Talk:European Union/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20


uniopedia.eu, new site about EU

  • http://uniopedia.eu wants to be a multilanguage wiki about all the aspects of EU integration
  • it is still in development, and it will be built on top of a complete new web engine which will support much faster queries, and better concept management
  • please email to uniopedia.eu at gmail.com for questions, ideas etc.

Why no section for the military of the E.U.?

I'm sure it should have at least a "tiny" section mentioning it or for future developments that may come :|

-G

Well actually the EU does have a military, it just isn't officially an "army". EUFOR has been active since 2004 and there's many other military units such as European Union Battlegroups, Eurocorps, European Rapid Reaction Force, among others. In the past many countries participated in joint NATO deployments and that may change now that they're part of the EU. The EU military is certainly in its infancy as far as structure goes but the EU does actually have power to deploy the above mentioned groups. There's also the fact that nearly all EU members are NATO countries which means that any NATO deployment is likely to be comprised of a mostly EU force. JRWalko 01:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think NATO forces should be treated with NATO not EU. EUFOR is a force that has been active for a specific reason much like SFOR and IFOR which were not EU forces at all. Eurocorps is also not a EU initiative but is an initiative of 5 of its countries. The European Rapid Response Force is indeed a EU initiative, but as far as I know this is still in its infacy and not yet fully operational. Altogether there is some military cooperation between the countries but not much under actual control of the EU. Arnoutf 06:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the (rather slow) merger between the Western European Union and the European Union should be mentioned in the article. Javier Solana is Secretary-General of both organisations, some agencies of the WEU were transferred to the EU, and it is still the aim of the EU to take over all WEU's responsibilities in the future. Maarten 11:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That will do. And thank you for being civil about it.

-G

Example: In November 2004, the EU heads of government signed a "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" that offers possibilities for increased defense and security cooperation. If ratified, this treaty will give operational effect to the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), approved in the 2000 Nice Treaty. Despite limits of cooperation for some EU members, development of a EU military planning unit is likely to continue. The planning unit will support the EU Rapid Reaction Force, which EU ministers have said will deploy 2 "battle groups" in January 2007. France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Italy continue to press for wider coordination. The 5-nation Eurocorps - created in 1992 by France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Luxembourg - has already deployed troops and police on peacekeeping missions to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and assumed command of the ISAF in Afghanistan in August 2004. Eurocorps directly commands the 5,000-man Franco-German Brigade, the Multinational Command Support Brigade, and EUFOR, which took over from SFOR in Bosnia in December 2004. Individual EU nations made commitments to provide 67,100 troops following the December 1999 EU summit in Helsinki. Some 56,000 troops from EU member states were actually deployed on various international operations in 2003. In August 2004, the new European Defense Agency, tasked with promoting cooperative European defense capabilities, began operations. In November 2004, the EU Council of Ministers formally committed to creating 13 1,500-man battle groups by the end of 2007, to respond to international crises on a rotating basis. Twenty-two of the EU's 25 nations have agreed to supply troops. France, Italy, and the UK formed the first of 3 battle groups in 2005. In May 2005, Norway, Sweden and Finland agreed to establish one of the battle groups, possibly to include Estonia forces. The remaining 9 groups are to be formed in 2007. A rapid-reaction naval EU Maritime Task Group was stood up in March 2007. (2005)

mistake

there's a mistake in the UE map (PPP per capita)

WIKIPERDIA: ITALY 30,732 SPAIN 27,000

the colours are wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

There is an even bigger mistake in the map: Moldova is coloured as if it were part of the Black Sea.

FYROM vs. RM

Is it really necessary to call the Rep. of Macedonia as Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia? First of all the phrase is quite ridiculous, secondly according to my knowledge Greece is the only country that still insists on using this name, other countries have more or less accepted the term Rep. of Macedonia. Plus i personally believe that a nation has the right to call itself however it wants to(unless ofcourse there is an already existing country with the same name:) ). therefore i'm going to edit the article accordingly. 153.5.62.201 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Official EU documents use FYROM (probably suggested by Greece). As this is the EU article I would prefer to use the official EU designation of the country; at least here. Arnoutf 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Greece will certainly not recognize RM and I find it strange that some EU members do. I thought something like this would be resolved collectively? As far as this article goes it should remain as FYROM seeing as the dispute is between FYROM and an EU member.JRWalko 18:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

if the eu documents use FYROM instead of RM i do not object to FYROM being used, since it's not really important. Although the dispute is in my opinion just bullying of a small underdeveloped country by greece without any clear benefits should it succeed in the name-war. i'd still prefer RM as a more sensible option. 153.5.62.201 17:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

although I can feel with your sentiments, Wiki is not the place for that, solet's just stick with the documents.Arnoutf 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It is recognized as Fyrom by the EU, UN and many other countries around the world. It is not a case of Greece "bullying" another country, it is the other way around. The Ancient Macedonians were Greeks (and spoke Greek) and FYROM recognizes this, however these modern FYROMians are Slavs (hence they were part of YugoSLAVia) who came to the region in the 6th and 7th centuries AD, roughly 1000 years after Alexander the Great, and they speak a Bulgarian dialect. They have only recently been referring to themselves as "Macedonians" and this is unacceptable to Greece primarily because it is also the name of a state in northern Greece, thus FYROM threatens the territorial integrity of Greece - at one stage Skopje printed stamps of an icon in the Greek state of Macedonia! Furthermore, the word Macedonia is a Greek name, and their flag (which they have changed 5 times in the past 15 years of their existence) contains an Ancient Greek symbol, and they are trying to use their name to steal Greek history with FYROMian extremists claiming they are descendants of Alexander (which is ludicrous).--Waterfall999 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the history of this dispute a tad irrelevant? ROM is the constitutional name and has started to be accepted by some countries, while FYROM is an international compromise used in IR a lot, diplomatic incidents seem to occur when it is not. Both seem to have something behind them to me and in the absence of a Wikipedia decision on the matter, might I suggest a vote for a standard to be used on EU pages? - J Logan t/c: 14:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply put: If the EU itself uses FYROM, I think we should use FYROM on the EU pages.
I also think this discussion should be on the page of the country, or possibly on the page of the country project rather than here.
A vote seems irrelevant, wiki is no democracy after all Arnoutf 15:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Bit of a cliché, of course it isn't, but that doesn't mean we can't see where the majority lies. So long as it is with good reasoning of course. - J Logan t/c: 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe we should be using FYROM, but rather Republic of Macedonia. Even though this article is about the EU, it doesn't mean that the EU's choice of name should really have an implication on the name we choose to use here. Since the article is located at RM, I fail to see the rationale of calling it FYROM here just because the EU recognises it as FYROM. This particularly goes for the mention of the country in the Economy section: "Differences between member states are also significant. GDP per capita is often 10% to 25% higher than the EU average in the "older" western member states, but only comprises one-third to two-thirds of the EU average in most eastern member states, as well as in potential membership candidates such as Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey." I strongly support this to be changed to "Republic of Macedonia" both for the purposes of standardisation and NPOV. Ronline ✉ 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be FYROM simply because that is the EU term, as we are not the EU. However I do think FYROM is preferable. It is a more common term (same way as the TRNC is recognised by Turkey but no one else) and it is its name within the UN. Also from an editorial point of view, it would aid stability as there are greater chances of reversion to FYROM rather than the other way around. I know that isn't exactly a just way of doing it but I am mentioning it on a practical note. Perhaps though if we had Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in the first prose mention and from then on use the acronym FYROM as we would use WEU after Western European Union (WEU). In tables where full names are used (Federal Republic of Germany) we use Republic of Macedonia, and where short names are used (Germany) we use FYROM, to avoid confusion with the other Macedonia? - J Logan t/c: 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It should be FYROM, the name which it uses in the UN. The EU refers to the country as FYROM not "RM". Even Eurovision recognizes it as FYROM.--Waterfall999 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure that the Eurovision song contest should be considered a definitive authority on such matters. However, the naming issue is explored, from all points of view, on 2 very good Wikipedia pages, Macedonia naming dispute and Macedonia (terminology). As other users above have suggested, and I feel this discussion would be better placed there. Indisciplined 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Refs

