist" should do their research BEFORE publishing pieces like this.
According to the BBC source listed for this article, "The UK joined the EU, then known as the EEC (European Economic Community), in 1973."
To be clear: the reporter who writes an article for this project does not publish it. They submit it for review. So if this were an error, it would have gotten past two people, not just one: the reporter and the reviewer. When we find an error in an article well after publication, which rarely happens, we don't rewrite history by "fixing" the error; we issue a {{correction}}, a big ugly notice on the article explaining the error. We're very serious about issuing corrections when called for, and we also don't issue them just because somebody claims there ought to be one. Some people, after all, are motivated to discredit a new article for reasons having nothing to do with the actual merits of the article.