I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The citation: The right of withdrawal in the treaty of Lisbon: a game theoretic reflection on different decision processes in the EU (2011) in the lead could do with being prettied up more using the cite template. I don't have time. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I cut a block of text from the lead because it was entirely specific to the law of one member state and way more than the brief summary of the relevant subsection that is all that should go in the lead. My intention was to put it in the UK section but frankly it just looks like a wp:fork of other articles and the UK subsection is already comprehensive and well written. Can anyone see a useful place for it, suitably modified? This interpretation was accepted as legally correct by the High Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [1] failed verification On the other hand, Lord Kerr who authored article 50, has stated that, in his opinion, once article 50 is triggered, the notification could be revoked at will before the 2 year time limit and "legally [the other member states] couldn't insist that you leave." [2] Such an interpretation would require confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the UK, confirmation of who has the right to trigger article 50 is ultimately determined by the UK Supreme Court, or the UK Parliament through an Act. The High Court decided Parliament has the exclusive competence to trigger article 50 or not as a matter of UK constitutional law. [3] -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) Fuortu ( talk) 10:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union → Article 50 – Per WP:COMMONNAME SST flyer 03:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should say in Wikipedia's voice "The German text of Article 50 could be taken to mean that the structure of future relations between the UK and EU will already have been established at the point when withdrawal takes place, which could be taken as a difference from the English text". That could imply Wikipedia's belief that the official German text could validly be interpreted differently from the English and French texts (i.e it implies trust in hist translation). We need to attribute it, in the body, to Sir David Edward, since he may be wrong. This is not just academic; it looks as if his own translation may have used the false friend whereby for the German wobei. I don't know if it would be helpful or appropriate to quote the different versions in a footnote, but I have added a reference to the Treaty in three languages (which can be searched for 'Article 50'); the transcript (already referenced) contains Sir David's translation (search for 'German'). -- Boson ( talk) 20:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The lede says, "If negotiations fail to reach agreement, the withdrawing state would then be required to follow World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs.[2] This process is generally accepted to leave a seceding member with less bargaining power in negotiations, because the costs of having no trade treaty would be proportionally far greater to the seceding individual state than the remaining EU bloc.[3]"
Ref 3 is
[1]
That language in the lede does not seem to be supported by any text within the body of the article. That absence of support is not best practice.
Reading the Lechner/Ohr source, the specific claim made by the Wikipedia text seems to be outright unrelated
WP:OR. Wikipedia seems to merely attach a source that has broad thematic overlap; the source does not make or support the specific assertions. As such, the claim fails verification in my judgment. If I am missing something, please point to where Lechner/Ohr address or model the particular relevant point Wikipedia asserts.
At this point, it seems to me that this is a good example of a Wikipedia fabrication. The source does not assert anything "generally" - neither within the maths framework it uses, nor the sources it quotes. The article is a scholarly, theoretic analysis of a number of aspects of how article 50 influences different decision processes in the EU, including the possibilty of leaving, but also the impact(s) of “clubs within the club” (this is what emerges in section 6, the summary conclusion and outlook). "World Trade Organisation", "tariffs", "far greater" do not appear at all (per electronic search of the document), nor do these themes emerge on considering the message of the article. In fact, what the article says is:
The only sentence I see coming close to supporting the Wikipedia text is:
However, the intended meaning when considering the preceding and subsequent paragraphs of the conclusion section does not "support" the Wikipedia language. I think it's justified to tag Ref 3 as "not in reference". If another source isn't forthcoming, perhaps Wikipedia editors would want to collectively remove this possibly-unsupported possibly-political conclusion.
Because Wikipedia says that this is the "generally accepted" situation regarding a leaving country, which is a major political position to take unless it is indeed "generally accepted", I am also tagging the article as a whole as NPOV.
Colin McTroll ( talk) 20:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The article contains this sentence: «If negotiations do not result in a ratified agreement, the seceding country and EU would follow World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs.».
I wonder how it might be right or wrong for two reasons:
Firstly, it might be unsure, for instance because some might claims that there might be some legal flow which would permit the UK to keep some kind of access to the single market without WTO, through Ireland or the EEA, for instance.
Secondly, because the sentence might make one believe there is a relationship between the WA and the trade agreement, while it might be not so closely linked. Thus confusing.
I suggest rewrite the sentence as follow: «The single Market being part of the EU, invoking article 50 might also raise the question of trade relationship. This mean that the rules of the single market might be replaced by rules of any ratified agreement or any other kind of rules such as the World Trade Organization rules on tariffs, if applicable. Anyway, in the case of Brexit, the negotiation of the WA does not necessarily encompass (include) a direct negotiation of a trade agreement, as EU considers it is not possible to negotiate a trade agreement between EU and a member state.»
Any advice?
The article contains three sentences slightly similar but also slightly dissimilar:
This raises at least two question:
If we could understood the answer to those two questions, we could improve wikipedia.
To help clarify the answer, those two question might be subdivided:
I would add a point regarding the third sentence -- say sentence (c) . It might be confusing by the use of the expression member state's. First, remember that the British say European citizen vs british citizen and Thereza May considers that “Throughout its membership, the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union“ [1]. But the issues is that the say member state before Brexit and third state after Brexit, would no more be member state after Brexit, as per definition, Brexit being Brexit, such a quality would be lost. This means that this sentence is at least confusing before the Brexit day, and might look Wrong after the Brexit day.