Lack of Refs seemed to be the main reason the article lost FA status. Large chunks are still unrefed, even if the facts seem okay. Do people feel up to going through and sourcing everything as part of a new FA drive? - J Logan t/c: 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (regardless of whether the drive would be successful as stability would be a problem wouldn't it?) - J Logan t/c: 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea to get it up again. Perhaps stage 1 could be to get it back to Good Article, then at least we have some comments, and know how other editors consider the current status. Arnoutf 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course. From looking at it there would still need to be more refs, but in general it could probably get through it with a few tweaks. I'll nominate it now for GA as it will no doubt take ages to get a reviewer for something this long. I've already put a few refs around the place, anything aside from that that could do with some work? I'm not sure how applicable some FA comments are considering the work that has been done since. - J Logan t/c: 16:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't expect the review so soon but we have the feedback nonetheless. I've tried to so something about History. I'm not sure about religion - I think it relates as much to the EU as it is going to, as much as any country article does. Enlargement needs to be looked at still but refs are the continuos problem. The tags put on by the reviewer were removed, but nothing done about them. I just have a simple question, are people serious about improving this article? If they are then we all need to look through all of this and reference it properly, and remove anything we can't reference. No matter how interesting or informative it may be it means nothing unless it can be backed up as a solid fact. If people do not want to put that effort in, and instead carry on adding things at random, then there isn't much point in trying to sort this out. So, everyone, are we going to get the EU's core article up to featured, be proud of it once more? - J Logan t/c: 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a tool that could be used to re-instate the tags without doing the work all over again? Undo obviously doesn't work because changes have beeen made. --Boson 15:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll get it sorted in a sec, so; Lear, can you please not remove them, at least not before commenting and getting support here. I think having them, on there are an impotant motivator to getting it cited. - J Logan t/c: 15:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Added facts again, I don't think they cover everything but it is a place to start at least. So everyone, if you know where the information is please cite it now, don't just remove it because that doesn't improve the article. - J Logan t/c: 16:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For now I think this is a very good step. However, if some of them stay up for very long we might want to consider deleting them in a few weeks, even if the referencing is not perfect then as the tags themselves reduce readability Arnoutf 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding a severe amount of ref tags does not improve the article in terms of readability or extra information. Necessary refs are important to raise the articles credibility but there is no use of spreading the tags to almost uncontroversial claims. @User:JLogan: You are welcome to rewrite unbased claims or unsufficient paragraphs; there are many of them. Lear 21 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would rewrite them all, and have tried to start doing so, but I do not have data for all of it - which is why I asked for help on that. And on removing the tags, I suggest that if they are not sorted out for a long time, I suggest we remove the uncited line, rather than the label pointing it out. If a problem is difficult to solve, you don't improve the situation by ignoring the person who points it out. - J Logan t/c: 10:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree with the line removal idea in principle, in my opinion ensuring a readable and relatively complete text is more important then a text that is fully referenced but is riddled with huge holes (e.g. hypothetical History section having a referenced bit on the perioed 1950-1960 and on the period 1985-1998 but nothing between or after would be weirder than a provisional section where the gaps are filled with unreferenced information).
I think the way forward might be to go at it section-by-section. I.e. fact tag a single section, focus our combined effort at that section untill it is ok. Then fact-tag the next. That way we keep the article accessible and readable while we do the construction work. Arnoutf 10:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, sounds like a plan to me. Might I suggest we deal with politics first? As it is a core section, then go from there. - J Logan t/c: 11:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Expanded content, improved prose and fluent text should be the first priority. Don´t mind the missing references too much. It´s an important detail but should´nt stop you from start rewriting. Use a proper ref style to ensure coherent appearance (Footnote 1 is the model:# ^ EU nominal GDP 2006, International Monetary Fund, Accessed April 17, 2007). And please avoid these ref tags, they just add nothing at all. "European Parliament" reads very good ... Lear 21 12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes prose is first priority, but the importance of refs are being lost on this page. Facts on Wikipedia need to be backed up to give it legitimacy, and we need them to get this article up to GA. On ref style, yes they ought to be like that, I was trying to get the refs on there first and would then go back and restore a proper style. If you do think referencing is important, then I hope you'll be contributing to it. If not, are you interested in getting this up to GA? - J Logan t/c: 14:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, was going to tag politics but I ended up rewriting it as I had the info to hand, hope the basics are okay to most people on that. But the rest of it I don't have the information for, so does any one have data on/willing to sort out the remaining areas: Geography, Law, Economy, Demographics, Education and science, and culture. - J Logan t/c: 12:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll deal with 'Education and Science', but it will take a week or more. It's not quite right as it stands. On references generally, I think we just have to work through and add where we can. There's a lot around but it, too, will take time.Raggio 09:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to contribute Raggio! - J Logan t/c: 11:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Have now done Education and Science - quite a lot of restructuring, and a wider view (ie, not just focussed on the programmes). Culture could do with attention too ... Raggio 11:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Much appreciated. Also, from the refs point of view, it is just economy what will need work. After a bit more copyediting maybe, and ensuring stability, we could put it forward for GA! Thanks again for your contribution. - J Logan t: 16:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Lear21 - can you please stop randomly removing cite tags, try adding citations instead of ignoring the problem. As above, I added them in limited areas so we can work through them. I did not put them everywhere as before so they are not affecting the readability of the whole article. On the other changes of mine you reverted without discussion, images need to have something to do with the text, a lot of these are way to random. The Frattini picture for example is pointless as it says nothing about the text - Frattini is not mentioned there and PJC is where the Commission has near zero power. Again with the passport, what is it illustrating? No where in law are passports mentioned - there isn't even anything on borders in that area. And what is with the reform treaty image? It is a picture of some bits of paper. All over this article are images where there needs to be no image, this is decoration pure and simple. Frankly it is also unsightly, with near two images to each section back and forth on each side. Can we please have some restraint on images, use them only where they are needed, not because we want to fill a gap where - got forbid - there is just text. - J Logan t/c: 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

