Jump to content

Talk:European Union/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Non-members

Hi,

I was looking for a definitive list of non-member countries which have historically been considered a part of Europe. I see reference to some, but I think it would be helpful to have a table somewhere listing non-member countries and their exact status (e.g., appealing for membership, participating in the Euro, etc.). Thanks. 116.76.208.213 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not as simple as you may think.
In any case I think this is not the right article.
The list of non-members is easy - all the countries of the world minus the members.
But the European non-members countries requires a definitive list of all European countries. That is the hard part, for example: Europe or America for Iceland and Greenland / Europe or Africa could be raised for Malta (although almost everyone agrees that is Europe) and Europe or Asia can be raised for many countries (Turkey, Cyprus, Russia, Georgia, and some other Caucasian republics).
Re your request for these tables. Appealing for membership is clear from future enlargement of the European Union aticle. Participation in Euro is limited to EU members, and those countries that had a monetary union with these before the Euro (e.g. Vatican Lira were exchangable with Italian Lira and the Vatican has now been allowed to mint Euro's). The Eurozone article explains this in detail.
In my view all the information is already there; only a few clicks away, and I think adding this into this article as a table would not improve anything, only making this article harder to read. Arnoutf (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The article European Economic Area lists those countries that are in the EEA but not members of the EU (it's a start).--Boson (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, too much detail for this article, it is already dealt with on the member state, enlargement and eurozone articles.- J.Logan`t: 10:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

5 or 6 largest cities

I reverted a recent change by User:Marigaux who changed the largest cities table to 6. I did this for several reasons.
1) The added content is not clear. On the page it only shows in the header of the table. If you want to add such information, make sure also to expand the table with the relevant numbers.
____ Even if we were to go to 6 cities, Bucharest can never be the number 6 as the used sources are all pre-2007; i.e. from the time Romania and Bucharest were not members of the EU. The number 6 in the EU at that time should be identified.
2) The rationale given for going from 5 to 6 is flawed (Every European demography list and list by population, include an top 6 cities not an top 5. See http://europa.eu/index_en.htm).
____Formally this claim is false, the fact alone that Wikipedia lists 5 is deterministic evidence that not every list does this (i.e. the Wikipedia list doesn't).
____Trying to understand the editor, he seems to suggest that the EU uses lists of 6, so we should as well. Again that argument is not as obvious as it seems. Without a strong argument WHY we should adopt the same number as the EU itself we could as well choose for a top 3, or a top 153 for that matter. We have discussed the length of this list in depth in the past and found a compromise at 5. Of course if strong arguments appear I am willing to re-discuss.
3) The provided reference is not a source at all. It is the top level entry to the European Union site. There are literally millions (if not billions) page to be reached from there. There is no way we can find the exact pages Marigaux was referring to without incredible amounts of work. If you want to use this kind of refences, provide a suitable deeplink. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Serbia

Serbia today applied to join the EU. [1] best, 194.80.106.135 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Country

The first paragraph seems wrong. From the discussions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Economies_by_GDP_%28nominal%29#European_Union_is_not_a_country, it would seem more appropriate to say the EU was a country, rather than an economic and political union. If we can clarify this penchant fact in the article the base information is coming from, I think we will get a better documented whole.

I would like to change it to meet the consensus from the stated article, but will wait for other opinion on the subject. Neutralis (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The EU is not a country. Full stop. Arnoutf (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you trying to make a point that it shouldn't be on the GDP list? Nowhere in that discussion does it conclude that the EU is a country. If you're trying to reopen the argument about the inclusion of the EU in some country lists, please just say so. TastyCakes (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The EU is not a country and this article should definitely not be changed to say it is. That, of course, has nothing to do with whether it should or should not be listed in other articles in a list of countries (providing that footnotes or similar indicate that it is not a country).Everything depends on context. --Boson (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I see no current fault in the article and see no reason for any edit to be made to the article regarding whether or not the EU is a country or not. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd Talk 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually dont get how any semi-intelligent person can claim the EU is a country. But it clearly isn't, perhaps we need to have this fact appear somewhere on the talk page in flashing letters or something as it's almost a bi-annual occurance that an editor brings this up. --Simonski (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Figures for Muslim population of EU

Since these figures occasionally get altered without a source (and without a change to the currently cited source), I have quoted the figures for the individual countries at Talk:Religion in the European Union#Figures for Muslim population of EU. The total is about 13 million. Please discuss there if the figures are questioned. --Boson (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

The primary purpose of an encyclopaedia is to accurately compile information. To do so successfully it is necessary to write in a manner which can be understood by the readers of the encyclopaedia as easily as possible. It is therefore important that the utmost care be taken to avoid the use of ambiguous language. For this reason we should use ‘Republic of Ireland’ to describe that country.

There is a geographical location, it is an island, and it is called ‘Ireland’. Upon this island there exist two countries, one to the north, Northern Ireland, and one to the south, the Republic of Ireland – three entities, one geographical, two political. If any one of these is identified by the same name as either of the other two, then it is inevitable that ambiguity will occur.

It is true that in 1937 under Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland, the country to the south declared: ‘the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland’http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm, but under the provisions of Section 2 of the later Republic of Ireland Act, 1949, it also stated: ‘It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland’http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/en/act/pub/0022/index.html, thereby avoiding ambiguity.

Please imagine for a moment that Northern Ireland also decided to name itself ‘Ireland’, after all, it has an equal right to do so, existing, the same as the Republic of Ireland, entirely on the island of Ireland. There would be one geographical location called ‘Ireland’ containing two separate countries, both of them also called ‘Ireland’. Ambiguity would be virtually impossible to avoid – referring to the region would be fraught with the most ridiculous linguistic confusion. By adopting ‘Ireland’ for the ‘Republic of Ireland’ on the EU page we are already half way to such foggy confusion.

Describing the EEC enlargement of 1973 adds yet another layer of complication and ambiguity. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and thus joined the EEC in 1973 with the UK accession; the Republic of Ireland joined simultaneously. Therefore, both countries, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, joined at the same time. So to say that ‘Ireland’ joined the EEC in 1973 could mean one of two things: either this is a description of the accession of the Republic of Ireland, or it is a description of the simultaneous accession of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – the two countries which constitute the island of Ireland. Both interpretations are equally true, but I am guessing that only one is intended. Readers of an encyclopaedia should not have to guess, they should be clearly informed. Why deliberately use ambiguous language when unambiguous language is readily available?

Using the widely accepted and recognised term ‘Republic of Ireland’ is a practical expedience which gives more precision to the language. If anyone reading this is in any doubt as to the practical merits it presents, then please re-read what I have written, substituting ‘Ireland’ for ‘Republic of Ireland’ – and the best of luck to you.The Spoorne (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes. Simply put, as pointed out with the style guidelines and by others, the lengthy state name is unnecessary in this article. The article largely deals with states, and there is ONLY 1 called Ireland, with instances properly linked in the article. Shall we instead refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia, or the People's Republic of China? No, the simpler names are sufficient and noted; there's no ambiguity about what is being referred to. And, in case you feel your viewpoint is being ignored, you will note that I am familiar with this issue, advocating for notation of the Republic of Ireland in the lead for that article because that legal description was being deprecated by others (see that talk page). Here, though, it's an embellishment. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree - I think that just as the article Ireland is a disambiguation page, the "Republic of" should be included to make clear what the article is talking about. "Ireland" can refer to three different things, and although it's clear which is being talked about here for people familiar with the EU and its history, that isn't going to be the case with all readers.
I agree with you on all examples you give above except one - the PRC. If you're dealing with an article that involves the PRC, the ROC and the geographical and cultural entity of China as a whole, it seems only logical to differentiate between the three. All three definitions of Ireland are involved in the EU, differentiating them seems quite reasonable to me. So in summary - yes we should use simple names were appropriate, but Ireland is a special case, in my opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, how is it POV editing? TastyCakes (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Please garner and compel for said changes to the article, or to the articles' structure, through discussion on the talk page and consensus. The titling of Ireland-related articles has been a long, drawn-out affair which escalated to the ArbCom in the past, with the style guidelines aforementioned by Boson being put in place. To iterate: noting RoI is superfluous in this article about a polity, and in opposition to said guidelines. And just how are all three differentiations applicable to the EU and this article? In every instance in the article, the state is referred to, not the island. Thus, there is no ambiguity, and any is eliminated with the piped link to the appropriate article.
As well, it is POV editing in that there is an advocate to render the 'Republic of Ireland', yet retain (say) the 'United Kingdom' as is (whose longform name actually also has 'Ireland' in it). As well, other instances were ignored, e.g., member state listing in infobox. Onto it. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize this had been hashed over in the past. Could you direct me to this Arbcom so I can read the details? I think it's quite clear how the "three Irelands" are all involved in the EU - the island as a whole is part of it geographically, the ROI is a member state, and Northern Ireland is a constituent country of another member state.
As for your description of it being POV, I'm sorry, but that sounds like a stretch to me. Ireland had "Republic of" added to it to avoid confusion, not to unfairly promote it. TastyCakes (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

'Republic of' - where is the 'flourish' in that??? Also, 'UK' is unambiguous, with what could anyone confuse it? 'Ireland' is not unambigous. Perhaps you would consider undoing your revert, Bosonic Dressing?The Spoorne (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To iterate: 'Ireland', the state so named in its constitution (while described as the Republic of Ireland), is solely discussed in this article. Not the island. There is no ambiguity. Is a piped linked so insufficient? Hardly. What is done with one state should be done with others for consistency, if nothing else. So, why would I reconsider? Why don't you, given the above and the style guidelines pointed out earlier? Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As TastyCakes points out, anyone reasonably conversant with the politics of Ireland would assume it means the Republic of Ireland, but not every reader is - so we are inevitably causing ambiguity in the minds of some readers. And given that we recognise this fact, we are also deliberately causing ambiguity in the minds of readers. I just can't see the point in doing that when an unambiguous widely understood alternative is available.The Spoorne (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see this has been talked about before on this page, in Archive 22: here. The main argument there seems to be that the "official name of Ireland is Ireland, that is what the EU calls it and that's what the CIA factbook calls it". I'm not sure I agree with the way the outcome of the discussion - if that is "its name" why is its article Republic of Ireland? Well I'll tell you why - to avoid just the kind of confusion that arises in subjects like this. Sometimes the possible meanings of Ireland need to be differentiated. Bosonic is arguing this is not such a time, that it is obvious "which Ireland" is being discussed. I believe it is not that obvious to the uninitiated. TastyCakes (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly one the cases where the Republic of Ireland point of view is pushed is in the caption of a photo of a passport of the country. The passport names the country as "Ireland" (not republic of Ireland). The fact that Ireland uses "Ireland" without "republic of" on the cover of their own passport seems rather convincing that Ireland can be used in official use. (Of course Ireland maybe wrong on the cover of their passport, but I would suggest you try to get that changed first before we should change it on Wikipedia). Arnoutf (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm well I'm not trying to say that "Ireland" is wrong, I'm just saying "Republic of Ireland" isn't wrong. I think both are valid names, and both are used in various important places. The reason to use one over the other, I believe, is a trade off between simplifying and avoiding confusion with the other entities also called "Ireland". If there is consensus that confusion is not likely in this article, I agree completely that the simpler name should be used. But if, as I tend to think, there is opportunity for confusion due to the naming in this article, I think ROI is a better choice. I can see your guys' point and I in no way think my opinion is black and white correct on the issue, but if I were writing the article myself I'd call it the ROI and not "Ireland" for the reasons I've put above. TastyCakes (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomeasy, in your edict to 'stop edit warring' you seem to have engaged in a little bit of it yourself. Ever since the passport photo was changed the original description underneath it provided by the person who made the change was of the 'Republic of Ireland'. This version stood until today, so this would constitute the long-standing version. You, however, have changed it to 'Ireland'. Perhaps this was an oversight? The Spoorne (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Spoorne (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This fight has been fought long time ago. I admit that it also recurs again and again. However, a stable consensus has been achieved centrally for the English Wikipedia, and we have to adhere to it as we are probably not changing what has been discussed agreed dozens of editors. Have a look at this here.
@The Spoorne. Yes that was an oversight. I was referring to us adhering to the consensual naming convention in our article. i was unaware that the with the introduction of the Irish passport, the first edition was violating it. Thanks for pointing that out, but I think it does not change the essence. Tomeasy T C 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse, but from the MoS:
  • In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use Republic of Ireland (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").
Both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are members part of the EU, although Northern Ireland obviously as part of another member state. Does that not make the EU "a context where confusion may arise"? TastyCakes (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Euhm no, Northern Ireland is not a member of the EU; it is a part of the EU, just like London, Galicia, or Giethoorn; but it is not a member. Only states can be members. Arnoutf (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Pardon my poor terminology. I mean "in" the EU. TastyCakes (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have re-read the guidelines, they state: In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use Republic of Ireland . In the EU article describing the 1973 enlargement of the EEC the simultaneous accession of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are described. This is a clear case for using Republic of Ireland as stated in the guidelines. References elsewhere in the article fit the guidelines criterion of a context where confusion may arise according to the original arguments I made above, this further strengthens the use of Republic of Ireland. The guidelines also state generally that: This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense For all the reasons I gave in my original comments at the top of this thread, common sense here necessitates the use of Republic of Ireland . The guidelines clearly support the use of Republic of Ireland on this page.The Spoorne (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In the applicable EU reference re: accession cited in the article, it notes that "Parallel diplomatic discussions were conducted with Denmark, Ireland and Norway, whose economies remained closely connected to the British market"... Can you point out where discussion of the island occurs in this article? No. As well, Northern Ireland is not noted in this article; as pointed out above, only the UK is, of which NI is an integral part. So, where's the ambiguity? There is little or no case for using the description herein. And, in which context would a similar confusion not arise? The horse is dead, but long live the horse. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"In 1973, the Communities enlarged to include Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom." - that would seem to be one spot where confusion is quite possible. Both Ireland (the sovereign state) Northern Ireland (the country) and the geographical entity of Ireland (the island) became part of the EU in 1973. So no, Northern Ireland is not mentioned directly in this article, but I think its absence could increase the confusion with readers that don't understand the naming details, not remove it. TastyCakes (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, where's the confusion? NI is subsumed within the UK; NI is part of a member state, and is not a member nor a state. The EU is comprised of member states. Only those who advocate irrendentism would think otherwise and equate the island and state in this context. Are you also suggesting that one may think that the UK excluded NI in 73, or is not included? A person who is so confused may have more challenge with the article's lead sentence, which actually sets up (per above) why RoI is unnecessary, or with breathing than this. So, no: please keep the real or perceived confusion to yourself. I'm done here. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't know Wikipedia discussions were to be ended with one party telling the other to shut up. But regardless, I think I've made all the points I intended to - clearly you disagree, but in my opinion there are plenty of potential readers that don't know that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK and don't know that the Republic of Ireland is a separate country. I don't think adding "Republic of" to be very clear about this is such a big deal. And I don't really think the reasons I have given have been addressed, and because of that the issue is going to be raised again in the future if not properly worked out here. TastyCakes (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If a visitor does not know that NI is part of the UK, or that the state and island of Ireland are not coterminous, that is not something for this article -- but for those respective articles -- to elaborate upon, hence wikilinks. Geography of Europe, sure. But, in essence, it's irrelevant here. And, my point regarding real or perceived confusion is that it more seems to be an artificial one purported by proponents for some obtuse purpose, not necessarily for clarity. Much time and text has already been devoted to this; so, unless you want to put in the effort to challenge and overturn the global guideline in place for sometime -- good luck with that -- it's probably for naught and our time and efforts can be expended elsewhere more productively. 'Shutting up' (your words) is your prerogative. And, that's all. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Potential readers that don't know that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK and don't know that the Republic of Ireland is a separate country (and do not click on a link to find out) should be even more confused by "the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland": they would, perhaps, conclude that Northern Ireland had not become part of the EU or, more likely, that it was part of the Republic of Ireland. If we were to use Republic of Ireland, we should logically also use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to reduce the likelihood of that confusion.--Boson (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no ambiguity in the context of the EU article. If you want to change the global policy regarding this country appellation, you should argue here as it has rightly been pointed out, but not in single articles.Gpeilon (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
As you can see above, I'm not saying this isn't a matter for the MoS, I'm saying that the MoS says ROI should be used in cases where it avoids confusion, and nobody disputes that. The contentious part of my argument is that this is such a case. So I'm afraid I disagree, I think this is a more logical place to discuss it than the MoS. I have no problem with what the MoS says on the subject of Ireland, and no interest in trying to change it. I just think this is a case of potentially confusing areas identified as exceptions in the MoS. TastyCakes (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)



