Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/European Union/2

European Union

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted as the main issues do not appear to have been addressed over the six months that the review has been open. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Good Article criteria demand that Good Articles be (3) "Broad in [their] coverage" and (4) "Neutral". For topics with related controversies, like this one, to my mind that means it must include a discussion, even if brief, of both positive and critical views. My endeavors to find these have been disappointing. I found a sentence or two in the "Agriculture" section and that's it. I believe that a summary of Euroscepticism and whatever its positive counterpart is, or equivalent new content, should be included if this article is to retain its GA status. Please discuss, and thank you. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Euroscepticism is usually regarded as opposition to European integration as a whole. Criticism of the way the EU operates and suggestions for reform by commentators should be covered. But I don't think opposition to the European integration in principle is really relevant here. This article is about the main mechanism of European integration, not the concept itself. Instead, Euroscepticism should be covered at articles discussing European integration more broadly, as well as the relevant articles discussing the matter specially for each member state. Rob984 (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The opposite is probably European federalism, desiring a "United States of Europe", but again this is not really relevant here. There are no proposals supported by any major party grouping in the EU Parliament, or any member state governments, to turn the EU into a unified sovereign federal state. Further integration under the existing supranational model is all that is proposed, and is adequately discussed already, although it could be expanded on. Rob984 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What particular information should be added, and when does something become criticism or praise? This article is quite comprehensive on the dry facts, and I do not think including opinions on how positive or negative they are would improve the article. For example, the sentence "national courts are required to enforce the treaties that their member states have ratified, and thus the laws enacted under them, even if doing so requires them to ignore conflicting national law" is in our article, and it represents an important point in both criticism and praise for the EU. I do not think however that adding these slants will greatly add to this article. Not within the confines we should follow per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE anyway. CMD (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that Euroscepticism is too broad. That article's lead says:

Euroscepticism (also known as EU-scepticism or anti-EUism) is criticism of, or opposition to, the European Union (EU). Traditionally, the main source of Euroscepticism has been the notion that integration weakens the nation state, and a desire to slow, halt or reverse integration within the EU. Other views often held by Eurosceptics include perceptions of a democratic deficit in the European Union or a belief that it is too bureaucratic. Euroscepticism should not be confused with anti-Europeanism, which refers to the rejection of the culture of Europe and Europeanisation, and sentiments, opinions and discrimination against European ethnic groups. A Eurobarometer survey of EU citizens in 2009 showed that support for membership of the EU was lowest in Latvia, the United Kingdom, and Hungary. Euroscepticism is found in political parties across the political spectrum; however, the rise in populist right-wing parties in Europe is strongly linked to a rise in Euroscepticism in the continent.

Thus it is not generally about criticism of European federalization. Additionally, "European Union" appears 58 times in the article, "EU" 89 times (as a reference to the Union, not just the letters "eu" within words), and Criticism of the European Union redirects there. To me it appears clearly centered on the EU. If there's no positive equivalent, then a section should be added neutrally documenting criticism. Otherwise there's an "obvious omission"—something that should drop it down to C-class per WP:QUALITY § WP:BCLASS. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware what Euroscepticism is about. Our WP:CRITICISM section notes that criticism is best integrated throughout the article in relevant sections, much like the agriculture example you pointed out, hence my request for specific examples. For example: Should information about the democratic deficit be included in the history section or the governance section? Perhaps it should, if we have the sources and the formulation. CMD (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I was mainly responding to Rob, who had an overly broad view of Euroscepticism. Sorry for the confusion; should've pinged to be clear.

Regarding the democracy deficit, I'd say it belongs in EU#Governance. I'd also say that a summary of Euroscepticism#Euroscepticism_in_the_EU_member_states should be included in EU#Member states. Likewise, there should also be a summary of both Euroscepticism#History_in_the_European_Parliament and Euroscepticism#Eurobarometer_survey_2012 in EU#History. And of course, anything else you can think to add. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, the EU is the main mechanism for European integration, so of course Euroscepticism focuses largely on the EU. I just don't see the point in discussing complete opposition to the EU here. And the lead of Euroscepticism is actually not entirely reflecting sources. See:

"EU-Scepticism vs. Euroscepticism. Re-assessing the Party Positions in the Accession Countries towards EU Membership" in Laursen, Finn (ed.) EU Enlargement: Current Challenges and Strategic Choices, Bruxelles: Peter Lang

A source cited in the lead at Euroscepticism.

Also

"[Euroscepticism is] the idea of contingent or qualified opposition, as well as incorporating outright and unqualified opposition to the process of European integration” (Taggart 1998: 366). Szczerbiak and Taggart (2004).

Wikipedia is not really a very good source, particularly for the issue of Euroscepticism. Note that the lead sentence isn't even cited.

Rob984 (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also anti-Europeanism is something entirely different. That concept is far more broad then the matter of integration, unlike Euroscepticism. Rob984 (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the lead. Of course it's not cited; it doesn't strictly have to be. WP:LEADCITE. Anyway, there are 9 citations in the lead; you found a problem with one and a contradictory one not used. That's more reason to revoke GA status per WP:GA? #2. But given that 4/5 citations on the first sentence still stand, my point still remains. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the things anti-Europeanism refers to is Europeanization, which among other things is "the process through which European Union political and economic dynamics become part of the organisational logic of national politics and policy-making." So no, not something "something entirely different". Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking my comment out of context now? "That concept is far more broad then the matter of integration" is also what I said, I am aware integration would fall under anti-Europeanism.