- and can I just ask people, who is interested in improving this article and getting it to GA? - J Logan t/c: 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me start with complimenting you with the huge amount of work in providing references.
I think this article should go to GA, although I am no expert (so little access to relevant sources), I am willing to proofread sections or the whole. Do you have an indication what steps are needed before we can make a shot at GA? Arnoutf 09:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much! You help is very much appreciated. Below is the last GA review, I have gone through the enlargement and history sections already, I don't know about religion - not sure that is a big problem to be honest. Major point is the lack of citation though, some areas are missing a lot and I don't have citations for all - which is why I added tags to encourage others to fill in that which I can not.
That GA was of course a quick fail on basic criteria, other errors would be in text and I also see way too many images, most that say nothing about the text or aren't event connected to it (see rant above).
The article has a lot of eyes on it to pick up minor errors in the prose like spelling, but there seems to be little work on improving the prose as a whole, which is something you might be interested in doing if you'd like. For example one of the GA points below on enlargement was that it was a list of facts, if you can see any other areas like that it would be good to rewrite them. - also of course, any proof readings of bits I put in are welcome! I constantly miss my mistakes. Oh and some references aren't converted to the citation template yet, if anyone comes across any when editing they should be changed. Thanks again! - J Logan t/c: 10:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Schuman's picture

I notice that someone has changed this to show him receiving some sort of Charlemagne prize about European conquest. Isn't this a massive giveaway? TharkunColl 23:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


GA nomination has failed

Good Article nomination has failed for the following reasons:

  1. Way too much of the article is unreferenced
  2. The "Enlargement" section needs work. The list of countries that may join the European Union is written in prose, and is necessary, but paragraphs should flow. It seems almost as if random facts are just thrown into paragraphs. Goals of joining and things going for the country followed by issues preventing the country from joining
  3. Religion section is specific to Europe, but its relation to the Europian Union is not clear in the article.
  4. Many parts were confusing and didn't really elaborate. History section should probably elaborate sligtly more. It goes from the 1950's to the 2000's. Something had to have happened in between.

--SefringleTalk 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox, presidents

Why is the President-in-Council listed as Germany when it ought to be Merkel? Her position is more official and notable than Steinmeier's, the head of the Council depends on the configuration so if anything should be listed as the country it is Council. European Council has a clear position, it is based on the Presidency so could also be a country but I don't see why that position should alone be the country. Both people, both the country or the council as country and PiO as a person - those seem the only logical choices. - J Logan t/c: 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the line in the beginging of the article listing the EU as the largest political entity in the world. This is misleading as both China and India are far larger and the US has more constituant states. I left the part stating that the EU is the largest economy in the world as I don't know if this is true. 66.88.40.194 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Member States map

The map in the Member states section: Image:European Union vector map III.svg has two mistakes on it - Moldova is missing to the right of Romania, and some Greek Islands are shown as part of Turkey. No one who is able to seems to have fixed it since May when it was pointed out. Just thought I'd mention it here =) Rossenglish 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


In addition to the above comment Armenia is "whited-out" like Moldova

Same observation made (Moldova and Armenia) on 20 July 2007, this needs fixing - rather embaressing really.

Also, the outlying parts in insets need some identification. At the moment, they're just collections of blue blobs. Is the bottom one Greenland? If so, it should be removed, as it's not part of the EU. Rojomoke 23:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Presidency insignia

I don't think it's necessary to have the image in the template. It's just merely a promo logo, which is used on Portuguese meetings. We've had logos like this: Image:EUAT2006KoolhaasLogo.jpg. Wouldn't look really good on the template? Besides, it's very possible that we won't get proper logos for every presidency country. I don't think we'll even have those logos in the future, if the current rotating presidency system is got rid of. --Pudeo (Talk) 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good to use. The Presidency is very powerful, controling the direction of the Council. And it rotating presidency will not be abolished. It will be replaced in the European Coucil but not the Council of Ministers. Even under the trio system (already in place) the presidency is still important and it is symbolised by the logo. - J Logan t/c: 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

competences?

What is the reason for using the spelling "competences" instead of "competencies"? --rich<Rich Janis 01:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)>

I guess a, typo, possibly cuased by non-native English level of most of the authors of this article? Please keep in mind that this page is edited by many Europeans, of which only a minority were born in an English speaking countries; some (minor) misunderstandings in idiom, spelling and grammar are therefore to be expected. (In my own writing as well!). If someone with a truly high level of English language control would like to copy-edit; Welcome!! Arnoutf 10:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Because it is the plural of "competence", not of "competency". I would say that neither is in some way more correct than the other. Naomhain 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, Naomhain. It took me awhile to sort out my perception of the difference between these words. Now I see the appropriateness here of competence, with its meaning of ability or authority, vs. competency, with its emphasis on specific skills and their performance. --rich<Rich Janis 23:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)>
I do agree with RJ; unfortunately, this view is not even slightly reflected in the competence article. Moreover, the article competency is merely a redirect to it. --media_lib 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (with some basic English skills)

European Union and Empire

Should this be added to the description of the European Union, as a neo-Empire?

Speaking in Strasbourg, Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, sliped big time: he said the European Union is now an empire. It must’ve morphed into this new entity while we weren’t looking. But don’t worry, Barroso claims this is the first “peaceful empire,” one without a dictator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Ralocq9uE

No. His statement changes nothing. --Hemlock Martinis 04:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Although since he mentions authors, if those sources could be tracked down, it might merit inclusion. --Hemlock Martinis 04:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the clip. First of all Barroso compares it to the organisation of an empire, because it has the size of an empire (and imho also the ethnic diversity of one). He also says it is not an empire because it is not build by conquest.
Also, we should keep in mind that Barroso's first language is Portugese. This may mean that some of the implicit associations with the English word Empire may be subtly different from those with English as native language.
Together I think it is too un-important/trivial to add. Arnoutf 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I won't even merit the suggestion of including this with an answer, bit tired of eurosceptics going tabloid on wikipedia. Secondly, on the comments themselves, his language is fine and his point is valid, he just didn't have his PR cap on. You can easily compare the EU to an "empire", depending on what definition of empire you're using. He just didn't seem to remember that lobotomised British tabloids would have a field day with a word like that. - J Logan t/c: 10:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That's basically what I mean with implicit associations (something that in EU context may not be special maybe interesting for tabloid). But I agree with your comment. Arnoutf 10:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi all, I have started some copy-editing; and it is indeed needed. Some notes, for other editors to imporve the text first go.

  • Please only provide figures if they are relevant. E.g. a figure related to WTO placed in a section where the phrase WTO is nowhere present should not be included. Figures serve to support the text.
  • The texts are often riddled with references backward: words like "these" "this". Be very careful with these, it took me some time to figure out where it pointed back to on several occasions. In general: as soon as ambivalence may occur - do not use "this" or "these" but write out. If you refer back to something outside the current paragraph, do not use "these" or "this" but write out

. Similar problem with reference to the pillars (this pillar; pillar one, etc) Readers cannot be expected to know what these are about, please write out. Arnoutf 11:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your work, it is looking far better already! - J Logan t/c: 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph now reads: The European Union (EU) is a sui generis political body, made up of twenty-seven member states. It was established in 1993 by the Treaty on European Union (The Maastricht Treaty) and is the de facto successor to the six-member European Economic Community founded in 1957. Since its foundation in 1993 new accessions have raised its number of member states, and competences have expanded. As a result, the EU can be described as both a supranational and intergovernmental body.