I don’t know how to state the case more clearly, or how so many of you don’t yet see the operation of logic in the discussion above - but once again I shall try:


There is a very simple syllogism at work here:

Step 1: The guidelines state that: ‘In other places prefer use of [Republic of Ireland|Ireland], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use [Republic of Ireland]’

  • Wrong: the island is not being discussed, only the (member) state, and NI is only tangentially dealt with in the wider context of the UK, another (member) state; NI is not a (member) state. There is no confusion, and therefore the next step is moot. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Step 2: The EU page describes the simultaneous accession of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to the EEC in 1973.

Step 3: Therefore, according to the guidelines, in these ‘circumstances’ we should use [Republic of Ireland].


We have been urged to adhere to ‘the consensual naming convention in our article’ – so I suggest that is exactly what we do, follow the MoS and use ' [Republic of Ireland] '. The Spoorne (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Spoorne I think we've had it for this argument. I completely agree with you, I think it is a case where differentiation is merited, but I have no intention of wasting any more time arguing against entrenched and increasingly rude opinions from bosonic on what I think we can all agree is a trivial point. Take care everyone, TastyCakes (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, trivial in numerous ways. Wikipedia is not your mother. I'm glad we can move on to items of greater substance. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, all parties are starting to be impolite here. In my summary the whole point is about whether in the context of the EU, the island (Ireland) is readily confused with the republic (of Ireland).
To put it all in perspective let's consider the occurences of Ireland

  1. In the pull down menu (infobox) of member states
  2. I history "In 1973, the Communities enlarged to include Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom"
  3. In member states on the map image
  4. In member states in a listing of "sovereign member states"
  5. In the caption with a photo of the Irish passport

And that is all. We are fighting an edit war over 5 mentions of Ireland.
In my view in all five case it is clear from the context that it is about countries, not geographical areas, therefore I do not see a source for confusion. So for consiseness, and colloquial language usages my preference would be for "Ireland" rather than the more elaborate "Republic of Ireland". But if consensus goes the other way, I have no serious issue with that either (especially since it is occurs only 5 times in an already long article) Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As to point #2 I would support "Republic of Ireland" for the following reason: There is a very simple syllogism at work here. Step 1: The guidelines state that: ‘In other places prefer use of [Republic of Ireland|Ireland], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use [Republic of Ireland]’. Step 2: The EU page describes the simultaneous accession of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to the EEC in 1973. Step 3: Therefore, according to the guidelines, in these ‘circumstances’ we should use [Republic of Ireland]. We have been urged to adhere to ‘the consensual naming convention in our article’ – so I suggest that is exactly what we do, follow the MoS and use ' [Republic of Ireland] '.The Spoorne (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I think your argumentation is flawed. Northern Ireland did not become member of the EU; there is no document that says so. The UK did become member.
From the context "Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom" (and the larger context before and after) it is clear that these are sovereign states; not province or countries within such a state. : It seems that a lot of your argument involves N-Ireland, so if there is any confusion (which I do not see myself) about Northern Ireland that needs to be solved, first. To do that we should start any solution by being explicit about Northern Ireland, rather than Ireland. Following that argument the phrase should either be "Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"; if that is still unclear, we might consider "Denmark, The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"; but if we do that we should use the full name of Denmark as well, making it something like "the Kingdom of Denmark, The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But that would be weird since Belgium and the Netherlands lack their formal name, so if we add Kingdom to Denmark we should replace all names of all countries in this section by the formal long name. I hope you agree that would make the section unreadable. Arnoutf (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, this will be my final comment on this issue. In this talk page section: 4 editors have indicated no need for change and use of the simpler name, while only 2 editors believe that the longer description should be used. The proportion of editors who opt for the status quo -- 2/3 -- is generally reckoned as consensus in Wikipedia. This is in addition to the pre-existing consensus. The horse is dead. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Sproone and I don't have consensus, and there's little chance we ever will. TastyCakes (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the large public not a law manual. "Ireland" is perfectly fine when there is no ambiguity. "Northern Ireland" is nowhere to be seen in this article on the EU, no more than Burgondy (part of France) or Catalunia (part of Spain). Let's take your concern seriously. Do you really believe there would be somebody who would read "Ireland and the UK" and think "Oh, I am not sure to understand, does this mean Northern Ireland and UK, or Republic of Ireland and the UK"? Or would you find anybody thinking: "Is Northern Ireland entered twice in the EU, once as a part of the island 'Ireland' and once as a part of the 'UK'? I am not taking the piss with these questions. I am showing that there is no confusion possible because there are not two equally valid ways to interpret the expression "Ireland and the UK", there is only one meaningful way to understand it, hence there is no risk of confusion and therefore no need of being overly specific in the description of the country. Gpeilon (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues I would like to address, first is the behaviour of Bosonicdressing on this talk page, and second the use of 'Ireland'. According to the rules on how to use this talk page it is clearly stated: ' Put new text under old text. ' Bosonicdressing put new text over old text thus, clearly breaking the rules. I have already edited this to comply with the rules, and trust that my edit, and the rules, will stand. On the use of 'Ireland' Gpeilon states ' Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the large public not a law manual. ' - I couldn't agree more, this is precisely why confusion may arise over the terminology 'Republic of Ireland/Ireland'. Gpeilon further asks: ' Do you really believe there would be somebody who would read "Ireland and the UK" and think "Oh, I am not sure to understand, does this mean Northern Ireland and UK? ' - well, quite frankly, yes, this is not only believable, but given the number of readers of Wikipedia it is a forgone conclusion that such readings will occur. They may well read the phrase to mean what we would understand as 'Northen Ireland and Great Britain'. The issue is not whether four editors can agree that they understand each other, but whether millions of potential Wikipedia readers will understand the article. We, the editors, all understand the difference between 'UK' and 'Great Britain', but if a survey were to be conducted of the English speaking world some pretty 'interesting' answers would be assured - and these are the people who this article exists for - the English speaking world. So unless you can give a 100% guarantee that no such misreading would occur, there is a very simple expedient - 'Republic of Ireland'. As for all the discussion above about 'Republic of Denmark' etc, this is irrelevant, no-one is going to confuse Denmark with, say, France - this we can guarantee - but can we equally guarantee that no confusion would exist in the minds of readers when we say 'Ireland', between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Ireland? No, we emphatically cannot. This is why we should use 'Republic of Ireland'. And please, in your discusions which follow this, I really don't see the point in showing me how all of you understand the difference, of this I have no doubt, but rather our discussion should centre on how the article is understood by the readers of Wikipedia.The Spoorne (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Blooming heck, a lot went down here. I have to say, coming into this objectively and not really caring either way, the parties arguing for having it as "Republic of Ireland" do make a good case. If the guidelines say that where both are being mentioned in relation to an issue, emphasis should be made on the difference between the Republic and the North, then why make the exception here?
On the other hand, I am not entirely convinced that anybody will be confused, able as they are to click the Ireland link and end up at the Republic's page. We can't really cater for every ignoramus who doesn't know that Northern Ireland is part of the UK can we? --Simonski (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see merit in both arguments. My own feeling would be to refer to the UK as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the first time it is mentioned (or in the accession section where it is mentioned together with Ireland), and then go back to UK from then on. This is in keeping with the EU's use of "Ireland", gets around any confusion identified in the MoS and smooths over the problem some people see with "Republic of Ireland". I think referring to the UK only by its full name (i.e. not also to the Federal Republic of Germany etc) is justifiable given potential confusion. It does seem that people have pretty much made up their minds on this, so I won't argue the point. I am not overly bothered either way, just looking for some kind of compromise that will return harmony to the discussion page. "United in Diversity" should be changed to "United through strenuous, long winded and difficult compromise". On the plus, this would also more accurately describe governance in the EU Lwxrm (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Only worth using RoI rather than constitutional and common name if there would be confusion. You'd have to be incredibly dim to think in a list of states that this article would for some unknown reason be talking about the republic and part of the UK. Sorry but there is no way they'd be confused, the context provides all that is needed. As someone living in the UK, no one ever says Republic of Ireland; in fact the only time I have seen that used is on adverts where they say "Excluding RoI" or have an RoI telephone number underneath the UK one. The very limited context one has in informal or formal usage provides more than enough distinction to make "Republic of" redundant. In fact, the names "the Republic" and "Southern Ireland" with all other variations are rather fallen out of usage all together. It is, simply, Ireland.
Why do we always expend so much energy having to argue about tiny details? We never debate major issues here it seems.- J.Logan`t: 18:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep. I definitely concur with your second point. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Status right now: Almost everyone involved thinks this is freaking about details.
There is clearly no consensus for change, so status quo at the beginning of this discussion should not be changed. I will comment no further, but if any vote comes up ever, count me in for against change from Ireland to RoI, as there have been no convincing arguments to change current status quo. Arnoutf (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Bosonic its all very well to agree with Logan's second point but it doesnt really assist matters when you create an air of hostility towards the other side as you did here, helping in escalating a relatively pointless debate into a drawn out angry one. --Simonski (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Nor does pointless commentary after the fact. End message. And I concur with Arnoutf.Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If it helps you to realise that you are very close to crossing the line in your behaviour towards other editors then it won't have been so pointless. Perhaps your new nickname should be Lear v2.0. --Simonski (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
And yet more pointless, fairweather commentary, unsurprisingly. It's been more than two months since you've actually edited an article, so your comments mean squat, and will be ignored hereafter. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure I've heard that one before from you. Yet interestingly, you always find time to reply to my comments. All I'll say from this discussion (and previous ones) is res ipsa loquitor. I'll let others form their own opinions on your generally poor attitude. My non-editing of an article I've had previous involvement in is irrelevant given my involvement in most discussions here. You're sounding more and more like Lear every day dear boy. Next will be a reference to "your" article no doubt. --Simonski (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ne supra crepidam sutor iudicaret. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. --Simonski (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The name of the state is Ireland. That is both its common name and legal name. Republic of Ireland is frequently used as name, particularly when necessary to separate the the Irish state from the island of Ireland and/or Northern Ireland. I don't see any circumstance where that would be necessary in this article.

There are many words in the English language that are ambiguous. We don't need to fret every time use one that it will be misunderstood. Unless there is a genuine possibility that there may be confusion between the Irish state and Northern Ireland (or the island of Ireland) then there is no need to disambiguate.

Pertinent to this discussion may be the EU's own manual of style, which says: "NB: Ireland is the full name laid down in the Irish Constitution; the short name is Éire/Ireland. Republic of Ireland/Irish Republic are incorrect in English."

Also note, this subject has recently been the subject of heartbreaking discussion at WP:IECOLL. The outcome of that process is noted at the Manual of Style of Ireland-related articles. According to that, in this circumstance (for a number of reasons) Ireland should be used. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid. The Manual of Style of Ireland-related articles is clear that Ireland should be used where there is no ambiguity, and in the list of accessions there is no ambiguity: an island cannot join the EU, only a state can.
I can see that there may be situations where ambiguity could arise in some EU-related articles, for example wrt to regional development funds, but that does not apply here.
Note that I joined this discussion after a note on my talk page from The Spoorne. I deplore both the canvassing (though in my case it backfired) and the edit-warring in which The Spoorne engaged on this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Also agree with rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid. Ireland and the UK joined the EU in 1973. No ambiguity. Also here, like BHG, after canvassing. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No ambiguity for who? You or the readers? The Spoorne (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour of editors

Jeez Louise – he’s done it again! Bosonic dressing has placed his comments within the body of my text. It really does create a very strong impediment to having any kind of a structured and reasoned debate when editors are going to chop up the work of other editors in this fashion. Besides, it very clearly states at the top of this page: Put new text under old text . So before we go any further I would like to put this to a vote. ‘Bosonic dressing should comply with the rules governing writing on this talk page, and place his new text under my old text.’ Whether you agree or disagree please indicate below (not above):The Spoorne (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

agreeThe Spoorne (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not something to discuss here; in any case not in this thread as it is not about Ireland. If you think this should be addressed take it to an administrator board. Arnoutf (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with breaking up an editor's comments and commenting on each part by placing text your own text between the parts. In fact it's extremely common here on English Wikipedia, so you'd best get used to it! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Trudat. What should be more concerning is this editor's removal, and repeated moving, of those comments; the former of which is vandalism and both of which constitute disruption. The editor neglects the fact that I have put new text under old text -- point for point -- while they continue to push a lost cause (e.g., iterating the same flawed syllogism afterward, almost for the sake of it). End of issue. Perhaps we're all guilty of this, but editors need to know when to quit and/or remain quiescent. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read the Talk Page Guidelines, and have seen nothing to justify the behaviour of Bosonic dressing. If this form of hack and slash editing is ' extremely common here ' I can only say that it is the first time I have ever witnessed it. I notice that none of you have addressed the common sense issue I raised that this behaviour creates a very strong impediment to having a structured and reasoned debate.The Spoorne (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say it's extremely common, but it is done sometimes to avoid confusion, and usually people don't seem to mind. But I'm afraid I have to agree with these guys, this is not the place for this discussion/complaint since it really has nothing to do with improving the article. TastyCakes (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the appropriate part of the guidelines is this:
"Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic . . . "
To avoid confusion, a special template is provided for the purpose:--Boson (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the part of the guidelines which comes the closest, but it is still way off target, as firstly my contribution at this point is not ' long '; and secondly ' wrong: ' is neither ' a reply to a minor point ' nor ' a heading '. The Spoorne (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing from the Union

“the Member State" or country that wishes to withdraw notifies the European Council, which examines this notification. The Union negotiates a withdrawal agreement with the Member State in question, which sets out the arrangements for its withdrawal and regulates the future relationship between this State and the Union. The Council of Ministers concludes this agreement on the part of the Union, acting by a qualified majority, and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. Note that the Representative of the withdrawing Member State may not participate in the discussions or in the vote at the Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.242.95 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was this text inserted? Tomeasy T C 18:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Name of the council of ministers

The real name, the name that is in the treaty, at least since the Lisbon treaty, is "Council" with nothing else. This is a fact. Sometimes, to clarify what it is, it is named the "Council of the European Union", but this is not a legal name. Sometimes it is also named the "Council of Ministers": this is an old name from very old treaties. So I believe that it should be "council", but the page about the council should be, however named "Council of the European Union" otherwise it could be mislead from something else. Please don t revert too quickly. Voui (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Curious then that their official website still describes it as the Council of the European Union. I think we should avoid trying to reflect the treaties too closely. They may refer to the Parliament, Commission and Council, but most people outside the European Quarter still talk about the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers (or Council of the European Union). so I have to agree with Insilvis on the one. And if you want to discuss naming issues relating to the Council, the best place is over at Talk:Council of the European Union. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I see it like BHL. Tomeasy T C 18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)
I also see it like BHL. I find it difficult to accept that "Council" by itself is the only legal name for the Council of the European Union when council directives (adopted after 2009-12-01) still start with

"THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION . . . HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE".

