Talk:Euromyth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

This is just a piece of pro EU propaganda, which makes no attempt to be balanced. I am not sure if it can or should be redeemed. The implication that all bad news about the EU is misleading is risible. CalJW 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there is misreporting of EU policy that is motivated by a populist and anti-EU press. There is also no doubt that the pro-EU lobby has coined the term Euromyth and engaged in a parlour game of gain-saying that is equally partisan. I think that there is an article here but the reader would be served by an introduction that puts the content in an NPOV context. I might have a go some time but others should feel free. BTW - Wikipedia is very pro-EU. We need articles on the van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL cases to get some balance. Cutler 09:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've editted the intro to make it more balanced, and also to add that most of these views are just peoples' opinions, not objective fact. Praetonia 10:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Euromyth: "All ambulances throughout Europe must be painted yellow".
• Fact: An independent European standards body published a report recommending (but not requiring) that a common colour would make ambulances more recognisable.

• Euromyth: "Breton dairy producers can produce Cornish clotted cream".
• Fact: Cornish clotted cream can only be made in Cornwall, because it is a protected designation of origin food.

• Euromyth: "The EU is proposing a ban on glass returnable milk bottles".
• Fact: The EU has not made such a proposal.

• Euromyth: "There will be a ban on PVC".
• Fact: The EU was actually proposing a ban on the dangerous cadmium and lead-based stabilisers in PVC and not on PVC itself.

Most of the above have now been addressed. There are, in fact, sourced examples of Euromyths now in the article and, if needs be, countless more could be added. Hope that clears things up a little! regards Marcus22 21:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources again

Unfortunately, the examples added were all taken verbatim from the EU web portal. This isn't really satisfactory as the EU is not impartial in this debate. Independent sources should really be used where possible. Also, where whole chunks of text are copied from another source it needs to be clearly marked as such or it is a copyright violation. I've removed the examples below because the evidence isn't supporting the claims being made:

• No more sea salt: The source given doesn't claim sea salt was to be banned by the EU, only that there were rumours the Latvian government would do so.
• Brandy/spreadable fat: An exemption was given, but this was after the article had already been published.
• Hard hats for tight-rope walkers: The Times quote only says "a tightrope walker says that his career has been placed in jeopardy". This is reporting of an opinion, and doesn't claim to be fact. The line "Circus performer must walk tightrope in hard hat, says Brussels" looks like a headline, and headlines shouldn't be taken out of context and used as quotation. I saw an article in a British newspaper yesterday with the headline "Judge wants to ban newspapers". Of course, the judge didn't want to ban newspapers, he wanted to restrict press access to family court hearings. This was made clear in the article, which is why headlines should not be quoted out of context, they are not intended to be a definitive statement. Also, the rebuttal only says that tight-rope walkers are not mentioned in the directive, not that they are exempted from it. JW 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well in part you are incorrect regarding the EU. It is not necessary for a source to be impartial, only reliable, but yes, it is necessary to provide both sides of the debate if a source is not impartial. Feel free to add sources which demonstrate that, for example, hard hats have to be worn by tightrope walkers.

Hence I have reinstated some - but not all - of those you have removed. (You are correct in that the Brandy Butter was indeed improperly sourced, so I have left that out).

However, I have also removed one of your sources (a blog?? hardly reliable), tidied things up a bit and trimmed your excessive use of words such as 'allegedly' and suchlike. After all, this is not a court case and the few references that remain to 'allegedly' etc.. are quite sufficient for any adult reader I think?

Finally your ASDA source; removed for now. But happy to reinstate if you can prove that it did indeed refer to the Euromyth in question and not just to EU regulations on Fruit and Veg in general. (I'll explain: the court case could, I dont know, have been over ASDA having failed to label source of goods. This is not to be confused with things like straight rhubarb etc..).

regards Marcus22 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the opening as I think "a phrase in common usage" suggests that everyone is using it, therefore it's a real phenomenon. I think we need to be careful as the phrase is itself a propaganda tool. It mainly seems to be used by the EU or its defenders, its not something you hear in everyday conversation or are likely to see in the Daily Mail or The Sun.