However Lear21 replaced the phrase "Since it foundation in 1993" by "Since then". This is not ok.

First of all since then can either refer to 1993 (foundation of EU), or to 1957 (foundation of EEC); hence the use of then is ambiguous.
More importantly though Lear21 summarised his edit with the since 1957. This is IMHO also not ok, as the line seems to adress the EU, rather than the EEC. And indeed since 1993 competences have expanced, as well as the number of members.
Basically as it was written the section could mean both..... That will just not do. We have to decide what we mean and then phrase the paragraph unambiguously. Arnoutf 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree, we should have that clarity and I don't see how "since then" helps in the slightest. And incidentally I'd like to say I support all the changes you've been making, including every one of them reverted thus far. I hope those editors reverting such work would like to properly justify a few of them next time, before reverting any new ideas people happen to contribute. - J Logan t/c: 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, apparently Lear21's intention was to talk about the 1957 treaty. I am not convinced that is the most relevant though as it is about EEC rather than EU, and indeed since 1993 there has been enlargement and added competences as well. Opinions please. Arnoutf 08:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well there is continuity between the EEC and EU, if you really want to clarify I think it could be rewritten again. In fact, thinking about it perhaps the intro should make clear the distinction? Mention that the EEC was founded and became the EC within the EU in 1993? Perhaps talk about the enlargement in two segments, the early enlargement to 12 then the enlargement that came about due to the fall of the Iron curtain? That way we avoid the problem all together. (In addition, it would clarify the line about it being supranational and intergovernmental)
On the three pillar, can I just point out that the EU's foreign policy is not always the CFSP, indeed the last paragraph isn't about it and the one before is on the ESDP. I have changed this to just "foreign policy", as nothing is lost by that and it is a simpler term for new readers, but this has been reverted again. Thoughts? - J Logan t/c: 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Enlargement section

I moved the enlargement section from politics to members and geography for three reasons (that are all enough to move it on their own)

  1. Enlargement is very much about members (past, present and future) and geography. Although it is a politicised issue, it is more about members than about politics.
  2. The politics section focusses very much on the three pillars (introduction, and a short section on each pillar). Enlargement is not a pillar, thus enlargement should not be part of the (current version of) the politics section.
  3. The members and geography sections holds a table with accession to the EU of different new members. It also shows a map with candidate members. Hence this section implicitly deals with the enlargement issue. There should not be two sections explicitly or implicitly dealing with the same issue, hence the enlargement and the last bit of the members and geography section must be merged (which is what I did by my move). Arnoutf 08:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I do agree that enlargement has a strong political element, however it is not addressed as such in the segment. Indeed there is information overlap between enlargement and member and hence I think they should come under the same heading. Although perhaps below the map? - J Logan t/c: 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

When exactly was the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) founded? I understand JLogan's comment about it being signed vs. going into force, but on the European Coal and Steel Community article it says: "The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was founded in 1951..." as the very first sentence. Perhaps the language should be changed here to say "established" or something else if there's a minor distinction that needs to be made? If the language is not changed, whatever is decided should be implemented on both pages. Also, I don't know that the change that piqued my interest in it was necessarily vandalism as the picture to the right says, "Enlargement, 1957 to 2007". Should this be changed to say, e.g., "Enlargement, 1952 to 2007"? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the ECSC article. The foundation would when it comes into force, as it obviously isn't its signature. It was signed in 51 and came into force in 52, therefore it was 52. That was also the date before it was changed to 1957 if you check the history. - J Logan t: 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I did see that it had previously said 1952, but I assumed (you know what they say) that the larger ECSC article would be more accurate. Also, in looking at the "picture" to the right, the caption obviously couldn't be changed without changing the image itself as it does not start with the 6 countries in the ECSC (as far as I can tell). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No well the image only follows the EEC-EU line, not the ECSC which is more an indirect ancestor so to speak, compared to the EEC which is considered the start of the modern EU. When I maade that animation I had included the ECSC but ran into some technical probs. If people think it should be on there I can try to include it again. - J Logan t: 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a big deal, but if one were to assume that the original change from 1952 to 1957 was not vandalism (vandals usually aren't so subtle), I'd guess that figure was the inspiration behind it. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't vandalism, the IP just looked like one below that was vandalism. It was just a mistake because 1957 is date people hear most for the foundation, but it is different. There is certainly no chance that the ECSC was created half a decade after all the ministers were meeting and thought they were running it. Would have been amusing though. - J Logan t: 09:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of images

I removed images from sections where there was no reference to that image. Images should be an illustration of the text in a section. If the issues related to an image are not treated in the section, that image has no place at that place (important as that image may be). That does not say the image has no place in the article, only not in the section it was placed in. Concretely I removed Mandelson from the subsection European Community where neither his function nor WTO are mentioned. I remove the passport image from the law section as this section does not mention EU citizenship, nothing about border control, nothing about passports. Arnoutf 08:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have argued before, these are pointless images and when they are restored there is no real argument for them. They are not talked about the the text and hence have no relevance. The EC does not talk about external trade, external representation, Mandelson himself, individual Commissioners, the WTO or anything that justifies Mandelson. I honestly have no idea why there is such force to have Mandelson there, there are far better images that could be presented there. Of course there shouldn't be an image of image sake, there are far too many already. As for the passport, again it is not addressed in the text so there is no reason to have it there. It seems like some editors are using images for "did you know" boxes, rather than improving the text.- J Logan t/c: 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There are no relevant images placed in the education and science section. The only picture placed are more or less random university buildings, but these seem irrelevant and not at all illustrative to the section; as these university buildings are actually under the authority of local govts and not EU. Hence if should not be here. The logo of the Galileo project is also placed on the Science and educt section. However Galileo is much more of an infrastructure than a science project; and indeed, all intext reference to Galileo are in the infrastructure section and none in science. Hence Galileo is not illustrative of anything in this section and should not be here. Arnoutf 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Totaly agree, sometimes I'm not sure if people bother reading the article before trying to turn it into some kind of childrens pop-up book! RELEVANT images ONLY. And for the sake of stability can things be taken to the talk page where possible. - J Logan t: 12:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify further on particular images: The euro is not mentioned in the text of the European Community (just to clarify, the word euro only appears once in the ENTIRE politics section - in talking about the ECB), the image has no business there. Sibu was selected as the non-EU capital for 2007 - selected years before Romania joined for this year - therefore Luxembourg should be shown as it was selected as the EU capital. Yes Law as the EU courts, but that is a picture of the courts, it is not representing the city. And generally, there is no need to have three, or even two, images in a section unless it is needed to demonstrate the article. - J Logan t: 12:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Compare most of the country articles concerning illustration in Education section. Nothing wrong to present a university picture here. Lear 21 13:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because they have national universities, and usualy talk about them. The EU different and a random uni picture adds nothing. - J Logan t: 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with JLogan. If for example the EIIT (a proposed EU institute) would have its own campus, I would support adding an image of that. But putting up a random uni of a random member state without any obvious link to the EU should not be done. Arnoutf 09:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Largest economy in the world

