Talk:Contravention in French criminal law
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Contravention en droit pénal français from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
Original research
[edit]This article lacks proper citations to independent, secondary sources, being completely reliant on French legal codes, a non-independent, primary source. Most of the citations should be to secondary sources. Fortunately, there is a pre-made library of Wikipedia citations to secondary sources in the area of French criminal law, and you can find it here. You can either just use it as a source from which you can copy-and-paste citations right into this article, and then source them using {{sfn}}, or you don't even have to copy them here, you can just transclude them using the instructions given at {{Reflib}}. Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've created a new § Further reading section and included citations to twenty secondary sources. Some of these may contain information useful for sourcing this article. The following links may be helpful for finding online resources:
- Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Putting this another way: the entire article consists of 100% original research by French Wikipedia editors who apparently wrote an article based on their own impressions and opinions about what the French criminal code (a primary source) means, as there are no sources other than that. Whether or not this is acceptable at French Wikipedia (spoiler: it isn't), it is entirely unacceptable at English Wikipedia, and the article is nowhere close to releasable in its current state, regardless of how accurate the translation is. Mathglot (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Mathglot I agree that the article should not make any legal interpretation that is not specifically called out in the sources, otherwise it is original research. But just to make sure I understand, do you agree that statements like the following don't require secondary sources, correct?
- "Article 34 of the Constitution, which pertains to the scope of the law, does not include provisions concerning contraventional offenses, in contrast to crimes and misdemeanors: "The law establishes the rules concerning: [...] the determination of crimes and misdemeanors, as well as the penalties applicable to them."
- This sentence only paraphrases what the article 34 of the constitution, so I assume this constitutes no original research? 7804j (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- 7804j, No, I don't agree. Who paraphrased it, and why? If that person was a published author writing about the constitution, or some other reliable source writing about it, then the paraphrase may stay and a secondary source shoiuld be cited. If the person paraphrasing it is a Wikipedia editor, paraphrasing according to their best understanding of what that article in the constitution means, then that is original research and cannot be used. You can place Article 34 in double quotes and quote it word-for-word, adding a citation to the Constitution (as a WP:PRIMARY source), but you cannot paraphrase it according to your own understanding of what it means. That is original research, and it is forbidden.
- What I tried to say previously, probably not strongly enough, is that this entire draft is a paraphrase of the Constitution and other primary sources such as the French penal code, and there are no secondary sources at all, which is a complete deal-breaker for release. The topic is unquestionably notable and deserves to have an article about it, but as a prospective article, there is nothing in this Draft worth saving, other than the § See also and § Further reading sections. If it were assigned to me, I would delete everything from sentence one, starting with "In French criminal law, contravention is ..." all the way to the very end of the body, and start over from scratch, replacing the entire Draft with these two sentences from the Glossary, which at least have two valid sources backing them up. Nothing in the draft is properly sourced, none of it deserves to remain, and imho the article is unsalvageable in its current state.
- In theory, you could leave the content as is (but only in Draft space, not in mainspace), and try to find secondary sources for everything, and cite it. That is a legitimate approach, and if successful, then the Draft could be released. But imho that path is more difficult and lengthy than just junking it entirely, and start from zero using proper sources. Still, if someone has the time and energy to take the first approach, it is a valid one.
- My recommendation would be to abandon this draft and allow it to be deleted by the bot in six months as a lost cause, or else userfy it, if someone has the will to work on it. (The question of why the article exists at all at fr-wiki isn't germane here, but I would just say that different Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines, and even when the policies are similar, other wikis can be lax about the rules and non-compliant articles often remain (here, too, sometimes). Problematic articles from other Wikipedias should not be translated, because it is a waste of everybody's time.)
- I'm not the judge and jury here, and you could seek out other views, for example by posting a notice at the Wikipedia Original Research Noticeboard, briefly explaining the situation and linking back to this discussion. Adding Andreachlc0203. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Submitted
[edit]@Andreachlc0203 and 7804j:, I have submitted this to see if there's any hope for this draft. Imho, the fact that 100% of citations are primary sources and there are no secondary sources at all makes this pure OR and a dealbreaker, but let's see what Afc folks think. Meanwhile, it is still without question a notable topic, which means that if anyone wants to pick it up and beef up the citations, it ought to have every chance of passing Afc. But not in its current state, if you ask me. I'm also wondering what, if anything, needs to be added to the instructions to emphasize the difference between the standards and requirements of different wikis, in this case, fr- and en-wiki, so we don't fall into the trap of translating an article which meets the standards of the source wiki, but not the target wiki. Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Andreachlc0203 and 7804j:, I thought better of this, and have removed the submission header; no point wasting reviewers' time. I plan to strip this down to a tiny core, and build it back up to a releasable stub, and then release it. The building back up part may not happen right away. If anyone wishes to help out—and I wish you would, as I don't know when I'll get back to it—there is a built-in set of reliable, secondary references with citations all ready to plug into the article; you can consult them at Template:Reflib; see article domain 'French criminal law'. Everything you need to build a complete, well-sourced article about this topic is listed there. Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Stripped. Looks like I already placed citations to a good set of sources from Reflib into § Further reading section; they just need to be picked up and used to create article content. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Shall we move this stub into mainspace? 7804j (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- @7804j:, well, I was thinking about that question. Purely on the merits and the policies, it qualifies now, but it is pretty thin, and more than half is just a straight copy of material out of French criminal law, which raises WP:PAGEDECIDE questions, namely: if it this small and will not expand, why have a separate article at all, and why not just include it all at FCL? Imho the answer to that is that it could expand and should, but in its current state it is vulnerable to that question. I would rather see it expand a little bit first, if only a couple of new paragraphs that go into detail not already covered at FCL. At that point, I would have no qualms about releasing it. Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am generally a supporter of publishing stubs even if they are very small, as I feel a stub is better than no page at all (especially when the page is anyway not translatable; having a page here will also avoid the risk of someone translating the French article again and wasting that effort). For sure it would be preferable if it's expanded a bit before, but other than you, I'm not sure anyone else will be able to work on this draft until it's published 7804j (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @7804j:, me too, unless there's too much of an overlap with existing article, but I expanded this one so it's better as a stand-alone now. I released and deorphaned it, so this is done and open for regular editing by anybody who wishes to. Mathglot (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am generally a supporter of publishing stubs even if they are very small, as I feel a stub is better than no page at all (especially when the page is anyway not translatable; having a page here will also avoid the risk of someone translating the French article again and wasting that effort). For sure it would be preferable if it's expanded a bit before, but other than you, I'm not sure anyone else will be able to work on this draft until it's published 7804j (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @7804j:, well, I was thinking about that question. Purely on the merits and the policies, it qualifies now, but it is pretty thin, and more than half is just a straight copy of material out of French criminal law, which raises WP:PAGEDECIDE questions, namely: if it this small and will not expand, why have a separate article at all, and why not just include it all at FCL? Imho the answer to that is that it could expand and should, but in its current state it is vulnerable to that question. I would rather see it expand a little bit first, if only a couple of new paragraphs that go into detail not already covered at FCL. At that point, I would have no qualms about releasing it. Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Shall we move this stub into mainspace? 7804j (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Stripped. Looks like I already placed citations to a good set of sources from Reflib into § Further reading section; they just need to be picked up and used to create article content. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)