• On the hard hats section, I think you are missing the point. It's not necessary to provide a source that proves the EU was going to force tightrope walkers to wear hard hats, no one here is claiming this. What is necessary is to show that The Times claimed this, not that it reported someone else saying it, and that the claim was incorrect. We can't assume an EU site is presenting these examples accurately without any kind of spin. The site claims that people have "misinterpretated" the legislation, but this doesn't really disprove the story. If the regulations could be interpreted in that way then the article would be correct, regardless of whether the EU had intended this.

• The blog wasn't being used as a source for factual information, only to illustrate that an opinion existed and was often expressed, no claim was made that the opinion was correct.

• I agree we don't need to keep saying "allegedly", but it is important not to use a heading like "Examples of Euromyths" without qualification, as this appears to be taking sides. I've rephrased to "alleged examples" as I don't think this is excessive.

• Also, as I said before, the examples given are copied from the EU web portal. It is necessary to present these as quotation, a) because we are directly quoting a biased source without explaining this, and b) because without an explanation that this is quotation this is a copyvio, and would have to be removed.

• As for the Asda case, it is referred to in the BBC article as well as the Consumer Law one, eg "EU regulations on the curves of cucumbers and bends of bananas are unenforceable in England and Wales". I think its important not to focus entirely on rhubarb as the straight bananas/cucumbers claim is probably the most-quoted of all these stories, and they are all linked to the same regulations. The straight bananas claim (or it might have been cucumbers) was even used by Tony Blair as an example of a Euromyth.

• I've removed the Baltic salt example as it doesn't appear to be a Euromyth at all:

"Rumors of pending government measures to ban the sale of non-iodized salt recently set off another wave of panic buying"

The article doesn't claim the EU is going to ban sea salt, only that there were rumours the government would do so.

JW 12:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I disagree with most of that. And you are merely trying to remove the FACT from this article that deliberate misreporting of EU legislation in order to scaremonger happens in the UK press. I am happy to agree and allow it to be portrayed in the article that some EU legislation is not misreported in this manner and is indeed quite cranky. If you want to provide evidence of such and include it that would be a more positive contribution than merely tipping the article completely on it's head.

To be more positive I do however feel that you can include the ASDA source as you have mentioned. And I would approve of a better wording of the opener. I have also put scarequotes around the word "Euromyth" where I have removed the 'Alleged' bit. They are not alleged examples; they are actual examples. Marcus22 13:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not really enough to say you disagree when you haven't answered any of my points. The source given for the sea salt story, for example, makes no claim that this is EU policy. And cranky examples of EU regulation aren't really relevant, that's not what the article is about. The fact is all but one of your examples are copied directly from the EU web portal and present the opinions and interpretations given on that site as fact. I thought you would understand that this needs to be presented as quotation for NPOV reasons and for copyright reasons.

Although I am reasonably happy with the Examples heading as it now stands, I stand by my statements above about the examples which were removed, and you seem unable to answer any of the objections. JW 14:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added more sources (other than EU and including BBC which you are happy with). Have put back your opener. Have not started to slide in personal abuse; unlike you. (Stop). Have answered almost every one of your points. It is more balanced now, thanks to your work and prompting me to rejig the article. Have removed sea salt example, too. Grant you that the old examples were bordering on the copyvio. Perhaps I still need to remove the Hard Hats one? I think not really. But if it upsets you that it's there then I will. If only a: the Red Top press in the UK would stop inventing all this rot and b: the EU more regularly bent rules a little as one must in the real world then there would, of course, be no need for this article. Until those things happen, Euromyths will go on being propagated. Ho hum. Marcus22 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you have accused me of a "slide in personal abuse" (sic). This is not true at all, I hope you will apologise. JW 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JW, as you've taken the time and trouble to type that, I will reply. I find this "you seem unable to answer any of the objections" to be bordering on the personal and abusive in the context of what we have both written beforehand. Hence my comment and, as you can see herein, my lack of any apology. (FYI I am perfectly capable of answering any objections and have done so where I feel it was worth doing so; but I have no interest whatsoever in going around in circles or entering into a debate with someone who, perhaps, holds very different views to mine). However, I'd like to add this - as I have no wish to be one-sided and negative towards you - I gladly reiterate that I believe you're involvement with this article has substantially improved it and made it much more NPOV. Well done! I suspect we may perhaps edit-bicker from here on in over one or two minor points - but you strike me as a fair chap and I think we have both demonstrated a willingness to compromise. Which is as it should be. Now, as regards this particular debate, I have nothing more to add. Regards and all the best for the future! Marcus22 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More General Myths

In addition to specific newspaper stories some more general positions could be labelled as Euromyths.

