Talk:Recasting (EU law)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Verification and notification
[edit]While it was very nice of Alexandermcnabb to review the page, especially as a new article, I have to strongly disagree with the tags added and will remove them. Do feel more than free to discuss the subject here, happy to revert if you disagree.
As regards verification, the two sources cited are quite literally the authorities on recasting - EUR-LEX (run by the Publications Office of the European Union, equivalent to (I believe?) the National Archives and Records Administration) and the Commission legal service, which manages the process.
As regards notability, "recasting" or "recast" is one of the core methods of updating legislation in the EU. It gets mentioned in news articles sometimes, for example here, and quite often pops up in various NGO or think tank publications, for example here, but I think again the comparison should be made with the US - every US legislative procedure, however minor, is described in excruciating detail. As a semi-confederal 'unidentified political object' of the magnitude, EU legislative procedure should therefore be described in the same detail. It is not impossible that a reader would come across this word, have no clue what it means, and search for it. Hentheden (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Hentheden. I've put the tags back for now, 'cos they're actually appropriate. Please do bear in mind we're talking about standards of verification and notability per Wikipedia's requirements and standards - and that doesn't necessarily mean 'what makes sense'. Where we're talking about notability, we're talking about WP:GNG - the General Notability Guideline. If you're not familiar with this, I'd suggest a read of it, because this is the core policy applied to Wikipedia articles. At its core is this: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - note that 'independent of the subject'. That means, counter-intuitive as it might seem, that the EU is not considered independent of the subject - it would be in fact a primary source, not a secondary source. The EU might claim it's an elephant, but we need someone independent of the EU to confirm it's an elephant. Again, quoting the Hallowed Guideline, ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Verifiability is another thing - again, there's a guideline here, WP:VER and that tells us "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Again, there are statements in this - very short - article that are not cited inline and therefore are not verifiable. Hence the tags. I do hope you'll be able to take a look at these guidelines, see how they apply to the article and address them, in which case you or any other editor are perfectly at liberty to remove the tags. Hell, you can remove them without doing a thing, but you'd be doing yourself and Wikipedia a - very minor - disservice if you did, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Alexander. I see now that I hadn't properly referenced the second and third paras - they were discussed in the same sources. As for the GNG, while I'm of course very biased on the topic, I am familiar with the requirements therein. Recasting, or talking about the "XYZ Directive (Recast)", quite often receives significant coverage (just look at google, searching for "recasting eu") in reliable sources (euractiv, politico, but also business publications) that are independent of the subject. They're not cited in the article, as they tend to just take for a given that the reader understands what the word recast means, without explaining it anywhere. That doesn't mean these mentions are incidental, as the recast is the focus of them, just not the specifics of how a recast works. Hentheden (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Hentheden. I've put the tags back for now, 'cos they're actually appropriate. Please do bear in mind we're talking about standards of verification and notability per Wikipedia's requirements and standards - and that doesn't necessarily mean 'what makes sense'. Where we're talking about notability, we're talking about WP:GNG - the General Notability Guideline. If you're not familiar with this, I'd suggest a read of it, because this is the core policy applied to Wikipedia articles. At its core is this: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - note that 'independent of the subject'. That means, counter-intuitive as it might seem, that the EU is not considered independent of the subject - it would be in fact a primary source, not a secondary source. The EU might claim it's an elephant, but we need someone independent of the EU to confirm it's an elephant. Again, quoting the Hallowed Guideline, ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Verifiability is another thing - again, there's a guideline here, WP:VER and that tells us "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Again, there are statements in this - very short - article that are not cited inline and therefore are not verifiable. Hence the tags. I do hope you'll be able to take a look at these guidelines, see how they apply to the article and address them, in which case you or any other editor are perfectly at liberty to remove the tags. Hell, you can remove them without doing a thing, but you'd be doing yourself and Wikipedia a - very minor - disservice if you did, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)