Draft talk:Contravention in French criminal law

Andreachlc0203 (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Original research
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 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:
 * en:
 * fr:
 * 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)
 * , 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 and  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 . Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)