h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Arguments in favour of a yes-vote - A4067912
Author: martine_s - U1482146

The European Constitution: a French viewpoint

I think this needs the opposing view as well to make it balanced.

I am not familiar with the French position, however I believe the common agricultural policy would have to be dismembered as part of a yes vote, and this concerns many French citizens, even city dwellers, who are part owners of farms.

Yes this is a defense of the yes-vote. I am currently working on the arguments of the opposing side. I believe the CAP is doomed anyway, European contitution or not, because of time-limits and enlargement. Seeing subsidies vanish will not make farmers enamoured of the European Constitution but these are two separate matters. Besides, it might make revising existing programmes easier since unanimity will no longer be required. This works both ways of course.

By the time that this would make it's way through Peer Review and on to the front page the vote will more than likely already have taken place. The editors tend to not pick entries that go out of date very quickly.

From what I have read it is still necessary to dispel current misconceptions, even after the referendum has taken place, for Europe won't stop evolving overnight. A subject like "Why a yes-vote or why a no-vote in France" seems not unreasonable, unless of course no one is interested.

Well the BBC must display impartiallity in everything, especially if an election in Britain is involved (and if the French vote yes then one will be). Therefore having two entries, one pro and one con, could be seen as taking sides. Having just one entry on the subject would be better.

But the editorial process here takes a long time. Sometimes entries can be in Peer Review for months, and once selected it can take another month before finally making it into the Edited Guide. Since the vote in France will be in two weeks, by the time that these entries make it onto the Front Page and into the Edited Guide they will be obsolete. The entries could theoretically be fast-tracked to the front page (I believe this has happened before) but they would be out of date fairly quickly, and I don't think that the editors like picking entries that go out of date soon after being written.

What about a post-mortem then, with both sides of the argument? More time to go through the process.
This was just a pilot.

As it stands, this could and should not go into the guide, as it reads virtually as propaganda. If both sides of the story were represented in the same article, as McKay and Godben suggest, then it might go in, but as has been suggested, you may have left it a little late. The retrospective view that you put forward might work, though, and you could also suggest where the winning and losing sides could go from where they were left safter the result, obviously depending on how everyone votes.

The title is self-explanatory : it's an overview of the arguments used by supporters of a YES-vote. 'Propaganda" seems a bit harsh : manifesto, platform, yes.

Not meaning to criticise, the title is not ENTIRELY self explanatory.

You could mention what the yes-vote pertains to. In this case the proposed European Constitution. There are many people, from many countries, who post here. Any of them could have a dozen issues on which they believe a yes or no vote is crucial.

The title really should tell the subject of the 'arguments'.

Well, maybe, but I think your explanatory post is rather revealing:

'The European Constitution: a French viewpoint'

Not, 'a pro-constitution French viewpoint', but just 'a French viewpoint'. The BBC has to be very careful to remain impartial and this is not an impartial piece, no matter how much you protest about it being an explanation of one perspective. Unless the other perspective is added, it remains essentially propaganda for the pro-constitution side of the argument, whether that is how you intend it or not. If you were to add the anti-constitution opinion as well, and perhaps rename it 'Arguments For And Against The New EU Constitution' or something similar, then maybe it could go in, but as it stands, I can't see it happening.

I can certainly agree with this. Unless the entry includes the official position of the French government, I would go so far as to retitle it:

'The European Constitution: one French individual's viewpoint'

Which, for better or for worse, would make it an opinion entry and probably unsuitable for the Edited Guide.

In any case, EG entries are supposed to be relatively timeless (barring the effects of technological advances, social changes, and geographical upheavals). One the matter has been settled, the entry would become a moot historical opinion and not be of any aid to the Earth hitchhiker.

Another draft then.

What cools down my enthusiasm somehow is the lack of interest for the contents. And also, I would have expected something on the lines of: 'welcome to the club, we can see it's a first attempt and it leaves much to be desired but we can help'.

This happens to be the official position of the French government.
I would say it is of historical interest to know the state of play in France at this particular point in time. There are many historical entries in the Guide. I accept that it might not be of interest to readers of the Guide but of no historical interest at all?

Guide entries are supposed to be timeless?

I've just read the entry on French driving and it didn't strike me as timeless (legislations change) or even accurate.

I do agree that I was not doing my normal good job of first being supportive.

I apologize for giving any other impression, as I do welcome you and hope that you take my comments as purely constructive.

The constitution is of no matter to me that I can determine. I have no opinion on the matter, and do not mean to imply one. I just noted that, on reading the title, I had no idea of the subject to which it would pertain.

Don't mean to be stodgy, but accurate titling is more important to me than content in most cases. I'm not a Scout, Sub-Editor, or Editor. I have to trust that all will eventully fit the guide requirements or not, and it's all out of my control and influence. My only goal is to help others strive towards better entries.

If this is the official French stance, than I simply suggest that you make it clear enough for even one that is uninformed, such as I (and, of course, I'd appreciate a more specific title ).

I do wish you the best of luck with this and future entries.



PS: Again, no entry can be truly timeless, but some are more immediate and transitory than others. The Americans will probably always drive on the wrong side of the street, from the English point of view, as long as there are automobiles, but votes and leaders are very temporary in comparison, eh?

As someone from somewhere out in the big world where the question of a yes-vote or a no-vote is of ongoing paramount concern to the very continued existence of my country of residence (France will still exist no matter which way the vote goes) I would like to reitterate Fordstowel's suggestion that the title is absolutely not self-explanatory in the least.

(much like the bloody general election forum when we're facing a general election as well. [as if only the British have general elections])

I'm sorry if I came across as aggressive or dismissive in my comments earlier, martine. I haven't been here long myself, but when I first arrived I received a personal welcome message on my 'My Space' page before I even got to writing anything. I wasn't aware that this was your first entry and if I had, I would probably have been a bit more sensitive. So apologies for that.

It wouldn't have changed what I thought about the entry itself, though. I feel that my comments were still constructive in terms of the structure and perspective of the piece.

I hope my comments will not stop you from posting, writing entries and enjoying the site.

Please accept my apologies also - I failed to make a single positive comment which was remiss of me, especially when the article is clear and well-writen.

As a PS:, I should probably mention that I had 5 or six linked entries in Peer Review, all at the same time. When it became clear that they were not proper subjects for the EG, I withdrew them. Others, when inadequacies were pointed out, I fixed them or dropped them.

It's just the price of admission, to adhere to the guidelines, standards, and vision of the site. No personal attack is meant.

We should only speak to the entry, and never lambast the valued researcher.

Again, I look forward to this and other entries, should you accept the criticisms that are meant to be constructive. I hope you find the site enjoyable and friendly. Feel free to comment on any or all of my entries; I will value the feedback.