The lead has to be sourced, even if it is not directly cited (in the body for example). The other four citations don't claim Euroscepticism is "criticism of, or opposition to, the European Union". They ALL refer to EU-scepticism. Hmmmmmm. None of the other citations in the introduction even seem to refer to Euroscepticism. They mostly refer simply to criticism of the EU, with no reference to "Euroscepticism".

Why not propose making more articles like Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom if you want the topic more broadly covered? Or add it to the Politics section of member states. But this article has a clear topic: the main mechanism for integration. Note you don't even need to be a member state of the EU to be integrated into the European single market, for example Switzerland.

Rob984 (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not intentionally take you out of context. My point was simply that anti-Europeanism is not "something entirely different" from Euroscepticism. Perhaps I ended up going in a circle. Obviously the lead needs sources, but you complained it was not cited, not unsourced. Kirk and Saka refer to Euroscepticism, and if you'll notice, those references are used to cite alternate names; it's entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that the authors used their chosen terms assuming synonymity. And it would take more than 1 source to prove there's a marked difference when so many seem to treat them synonymously. Anyway, Euroscepticism generally entails criticism of the EU, so a summary should be included, whether in one section or spread throughout. This isn't about increasing broadness of coverage of Euroscepticism for its own sake, it's about making this article sufficiently broad to deserve GA status, which at present it is not with this C-class "obvious omission" hanging over it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As you correctly start this thread: Euro skepticism is explicitly discussed. But as you also state, neither is the opposite (Europhilic views?). It can't get more neutral than that in my view. Also note that broad coverage is not the same as complete coverage. Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Comments by Daß Wölf

I think for the broad coverage criterion to be satisfied, the federalism (europhilia?) vs. dissolution (euroscepticism?) debate should definitely be covered in this article, similar to in, for example, United States's section Parties and election. While we don't always include internal political parties and leanings in GAs, as they tend to often change and never attain enough notability, this is something that has been and will be pertinent to the topic as long as the EU exists. For example, how could one write a GA about Soviet Union or Yugoslavia without covering the forces that led to their dissolution? I find it unsatisfying that having read this article I came across a single mention of "eurosceptic" or "euroskeptic", which would probably not have been there if it weren't for the British withdrawal section (which BTW has that sore bare-bones "recent event" look, and should be upmerged into the Lisbon Treaty section).

Another coverage problem is in the European Parliament section. It goes into great detail with the elections system and the parliament's purpose, yet it neglects to mention any political forces therein. Who are the major parties, what are their leanings? What do they discuss? No mention of either. This is akin to reading United States#Government and politics and not learning about Republicans and Democrats. Daß Wölf 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: it is clear, from the initial nomination and the recent comments by Daß Wölf, that this article fails the broadness criteria for a number of reasons, and that no effort has been made to make up for these lacks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone is wondering, I'm also for delisting. It is highly probable that my concerns won't be addressed in near future. Daß Wölf 21:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have gone over the edits that have been made to the article since it was listed for GAR on 27 June, and while I can see some improvements, I do not believe that they address the key issues that have been raised in this review. As it has been almost six months now since the review was opened, I will close the review with the result of "delisted". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • That appears somewhat hasty in my view. There did not even seem to be anything close to consensus here that the key issues where something else than EU bashing by anti EU editors. I.e. there was not even consensus here that the so-called key issues were indeed issues at all. My june comment seemed to have been accepted all the way until late October when a new editor pitched in with basically repeating earlier arguments but not giving anything new, which was then supported by one single additional editor. That there were no responses to those 2 editors may also be seen as the assumption that the discussion had petered out with the consensus there was no problem to solve. Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
      • G'day, I'm sorry you feel that way. I disagree that waiting 40 days after the final comment on a review is hasty, but I accept that time perception is subjective and there isn't necessarily an arbitrary time limit on these things. Nevertheless, I actually read it the other way, i.e. that the lack of responses to the two most recent reviewers indicated that no one disagreed with their comments strongly enough to comment. Likewise, there does not seem to have been much, if any work, to address the concerns of three editors who expressed concerns about the article meeting the GA criteria: hence it appears to me that more editors support delisting than not. Consensus is not always unanimous and there comes a time when a decision has to be made otherwise these processes will simply stagnate, which will eventually lead to apathy and a lack of editor engagement with them. That said, I'm sorry if it feels your opinion was discounted. If you feel strongly that this close is not an accurate reflection of the article's status, please list it for a new GAN and someone will come along and review it shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion that ended 21 june there was basically only 1 editor (Jujutsuan) complaining neutrality and three editors stating that this is not a major problem with the article (CMD, Rob984, and myself) Neutrality is indeed a very subjective topic. After June 21 the discussion was silent until end of October (so silence for about 90 days). The subsequent October edits were nowhere announced, and I thought this discussion had long been closed. The renewed comment were nowhere announce but here.
But even so, if I count arguments I see 3 editors supporting these specific arguments for delisting and three editors opposing. For a high traffic article like the EU, any status change on so few editors seems hasty in any case, and a 3-3 split can hardly be interpreted as consensus for anything. (personally I do not so much object the delisting as the article needs substantial work, but the addition of a criticism section is just not one of the reasons to do so. After all there the majority of articles on political entities do not have criticism sections either) Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)