There was a notice somewhere that the EU style guide would be amended to indicate that "Council" should be used by EU writers (not binding on us, of course, anyway) but the relevant section of the Interinstitutional Style Guide has already been updated to reflect the Lisbon Treaty (on 2009-12-22) and it still says:

"

Institutions and bodies:

The institutions and bodies must be listed in protocol order.

The following list indicates the official title [my emphasis], following protocol order since 1 December 2009 (entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon). The list is followed by a table indicating the form of title to use according to type of publication, as well as the relevant abbreviation and location of the seat. . . .

  • European Parliament
  • European Council
  • Council of the European Union
  • European Commission
  • Court of Justice of the European Union
    • Court of Justice
    • General Court
    • Civil Service Tribunal
  • European Central Bank
  • European Court of Auditors"

--Boson (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Vuoi do not revert back when it is you who wishes to depart from what seemed to be established consensus here. I would throw my support behind BHL and Tomeasy on this one, it should remain "European Council" within this article. To refer to it simply as the Council to me would also cause confusion - I think for the Governance section we need to be clear on which institution we are talking about throughout, plus to me it seems far more common in English to refer to the Council as the "European Council". --Simonski (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well look at the treaty itself here: [2] look at article 13. The official name is Council, without anything. Don't worry I will not revert. Voui (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there are numerous references to 'European Council' in the treaty, e.g., Article 7(2), 10(2). However, Article 13 does note both the 'European Council' and just the 'Council (of the European Union)' as EU institutions, which I suppose doesn't clarify matters. And then there's language as in Article 7(5), which states that "The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council for the purposes of this Article..." Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Resisting the temptation to slip into Latin, I think this discussion illustrates why we should not normally use just "the Council". The situation is confusing enough as it is. It is practically impossible in normal text to distinguish (in a way that would be understood by most readers) between use of the Treaty term "the Council" and other uses of the words to a refer to different councils. I suppose there must be some reason (perhaps a rather inappropriate word) why the powers that be came up with the terminology referring to the various institutions (including also the courts). --Boson (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me there is some confusion here: "European Council", i.e. the name of the council composed of head of governments, does exist in the treaty. But Council of the European Union, the body made of ministers from member states, no, it does not exist. It is named "Council", with nothing after. Voui (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
There is indeed much confusion here (which we are trying to alleviate by using the name "Council of the European Union", as does the Council itself). Perhaps when you wrote "But Council of the European Union, the body made of ministers from member states, no, it does not exist." you meant to write " . . . is not so named in the treaty". You read my verbatim quotes above? Perhaps you would also care to cast your eye over Council Decision of 18 January 2010 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015, which starts "THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION [. . .] HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:" If indeed you meant that a body called "the Council of the European Union" does not exist, I am sure the committee members will be glad to know that they were appointed by a non-existent body. Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009 amending various provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax also starts with "THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION [. . .] HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:". I am sure tax lawyers would be interested in the legal ramifications of an act passed by a non-existent body.--Boson (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You will also note the header on their joint home page ( http://consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?lang=EN&id=1 ):
  • European Council
  • Council of the European Union
--Boson (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is all about the legal name, but Wikipedia aims to give a reader friendly account of the facts.
There are two Councils in the EU: The European Council, and the Council (of the European Union). This can easily lead to ambiguity about the council meant if 'council' is used without further qualifiers. (To be honest the two councils are already difficult to distinguish with the qualifiers).
Therefor I think we should never use "Council" without specification. Even if this is legally incorrect. Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I can just agree with this and add that, for this reason, Council of Ministers (CoM) is a very popular and effective term widely used to mean the Council (of the EU) (CotEU). Confusion with European Council (EC) is even less a problem. However, CoM is not official, and therefore I do not want to push it here. I just want to point out that there are more criteria for selecting a term than officiality - there is descriptiveness and common usage as well. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the Council refers to itself as the CotEU.
Does it really need more to convince you, Voui? Tomeasy T C 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I accept your point that there may be a better criteria than officiality. Maybe what we should do is just mention at some place that the legal name is only "Council". Voui (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW I think, but am not sure, that "Council of Ministers" was a legal name in the initial treaties. I may be wrong on that. Voui (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly on the Council's page you could argue about doing that - however it is unnecessary for the main page, which has to be as succinct as possible. To me, adding a sentence that the official name of the European Council is "the Council" is rather pointless. --Simonski (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. It might make sense to elaborate on the different names on its very own article. After all, there is something to explain. Tomeasy T C 07:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox European Union

The template {{Infobox European Union}} seems to be used only by this article. Does anyone know why it is not simply incorporated into this article. There seems to have been a discussion about deleting it resulting in a consensus to delete it, but it is still there. Should it be incorporated into this article? This would also avoid separation of discussions between two pages. --Boson (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think, it makes sense to do as you propose, because discussions there are frequented by much fewer editors. Tomeasy T C 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense to incorporate here. Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Motto: alleged Latin original

I think this is best discussed here, since it affects several European Union pages, and has been discussed here several times before.

There have been many discussions here about the EU motto, for instance here: Talk:European Union/Archive 22. The debate seems to have moved to other places, such as {{Infobox European Union}}, In varietate concordia, and United in diversity#Motto.

Does anyone know of any reliable sources that indicate that the Latin In varietate concordia is the original motto from which the versions in the official languages of the EU have been translated? I can't find anything remotely like a reliable source for the claim. All the references provided seem to point only to official or semi-official versions in official EU languages.

I think all the pages named above should be consistent and reflect consensus. --Boson (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the earlier discussion on this talk page brought on table about all relevant arguments and consensus was achieved in the end that we use the English version. As I recall it, there was no valid argument standing against this decision in the end. Evidence was just too strong that all versions of the official languages are official. The only thing that was not 100% clear was whether the Latin version is official. So, if we were on the Latin wIKIPEDIA; THERE MIGHT BE A REASON TO BRING THIS TOPIC UP; BUT HERE ON THE eNGLISH wIKIPEDIA; i THINK THE CASE IS PRETTY CLEAR. (sorry for the caps) Tomeasy T C 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Tomeasy, there is overwhelming evidence that the modern languages of the memberstates are all official, but there is no indication whatsoever that the Latin version is official. So we should stay away from that at all cost. Arnoutf (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops may have been too hasty on my previous remark because:
1) The motto is not part of the Lisbon treaty, so it is not overwhelmingly official (it has been adopted by the parliament though)
2) When the motto (originally in French) was translated into the other EU languages it was also translated into Latin.
That said. There is no evidence that places the Latin version of the motto before any other language version. Thus there is no reason to mention the Latin version in places where the other versions are not mentioned. In my view even less as even the smallest EU language has many more native speakers than Latin. Arnoutf (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Where did you find that the motto was originally proposed in French? I know a plenty of sources (all with identical texts though) that report the original version was Union in diversity, which was then slightly altered to United in diversity. Did you find any official document that regulates the use of the Latin version? Tomeasy T C 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for making this not clear. The motto was (as far as I know) never proposed in French, however looking at Motto of the European Union and some Googling it is rather convincing that the motto was created by a Luxembourgh youngster in an EU wide contest, in the French language (there must have been an idea in one single language, because thinking in 24 simultaneously is inhuman). So it seems the origin of the phrase was French. The same sources state that the motto was translated in the EU languages plus Latin (but does not claim any prominence of Latin over any of the national languages). Arnoutf (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for further explaning. Tomeasy T C 22:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Error in references: Reference 8 is listed as "Retrieved 27 October 2010". Time travel is still not possible as far as I've been able to find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.223.80 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lisbon in lead

Why is the Lisbon Treaty still not mentioned in the introduction here ? Just a thought, becuase I already mentioned it. Seniorfox (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to mention it in the introduction? The treaties are mentioned in the following section (History). --Boson (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Maastricht T. and Rome T. is mentioned now, so why not the most important one? Lisbon T. is almost a constitution. Seniorfox (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rome and Maastricht founded the EEC and EU respectively. Lisbon is just an amending treaty. it certainly isn't a constitution alone, together they can be but Lisbon is just another amending treaty. Even if it is important, it is hardly something that needs putting in the intro. Too much detail.- J.Logan`t: 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Lisbon isn't revolutionising the EU. It probably shouldn't be mentioned in the intro. - SSJ ☎ 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

??? Are you all serious ? The fundamental Treaty of the EU is too much detail for the introduction ? Very Strange. Seniorfox (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't the fundamental treaty of the EU. That's the Treaty on European Union/Maastrict and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union/Rome. Which are mentioned.- J.Logan`t: 17:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don´t get it. Are you saying the new Lisbon T. is not fundamental ??? Is that really what you believe ? The Lisbon T. created a legal personality, a president, a foreign minister and a Charter of Fundamental Rights. It merged the former pillars. There is a lot of detail in the introduction, which is good. But the fundamental treaty now in force, is not mentioned and that is strange. Seniorfox (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, Lisbon introduced neither a president nor a foreign minister.
To the question at hand, it appears to be a relative one to me. I agree that Rome and Maastricht rank more relevant for the inclusion in the lede. Whether Lisbon is relevant (important or fundamental) enough to be also included is a question of taste, I believe. I could live with either option.
Rome and Maastricht both founded something really new - the EEC and the EU, respectively. Lisbon just developed further on the foundations laid my Maastricht, as did the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. Tomeasy T C 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