Commission Legislation

It is often implied that the Commission can legislate without consulting the governments of member states. In reality, all EU legislation passes through a legislative process involving both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (composed of national ministers). If legislation is to be adopted it must be accepted by the parliament in most cases and by the Council in all cases. This means that for the vast majority of EU legislation the corresponding national government has usually voted in favour in the Council. To give an example, up to September 2006, of the 86 pieces of legislation adopted in that year the government of the United Kingdom had voted in favour of the legislation 84 times, abstained from voting twice and never voted against. [1]

Inclusion of examples

The inclusion examples on this page serves no purpose. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. They do not enhance the article in any way. the examples section is essentially a trivia section without any obvious reason or purpose for the inclusion of the examples listed. Caveat lector 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. May I also remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper. Plus, for people who find the concept of a Euromyth difficult to understand, it can be argued that the examples are illustrative. Perhaps, if unhappy, you could incorporate them more tidily into the article, pointing out that they are real but illustrative examples? That would be constructive. A total deletion is not. Marcus22 16:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be just what you think. You're just copying information from other sites. How can that be considered constructive? Caveat lector 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• er.. well, no. It would not be. Naturally I can't say whether or not someone has or will find the examples illustrative, but I can say that someone might. And to say as much would not be to express an opinion, but merely to adopt the same sort of reasoning as that which underlies the existence of any facutal book. (Or even Wikipedia itself). As to the rest of your comment, I really have no idea what you are talking about. But by all means, constructively integrate the examples into the text. Don't just delete them. regards Marcus22 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to resort to policy too much but if not being paper was all that mattered, why have a notability or indiscriminate collection of information policies at all? The links on this page, one of which you managed to delete, already provide more than enough examples. The purpose of this article is to describe what a "euromyth" is, not provide a reandom list of what they might be, copied from other websites. Caveat lector 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're just ignoring what I am saying. So I'll be blunt. Option 1; We can agree a compromise. (I suggest you reduce the number of examples and factor some of them into the article). Option 2; An edit war. You can choose. I think the compromise would be best. But if you choose not to take that route, I will revert your edits (ie. complete deletion of the examples) endlessly until you DO agree to compromise. No further debate required. Over and out. Marcus22 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about the examples have been raised over and over again by different contributors. I have removed them because they obviously bias the article in a particular way, and they are not properly sourced. Lifting passages from an EU PR site and repeating them verbatim is not really constructive, it's not the role of an enclyclopedia to be a mouthpiece for the EU. We can't just accept the version given by an EU site (which doesn't even have any offical standing) and present it as fact, this is dishonest. Many of these examples are still debated between Eurosceptics and Europhiles. Lots of these things are a matter of interpretation. We certainly can't be giving legal advice and saying things like "Any newspapers, employers or insurers who are interpreting the legislation in such a manner are acting mistakenly". I will try and work one of the better known examples into the text, and hopefully this will satisfy both sides as well as avoiding both POV and copvio issues. Eurosceptics also like to now use the term "Euromyth", so if we were to be NPOV we would need examples from the opposite side too. JW 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also removed new propagandist opening and restored original text. Also added section on non-EU institutions as euromyths can sometimes be true, but not related to the EU. JW 10:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have removed your propagandist opening paragraph and as you have NOT made any attempt to rewrite the text I have put the examples back. (FYI they are not copied verbatim from any source. Please look up the sources before echoing this tired comment). However, if you are unhappy with them and want to contribute positively to the article, rewrite the examples or structure them into the text. Merely deleting material that you find politically unsettling is tantamount to burning books. Wikipedia is not the place for such an approach. Marcus22 19:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

merge

EU condom regulation story is a euromyth, can be included in here. Already a small section in relation to it. - J Logan ^t: 09:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

seems fair enough to me, they should be merged. Marcus22 09:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro reversion

JLogan's rewrite of my rewrite wholly removed a rather important category of euromyths, to wit those that are factually correct and upset Europhiles only because they are written in a way that pokes fun at the European Union. The article links to an EU Euromyths website. The banana and cucumber stories (as presented there) are in this category. So I have replaced my rewrite.* In some ways, I preferred JLogan's rewrite but the true-but-derisive category is rather important and I only had time to do a quick paste job. (*Actually, it's an extended version that I was halfway through illustrating with footnoted links. Some time, I'll do links for the other categories. And I might add another category that is found at that EU site: Euromyths that are illustrated with bogus quotations.)Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The stories are NOT factually correct. It is not factually correct that Truck drivers HAVE to eat Museli. It is not factually correct that Circus performers HAVE to wear hard hats. It is not factually correct that condom sizes are regulated by the EU. It is not factually correct that... and so it goes on. The stories are just that - stories. If you want to believe what you read in The Sun, well, go ahead. But dont expect others to believe it!