By at least one measure, the United States alone has a larger PPP economy than the European Union. Thus, unless the "largest economy in the world" is qualified in some way and specified as "nominal GDP" only, I'm disputing the claim of this sentence. The way it is currently written implies it is the largest by any measure, which is not the case. Uris 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, how does one define an economy? Why is NAFTA then not an economy? Uris 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Largest is defined by nominal, rather than PPP - that is obviously not a dictate of the size. And the EU is a tad different from NATFA, NAFTA is a free trade area, the EU is essentially a federation in economic matters. I've clarified the sentence but it is perfectly legitimate. - J Logan t/c: 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion for the introduction (as it is explained in more detailed in the economy section) to replace The economy of the Union is the largest in the world[dubious — see talk page] with by The economy of the Union can be considered to be the largest in the world with. I think by putting in the caveat -be considered as- the whole issue of alternative measures, difference between the closer relation within EU compared to NAFTA is covered in a single edit (again for introduction only, in depth explanation in economy section). Arnoutf 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure, it is a bit washy. It is either considered or it isn't. You can't say people consider figures to be the biggest to not. Perhaps if we clarify the difference between EU and loose organisations by using something like "the largest cohesive economy". I know that means sod all in technical terms but you get the idea I'm attempting to convey. Any economists in the room with some useful tecnical terms? - J Logan t/c: 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
One term is "single economy", but without qualification that might imply a single currency. I think I would feel happier with the phrases "Viewed as a single economy" and "in terms of nominal GDP", but it is difficult to squeeeze everything into one sentence without repetition. One could avoid lengthy explanations of the difference between free trade areas on the one hand and closer groupings such as fully fledged federations and the EU on the other by just stating that the nominal GDP is higher than that of the United States, but that might increase the risk of a "pissing match". --Boson 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestions, Boson. "Viewed as a single economy" is necessary because there is no set definition of what is an economy and what is not. "In terms of nominal GDP" is necessary because the U.S. economy can be cited as being larger in terms of purchasing power by at least one reputable source. JLogan - please don't remove my dispute tag again until this is settled. Uris 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "considered" is not very strong. Qunatifying these considerations such as through "viewed as a single economy" and possibly even the addition "nominal" may be the way out. Arnoutf 08:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove the tag, Lear21 did.
I agree with the points on the US comparison, that it would avoid the problem but just makes it look we are trying to say we are better than America (which is easy to fall into as a lot of literature is about comparing the two. Not sure about "Viewed as a single economy" though, it doesn't properly convey what it is. Perhaps if we make a reference to the single market in order to clarify? By making a point of the integration of the market and such elements it would both define the EU and its relationship with entities people would try to compare it with. - J Logant: 10:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should definitely mention "as a single unit" and "in nominal terms" when we're referring to total economic size. I disagree that "largest economy" implies nominal GDP; China is often considered to be the second-largest economy in PPP terms, for example (not to mention that PPP is increasingly used). I agree that we should make a reference to the single market, because that's what arguably makes the EU a single economic unit. Ronline ✉ 12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering List of countries by GDP (PPP) if we trust IMF or World Bank, EU lists first (albeit it marginally compared to the US; only CIA (a well renowned financial agency ;-) lists US over EU in PPP terms). Looking at List of countries by GDP (nominal) EU lists first by IMF and is not listed by the world bank. So I think the choice of measure is not that essnential after all. Arnoutf 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The article already goes into great detail on how the EU is largest. It's plain as day in the Economy section ("Taken as a single entity..."). Can you not borrow something from here if the current introduction offends you --ThwartedEfforts 21:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Population mistake

I was working on a quick project and needed the population of the EU. Since the number on the EU page seemed a bit low, I went through the wikipedia pages and added up all of the member states populations as stated. The number I got started with 594, instead of 494 - I'm guessing this is a mistake? Could someone with a bit more experience check this out and fix it?

I'm quite sure the figure usualy cited is just under 500, but I may be mistaken. The Parliament says 492 million, although that is not an exact stat of course. Don't work on the Wikipedia pages though, use citable sources, whether indicated national stats that can be added up or a stat for the population as a whole. - J Logan t: 12:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Culture section

I think the culture section is highly disappointing. The top of the section is dealing with some cultural pollicies, but it is very vague.
There is no reference to any of the European Arts either in sculpture/painting (Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Picasso, etc etc) music (Mozart, Beethoven, Vivaldi, etc.), literature (Shakespeare, Heine, etc.), or philosophy (Kant, Spinoza, Hume, etc etc). However we talk about football and sports.
Either the section should be renamed "cultural policy of the EU" (and any non-policy stuff should be removed); we could consider making it a subsection of politics of the EU; or we should give somethign more about the actual EU culture. As it is now, it is in between; and not satisfactory any way. Arnoutf 18:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, not sure how we can talk about all aspects of European culture in a subsection, while cutting the EU off from Europe in general. I think we should have a link to European culture, and don't talk about anything unless it has a clear EU link. For example;
  • EU policy
  • If there is a study somewhere showing an EU, not European cutlure developing. Don't think there is much generaly but we could talk about a political culture???
  • European culture/history being used to bolster the EU. For example, I think it was in Rome on the 50th Birthday, one bit of art from each member was presented symbolsing that country and Europe's collective heritage.
On generic cultural issues though, I don't think we can claim to an EU cutlure, would be rather arrogant to claim the EU as Europe. - J Logan t: 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Just thought, we could make a point that the EU is helping create a common culture across Europe? Opening borders beyond the EU, forming a "core identity" to rally around (political solidarity to rally around also, creating a common sence of self around the EU core that speaks for them louder than their non-member state does) No I don't have citations for any of this, I know there is something on the formation of an European idenity but haven't bought it yet, it is called "February 15, or what binds Europeans together" (Feb 15 being the mass protests in European cities against the Iraq war). - J Logan t: 19:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Your first suggestion sounds ok, especially points 1 and 3 (policy and 50 birthday rome). We could than refer to European culture, and throw of all pretenses otherwise (and delete the sports bit). You second addition sounds very amibitious and more like wihsful thinking or original research than actual status quo; I would not go there. Arnoutf 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I made some minor changes towards improvement, mainly some framing of the section and reference to culture of Europe. Also fairly drastically shrunk Sports section where it did not directly coincide with EU interest. (ie Bosman ruling is interesting in relation to free trasnfer of people but the issue about change of contract after expiry is not necessarily of interest in this article - and is already treated in the Bosman ruling article). Arnoutf 19:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, though 2 was going a bit far. In regards to sport, I agree with the shrinking of the sport section. In reagrds to wiping it, things like Bosman is important but perhaps it should just be moved out to the sports article, not exactly core information. If not, perhaps we could merge it into the rest as an example of the extent of powers? - J Logan t: 21:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