??? Well, nobody denies Rome or Maastricht. But I´m wondering how another participant calls the Lisbon T. a matter of taste. At the moment it appears that nothing happened since 1992, that nothing changed. I believe this is not very up to date. Becuase the Schengen Agreement is also mentioned, why not Lisbon ??? The information I get out of political analysis is, that the Lisbon T. has a constitutional character. Seniorfox (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If Lisbon had created a real president of the European Union . . .
If Lisbon had created a real foreign minister . . .
If there had been no legal personality before . . .
If the Charter of Fundamental Rights hadn't already existed . . .
If Lisbon had done symbolic things like giving the symbols of the EU constitutional status and calling laws "laws" . . .
. . . but it didn't and wasn't; so I agree: it's a matter of "taste", i.e. where you draw the line exactly.--Boson (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
@Seniorfox I called the question of including Lisbon in the lede a matter of taste. I did not call the Lisbon Treaty itself a matter of taste. Tomeasy T C 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I must say I´m completely shocked by the answers here. Are you the same guys who set up the article? Because I sense a lot of prejudice against the Lisbon T. The Treaty is by all means considered an historic landmark. I´d like to emphasize that the whole introduction seems quite fine. Simply one thing missing. Seniorfox (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Prejudice against it? It is just being realistic. It was only a big thing when it was the constitution and thats only because it was designed to replace all previous treaties and be presented in a state-like manner. This fiddles around with a few roles and adds more QMV. Thats pretty much it. It doesn't even give a single new competence to the EU. Yes it is important, but hardly worth a mention in the lead. What are you going to say. "then in 2009 the much Lisbon Treaty, loathed by the population at large, fiddled around with a few posts and made things a fraction simpler but not enough"? Out of all the things we should mention, this is not top of the list. Something more useful, practical and now perhaps?- J.Logan`t: 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Logan, you repeat outrageous anti-EU propaganda here (loathed by the population at large, fiddled around with a few posts). Is this serious ? If so, it´s no wonder why there is no rational assessment. So after all, mentioning fishery policy is more important than the fundamental treaty backing it ? How about: In December 2009 the Lisbon Treaty came in force setting a new constitutional framework. ? Seniorfox (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One problem with that is that a major change to the constitutional framework would probably have required a referendum in many coutries.--Boson (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Outrageous anti-EU propaganda? My god, so this is what Glen Beck would be like if he was European. Is that were the fox part of your name comes from?- J.Logan`t: 23:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Seniorfox you dont realise here that the above views on the Lisbon Treaty are coming from editors with varying pro/anti EU stances, so they are not just disagreeing with you due to anti-EU beliefs. The fact of the matter is that Lisbon in the grander scheme of things is not a major treaty, rather more of a consolodating treaty and no doubt a stepping stone for another future treaty, whatever direction that will take us in. It most certainly is not of the same historical value as a Rome or a Maastricht. --Simonski (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it helps to consider the role of the lede. It provides an introduction to the subject and summarizes the major points of the article in four short paragraphs. So it includes a definition and an indication of the importance of the subject plus a very brief summary of the major topics such as the major policy areas, the form of governance and the history. The history paragraph should probably mention the origin and the major changes and achievements of lasting historical significance. So a treaty that created a monetary union or a sovereign state would probably be worth mentioning, but it is more difficult to argue the case for the Treaty of Lisbon. That may change when its historical significance has become clearer.--Boson (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact the people who play up the treaty most are those against the EU; trying to scare the public into thinking it creates a super-state. Also, your suggestion of "In December 2009 the Lisbon Treaty came in force setting a new constitutional framework" is hardly informative. To the average reader trying to find something out about the EU, it teaches them nothing. What is the new constitutional framework, why is it important? No clue what so ever, just a random fact. Besides, it isn't a new constitutional framework, it just changes the old one and hardly radically at that.- J.Logan`t: 11:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Even one day after I´m still baffled. When I take a look at the table next to the introduction, under "Establishment" it reads "2007 Lisbon Treaty". When I take a look at the History "Treaties timeline" it looks that Lisbon changed something very important. I can´t stop wondering why the most talked about reformation project in Europe (for almost a decade !) is so neglected. I´m also convinced that Lisbon is not the last treaty, but for now it is a corner stone of the EU. Constitutional or not, it should be mentioned in the lede, like all the other useful details. Seniorfox (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your bafflement is explained by your statement . . . it should be mentioned in the lede, like all the other useful details. Useful details are what the body of the article contains. The lede prose should not contain details, useful or otherwise, unless those details are of exceptional significance: the lede gives the big picture. The infobox, on the other hand, does contain useful details that are not contained in the lede prose, such as the GINI index, the time zone, the Internet third level domain, the motto, the anthem, the leaders of the various institutions, etc. I can imagine that there is a case for including some mention of the Lisbon Treaty in the lede, but I have not yet seen it made, and I have not myself been able to come up with a convincing case for inclusion. It would have to be a sentence stating some achievement of historical significance. If you told me what that achievement of historical significance is, I might better understand your bafflement. --Boson (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, leave the bafflement behind. Let´s say I´m appalled by the way of argumentation here. Boson, you deliberately misemphasized my core rationale. The big argument is that NOW, today, in this era, in 2010! the Lisbon Treaty is a corner stone of the EU legal framework. The Lisbon Treaty includes major reforms in the way the E.U. is run, changing its voting and decision-making procedures to avoid institutional gridlock. This can not be denied. It seems to be already acknowledged in the table where this treaty stands equally to Rome and Maastricht. Lisbon is defacto a major part. The fact that Lisbon is not widely covered in this article only proofs the lack of it. It probably was not updated, because of laziness. Again, when reading the info in the introduction it makes the impression that the EU is still based on Maastricht. It is just not up to date. The number of member states is up to date, the number of Eurozone member states is up to date, why not the treaty situation ? It shouldn´t be a problem at all to create half a sentence. Seniorfox (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now (The fact that Lisbon is not widely covered in this article only proofs the lack of it. It probably was not updated, because of laziness.) raising a different issue: the overall coverage of the Lisbon Treaty, not its coverage specifically in the lede. There you may have a point. The Lisbon Treaty only recently came into force; so editors have only had a few weeks to update all the articles, and that included the holiday period. So, apart from the Lisbon Treaty article itself, most of the work has so far probably gone into making necessary changes so that the articles do not contain out-of-date information (please feel free to help). Additional discussion of the effects of the Lisbon Treaty may be necessary in other articles, but please accept that opinions may differ on which information needs to be summarized in other articles as well as being discussed in detail in the Lisbon Treaty article, and which of that information needs to be put in the lede of the respective article. This article is already rather long and most of the editors here have probably been involved in lengthy discussions about which information to prune and put in sub-articles. The effects of the Lisbon Treaty have (hopefully) made their way into the article, in the form of changes to existing statements about the governance of the EU etc. That does not mean that the Lisbon Treaty has to be constantly mentioned. As you say, it is mentioned in the tables and the treaty timeline. I see no problem with adding a bit more at the end of the history section, for instance. If the addition includes something of particular importance it could then be summarized in the lede. --Boson (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Postmodern Superpower

In the old article there was the refence to EU as postmodern superpower.Who cancelled it?151.60.116.117 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Who deleted it is of no relevance. Clearly the deletion is accepted by consensus.
But honestly, I do not recall this to have ever been in there in a stable version, the idea to add it was controversial from the start and has been removed after due discussion on talk.
Another thing is why you, an anon visitor with no recorded edits recalls such a minor detail. Do you recall it from reading, or have you been involved in the editing at that time. If the latter please consider using the same name as you did at that time. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's strange that in an article a thing like EU has been a supermodern superpower for long time and suddenly this fades.It's an original way of considering EU.The article has been changed after the "Yes" to the Lisbon Treaty that powered a lot EU.It's a non-sense acting or better a sense acting for partial people.If EU isn't a superpower how can Usa be considered today a superpower? Don't joke.151.60.119.51 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

AS I stated above The EU has NEVER been a supermodern superpower for long time in this article. So your point made above lacks accuracy (at best, as it also sounds much like the anti US ranting in relation to superpower issues of a blocked sockpuppeteer). Arnoutf (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In the article before that somebody changed it after the "YES" to the Lisbon Treaty there was the description of EU as a MODERN SUPERPOWER.May be for somebody this "YES" has made weaker EU.Ridiculous! The problem ,as all people know ,it's that there are too many anti EU people in this site.Anyway it sounds goods,if the problem is EU, it means that EU is strong.Reality is stronger than a stupid site.Bye.Have nice nights in your souls!151.60.117.237 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (U

I'm rather pro-EU politically... but you added without a source, this is wikipedia not an election. For the record I removed your insertion. "Have nice nights in your souls!" That has got to be the best and most beautiful thing I've ever read. Kudos to you. G. R. Allison (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
You may be pro-EU, but you're not for EU 100%.  ;) TastyCakes (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I did actually think the style was similar to good old EU100%, good catch there TastyCakes. G. R. Allison (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
He was surprisingly coherent here, but he made an edit at talk:United States that gave him away. TastyCakes (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The first entry was coherent, but the anti Usa (note capitalisation) line at the end of the second was already very much like EU 100%. The entries after that were really EU100% all over. Arnoutf (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


I didn't add "postmodern superpower" in the article dear Allison but other people.You are defending an old idea of propaganda that make Wiki ridiculous and dated.It's just for ignorant people as all people know.Bye bye.151.60.118.131 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, on my talk page... could you please give me reasons why you think the EU is and the US is not a superpower? I'm curious regarding your logic. G. R. Allison (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Check my answer.There's a lot of rubbish in the modern part of Wiki policy.For istance the aricles "Superpower" and "Potential superpowers" are similar to a joke.They talk about everthing and nothing,an original way to tell a novel.151.60.118.131 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

GR Allison, the only thing I can say to your request is "don't feed the troll".
Let's close this discussion as it is going nowhere. Anon Italion suspected socks of EU 100% please accept that superpower is an ill-defined term at best, and that postmodern is even more ill-defined. Ill-defined terms are almost by definition controversial. We should be extremely careful to add controversial content, and should treat it as an extraordinary bit of information needing extraordinary support (i.e. mainstream scientific consensus or similarly strong). So far none but extremely weak support has been provided (no peer reviewed scientific articles). Therefore at this stage we should err on the safe side and omit such information (unless the above mentioned scientific mainstream consensus can be established). Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should report facts and not original interpretations of reality.151.60.118.131 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We fully agree there. But facts need to be supported by evidence (otherwise I could claim the world is flat is a fact) and evidence is what I ask for above. Without evidence any claim would indeed be an "original interpretation of reality".
To established the fact of the EU as a (postmodern) superpower we thus need:
a) A straightforward, undeniable definition of (postmodern) superpower, that is generally accepted
b) Undeniable evidence the EU is one of those.
So far I have seen neither, hence I can not conclude the EU is a (postmodern) superpower (I can also not conclude the EU is NOT a postmodern superpower, but as most entities in the world are not superpowers NOT being should be considered the starting position - the Null hypothesis) Arnoutf (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
[3] This starts to look like the same old debate resurfacing again. The language and style of the supporter of inclusion is the same. I will only comment to say until there is credible evidence of the assertion, I feel it should not be included. Anything more than that and we are feeding the same troll again. Lwxrm (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


I sometimes read Wiikipedia to have an idea about a subject.It remember the reference to the "postmodern superpower".10 people or similar can't change idea every year.In Wiki there's something strange (also many mistakes) that aren't clear or caused by partial opinions.I agree with 151.60.118.131..92.39.149.7 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please try to write in intelligeble English
The anon 151.... editor was blocked for being a sockpuppet, so he should not be taken as a productive editor.
And anyway, for a change in opinion I need answer to my 2 questions above, without that answer (including scientific references) I will object each and any inclusion of the EU as superpower. I do not see a reason to change my opinion without any evidence for the alternative. Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
A very high percentage of users supporting this view seem to come from Northern Italy. --Boson (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Not that it will matter as the Northern Italian editors dont seem to be listening to reason, but just to add that I'd agree 100% with everything that Arnoutf has said. Absolutely pointless debate here, clearly this sort of thing can't be added to the page. --Simonski (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


I'm from northern Italy and i agree with the guy that defines EU as a SuperpowerI know Usa and all main datas.Today they are second world.87.18.21.113 (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is supposed to give all the information that is available. In many aspects, and in many views, the EU can, and ís seen, as a Superpower. Whether we like it or not, those are the views of the world. I might think the US as a Superpower, or I might reckon the US as a faded Superpower... That's irrelevant. If there is documentation on the internet, in the world, and there are sources that see it in another light, than that should be included. Who are we to question that? We provide a non-biased, as objective as humanly possible, online encyclopedia. There are online sources that see the EU as a fading power, there are sources that see the EU as an already established superpower, there are sources that see the EU as a potential superpower, and there are sources that don't see the EU as any power whatsoever. I reckon we should include them all.
After all, we are a non-biased and objective online encyclopedia. All the views that are out there, should be included in this article. Even if everyone here says that the EU is not a superpower (or is a very great superpower, for that matter), then it doesn't mean a thing if it is not backed with (online) proof. And since there are so many opinions about the EU, I reckon we should include them all. Pro, con, middle... all. That's what we do here. So everyone, put aside personal opinions, and back things up! And I reckon that, if they are backed up, they should be included. No one can say otherwise, because this is what Wikipedia does! Showing people different angles on the same matter! It helped us grow to what we are right now. Don't stop that process on personal views. --Robster1983 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry too but your first line "Wikipedia is supposed to give all the information that is available" is not true. Wikipedia is not giving all information available.
First of all it only gives verifiable information and even then this information should be relevant and in proportion to the topic and should also be a mainstream agreed view.
Within these boundaries the relevant (ie not all) views should be reported. The problem is that not a single reliable undisputed mainstream accepted source has been provided that confirms that the EU is a superpower. If you can provide such a source, I will be happy to accept the claim. But probably not in the lede as that would be undue attention to an ill defined term without any formal meaning. In any case, without solid reference it can not be in the article at all, as the Wikipedia guidelines are quite explicit that without such supporting reference any and all information can be removed, and the editor including (and not the removing editor) is required to support his claims. Arnoutf (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
All the links are already deliverd in this article: Potential_superpowers#European_Union. Even surveys are included. Furthermore, both in the lead-in of PRC, as well as the lead-in of Russia, there are refferences to those federations being (some sort of) superpower.
All the links are there, all the proof is there, yet here you are, unwilling to at least accept the fact that, with many people, the EU can be seen as a (potential/upcoming) superpower. I've given you the sources, some comparible articles on wikipedia even. I hope you can at least be more willing to make this fact, which is not a mere observation that has no standing ground whatsoever, find it's reflection in this article. --Robster1983 (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
My main poin why I am not in favour of adding superpower status (and then I will wait for more people to comment)
Superpower, and especially "postmodern" superpower is an ill-defined, non-official term that is used by some political scientists, but can mean different things dependent on context, and whoever is using it. There is no clear boundary, and no legal or otherwise consequence of this. Therefore I think the importance of the term is trivial at best, and should not be kept in the lede. That Russia and China have it in their lede isin my view a problem of these articles. The USA article lede only refers to the superpower term in the classical (1950-1990) usage, and states that the US is the sole remaining (classical) superpower. So the ledes of the USA, China and Russia are already contradicting each other. I would suggest the difference between these 3 articles is sorted out first before we add to the confusion. Such confusion is exactly the reason why any superpower status should not be in the lede.
A secondary point is that "potential" superpower is, of course, meaningless. The EU is also a potential "federal states of Europes" and even a potential black hole. As you stated yourself, we should stay with the facts.
Finally, references to other Wiki articles are not considered reliable. Duplication of relevant references is required in each article. This is because the source article may change, leaving the dependent article references untrue. So if you want to say something about superpowers here, you have to present the references here. Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lisbon updates

Hi guys. Could people take a look through Category:Articles in need of adjustment due to the Treaty of Lisbon to help clear it? A lot seem to be updated and just need the tag removed but some need a bit of missing information or one or two tenses moved around. I'm going through a few right now but some I think need a second pair of eyes - anyone know if the ECJ has requested the increase in advocate generals yet? We're several months in so any missing information should be around somewhere, lets get all these updated!- J.Logan`t: 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know what we should do with articles like Regulation on Community designs and Community Trade Mark now that all the "communities" are gone? I have no idea. - SSJ ☎ 15:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it depends if it is time specific. A regulation's name hasn't changed, but when reference is made the community in general that should be changed to EU. That sound alright to the lawyers here? Also made sure to link references to the Community to European Community so people know what the term means.- J.Logan`t: 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In fact, can we get our legal experts to go through articles such as Law of the European Union to make sure that it is all updated correctly? As in how to clarify Community law and where the term EU law can now apply to Community law. A blanket update by a non-expert could lead to a lot of errors.- J.Logan`t: 16:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Blue Haired's been quite good at updating a lot of stuff from what I can see, but I'll switch my attentions mainly to that page for now then and go through it section by section. I'm assuming we wont disagree on too much but just incase it'd be useful to know whether Blue Haired's already gone over the page himself or is yet to do so? --Simonski (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