It seems a little over the top to have two articles on withdrawal, not counting all the Brexit specific stuff. I propose this is merged into Withdrawal from the European Union;
As for which is kept;
Any objections? (please reply Talk:Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Merge_Article_50_into_this_article) - J.Logan` t: 10:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
{{
cite web}}
: |last1=
has generic name (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The citation: The right of withdrawal in the treaty of Lisbon: a game theoretic reflection on different decision processes in the EU (2011) in the lead could do with being prettied up more using the cite template. I don't have time. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I cut a block of text from the lead because it was entirely specific to the law of one member state and way more than the brief summary of the relevant subsection that is all that should go in the lead. My intention was to put it in the UK section but frankly it just looks like a wp:fork of other articles and the UK subsection is already comprehensive and well written. Can anyone see a useful place for it, suitably modified? This interpretation was accepted as legally correct by the High Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [1] failed verification On the other hand, Lord Kerr who authored article 50, has stated that, in his opinion, once article 50 is triggered, the notification could be revoked at will before the 2 year time limit and "legally [the other member states] couldn't insist that you leave." [2] Such an interpretation would require confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the UK, confirmation of who has the right to trigger article 50 is ultimately determined by the UK Supreme Court, or the UK Parliament through an Act. The High Court decided Parliament has the exclusive competence to trigger article 50 or not as a matter of UK constitutional law. [3] -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) Fuortu ( talk) 10:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union → Article 50 – Per WP:COMMONNAME SST flyer 03:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should say in Wikipedia's voice "The German text of Article 50 could be taken to mean that the structure of future relations between the UK and EU will already have been established at the point when withdrawal takes place, which could be taken as a difference from the English text". That could imply Wikipedia's belief that the official German text could validly be interpreted differently from the English and French texts (i.e it implies trust in hist translation). We need to attribute it, in the body, to Sir David Edward, since he may be wrong. This is not just academic; it looks as if his own translation may have used the false friend whereby for the German wobei. I don't know if it would be helpful or appropriate to quote the different versions in a footnote, but I have added a reference to the Treaty in three languages (which can be searched for 'Article 50'); the transcript (already referenced) contains Sir David's translation (search for 'German'). -- Boson ( talk) 20:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The lede says, "If negotiations fail to reach agreement, the withdrawing state would then be required to follow World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs.[2] This process is generally accepted to leave a seceding member with less bargaining power in negotiations, because the costs of having no trade treaty would be proportionally far greater to the seceding individual state than the remaining EU bloc.[3]"
Ref 3 is
[1]
That language in the lede does not seem to be supported by any text within the body of the article. That absence of support is not best practice.
Reading the Lechner/Ohr source, the specific claim made by the Wikipedia text seems to be outright unrelated
WP:OR. Wikipedia seems to merely attach a source that has broad thematic overlap; the source does not make or support the specific assertions. As such, the claim fails verification in my judgment. If I am missing something, please point to where Lechner/Ohr address or model the particular relevant point Wikipedia asserts.
At this point, it seems to me that this is a good example of a Wikipedia fabrication. The source does not assert anything "generally" - neither within the maths framework it uses, nor the sources it quotes. The article is a scholarly, theoretic analysis of a number of aspects of how article 50 influences different decision processes in the EU, including the possibilty of leaving, but also the impact(s) of “clubs within the club” (this is what emerges in section 6, the summary conclusion and outlook). "World Trade Organisation", "tariffs", "far greater" do not appear at all (per electronic search of the document), nor do these themes emerge on considering the message of the article. In fact, what the article says is:
The only sentence I see coming close to supporting the Wikipedia text is:
However, the intended meaning when considering the preceding and subsequent paragraphs of the conclusion section does not "support" the Wikipedia language. I think it's justified to tag Ref 3 as "not in reference". If another source isn't forthcoming, perhaps Wikipedia editors would want to collectively remove this possibly-unsupported possibly-political conclusion.
Because Wikipedia says that this is the "generally accepted" situation regarding a leaving country, which is a major political position to take unless it is indeed "generally accepted", I am also tagging the article as a whole as NPOV.
Colin McTroll ( talk) 20:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The article contains this sentence: «If negotiations do not result in a ratified agreement, the seceding country and EU would follow World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs.».
I wonder how it might be right or wrong for two reasons:
Firstly, it might be unsure, for instance because some might claims that there might be some legal flow which would permit the UK to keep some kind of access to the single market without WTO, through Ireland or the EEA, for instance.
Secondly, because the sentence might make one believe there is a relationship between the WA and the trade agreement, while it might be not so closely linked. Thus confusing.
I suggest rewrite the sentence as follow: «The single Market being part of the EU, invoking article 50 might also raise the question of trade relationship. This mean that the rules of the single market might be replaced by rules of any ratified agreement or any other kind of rules such as the World Trade Organization rules on tariffs, if applicable. Anyway, in the case of Brexit, the negotiation of the WA does not necessarily encompass (include) a direct negotiation of a trade agreement, as EU considers it is not possible to negotiate a trade agreement between EU and a member state.»
Any advice?
The article contains three sentences slightly similar but also slightly dissimilar:
This raises at least two question:
If we could understood the answer to those two questions, we could improve wikipedia.
To help clarify the answer, those two question might be subdivided:
I would add a point regarding the third sentence -- say sentence (c) . It might be confusing by the use of the expression member state's. First, remember that the British say European citizen vs british citizen and Thereza May considers that “Throughout its membership, the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union“ [1]. But the issues is that the say member state before Brexit and third state after Brexit, would no more be member state after Brexit, as per definition, Brexit being Brexit, such a quality would be lost. This means that this sentence is at least confusing before the Brexit day, and might look Wrong after the Brexit day.
It seems a little over the top to have two articles on withdrawal, not counting all the Brexit specific stuff. I propose this is merged into Withdrawal from the European Union;
As for which is kept;
Any objections? (please reply Talk:Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Merge_Article_50_into_this_article) - J.Logan` t: 10:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)