By acknowledging there is no EU culture only EU culture policy we atuomatically indicate there is no EU sports culture, only EU sports policy. If start talking about sports of the EU in more detail, the culture section should also include arts, music, painting, literature, philosophy, architecture of the EU. It is either the complete culture package, or none. No random exception for sports alone as that destroys the balance in the section. Arnoutf 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The sports section is a standard information within these kind of articles. AND : Of course there is an EU culture which is present in most of the EU countries; football. Lear 21 11:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If there is a policy then we mention it I think, however to include every other cultural area would make it too long so if that happens I Say we remove all details sections. But I'm not sure if there is a painting policy.
On culture itself, lets not get into if there is an EU culture or not, it is possible to argue in favour of it or its conditions but without citation, common belief would easily over rule. - J Logan t: 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If you (Lear21) had read and understood any of the arguments before unilaterily destroying the work of 3 editos over the last week you would have understood there is a difference in Culture of the EU and culture in Europe (that coincidently also is culture in the EU).
With your statement about football you say 2 things. The culture of the EU is only football (i.e. Mozart, Rembrandt, Michelangelo are no culture) AND Football is not part of the culture of Ukrain and Russia (as they are Europe but not EU. Pretty strong statements
The sports section is NEVER THE ONLY REFERENCE to culture in NONE of the articles. You make it so here, and by doing so create a unique situation for the EU article, the thing you say you want to prevent. Arnoutf 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Languages table

I removed Russian from the languages table for several reasons.
First and foremost, tables, just like figures, are meant to support the body text. The Russian language is not mentioned as a speical case in the body text (it is listed third among a long list of minority languages but that is all), hence it should not be in support elements in that paragraph.
Secondly, all other languages in the table are (the most occurring) official languages of the EU. Russian is not an official language. If we start adding non-official languages this opens the door for other non-official languages such as Chinese, Turkish and Arabic (some of which I am pretty sure will have over 5 million first language, and much much more second language people in the EU).
Thirdly, with 1% (approx 5 mill) first language speakers Russian is smaller in the EU compared to e.g., Danish, Finnish and probably Catalan; all of which are not in the table. Therefore I think there is a pretty strong case to exclude Russian. Arnoutf 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll stick with that (although I had to correct the "other" to include the Russian you removed) but I think it is reasonable. Russian is big in the east (something to do with the U.S.S. something or other, Enterprise?) and immigrant populations are mainly in the west. Quite possible Russian speakers are larger (esp. in Baltic states, hugh Russian speaking populations there, see the riots in Estonia). It is also an important fact, denoting the numbers of the language, the history of why it is so wide spread and about the Russian comunities in the east. - J Logan t: 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
good point and indeed interesting; migrant language populations in the EU are indeed very interesting. Think of Indonesian languages in the Netherlands, Indian languages in the UK, and indeed different migrant language in West, versus Russian in the east. I do howerver think that migrant language populations is just at too much of a detail level for this specific article/table. You are welcome to explore elsewhere though Arnoutf 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a strong preference myself, but a reasonable compromise is to have a expandable/collapsable item such as in the table at the top of the page. People who are interested can expand it and see percentages of "other" languages. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Might be a bit much, something for the languages page? Also we would need more sources for those, might have problems if they conflict. - J Logan t: 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this might be developed in detail at the Languages of the European Union. The reference search can then also be much more comprehensively focussed on this issue alone. Arnoutf 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination - are we ready?

I think we are almost ready for another go at a GA review.

The economy section needs some more references (or pruning of speculative statements if no refs are found).

But for the rest I think this article has been dramatically improved over the last month; not in small part to the tireless effort of JLogan. If these last things are fixed I think we stand a good chance of getting Good Article status, or at least more informative feedback on what to do. We could than go on to Peer Review on our way to getting it Featured. If others are as optimistic as I am, please go ahead and nominate.... But first. last effort at economy. Arnoutf 19:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is in large part to yourself and of course Ssolbergj. But every contribution recently has been great, range of people bring a range of ideas and range is the asset of writing things like this. Appropriate I think considering what we are writing about.
I do not however thing we can put it up for GA just yet, citations are still needed then it would be best to demonstrate stability - something lacking in this not only through our edits of improvement, but through vandalism and wars. Patience is a virtue, but what I do suggest it brining in a project peer review - main reviews take ages to get people. - J Logan t: 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I might make a few minor edits here and there. It will never be my intention to be inflammatory, so let me know if I cross any lines. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I'm from the US. :) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions, they're fine as far as I can tell. And thank's for the discloure, of course everyone is judged by their work. If anything an outside eye will be more than welcome I'm sure :) - J Logan t: 10:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Back on GA, I've got rid of the last cite tags. The bits I couldn't cite I've removed, they've sat there for long enough. If people can find citation then add them back, or if there is new info. I'm thinking that if people carry on with some copy edits but unless there are some big changes, we nominate the article next week there abouts? Just a note of warning though, I will carry on working this week but I will loose the internet for a bit from the weekend and I don't know when I'll get it back so I apologise if I vanish just when some major work is needed! - J Logan t: 10:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm I'll be off on a mountain trek for a few weeks from this weekend, so will also not be able to respond on comments. Perhaps better end of August? Also indication of article stability. Arnoutf 11:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, we've both done a lot of work to the article and if there is a minor fault that could fail it we are best placed to sort it right now. (e.g. the amount of references I've muddled up the urls to!) Will also give chance for futher development with news on the Reform Treaty. - J Logan t: 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Hey, I think we are getting somewhere now! Few more tweaks, see if we can sort out the remaining outstanidng problems being discussed, continue this stability and we should be ready for the attempt. Everyone who is active, please take the time to help us reach agreement on things below and work out all the remaining flaws in the article. If you have a lot of time on your hands for some reason, try checking parts against the GA criteria and give us an update on any major work that needs doing. Thanks. - J Logan t: 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious belief vs. Church and state

It seems information in these two sections is duplicated - particularly at the end of each. Does anyone object to me removing it from one section, or have a suggestion as to what should be removed from where? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I recently (30 minutes ago) restructured that section, and in doing so made the mistake in copying the lines (which were indeed identical). I left it at church and state and removed with belief. Arnoutf 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't want to step on any toes, and I know religion is a sensitive topic, but I think "belief in a God" should be either "belief in a god" or "belief in God". Thoughts? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm, I would go for a god (lowercase), but it is indeed a difficult issue, me being an atheist may not be the most reliable source for that debate Arnoutf 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Was I writing God in there? Mistake, should be more generic to clarify. Although I think the question was a singular god, can't recall if it was a capital. - J Logan t: 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I did use the capital, probably a Pavlov reflex, but changed it again where it is preceded by 'a'. Arnoutf 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits - on the record

Just for the record as it were, I'd just like to highlight the full reasoning behind my edits of this day. Most of the reasoning is above but I'd thought I'd consolidate it in response to User:Lear 21's edits. I have stated to him that I will stop all my edits on the page if he does the same, and I will not revert his last revert of my last revert. (15:22, 26 July 2007). I did this in the interests of stability and to avoid a long edit war. I have not had a proper reply as to if he agrees to this and as I will be offline from the weekend for an unknown period of time, this outline is for the benefit of other editors (as it seems Lear hardly goes near this talk page). I was pushing my various points because I thought it best for the content of the article, as you can see above I've been wanting to get this up to GA as it is just an important topic with so little common knowledge. With Lear's finger on the revert button again though, I see good work will once again be stifled.