the animated map

Has anyone noticed that the animated map image shows Algeria in Africa as one of the first E.U. countries? 81.111.39.191 (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Algeria was still a French colony back in 1957. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
And, if I recall correctly, actually part of France. --Boson (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The map is correct as it shows Algeria as part of the EU as long as it was. Reason was, as stated by Boson, that Algeria was a proper part of France (not a colony). Tomeasy T C 07:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Technically, for sure. Tell the FLN... (or even the Pied-Noir. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Since you said it was a colony, what are you: Pied-Noir or FLN?
Our content shall not be POV. If you are here for longer, you should know this. Tomeasy T C 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course I know. I wasn't trying to discuss the technical criteria in here. But neither we should blind ourselves to some sustantive issues, methinks. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Algeria was indeed a part of France, though I don't remember having seen Algeria in the EEC in any French textbook. A quick search on French Internet pages gave indeed maps without Algeria 1, 2. Obviously this could be a cultural mistake, with French history textbooks forgetting (voluntarily or not) that Algeria was a part of France as well. However, I wonder if the reason is that even as a part of France, Algeria may have had a special status relative to the EEC. I look on the web and could not find any evidence of this. It is true that the period concerned is 1957-1962 which is relatively short and is not or great concern for much people (hence no big discussions on the Internet). At the moment, I just think that the French history textbooks raise somehow some questions about the exact status of Algeria relative to the EEC in 1957-1962.Gpeilon (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your second link shows European Countries. Clearly, Algeria was never a European country, not even when it contributed many departments to the French state. French Guiana is likewise not a European country, and correctly not shown on the map you linked. So, I see no problem with the second link.
The first link, however, shows indeed a wrong status, I would say. Can we check what kind of source that is? I just see the map and fail finding out more. Tomeasy T C 16:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the second map makes this subtle difference really (I mean I don't think they thought first about this definition and then decided to avoid Algeria). The first one comes from here. I could not find an official link. I looked on Google books. You can find page 252 in this A-level textbook the equivalent of the animated map without Algeria showing any transient status. All textbooks are nationally validated. It does not mean they can't make "cultural" mistakes though.Gpeilon (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
It may also be that for whatever editorial reason the current country borders are used. In any case none of these maps show overseas territories like French Guiana; so it hardly seems any of these sources claim to give the exact country borders. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Again to link 2: It clearly truncates everything outside Europe (also Turkey). So, I think that is why Algeria is not on, simply because it is not in Europe. I would not call this too "subtle a difference", which we could not expect from the authors of that map.
As concerns link 1, I would like to check its reliability, but it seems to be a mere collection of maps. I could not find out who assembled them. There is no editorial, nothing, as far as I can see.
The new map you linked shows one color for the six founding members. If it gave Algeria this color as well, it would mislead the reader that it might still be a part of the EU. Of course, they could have added yet another color with its individual definition. From my point of view, this map has simply not dealt with the fact that regions have left the Union. Unfortunately, Greenland is not displayed. So, I am just speculating.
I think, we all agree that French Guiana has been part of the EU from the beginning. Now, the status of Algeria was never less French than that of French Guiana. Do we agree on this? This is what makes Arnout's argument so strong. None of your maps shows French Guiana as EEC member territory.
Of course, it would be best to find evidence that Algeria was part of EEC. I will try to find such evidence. Would it be sufficient to show that Algeria's territory was divided in departments just like that of metropolitan France? Tomeasy T C 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Algeria was officially part of metropolitan France (i.e. several non-overseas departments). The Rome Treaty had the following:

Article 227 1. This Treaty shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 2. With regard to Algeria and the French overseas departments, the general and special provisions of this Treaty relating to: With regard to Algeria and the French overseas departments, the general and special provisions of this Treaty relating to: • the free movement of goods, • agriculture, with the exception of Article 40, paragraph 4, • the liberalisation of services, • the rules of competition, • the measures of safeguard provided for in Articles 108, 109 and 226, and • the institutions, shall apply as from the date of the entry into force of this Treaty. The conditions for the application of the other provisions of this Treaty shall be determined, not later than two years after the date of its entry into force, by decisions of the Council acting by means of a unanimous vote on a proposal of the Commission.

Please excuse formatting. --Boson (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It is really not easy (at east not to me) to find a very clear answer. So, I step down from my very clear stance I had initially. Here are some interesting things I found:
  • page 2 under a long road This is a document by the commission of the EC that can be interpreted both ways. Algeria had something with the EEC but it is not clear if it was a full fledged membership.
  • page 1 introduction "Algeria ... an integral part of France" and further "inhabitants of Algeria were French citizens and that the administrative organisation of Algeria was the same as that of the mainland Republic." However, it does not say that this extends to EEC policies.
  • 2nd paragraph "integral part of France" but then also (and more interestingly) "de facto membership in the Community". The following sentences go well with the first source! This seems to be the source that is most to the topic and it seems reliable.
After all, I tend to believe that Algeria was propoer France but had exception with respect to the EEC, like many Special member state territories have today. Whether it may be called an official until 1962, I am not sure.
We would have to dig up the EEC founding treaty. that should give the answer. Tomeasy T C 19:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth....
Are n't we spending too much attention on discussing a map that is not core to the article in any way?
There maybe reasons to remove Algeria, but (see above) there are also reasons to keep. Let's stick with current situation (Algeria in) untill someone provides evidence (ie strong sources) of a reason to exclude. In my view an illustration is a rather minor point, where claims are rather weak (lathough images should be sourced). Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Tomeasy, I don't really know but I wonder if the situation was not the one he suggests of a territory who may not have been considered as a part of the EEC (even if part of the treaty are applied there). I know that Algeria was a part of France, but I would not be surprised to find some subtle administrative distinction which would have allowed this situation. I have no element about this, just the fact that I do not remember to have seen Algeria in any map of the 1957 EEC in French History textbooks (I have seen several of them). In the end, it is a matter for somebody with a very specific knowledge to solve. Personally, I don't care about the inclusion of Algeria in the map. Though we should not be surprised to see that this inclusion surprises some people. We may also consider that in the future, this inclusion could be a topic of contention if for instance Algeria was to apply for membership, pros and cons would certainly debate about the nature of its previous status in 1957-1962 (as it would set, or not, a precedent).Gpeilon (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
In general, maps are often discussed because, as visual information, they are checked more often by many readers than prose. I think we should do our best to get it right. Of course, nobody is forced to help, and it might well be that our initiatives die out if it gets to difficult in view of the importance.
How do you interpret the source cited by Boson? I would say that this is, above all, the authoritative document. Unfortunately, it can be interpreted both ways. My interpretation would be that Algeria was not a full-fledged EEC territory as, e.g., Luxemburg. However, large parts of the Community agreements extended to Algeria. Similar things can be said about the status of French Guiana, which one would certainly include. So, at this moment, I can also live with it either way, but I am very interested in listening to the arguments of somebody who has a more decisive stance.
@Boson. I do not think that Algeria was considered part of Metropolitan France. I am not sure whether this term was ever formally defined, but common parlance would be to mean the European part of France. Tomeasy T C 22:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia article fr:Département d'outre-mer says Historiquement, l'Algérie, durant sa période française, a été divisée en départements, sans qu'il fût précisé leur statut métropolitain ou d'outre-mer., which doesn't help much. The Treaty of Rome seems to treat Algeria separately from the DOMs. --Boson (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I also read this, and I did not say Algeria was a DOM. There are many instances available where this is made clear. What I said is that Algeria was not considered Metropolitan.
What do you think about this? There, Algeria is treated as a former territory, similar to a OMR. As a source, the treaty is given that you cited above, which clearly makes a special arrangement for Algeria (the same as for the DOMs which are in EU lingo OMR). I find this treatment very appropriate and to the point.
For the map, I think we can keep it, as we also color the OMRs as member territories. And when prose ever gets as detailed to the point as we discussed here, we can use the Rome Treaty to explicitly show what the relationship was. Tomeasy T C 10:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Whenever I've seen something on this, it has always made clear Algeria as an integral part. If Algeria was split into departments, then I'd assume the French would apply the treaties as normal, otherwise what was the point of its status. However, this debate can go on for a while with good arguments on both sides. We do need something explicitly stating Algeria's status. Does the Paris Treaty list overseas departments, if so does it mention Algeria? If not, we can assume it was integral to France. If it does, to what extent did the treaty apply? If that fails to give us an answer, lets contact an expert who would know. I know that is OR but it is more clarification with map ramifications rather than a major fact determining an article.- J.Logan`t: 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh and also, what act brought the ECSC treaty into French law. If the treaty doesn't say, that that law would. Anyone has a knowledge of legal French?- J.Logan`t: 12:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

o.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.235.203 (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

economic and political union

The first sentence mentions an "economic and political union" of them members. However, since the Maastricht treaty the EU is also a cultural union. This aspect is maybe even the most important aspect for the future development. I suggest this aspect to be added. 78.53.47.125 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cultural union cannot be created through legal means, it exists due to other factors. Whether there is a cultural union depends on how precisely you're dividing culture and you see one, as I do, it would exist as Europe rather than the EU: the two overlap but are not interchangeable. While this matter is debatable, it certainly is not of high enough relevance to include in the first sentence - especially when considering the controversy which may arise and subsequent disruptions that are an inevitable partner to controversy on Wikipedia.- J.Logan`t: 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statement

No member state has ever left the Union, although Greenland (an autonomous province of Denmark) withdrew in 1985.

Doesn't the Greenland bit make the "no member state has ever left the Union" part incorrect and shouldn't it say something like "To date, Greenland is the only member star to have left the Union"? That is, unless I'm somehow misinterpreting what it means. Spartan198 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenland is not a state, and not a member; but was member of the EU in the same way the French overseas territories (like French Guyana) are members. Denmark is the member state. Greenland while still part of the Kingdom of Denmark decided they did not wanted to be part of the EU; a situation similar to the Falklands in relation to the UK, or Aruba in relation to the Netherlands.
In other words, Greenland as a country (but not state) that was part of a EU member state while being outside Europe, changed its status from overseas EU part to non-EU part. This had no consequences for the actual membership of Denmark. Arnoutf (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In other word: the day Greenland withdrew from the Union, the number of member states stayed the same. Tomeasy T C 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up. Spartan198 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Official languages of the European Union

I hope EU add Luxembourgish (one of 3 official languages of Luxembourg since 1984) to its list of official languages. EU currently has 23 official languages and Luxembourgish is the only official language of its member states that is not listed as an official language of EU. That's very unfair to the 390,000 speakers of Luxembourgish. 124.185.163.195 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)BENELUX

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but you seem to confuse Wikipedia with a forum. I do not see the relevance of your post to the aim of improvingthe article. Tomeasy T C 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Associate members

I live in Sweden so I know what it means to be an associate member of EU. Practically it meant that we enjoyed most of the advantages of being a member of EU with the the exception of having a say in the European parliament and Council. After maybe 10 years as associate members we became full members. I think this article should mention the current associate members of EU, like the Mahgreb countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria). I am pretty sure Turkey is also an associated member, because a country has to be an associated member for a number of years before it can become a full member. The maps of EU should include the associated members, in another color. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what you are talking about, but there is no such thing as an associate membership in the EU. 199.90.28.195 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
See European Union Association Agreement. --Boson (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"Associate member" implies a certain status within an organization, while an Association Agreement is between the organization and the other country. --199.90.28.195 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Precisely! So are you seconding the suggestion that the article should mention those sountries that have association agreements but proposing that the more exact terminology should be used, rather than the frequently used "associate members"? There are probably too many countries to mention them all explicitly, so how about something like A large number of third states have association agreements with the European Union that confer some benefits of membership such as free trade. That would provide a useful link to the relevant article, which contains a list of the coutries. --Boson (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph dealing with future expansion in the membership section already lists all of these countries. Perhaps a mention that an SAA is a common part of such expansion could be added, but I'm really not sure it is needed. 199.90.28.195 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The original suggestion mentioned the Mahgreb countries, so I thought we were talking mainly about countries with association agreements that are not currently mentioned in the article, such as Algeria (AA 2005), Morocco (AA 2000), and Tunisia (AA 1998). Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon are also not mentioned. --Boson (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
As those countries are not in Europe, they cannot become members under the current criteria; so what is the point of mentioning them as "associate members"? 97.82.152.134 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It might be useful to mention what countries enjoy many of the economic benefits of membership by virtue of being part of a customs union or free trade area with the European Union. This is independent of the fact that some of these countries are eligible to become members by virtue of some or all of their territory being within Europe. It would naturally be more encyclopedic to refer to association agreements rather than using the less exact term "associate members". --Boson (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you on this. I was simply interpreting all of the discussion in light of the phrasing of the original question, which referred to being "associated members" before becoming "full members" of the EU. 97.82.152.134 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Note: Both the 199 and 97 IPs are actually me, I was at work (the 199) and forgot to log in at home (the 97) Khajidha (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Three Pillars

The "Treaty Timeline" mentions Three Pillars, but no discussion is found in the article. I assume this means the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties? (moved from article page).

Three pillars of the European Union: The European Communities, The Common Foreign and Security Policy, Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters.--Avidius (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RCS

I'm not very up on user blocking policy, but am I the only person thinking this indefinite block on RCS is totally disproportionate? I may be wrong but has hasn't violated the biography policy before and now the admin has blocked his talk for a, granted, inadvisable repost given the situation. While the reason for the block is understandable, the admin seems to be going overboard. RCS has been a good and valuable editor to these articles and if there is any way to help him out of this I think we should try.- J.Logan`t: 09:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The block seems disproportionate, but if he really wants to continue editing wikipedia then I'm sure he would argue for himself why his account should be unblocked, regardless of what support he receives here. Writing "I promise to carefully abide by wiki policy" isn't that difficult. - SSJ ☎ 12:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It is slightly more difficult when you are blocked from editing your own talk page. The action taken does does seem a bit extreme, though there has been a previous BLP-related block, apparently in connection with an OTRS complaint. I think it might be appropriate for the blocking admnin to re-grant access to the user talk page, together with a more detailed request for the user to express their willingness to strictly abide by BLP and respect the delegated authority of admins trying to do their job. --Boson (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, how can you appeal your block with a blocked talk page? He should have started with that of course but we all say stupid things in the heat of the moment.- J.Logan`t: 13:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
IP addresses can edit the talk page. I don't think he'd be ignored if he, as an IP address, said what he had to say. - SSJ ☎ 13:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That might be interpreted as evading a block. I suppose, as a last resort, "Email this user" might work.--Boson (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't have to evade your block to appeal it. The administrator is clearly acting beyond appropriate measures. This could risk RCS willingly walking away and good contributors are hard to come by, we don't need admins scaring off any more.- J.Logan`t: 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

London/Warsaw

Anyone else agree with our new IP's replacement of London with Warsaw? If not I will restore tomorrow --Snowded TALK 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it make more sense to show London's CBD. Tomeasy T C 18:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like someone removed the picture anyway. If someone restore it, I also think that it would be better to show London. Laurent (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"The patron saint of the EU is Saint Hedwig"

The above statement was recently introduced in the Religion section. Currently, there is not even have a source backing up this claim. If a reference cannot be provided, I guess the issue is really a no-brainer, and the content should be removed soon.

If a reference will be provided, I still do not think we need this statement in the article at all. It is just irrelevant trivia. The Religion section ought to provide a picture about the religions present in the EU, their distribution, adherence of the people to these religions, impact of these religions on the EU etc. Whatever saint some Catholics might have chosen to guard the EU is, according to me, not worth mentioning here.