Fine, I really don't want to get drawn into this, I was just trying to improve it a bit. As for your stated category, I do not know of any examples of that. The cucumber and banana ones do have major factual inaccuracies (banning all but a certain size).- J Logan ^t: 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I give up on the cucumbers and bananas. Over the years, I must have read the relevant Regulations a dozen or so times and each time I have convinced myself that bananas of "abnormal curvature" and cucumbers with a "maximum height of the arc of 20 mm per 10 cm of length of the cucumber" are totally, unambiguously banned throughout the EU. They're not, though (or not on this latest reading: perhaps I'll read the Regs again tomorrow). No, the only thing that's unequivocally banned (there is scope to argue for a bendiness ban, but I won't bother) is the runty banana - but runtiness is not what the banana euromyth is usually about.

The true-but-derisive category is genuine, though. Or it used to be. "EU says carrots are fruit" used to be included in all the euromyth lists but the Commission seems to have conceded that one. I'll have to look for another example. In the meantime, I've reverted your rewrite.80.229.219.189 (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to log in. Reversion and comment by Vinny Burgoo (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of a true Euromyth, as promised: Fire Exit signs. Believe me, dozens of the Euromyths are like this. They are mythical not because they are false but because federasts consider them to be expressed in an ungrateful or insufficiently respectful manner. (Actually, the Fire Exit quote from the Telegraph is wholly neutral, so I don't know why the Commission objects to this particular "myth".) I might have a look for some more a bit later, then rewrite the article. Can anyone point me towards a PDF of Britain in Europe's booklet Straight Bananas? 201 Anti-European Myths Exposed? I remember that as being packed with wholly true "myths" but, alas, BIE's website is no more and I can't find a copy of the booklet at the website of BIE's parent organisation, the Commission-funded European Movement. Ah! That reminds me. Another true Euromyth: The European Movement was originally funded by the CIA. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another: EU promotional clip is soft porn. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And another: Brussels is set to torpedo 'lethal' PVC bath-time ducks. This one is less obviously a true "myth". See Commission Decision 1999/815/EEC, which ban on phthalates was made permanent in 2005. The lethality has still not been proved and Brussels did indeed torpedo the ducks. That panicky "civil society" organisations urged Brussels to ban the ducks is pretty much irrelevant: Brussels banned the ducks so the "myth" is true. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And another: £700,000 to stop yoghurt going runny. Wholly true? Not quite. The grant was actually £720,000. (Incidentally, the biggest category of Euromyth is not True or False or True-But-Insufficiently-Respectful, it's Misstated-To-Make-Room For-Deniability. Again and again during the hour or so I have wasted reading Euromyth websites today, I have come across things like this, which appears to be a cut-and-paste from the BIE pamphlet I was looking for: Joining the Common Fisheries Policy meant sacrificing Britain's historic 200-mile fishing rights to foreigners. Apart from Duff or Britain in Europe, who has ever claimed that Britain had "historic 200-mile fishing rights"? By adding that bogus word "historic", the mythologist sidesteps any attempt to argue that, although Ted Heath only - ha! - gave away the twelve-mile limit (or nine miles of it, to be scrupulously accurate), the world was, at that time, starting to move towards 200-mile limits, so Heath also gave away future, not historic, 200-mile fishing rights. See?) Vinny Burgoo (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a copy of Britain in Europe's 2001 pamphlet Straight Bananas? 201 Anti-European Myths Exposed (it's from the Wayback Machine, so will load very slowly). The very first "myth" I looked at was in the True-But-Ungrateful category, so I expect many others are true too. I'll have a look later.