  • All areas should be cited. Currently as I write, I am talking of the areas put back by Lear in the sports section which I couldn't cite. These are the only areas uncited I can find and the popular sports in particular is vague and as far as I can see near impossible to give citation to. The sports section itself is of rather low importance to the EU and that combined with the fact there is one remaining paragraph, just on EU policy, is why I combined it with Culture. In addition the image of a stadium added nothing, the previous one might have meant something if there was a reference to footballs popularity and that the Barcelona stadium was the largest in Europe. The current picture, I see no point to.
  • Languages and Religion contain a lot of info that has nothing todo with demographics, e.g. the relationship between religion and the EU and the translation services of the European Commission. I think they should either be in a separate section from demographics or be cut down and the information moved to specialist pages leaving just demographic information.
  • Pointless images, Lear has put up a lot, thankfully I edited out most and as of now they have not been put up (and what is with the left right left right picture thing? Looks like a children's book). For example the euro currency image was placed under European Community sub-section, even though the word euro doesn't even appear in the entire politics section beyond a reference to the ECB. The Euro image has now been moved to Economy taking the place of an informative GDP chart. It is not so bad now although I they should be looked at critically, for example the generic image of a university does not related to the text. Yes it is a uni, well done, but what does it add? That uni isn't mentioned, isn't special. Universities in general aren't mentioned, only policies. To cut this short, images, especially those put up by Lear, should be looked at by editors critically, think, what does this illustrate? Is this the most relevant thing for the text? Is an image needed here? - This is not a pop up book or a gallery, text is what this is about and the images are meant to illustrate that text where illustration is needed. In some cases the images are being used like did you know boxes and where people try ti put three up in a single section it is just too much. There is nothing wrong with an entire section with no picture you know, when you are talking about EU policy there is very little to illustrate it but some people seem to have a fetish around it. What is relevant to the here and now. Lear has defended them comparing the amount to others - that is totally the wrong logic. That is adding for the sake of adding. Don't see a block of text and think, oo - we could put a picture there. READ the text and see if an image would help to illustrate it.

I'll leave it at that, don't want to go into too much detail - you get the idea. I'm leaving this article now as my side of the bargain. I just want to thank those editor who have worked hard recently. Especially those who come here and, in a single edit, do more for this article than the weeks of pop-up book styling by Lear. You bring real content and ideas and I hope you win over on this. I hope you people have this reading perfectly soon. - J Logan t: 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First: kudos for trying to avoid an edit war. Now, for my 2 cents (and no more).
  1. First, I find the sports argument tricky because I don't think sports are important for the country articles, either. Just like how an atheist (which I am) must be careful in dealing with religious topics, asportists (a word I just invented, which I'm sure will be widely adopted) should be careful around sports topics. Are you an asportist? (OK, tricky word, because I'm not including people who enjoy playing sports, just people are rabid fans of particular teams, enjoy watching sports more than ... other things, etc.)
  2. I don't care much about the pictures (which I guess could be considered weak support of your argument), but I do find them visually appealing (which is weak support of Lear 21's argument). Some of them clearly don't belong there (you make an excellent argument about the euro picture), whereas others are more arguable (e.g., the uni picture).
Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Asportist, I like that. Yes I am and I'd be fine with getting rid of it. Last time I checked the article was over 100, which means it ought to be reduced (yes other country articles are longer but that is hardly an judgement of if it is suitable or not) and considering sport isn't event a major EU area, as the section states, why are we devoting space to it? Could make a similar argument for the education and science areas. We may want to consider outlining what areas are most important for the EU and build around that rather than the typical country outline. I would be the first to argue the state-like features of the EU (had to write down the argument to save repeating it) but there are important differences and it should be written around the topic, not around what we see it as. Just a thought though. - J Logan t: 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Last revert

I reverted to the last stable version (of this morning) just before the massive set of reversions and resetting previous ideas by Lear21 which lead to an edit war on this page (over 100 edits in 6 hours).
While there has been an evolutionary growth and general consensus on the vast majority of changes of the article over the last month or so, much of this hard word was radically undone by a single editor (Lear21). This has raised protest and reversions.
@Lear21 if multipe editors start reverting your work at least have the decency to consider you may be wrong. At least discuss your edits on the talk page. This behaviour is getting pretty close to 3RR and disruptive behaviour. If you strongly think you are right (and the rest of the world is wrong) I would suggest mediation (this requires willingness to accept an outcome even if you don't like it) rather than this. Arnoutf 16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do find Lear 21's lack of participation on the Talk page to be odd considering what appears to be very strong opinions. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping to force him to the talk page with my rv, it seems I was wrong with that strategy and I apologise for letting it run for so long, half of those revisions are mine and you shouldn't have had to reset it like that if I had tried another way. In the interests of being open, you can see my messages to Lear on his talk page, he hasn't replied clearly to my offer of ceasefire but I'll still staying away for now. I fi have any ideas I'll drop them here on the talk page. - J Logan t: 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I think there is some in sports - the Bosman judgement- that is interesting as here the local sports union rules were overruled by EU treaties. Similarly the Framework programs and the Socrates exchange programs are EU initiatives in education and science and are (IMHO) important in further integration within the Union. I agree these sections should be limited to EU specifics, and not become a summary of what happens in the individual members states within the national agenda. Arnoutf 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I suppose it would become a bit too politics heavy even for the EU to remove those areas. Just have a nagging feeling there is something big we've overlooked. But anyway, I see Lear has ignored me so I'm back here till I have to go - though I'll avoid starting another edit war with him if I can. - J Logan t: 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Education and Science

I have removed the stuff on the Bologna Process. The Bologna Process is not an EU process or programme; and it did not lead to the European Credit Transfer System (which is an output of the ERASMUS programme). It is worth remembering that when the four starting nations (France, Germany, Italy and UK) started with the signature of the Sorbonne Declaration, the overt intention of three of the participants (Italy was the exception) was to keep the EU and the European Commission out of the activity. It was not until the Prague Ministerial in 2001 that the European Commission was allowed in - indeed, by that stage, welcomed by France and Germany and grudgingly accepted by the UK.