Even less important to this article, obviously, are the names of the Saints for the continent Europe. So, I deleted these statements already. Tomeasy T C 20:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally I've just read in a book on Swedish history that Hedwig is the EU patron saint so it is true, but I agree it is not relevant in the context of that section.- J.Logan`t: 22:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The European Union is not "united Europe" which your source mentions. Tomeasy T C 19:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise, I confused the name with one later in the book. My book (A History of Sweden by Herman Lindqvist, page 72) has the patron saint of the European Union as Saint Bridget of Sweden, although that does not preclude others of course.- J.Logan`t: 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this would be a bit strange as the EU is a secular organisation; it would be a bit like the patron saint of Atheist movements. In any case, who has authority to appoint patron saints over organisations that do not recognise sainthood; and who recognises such authority, if the organisation being given a patron saint does not. Arnoutf (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like she's a Catholic patron saint of Europe, not a EU patron saint. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The EU is secular, not atheist. There are lots of secular organisations, and I do point out that the EU's secular credentials aren't stressed in the treaties, but the Catholic church can still assign a patron saint. Benedict is the patron saint of Europe and Travellers. Are travellers by their nature religious? What would be unusual for secular organisation is if the EU assigned itself a patron saint.- J.Logan`t: 20:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Travellers are not really an organisation. But still, this discussion raises the question "who qualified the Catholic church to go around and start appointing Saints". While that may have been more or less taken for granted in the Catholic European middle ages (when the traveller saint were created and happily adopted by almost all European travellers), I am not sure it can be considered relevant in the current timeframe from the point of view of any organisation but the Catholic church itself. Even if the church appointed (and this were to be properly sourced) a Saint for the EU, mentioning it in the EU article might be undue attention to the actions of a single religious organisaton. Of course if EU leaders would accept the patron Saint that would be interesting; but that is something else entirely. Arnoutf (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Who appointed the EU to declare the whole of 2001 to be a year for languages? It would be a bit weird for the EU to decide saints, although it would be amusing. Maybe the European Parliament could appoint the Pope? Though he would have to resign in two and a half years so a protestant can take over for the remainder of the term.- J.Logan`t: 21:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Again languages are not an organisation (and it is the European year of languages, not the Global year - agreed might still be overplaying the hand of the EU), let alone a legal person (which the EU is). And indeed, the protestant issue would be a reason why the pope is not qualified to say anything about the EU, or at least, the pope is as qualified to say anything about the EU as any head of state is (since he is head of state of Vatican), but not more so. But let's not go there, and see whether there is indeed an EU (which is different from the non-organisation continent Europe) patron saint at all; as that has not yet been established beyond doubt so far. Arnoutf (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Logan, I guess your arguing is dedicated to the pure intellectual enjoyment of debate, and you are not actually suggesting to add a sentence to this article, even if the Catholic church officially announced a Patron Saint for the EU?
I agree with Arnout's reasoning for exclusion: It would give undue weight to the arbitrary and irrelevant announcement of one religious denomination. Such an announcement, if existing, does not effect the state, actions or the sources/motivations of actions of the organization we are describing. It would be more descriptive of the Catholic church than of the EU. (Of course, I can well imagine that the Catholic church appoints Saints also to secular organizations - they do appoint a lot of saints :-) Tomeasy T C 11:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course I'm not arguing for inclusion, I argued against. I was just responding to A's point. Patron saints are the reserve of Pope Benny, countries certainly don't decide their patron saint (in fact, that wouldn't work for protestant countries at all!)- J.Logan`t: 17:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Erasmus students in the Netherlands"

Erasmus students (from five countries) in the Netherlands

Is this image really necessary? I feel like I'm on Facebook. Hayden120 (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No! I'd have no objection to an image that helped a reader's understanding of the concepts being discussed, but that image was just a picture of a group of students - they could be anywhere, studying anything, under any programme. I've removed the image. I won't object to a well-reasoned revert, however. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 10:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
WikiLaurent has added the ERASMUS logo, which makes much more sense. TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure we can really justify the use of the logo under Wikipedia fair use policy. The logo is hardly necessary to explain the statements in this section. --Boson (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Dammit, I think you're quite right. I'll remove it (if it hasn't gone already). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Aren't EU logos almost in public domain? This copyright notice states that "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged". Laurent (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
"..., save where otherwise stated." I'm wading through the image file, the PDF it came from, and the legalese now. I suspect we'd need to (1) update the image file (from Fair Use to Public Domain), then (2) reinstate here. Either way I need to keep reading! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Independent from the copyright question, I concur with Boson that the logo is not informative. In my eyes, it would merely serve a decorative purpose, and at best help the reader find the section talking about Erasmus, in case they are searching for it. This is not sufficient for inclusion.
The much criticized picture of the students would illustrate quite well how many Erasmus students experience their program attendance. From this POV, it is more helpful as it supports the text by illustrating a common perspective that can hardly be described by words. However, I do acknowledge that this picture may appear inappropriate for an advanced encyclopedia and, as TFWOR mentioned, we could be seeing any kind of a youngsters group. I am neutral regarding its inclusion. Tomeasy T C 15:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm coming round to the idea that the Erasmus students image should have been left well enough alone ;-) I've not found anything to suggest that the Erasmus logo rights differ from the usual EU rights WikiLaurent linked to. However, I'd still suggest that we need to be ultra-careful, and in any event the image file's licensing data should be updated first. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Erasmus programme is a well established European project. 100.000 students every year experience this exchange. The picture of the student gathering in the Netherlands was quite useful, I think. It also illustrates a varied ethnic (European) compilation (5 countries). Admittedly very young though. But anyway, instead of having no picture the student picture should be kept. Regards Seniorfox (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the image, and amended the caption (to make clear that the group consists of students from 5 countries) - I think the image makes more sense now I realise that it isn't just a random group of young people ;-) I've now removed, removed the replacement, and restored the original - I'm in serious danger of edit-warring with myself over this... ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A wise and sensible move, IMHO. ;) Seniorfox (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how a group of drunk young people is supposed to represent Erasmus. I agree that some Erasmus students indeed experience this kind of life but so do non-Erasmus students in general (and non-students of that age). In my opinion, the picture doesn't help understand what is specific about Erasmus. So if really there's no better picture than this one or the logo, I think we'd be better off with no picture at all. Laurent (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There is nothing about this picture that makes it different to any other picture of students. It is simply a photo of a group of young people having a good time, by the looks of it. That's all well and good, but it's not particularly encyclopaedic, in my opinion. Hayden120 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the wording of this picture should be changed to clarify the situation. The Erasmus programme which is to my eyes very relevant to "EU European" education is an exchange (or better) part time international programme where the students are educated in a foreign country. Obviously this is exactly what the picture is showing. It shows different nationalities coming together. Regards Seniorfox (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually we can't tell from the picture that they are European in a foreign country. For all we know, they are Canadian tourists in Australia. If there was something obvious like if they were waving flags of their country or if there was a EU flag behind them I wouldn't object, but as it is now it's just a random picture of young people at a party. Laurent (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what does a picture of a bunch of young drunks illustrate about the Erasmus program? --Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that it shouldn't be too hard to obtain a new photograph of Erasmus students... if this were to be done, what would make an acceptable photograph? I'd probably want to see something to indicate that they were Erasmus students (either an Erasmus T-shirt or two, or recognisably Scottish (say) students studying in recognisably not-Britain (students in Erasmus T-shirts and kilts, with the Eiffel Tower in the background, for example...) - is this a sensible approach, or will we simply burn time trying to find a good photograph simply to see it remain unused? TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you COULD get a good photo to illustrate this. Erasmus isn't a physical thing, it's an interaction of people. Without actually interacting with the people it would be hard to realize that they are from multiple countries attending school in another country. Your example sounds like a bad vacation photo to me, sorry. --Khajidha (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologise - it sounds like a pretty bad vacation to me, too ;-)
You could well be right - I can't personally think of any situation that would lend itself to a good photograph of "the Erasmus experience" - but I'm hoping that someone else will prove us both wrong.
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 13:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the Erasmus Student Network might have some kind of photos that fit better? Not sure what exactly but worth looking around for them. ?.- J.Logan`t: 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As a former Erasmus student myself, I do agree to an extent with the idea of the picture - though perhaps not this particular picture, which as somebody pointed out quite correctly, could just be a picture of any students. For the life of me I cant really think of how you could get a picture though that properly encapsulates the spirit of the Erasmus program -
I guess my take on it would be a picture of students sitting around in an area famous for international students hanging out (ie. Leuven's oude markt or its equivalent in a Dutch town etc). The one chosen at the moment should probably be changed though - too facebook-ish. A picture where the students arent posing would be a good start if you ask me! -Simonski (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was also an Erasmus student (in Madrid). And the core experience, or lets say value, is that European students learning together coming together. I think the picture gets this, now the explanation is even more clear. I admit a picture of students in a classroom or a typical university town would be perfect, but where is this alternative ? Seniorfox (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Next 5 largest economies

In the recently altered table at European Union#Economy, the next 5 largest economies are shown as: USA, Japan, China, Brazil, Canada. The reference given (IMF data for 2009) shows the order to be: USA, Japan, China, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Brazil, Spain, Canada. Any explanation for this? --Boson (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Germany, France, UK, Italy,Spain are part of the EU economy.--Avidius (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would actually like to see the two Bric states, India and Russia, in this table as well. Just for comparison reasons. Seniorfox (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkish should be added as official language.

Republic of Cyprus as a member of European Union, There are two official languages in Cyprus: Turkish and Greek. So Turkish writing of European Union(Avrupa Birliği) should be added to side bar on the right.

Please check the article of Cyprus on wikipedia.

Thank you. Maverick16 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Turkish is an official language of Cyprus, but not of the EU. Scots is an official language within Britain (well, within Scotland) but has no official status at EU level. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Makes me smile :) Aregakn (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

list of largest cities is not big enough

id rather see a top 10 largest urban regions then a top 5 here in the USA top 10 is usally the de-facto number for the top of things that are looked at. i agree that the 5 largest cities that are mentioned need to be in the top but hypothetically if there were 5 other largest cities what would they be? im thinking Athens greece for sure but i have no idea how they would rank. and berlin-brandenburg is giant it is nearly the size of anchorage alaska MSA region and has nearly 5 million people from 190 nationalities.i agree berlin region should be this size sometimes largest cities have to include rural population as well 99.51.212.6 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Five are just fine. A subarticle may list more. Here we are comitted to brievety. Tomeasy T C 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, 5 is fine. The lack of consistency in how to govern cities makes any further expansion difficult, e.g. Athens is quite small (approx 750.000) as many of its suburbs are not included in the city itself. Amsterdam, Brussels, Marseilles etc are all much larger). Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

FA

This article has stabilised a lot since the last FA attempt. How do people rate the chances of success for a retry?- J.Logan`t: 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a chance, but we should avoid the appearance of arguing with reviewers; perhaps we should refer specifically to the FAQ when submitting the article.
We should also first do an unofficial review and make some changes here first, to take account of likely issues. --Boson (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial "review" kickoff

Here are a few potential issues that I noticed:

  • change "ensuring" to "intended to ensure", since the former implies success (which would probably be construed as POV).
  • There are a number of faulty links (deadlinks, access denied, redirects, etc.)
  • "area of freedom, security and justice" should probably be in inverted commas or italics; otherwise it sounds like meaningless PR.
  • Do the images in the Geography section (particularly the coast of Crete) really illustrate the text?
  • There are flags such as "citation-needed" and "who?".
  • Words like "micromanage" are POV.
  • I'm not sure if most people would understand the Legal section. For instance would a reader understand the specialist meaning of "regulation" in an EU context (e.g. that a so-called (Council) regulation is equivalent to a law).
  • The "even" in "may even invalidate EU legislation" sounds a little "surprised" (of course fundamental rights take precedence over normal legislation!).
  • Improve references to include more books to supplement or replace many of the europa.eu sources (europa.eu is OK for many things like legislation, official statements, policy and statistics but should be checked).
  • I'm not sure if the text 'In negotiations on the Treaty of Lisbon, French President Nicolas Sarkozy succeeded in removing the words "free and undistorted competition" from the treaties. However, the requirement is maintained in an annex and it is unclear whether this will have any practical effect on EU policy.' is OK (i.e. supported by the reference and the treaties).

--Boson (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for going through that. Lets see;
  • I think you're over reacting on ensuring, the usual use of the word in this contact doesn't imply success I think. Out of context it does but reading it it sounds perfectly natural in terms of what we need. Changing it all to intended to ensure all over the place would sound weird so I'd be against that unless it is raised as an issue by an FA reviewer.
  • Working on that, I'll flag up dead links I can't fix here.
  • Done
  • I agree, they're there like many for decoration but removal is bound to be opposed my the fairies.
  • Done (I think)
  • Where is micromanage?
  • Hard to judge what is understandable to average Joe. If there is anyone reading this who has no background on the EU, please read that section and tell us if you understand it.
  • Well it is a bit surprising, it isn't just a foregone conclusion in a lot of jurisdictions and hasn't always been the case here.
  • Not sure what you mean is the problem on that last one.- J.Logan`t: 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot the hyphen: The treaties micro-manage the EU's powers, indicating different ways of adopting legislation for different policy areas and for different areas within the same policy areas. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean (apart from what is already stated); I would remove it.
I think the phrase "free and undistorted competition" was removed from the preamble, but I don't think anything like it was added to an annex (possibly to a later protocol, but I didn't see anything in the reference at first glance). --Boson (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorted micromanage. Is the protocol they added number 27? If so I'm not sure it says anything at all!- J.Logan`t: 08:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I've found it now; it is on page 192 of the ToL PDF, so it is in the annex:
PROTOCOL ON THE INTERNAL MARKET AND COMPETITION
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
CONSIDERING that the internal market as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union
includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted,
HAVE AGREED that:
to this end, the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Whatever that means. --Boson (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's 27 in the consolidated treaties. I think is its basically someone underlining or putting in bold a section of the treaties in an effort to make it more important without explicitly doing so. So....where on earth does that leave us?- J.Logan`t: 11:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I would delete the paragraph. I don't think it's important enough to belong in the EU article, especially since the whole affair probably doesn't change anything. If it belongs anywhere, it should be in the sub-article. --Boson (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Limited impact.- J.Logan`t: 21:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
One further point that might be worth remembering is that there was a complaint from one FA reviewer (completely incorrectly in my view) that we used EU sources too often on this page. Is this not likely to come up again, even though it just shouldnt be a problem at all? Simonski (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this way:
<<...The EU has legal personality, and guarantees a European area of freedom, security and justice by enacting legislation in judicial and home affairs...>> ?
It's all right? It sounds good to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.131.24 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can write that the EU "guarantees a European area of freedom, security and justice" (unless perhaps in inverted commas). It's PR-speak. Nobody can guarantee freedom, security and justice, so "European area of freedom, security and justice" is really just a name.--Boson (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
review in this way: ...The EU has legal personality and constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice[16] by enacting legislation in judicial and home affairs...
According to what the T.F.E.U. declares:
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union/Title V: Area of Freedom, Security and Justice|TFEU: Title V: Area of Freedom, Security and Justice,
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 67 (ex Article 61 TEC and ex Article 29 TEU)
1. The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. --Insilvis (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2010 (CET)
Constitute implies success even more strongly. Whether it guarantees or seeks to, I think the problem lies in whether FSJ is a description or just a name. I think putting it in speech marks is a good compromise as I can't think of any term to put in its place without being incredibly long winded. I think <<seeks to guarantee an "area of....>> is best.- J.Logan`t: 14:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought that the verb "guarantee" were sober, but I discovered that my view was not 100% shared... So I took the Treaty and I put the exact verb the Treaty uses, i.e. "constitute", which sounds unsmooth to me... But the Treaty uses this verb, thus "constitute" is appropriate at least, becase it is consistent with the Treaty. --Insilvis (talk) 1:18, 16 June 2010 (CET)
Just to be clear, I think the word "guarantee" by itself is perfectly sober. It just means something different and that alters the implied meaning of the rest of the sentence. My main concern was that the term "area of freedom, security and justice" is used in the treaty in a special meaning that is different from the normal meaning of the individual words in context. That is adequately addressed by putting it in quotation marks. Similarly the TEU talks of a Union "in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail" but Wikipedia should not, using that as a reference, state that the EU is an area where tolerance, solidarity, and equality between men and women prevail. In both cases, the wording is (perhaps) appropriate for a treaty but not for an encyclopedia. --Boson (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Boson, the "area" in the (Treaty) context is rather meant as an overarching aim or title. It is not a specific policy or institutions and tends, in the context of the EU introduction, to sound like propaganda, even if unintentionally. It does´nt help to raise the credibility. Sorry, it should stay outside the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.148.27 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox lacks major institutions, lists presidents instead

The infobox does mention European Council, Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers but links to their respective "leaders".