For the record, the latest true "myth" is Number 38, which BIE debunked as follows: "38. MEPs discriminate against ferrets from participating in the passports for pets scheme. This is untrue as the decision was based purely on medical reasons. ..." No, it is true and the decision was base purely on medical reasons. (Or it was true. Despite the purely medical reasons, ferrets were later admitted to the passport scheme.) Vinny Burgoo (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BIE Euromyth 64. "Eurocrats to ban English apples over 55mm across." Where does that come from? I suspect this one belongs in the Misstated-To-Make-Room-For-Deniability category. Anyway, here's the "debunking": "This is untrue. Quality and marketing standards for apples in the UK, including size, have been around since 1928 to help facilitate international trade: this does not involve banning apples." Yes, it does. The Commission Regulation in question, [No 1619/2001], banned apples with diameters smaller than 55 mm unless they were dispatched between 10th June and 31st July in an exceptional year (not defined), in which case the apples could be as small as they liked. So as stated the myth is untrue, but then so is the debunking. Verdict: either Total Gibberish or True-But-Ungrateful. (Incidentally, later Commission Regulations reduced the minimum size of marketable apples to 50 mm and got rid of those pesky exceptional years.) Vinny Burgoo (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've reverted your change for now as there are obvious problems with what you make the intro say. For example, you cant put words like "shoutaboutastic" in the intro to an article! Also why do you insist on re-adding that the stories are "factually correct" - and yet on this talk page you've actually gone to the trouble to show that most of them are not factually correct. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede the "shoutaboutastic" (though only because the English Wikipedia is read by many for whom English is not a first language) but if you pay closer attention to the half a dozen or so examples of true "myths" I have provided above, you'll see that they are indeed factually correct - that is, that what is alleged to be a myth is in fact a fact. Now, we could waste time discussing whether the word "myth" always implies falsehood but let's not bother. Let's take the "myth" in "Euromyth" to mean exactly what the coiners of "Euromyth" intended it to mean: a falsehood about the European Union. It would also save a lot of time if you and other Wikipedians just accepted that there are dozens of other examples of non-mythical Euromyths out there. Is that acceptance likely? No. The Commission has spent billions on propaganda in the last two decades. (Will I keep chipping away at the Commission's outrageous Euromythmyths? Not while sober, no. Who would?) Vinny Burgoo (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Vinny, your logic is flawless but you take no account of emotion and in the world of Propaganda, emotion is the master of logic: imagine, for example, the following headline from a newspaper in 1939: "Britain declares war on German children". By your logic such a headline would not be a lie. Your logic leads you to call such a headline 'true-but-disrespectful'. Your logic is correct. But what do you think is the intent of the author of such a headline? And what might be the effect of such a headline be on the reader? Isn't your 'true-but-disrespectful' headline also 'true-but-deliberately-misleading'? Isn't it also being rather economical with the truth? Well exactly the same distorions are being applied - admittedly to much less serious matters - in the world of the Euromyth. They are more than just 'true-but-disrespectful'. Setwisohi (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. Nice try (I'm being kind) but do you really believe that portraying a £720,000 EU grant for researching new ways of thickening several food products, including yoghurt, as "£700,000 to stop yoghurt going runny" is as much of a misrepresentation as the way you mischaracterised Britain's 1939 declaration of war? No, of course you don't. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone can think of the yoghurt thing (and many other examples) as being any kind of misrepresentation, but the Commission certainly does, else such stories wouldn't be on its many lists of "myths", so I have to assume that you and other Wikipedians are being sincere when you see misrepresentation where I see only (justifiable) disrespect and ingratitude.

So let's start from the bottomthe top. The current article starts with a lot of tosh about urban legendsby stating that "Euromyths can be either wholly untrue or a deliberate distortion of the facts". Truth is unwelcome, as is accidental or ignorant distortion. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a Euromyth is always a deliberate calumny.

Now, that's certainly the way the word is used by a very large number of people. Trouble is, though, that this very large number of people is ignorant of the facts - the facts as presented by the arch-priests of this very large number of people, to wit the European Commission and its many propaganda outlets. To put it simply, any examination of any official list of Euromyths will throw up at least one Euromyth that is to myth, falsehood and misrepresentation what Plan D was to democarcy, dialogue and debatenot mythical at all.

So the article is wrong to start as it does. Once you have conceded that, and all this tedious "urban legend" ping-pong has been banished, we can get on with sorting out the rest of it. (I currently see five categories ...) Vinny Burgoo (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(: Note, User Vinny Burgoo has been banned from editing Wikipedia. Setwisohi (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Archive 1