There should be a section added that links from the infobox directly to these and NOT to their leaders, especially when it comes to a thing like a parliament in general. And as for the European Parliament it can be only mandatory that it is properly linked in that infobox. The link as it is now misled me: It says "European Parliament" not "President of the European Parliament", thus I was very surprised about the latter.

I wanted to change that myself but I couldn't because that infobox is not directly accessible - why? That shouldn't be that way in a wiki (for example, US infobox does show up!). 88.134.130.91 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved here by P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason you couldn't edit it is because the article actually references Template:Infobox European Union. So you'd have to go there to edit it. I'm not a part of this project, nor do I know anything about it, so be sure any changes you make aren't controversial and/or discuss them first. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Infoboxes don't list the institutions, but if you look at the blue politics box further down you will see a great deal of detailed links there.- J.Logan`t: 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Goverment

What form of goverment can the EU be associated with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.108.237 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 April 2010

Depends on what you're talking about. In a word though, none. As the debate is politically charged and there is no academic consensus, that is just what we can say. But if that is a question of curiosity then the following terms could be associated with aspects of the EU's governance: republican, federal, confederal, (developing) parliamentary, semi-presidential, Swiss, supranational, intergovernmental, Hanseatic, liberal, representative democracy, technocratic...- J.Logan`t: 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The best word to describe the EU's form of government would be "dictatorship", since the Heads Of State (due to the byzantine structure, there are at least two "presidents" who qualify as such) are not elected, nor can be removed from office by the citizens- but since they are not hereditary, are not monarchs. The EU deliberately makes itself difficult to describe in conventional language by the strategy, unique in history, of being a country but denying that it is one. It may be worth offering a new term to the lexicon, something like, "Progressivist Dictatorship", since the EU is the realisation of the form of government favoured by those in the political spectrum who currently describe themselves as "Progressive", that is a government which is technocratic, bureaucratic, unrestrained, activist, and in a state of permanent growth, and is not based upon, nor acknowledges, the consent of those over whom it rules.82.71.30.178 (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
So by that definition Switzerland is a dictatorship, because the Federal Council is not directly elected? Or, for that matter, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta and the Czech Republic? Didn't know there were so many dictatorships in Europe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.111.59 (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that the unveiling of the European Constitution was meant to be the moment when the EU would officially become a country, with a flag, national anthem, "regulations" renamed (correctly) as "laws", and so on. When it ran into difficulty, the elites realised they had come a bit early, and drew back from declaring nationhood, although the practical structures of nationhood- a president, foreign minister, embassies etc were put in place nonetheless. It is a pity, as, had nationhood had been declared, it would have made the EU much easier to describe in terms of governance structure for people writing articles such as this one.82.71.30.178 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This page is not a forum. If you do not have anything to say on how to improve this article, please refrain from posting. Tomeasy T C 09:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I was discussing the terminological problems the writers of this and similar articles encounter.82.71.30.178 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "federation" or, even better, "confederation": as the matter of fact the way the EU works is very very similar to the way of operating of the Helvetic Confederation, e.g. only the executive arm can initiate a legislative proposal... It's strange, because Swiss people don't want to get in but basically the EU is a bigger replica of the smaller Switzerland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.154.32 (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A despotic dictatorship? Theres no democracy and the police state has radically grown as the various sovereign states that have been swallowed up by this monster become extinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.83.34 (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

some sort of federation. the european union makes laws, but those need to be rectified by all the countries. of course this means all those countries blame the eu for unpopular laws ('i don't want to install this law, the eu makes me do it. please keep voting for me in the next election'), while at the same time taking credit themselves for all the things the eu does good ('good thing we have that new trade-treaty. vote for me'). the european parliament is chosen in direct elections. the assignment of other political offices is a bit more fuzzy and depends largely on 'who you know'. those not-elected oficials are still answerable to elected officials, both from the european parliament and from the member states, making it the same kind of indirect democracy one sees in all functioning democracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.109 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bilderberg Group pushed through the idea of the EU in 1955

This is going to be hard to source evidence for but I think it deserves a chance...

The Bilderberg Group as found on wikipedia, are known to have come to private decision on many matters that push general policy across US, UK and European since the group was formed in the 1950s.

I read alternative media sites (with a healthy pinch of salt) and came across the claim that Bilderberg was fundamental to the creation of the European Union.

In a report from Bilderberg held Sept 23-25 in 1955 held at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbihl in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany the following is quoted;

“Pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market.”

The document also outlines the plan, “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”

Just two years later, in 1957, the first incarnation of the European Economic Community (EEC) was born, which comprised of a single market between Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The EEC gradually enlarged over the next few decades until it became the European Community, one of the three pillars of the European Union, which was officially created in 1993.

The 1955 Bilderberg summary outlines a consensus that, “It might be better to proceed through the development of a common market by treaty rather than by the creation of new high authorities.” The EEC was duly created via the Treaty of Rome, which was signed on 25 March 1957.

Bilderberg 1955 report: http://wikileaks.info/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting_report_Garmisch-Patenkirchen,_1955/index.html

Excerpts lifted from PrisonPlanet.com www.prisonplanet.com/former-nato-secretary-general-admits-bilderberg-sets-global-policy.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.165.244 (talk) 2010-06-08
Moved from article to talk.--Boson (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all surprising that European integration was discussed during the Bilderberg meetings; where political leaders attended. Note that it was timed between the treaties of Paris and Rome, at a time when the actual process of founding the EU was well underway, but also was the "talk of the day" in political circles.
Hence the appearance of this topic in Bilderberg group files is liukely to be caused by this political dynamic, but on the other hand the influence of the Bilderberg group on the actual formation of the EU remains unshown. Therefor inclusions seems unwarrantee Arnoutf (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Correlation does not equal causation - and hence does not equal relevance without evidence.- J.Logan`t: 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything special about the Bilderberg consensus. What about the European Movement in 1953 or Winston Churchill in 1946?--Boson (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think given that the page has always bordered on exceeding the advised length of an article on Wikipedia that this information should probably just stay left out, otherwise it would seem only logical that we go into all the other influences. Simonski (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it's probably true that the bilderberg-group has talked about the creation of some kind of european union (since the goal of those meeting was to form informal alliances and exchange ideas). but because of the 'no-press-allowed' tradition (needed to keep it informal) it's probably difficult to find any kind of reliable source. and including it seems unnecesarry anyway: of course there has been some negotiation behind closed doors, but it's not like the 'real' public conferences were just puppet-shows (as the conspiracy-theorists think). i agree with simonclab that this is more something for a seperate list with all the historical influences leading to the founding of the eu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.109 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised the anon ip reads "this information should probably just stay left out" as: there should be a "seperate list with all the historical influences leading to the founding of the eu". Arnoutf (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Better locator map with or without borders

What happened to the better map which showed the borders between the different independent nations..? 85.165.198.52 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's because this is the article about the EU and not about "States of EU". Tomeasy T C 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, EU is exactly that, a union built by different nations, just like the UN, WTO, NATO etc. Its not "one nation". 85.165.198.52 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
That is not what Tomeasy said. He said that the article was about the EU as a whole, not about the member states.Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, nobody's trying to say that the EU were one nation or a sovereign state. The use of the locator map simply is to show where the EU is located, and NOT: which states it comprises, or where its major cities are, or what the largest river is, or the highest mountain. There are many things one could add have added, but the current map takes the minimalistic approach. Tomeasy T C 10:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The map showing the member states is under the heading "Member states".--Boson (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the prior locator map in the infobox, with internal borders. If memory serves, this was discussed some time ago, without compelling reason in support of the change. The locator is no less functional with the internal borders, and the fact that ONE colour is used to indicate the EU already signifies they are unified. Members are sine qua non of the EU. Importantly, it is misleading to exhibit the EU sans borders of its constituent sovereign members amidst surrounding sovereign states, since it gives the impression that it is on par with them. There also appears to be no recent discussion on this or that page supporting the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.124.5 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Which change do you mean? I just see you changing the map today. After the discussion here has started! So, I propose that you content yourself until this discussion has come to a conclusion.
I see a good argument on your side, i.e., the borders do not harm much the purpose of the map. This is worth discussing, I find. But then, wouldn't we have to provide borders as well on continent articles like here? I do not entirely follow your argument that not showing borders is misleading. Can you explain this idea in more detail?
And of course, for the time being, I reinstall the map as it was before this discussion started. Tomeasy T C 19:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
And, of course, I am restoring the prior map. It was changed previously without any peep on the talk page (see that template), and then you have defenders that pipe in once an anon IP (not me) points out on this page and questions why, and then I change it. Why? So, I propose that you content yourself with discussing and garnering a consensus before changing it again.
To clarify: it is misleading to show a map of the EU without its constituent sovereign states, yet surrounded by them. There have apparently been issues on this page about the state-yet-not-state like nature of the EU, and so a map without internal borders implies that it is one. Like with like. As for the map at Europe, I would be fine with country borders on that map (c.f. Africa, North America). Which, begs the question, why is the map at Europe devoid of country borders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.124.5 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That is probably something for that page. But I guess adding borders would make Russia a problem, as after adding borders you imply that you shows countries on the continent, but Russia is on Asia for a large part; so you can't have your cake (borders and colors identifying countries) and eat it (limit yourself to Europe).
In any case the relevant question by Tomeasy "why is it misleading to omit country borders" has not been answered. Arnoutf (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I for one favour the non-border version. As has been argued above, this is about the EU as a whole and indeed we have a large map right below with the member state borders shown and the names linked. There certainly isn't a need to show member states in the above box and you can barely make out the borders anyway; it simply makes it look a bit more messy that's all. So that's one map with borders, one without. No harm in that, it looks a lot better.- J.Logan`t: 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course, A., you can have your cake and eat it too. Well, the Asians seem to not have similar issues as the Europeans, at least as far as maps with country borders are concerned.
And, we should be able to have our cake and eat it too re: this issue. Not answered? I'm unsure I need to further explain the need for balance. The map exhibits the EU surrounded by sovereign states; ergo, someone may think that the EU is one, or at the same level. Members are the sine qua non of the EU, hence it being a union. Thus, it is misleading. I actually may not have too much of an issue if the EU was exhibited with the borders of regional/continental blocs surrounding it, but that isn't the case and it would not be useful. Accordingly, none of you have satisfactorily explained why the EU's intranational borders should be omitted, or pointed out the clear consensus for the change. So ...
J., it is perhaps unsurprising that you support a non-border map -- after all, YOU changed the template without any comment or discussion to begin with. [5] And, messy? Are you kidding? This is far messier than what is a simple map. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed the shape of Russia looks extremely weird on the Asia map. They should remove the borders as they now falsely imply that a country exists that is only the Asian part of Russia (and Turkey, although Turkeys European bit is rather small).
You do have a point that it is weird to have borders for sovereign states outside the EU, but none withing. However my solution would be to propose a map without any borders (even less messy ;-); but I can see your objection about having no internal borders, but having other borders there.
The argument "it was there in the past, hence consensus forever" is not at all helpful as this would block all progress. Arnoutf (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps because Russia is so big and the map projection. But, otherwise, the locator map for Asia is no different than for many other maps, online and in print, which exhibit the continent and split Russia in the usual way. There's nothing unusual there, and lack of borders may prompt the question: what is where?
Thanks for acknowledging my concerns about balance re: borders. My argument is not at all about the perpetuity of consensus, though there is some validity to that, but about the rationale and validity of change. Is this a change for the better? No, IMO. Was it discussed and consistent with process? No, as pointed out. So ... 76.66.124.5 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Globe view omitting all national borders

Can the map to the right be accepted by everybody as a solution to our issue? Tomeasy T C 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate the map which has just been proposed. It shows the EU as too small and I hate showing maps on a globe. A map should be 2D and make no attempt to be 3D.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Some may prefer maps without borders, and they are certainly advantageous in some instances, but in the current instance we are dealing with political entities that have borders, internal and external. The EU is a political entity, comprised of others sine qua non and surrounded by them. So, I do not see the utility of the borderless map: this is, after all, not the United States of Europe. I think the use of orthographic maps, as opposed to planar ones, is another issue and the topic of wider discussion. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be good to treat Lucy's opinion in another talk section, if at all. Otherwise this discussion here gets messy. Both objections are completely independent.
To the IP (why not register?), now I understand that your previous point was not really your point. So your concern is not that showing the EU without national border while showing countries outside the EU with national border would mislead readers thinking that the EU itself was a nation.
Rather you want to add details to a map that we try to keep as simple as possible. And the detail that you want to add shall prove a WP:POINT (i.e., EU is not USE) that you want to make. Here, I disagree. I do not think that this point needs to be proven in the locator map already. As pointed out before, the article does not hide this point at all.
Nota bene: If you feel that others do not understand your Latin phrase (why do you repeat it three times?), you might use the English language to make yourself understood or provide a translation. Tomeasy T C 07:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
...or provide a translation - Wiktionary is good for this. You can link words and phrases like this: [[wikt:sine qua non|]] renders as "sine qua non". TFOWR 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, my concerns are both of balance and the point of not implying that the EU is not a state amidst others -- both are related. I frankly do not know WHY there is resistance to exhibiting borders on the locator map, particularly a political locator map. If anything, commentary regarding the EU not being a state or similar is directed at those editors who would more make us believe (or want to believe) that it is. I frankly don't know how or if to deal with criticism that adding (actually, restoring) borders to the map nonsensically complicates it. The map also harks of others used in Wikipedia (e.g., continents, EU countries and others), so there's nothing unusual with having them. One could just as easily argue that not rendering borders seeks to render the EU as something that it is not. Can you point out another map for an international organisation that does not render the borders of its constituent parts? If presented with the option of a map with all national borders, and one without, I choose the former but can go along with the latter if need be. I reject attempts, however, to insinuate a map of the EU without intranational borders, while exhibiting those of surrounding states. Anyhow, the map was changed before (i.e., recently) without any comment or discussion. So, I was justified in reverting that change.
Secondly, re: Latin, it was intentional: without the EU's members states, it would not be. The locator map can just as easily exhibit the EU's domain with borders, and is slightly more informative in doing so. And use of Latin is no different than that used by many editors to, e.g., describe the EU as a sui generis entity - look it up. Superluminary (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tomeasy. I like the borderless map.
Re projection This was chosen as people argued before thatFrench Guiana (the green patch on the lower left side), which is part of France should be pictured. Alternative projections made EU even smaller. Arnoutf (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason I preferred the map sans borders, but couldn't remember the previous discussion. Thanks, Arnoutf! OK, casting my !vote for the borderless map, mostly per Arnoutf, partly per Tomeasy. (Disclaimer: I seem to recall being an agitator for orthographic maps across various blocs, continents, etc) TFOWR 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
@Superluminary: Thanks for registering and welcome to Wikipedia.
Actually, I did not really need a translation of the Latin phrase for myself. Rather I was joking about your attitude to put the exact same phrase three times in three consecutive comments, which to me means that either you think we are fools or you are so proud of this brilliant phrase that to you it doesn't hurt repeating. Anyway ...
@TFOWR: Which argument of Arnout with respect to a borderless map are you applauding? It feel I am missing a point. To me it appears that, in his last post, he was arguing for the kind of projection. Tomeasy T C 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Aye, I think I'm confusing the previous discussion with this one, and mis-remembering the previous discussion as well, and mis-reading Arnoutf's point above... the orthographic projection is necessary because otherwise we lose sight of French Guiana. But that's not what we're really discussing. Re: "borders", it's your argument I'm agreeing with. I think! For clarity, rather than (mis) quote you two, I should probably come up with my own argument: the locator map is to show where the EU is. Internal borders are unnecessary, and largely invisible when the locator map is seen within the infobox (I appreciate that borders are visible if one clicks on to the map). My personal preference is for a map with no borders - internal or external. TFOWR 20:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure why you say that we lose French Guyana or that Europe appears too small with an orthographic projection. Compare the two maps on the right: on the orthographic projection, Europe appears bigger and French Guyana is actually much more visible than on the spheric projection. On the latter picture, French Guyana is actually nearly invisible (basically you have to know that it's there to notice it). Considering this, is there any reason why you still prefer the 3D projection? Laurent (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, the orthographic projection is the one on the right ;-)
I'm not concerned about the size - I agree that Europe is large enough in both. I may be (once again...!) mis-remembering the prior discussion when it comes to French Guiana; to be honest, it wasn't (if I recall) a big concern for me at the time. My main reason for preferring the globe was simply consistency across articles (which I'll acknowledge isn't a compelling argument - we shouldn't be forced into using one map type here simply because, say, editors at Asia or Russia choose to use that map type).
The concern now, however, is borders - should we have a completely borderless map, a map with external but no internal borders, or a map with internal and external borders? My preference is for no borders - purely because the infobox map is intended to show where the EU is. It's not concerned with the political geography. TFOWR 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@Laurent: If you want to discuss the type of projection, please start a new thread and move your images to there. BTW you are also confusing the term orthographic projection. Tomeasy T C 21:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@Superluminary: As to your claim that you just reinstalled the map used previously: I was sure that we used locator maps without borders within the EU for very long. So, I did some spot checks. The map that I reinstalled was actually in use, at least, between October 2008 and June 2009. Before that, a Mercator projection was used - also without internal borders. And before this talk section was started recently, as you know, the borderless map was installed as well.
I hope you can understand now, why to me it seemed acting against a consolidated status quo to first start this talk page section (another IP did this) and then change the locator map at the article, while no consensus was yet achieved.
Personally, I prefer a completely borderless map, because it solves one of the concerns raised, i.e., treating national borders differently inside and outside. Moreover, such a map is the most simple, and locator maps should be simple, i.e., just show where the suject is located. At last, a borderless map avoids all these tricky issues like which border to show and which border not to show (e.g., borders of Kosovo, Transnistria, Abchasia, Palestine, ...) Tomeasy T C 22:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the borderless map, pretty much because of everybody's reasons given above my comment. It this case we're trying to show where the EU, as a sigle entity, is located in the world. As for the anonymous user 76.66.124.5, now registered under the name "Superluminary", all I can say is a biased user who frequently uses sockpuppetry to impose his POV, for more info check my user talk. He just won't go with all the reasons given, he will just revert the map no matter what. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Commentary aside, I have reverted this flamebaiter. All users have a degree of bias, particularly those who recently changed the map without an iota of consensus, which I will yield to if that's the case -- but not yet. Superluminary (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out in my previous comment, there is at least as much evidence to believe that you are acting against a silent consensus of status quo as do all others. In addition, you seem to be the only editor being against the borderless map. Therefore, I urge you to content yourself with edits of the article until this here is settled.
@Alex: if this new user is indeed a sockpuppet, they should be banned. To enforce this, you can submit your evidence to, e.g., User:Alison. However, on your talk page, I do not really see anything that points at disruptive behavior of Superluminary. Tomeasy T C 07:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no comment against the flamebaiter, who himself has a lengthy block history (though not recent). As for my 'solitude' against a silent (and false) consensus supporting the map you reverted to, please note at least the IP editor (76.66.124.5) who created the relevant section on the talk page in the 1st place. I do concede that there is no clear consensus in support of either map previously, but your willingness to support a change that wasn't discussed or commented on in the first place and already pointed out ([6]) speaks volumes about systemic bias - so, a saint you are not. As for an emerging consensus, I believe that has yet to be demonstrated clearly but will yield to it if apparent. Lastly, there is little wonder about the comings and goings of editors on the page, and the overall quality of the article as a result (e.g., lack of featured article status etc.) Lear21's unite, I think. Superluminary (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion I think the following three points summarise the current point we have reached:

  1. We have reached consesnsus on a subpoint made by Superluminary/IP76... that we should not have external borders if we also have no internal borders. (i.e. either all borders, or no borders at all)
  2. We are moving towards U-1 consensus that the version without any borders is to be used.
  3. There is no clear prior consensus as both borderless, and bordered versions of the map have been used for prolonged periods of time in the past. Arnoutf (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent summary: I agree with it completely and I wish I'd managed to be that coherent ;-) TFOWR 09:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

From an esthetically POV, it would look a lot better for the article/map and would be easier to understand the exact location if there was borders on all countries, rather then none at all. 85.165.198.52 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The majority here seems to think the opposite with regard to aesthetics, but those are personal in nature
The exact location cannot be derived from a small map only an approximate location. Looking at the specific situation of the EU the position is (in my opinion) clear enough, I really do not need the border between Egypt and Lybia to understand that the EU is north of Africa. Arnoutf (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I am with Arnout on all points. I would like to add that a map without hundreds of borders is more stable in the sense that we wouldn't have to change it for every territorial change that takes place on the hemisphere shown (e.g., South Sudan). I remember people visiting the EU article just to complain about a missing (or shown) border between Kosovo and Serbia proper. And of course, their primal interest is the map shown in the info box. The maintenance of the borderless map is much easier. If the EU grows, we will certainly know of it and a change would be relevant. Anything else would not touch the locator map. Tomeasy T C 18:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I also favour a map without borders, for the reasons listed above. Lwxrm (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Superiluminary just put the borderless map on the article, I assume this discussion is closed. Tomeasy T C 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. I do so only as a conciliation - my preference remains the map with internal and external borders, for reasons previously stated. I just as easily could have restored the fully bordered map and may yet do so, since the borderless map looks too minimal given the topic matter. Some of the supporting reasons are, IMO, insipid. I am also concerned by the bias and apparent snowballing of 'borderless' commentators on this page, moreso since I believe it may be a deterrent to other editors who want to contribute but - as I - are discouraged from improving this particular article. So, I may post notices on wikiproject pages etc. to get a wider perspective about the utility of the posted map and whether it should be changed. Superluminary (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't be discouraged. You had one strong argument, and see, the map changed and many people support it now. You should really see this as an achievement possible by your intervention. Just take a positive attitude and stop branding your opponents as negatively as you did, don't push your way through on the articles when, at the same time, many are opposing your arguments on the talk pages. Then, you may find that you might enjoy the discussions.
There are many other things to be solved on this article besides this one little issue. So if you want to collaborate, take a look here. Tomeasy T C 18:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I quite like the idea of a map with borders but if everybody else is for the borderless one then I'll go with the flow on this one I suppose! Simonski (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Intergovermentalism, Supranationalism and Defence

I want the article to be clearer on in which areas the Union acts Supranational, with 55% vote in the Council of ministers, and in which areas the Union acts Intergovernmental with unanimous votes. What about Police and Legal areas and what about military and Foreign policy areas.

I also want the Berlin Plus deal between the NATO and the EU to be mentioned since it gives the EU power over the European parts of the NATO structure, intergovernmentally. That is, the European NATO forces can be reflagged to EU Forces, and thus keeping the neutrality for those EU countries that are Neutral though they through the Lisbon Treaty have entered the new "EU-alliance" of the common defence and foreign policy, which, just as NATO, is intergovernmental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.227.250 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you make more constructive suggestions where you want to have mentioned what precisely. That may help us putting it in. Arnoutf (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

cordis documents - reliable sources?

I recently noticed that user:Tomeasy questioned the reliability of an indeed rather sketchy pdf file downloaded from CORDIS. (main cordis sitehttp://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html)

Cordis is the European Unions central "The gateway to European research and development" and contains research reports from the scientific EU projects (from the frameworks). This is to provide access to publicly funded research results. A major problem with Cordis is that it is more or less a knowledge black-hole as there seems to be no constistent cataloguing or search engine in place of the many thousands of reports.

Nevertheless the question now arises whether Cordis documents are by definition reliable or not. An arguments in favour of reliability would be that it is under the auspices of DGRESEARCH the EU scientific research directorate and therefore should contain only scientific data, reports. An argument against is that there is no consistent quality control on the reports submitted by the partners in EU scientific projects, and a lot of reports maybe finished in a rush to meet contract obligations (been there, done that).

I think this warrants some thoughts as it is likely more Cordis reports will pop up in the future. Arnoutf (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know all this about CORDIS. To be honest, I did not even know that it was CORDIS who published this document. I suspected this reference for another reason: It does not reveal its authors or their institution (i.e., CORDIS). I guess, Arnout understood this just from the url.
I am wondering whether this is enough. I mean, basically anyone could write a pdf and host it on an ftp server. As long as such a document does not give any other traces to cross-check the identity of the publisher and what is stated, I do not feel very confident.
BTW, we are talking about this:
In 2000, France, the UK, Spain, and Germany accounted for 97% of the total military research budget of the then 15 EU member states.[7] European civil research did not benefit from the decline in military research budgets.
Tomeasy T C 16:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Cordis is the repository of knowledge gathered in EU funded research. Cordis itself is not an institution it is the portal of the EU directorary for research (DGRESEARCH). The EU aims to make all the results (and calls for tender) of its research projects (mainly through their Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development). The EU finds this its duty as the research was funded with public money and should therefore be accessible to the public. You do need passwords to upload stuff to Cordis, so the source is something that has been contracted by the EU.
In this specific case the document states somewhere that it is an overview from 2003 on the science and technology indicators. see here. This is probably tracked by Eurostat. I do share Tom's worries about the lack of authors as that makes it hard to value the document. Arnoutf (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I am Italian. The 97% figure included in this document is ridiculous: in some way we should assume that contrubution in military research from Italy is less than 3% of the EU-15 Members? Or less than Spain? It sounds very strange to me: here there are some big military companies like Finmeccanica and AgustaWestland, and the main shareholder of them is the Italian Ministry of Finance and Treasury. These corporations spend alot of money in research, so how this money is accounted? Public funds, private funds or what? IMHO the source is unreliable therefore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.146.213 (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not Italian, but hope this won't disqualify me ;-)
I have also problems to believe that 11 EU members (including Italy) accounted for less than 3% of the military research spending in 2000. What I could imagine is that this figure is based on military research funded by the EU, so it might be meant much more specific. If so, this should be made clear. Tomeasy T C 12:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Representation at the UN

Sorry to be dragging an old one up, certainly get a feeling of deja vu here, but has the sentence "Permanent diplomatic missions of the EU are established around the world and representation at the WTO, G8, G-20 and the United Nations is maintained." always been in the intro? Just to me it is a bit vague and potentially misleading. It is not clear really on what sort of representation is maintained (which also strikes me as an odd word to use) or whether in each case it is the member states and the EU that are being represented in each. Before anybody comes in here yes I am aware that obviously the EU has varying representation at each one, but I do think this sentence currently is too vague and secondly don't think it really is necessary for the intro, better explained properly later in the article than with some vaguely worded attempt at the start of the article. Simonski (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Arent the diplomatic missions rather in the process of establishment, than already in full operation? Just a thought. The WTO, G8, G20, UN membership seems quite correct though. Seniorfox (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

EU has observer status in UN not full membership. Arnoutf (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It is very vague, we can do better than that surely? We can give a number for the diplomatic missions, state the EU's leading role at the WTO, that it is a member of the G8 and G20 (though doesn't host or preside), and outline that it is an observer member at the UN with full membership in certain committees and agencies. Then we'd actually be saying something useful no?- J.Logan`t: 16:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I'd just remove it altogether but on the assumption that everybody else would disagree, I'd say your suggestion sounds like a good one Logan. Simonski (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is all related to the "dodgy" way the EU works: you says "permanent diplomatic mission" instead of "embassy", but is 100% the same thing. Now there are "permanent diplomatic missions", in future there will be "embassies", but if you open a dictionary and find definition for "embassy" it is written: Embassy = Permanent diplomatic mission usually led by an ambassador... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.146.213 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Union/Archive_25&oldid=1074311216"