The Bologna Process is 'European', but not 'European Union'. Raggio 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I get what your saying, and there needs to be some fact checks, but I think it is something we could mention as being EU-centric? Projects like these are essentialy thought up on an EU basis and, if they are easy like this, extended to others because of the flow of peoples and that they are 9/10 going to join anyway. After all, the Single Market includes 3 EFTA countries. - J Logan t: 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this sort of thing used to be thought up on an EU basis; but not this one. It started with four countries - France (the originator), Germany, Italy, UK - in 1998. From there it went direct to 29 countries in 1999, when the EU was still 15 Member States. The EU has now expanded to 27, and the Bologna Process is at not far off 50. It is true that it could not have happened without the experience of the ERASMUS programme - but neither in intention nor in reality was it EU-based. Interestingly now, it is rather the non-EU countries that lead it - the Norways of this world, for whom it is OK because European but not EU. The other point to note is that if it had been an EU project, it would have been more centrally driven (and perhaps less successful as a result); but more hologenous; and what is striking about (say) the way the Bachelor/Master system works is that it is different in almost every country. Not really harmonisation ...Raggio 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but the nature of the project I think is something along side and with the support of EU projects, as you mentioned, and I think the connection is stronger than its membership suggestes. I think its importance would merit a mention, albeit a small aside and clearly stating it is not an EU project. Anyone else have thoughts on this? - J Logan t: 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the EU

Lately I was wondering why there is isn't a section about the criticism of EU policies and economic problems for new member states.

this article may shed some light onto some criticism of the EU, but generally it has a positive outlook.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2007/04/happy_birthday.php

I forgot to link to the article.


83.8.4.111 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with previous critisism section proposal was that all information sourced came from blatant anti-EU organisations. This article look much more promising. Will have a look where to place something later. Arnoutf 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


BUt we should mention that those groups exist and possible reasons for their anti-EU views. But that would be in my opinion a different sub section under criticism called (possibly): Anti-EU Groups. 83.8.46.51 10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but we should not let them write the critisism section (Neutral point of view) and that is basically what happened with previos initiatives for the critics section, it being highjacked by anti-EU fanatics (EU is the successor of 3rd reich etc...) ;-) Arnoutf 10:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what happened the last time... hmm... maybe we can add a critics section but get wikipedia to lock that section for registered users and the such like I have seen other articles that are sensitive particularly those on the Jewish faith were like that the last time I checked around. Thanks anyways.83.8.25.142 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit much isn't it. Can't we just link to the eurosceptic article? I'm not seeing how it would work to go out and to a bit on criticism, lots of states have criticism but you don't get a huge point made out of it. Of course, yes, the EU is different in this and critics are often more vocal. Perhaps if we are putting criticism in, it should just be along side that which is mentioned. For example, where an institution or policy is mentioned - criticism of that in particular can follow. So long as we maintain general balance of course, and ensure it remains necessarily concise. - J Logan t: 12:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You obviously haven't spent much time on the US article. ;) I've got to imagine that the criticism towards (and defense of) the EU is a little lighter than over there. (Not that this has any bearing on the current discussion.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah right, fair point. I guess I'm mainly concerned about people citing mad criticism from unreliable sources and the negative points being tacked onto loads of things without anything pro on it. I guess we should take it on a case-by-case basis. - J Logan t: 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a paragraph on "Debate concerning the EU", giving both the eurosceptic and europhile points of view. With sourced mainstream criticism and not "some people think that" statements. Caveat lector 13:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
What do we mean by mainstream though? Where is the line between a serious article in the International Herald Tribune and a rant in Private Eye? Perhaps if we limit sources only to people who have served in a European government (in or out of the EU). That way we cut out media ramble, small time extreme politicians, biased campaign material and the people will be widely known with real experience.
And perhaps something separate would be good, if we keep its sized relative fixed to force non-vital information to be moved to the politics page itself rather than clog up this page. And if we phrase it in terms of a debate concerning the nature and level of integration, I think that might hit the right areas with the above limit on sources. - J Logan t: 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that is not a good idea. Previous suggestions at EU critisism have based their texts on really really dubious sources (Private Eye would prove solid in comparison ;-). References were like this. We should not be afraid of of such a section, not even for taking in critical media reports, but should think carefully what we want in as we don't want it to be a shoebox for fanatic anti-euro groups. Arnoutf 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I suggest we stick to people in government, people who have held some kind of elected government job (e.g. Minister, not just an MP) in a member state (or non-member Europe) or the Union itself. If it isn't said by someone like Blair, Prodi, Zapatero, Wallström etc. we don't include it.- J Logan t: 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A criticism section is a major POV trap which has been already proven on this site in the past. A balanced section is highly unlikely and will be unstable as well. Considering that this English article is read by all member countries other than the anglosaxon language sphere it is unlikely to find an angle of interpretation (Agriculture funding pro or contra). There is no comparable section in comparable articles like UK, USA, Canada, New York City, Paris, Opec, AU, Nafta. Lear 21 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But New York for example does not face the same credibility problem the EU suffers, I think it can be justly argued that it is unbalanced by not addressing such elements while we talk about subjects such as the 7th framework programme. I don't think we should have a whole section, but right now it is not even mentioned. We could very easily be accused of bias, the article is very pro and does not cite any source slightly critical of the EU and correct me if I'm wrong but I can't see anything critical of the EU in the text.
Perhaps if we formulate a small paragraph here on the talk page to place in the politics section that simply states that there are criticism of certain areas and link off to another page. Stick an editors not that all changes to it must go via the talk page. Thoughts? - J Logan t: 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
On one hand, I think that the best people to create a Criticism section are people are not the most vocal critics. OTOH, I do think that it might become a bit of a magnet towards vandalism. Ultimately, however, I think the question should be answered on the basis of "does it enhance the article", and I think the answer is "yes". Granted there might be a bit of naïveté and idealism involved in that last sentence. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If we keep the size down, without its own title just a paragraph in politics, it may be less noticeable. When it comes to the most vocal people, who would vandalise etc, the article itself is a magnate so I'm not sure how much worse it would get. And yes, the best people to write it are those not so vocal about it. What if we started to draw up something here and then decided if we should include it? See if it is possible to work out something that will get around all the problems? - J Logan t: 09:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


The best way to do this would be too base an section on hard statistics and and people that have either worked in the EU or political analysts/foreign correspondents that have a wealthy background working for a variety of media groups and/or are published authors of unbiased books on political issues. 83.8.20.247 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea on the statistics. Of course all statistics are interpreted (lies, damn lies and statistics) which may cause a problem. On you latter points of people, I'm not sure how you would actualy classify that, again - we need a line we can draw as it would be very subjective. - J Logan t: 09:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of images and reestablishment of standard content

Concerning my participation in this forum: watch my record (userpage), 162 edits on this talk page alone. The issue: The constant deletion of visual content has been stopped, that is right. No written text has been removed. Instead, major standard content (sports) has been reintroduced after removal. The Reestablished! layout draws its section structure from country- and city-articles which is a useful orientation. All of the reintroduced pictures contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the EU as political body and the EU countries in their entirety. The amount of images is comparable to articles of this size. None of them are random. A university main building in the Education section can hardly qualify to be out of place. Every editor can suggest new images, but blunt deletion of images decreases the quality of the article. Lear 21 08:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words one month of careful weighing of the relevance of images, relevance of text sections, copyediting where necessary, pruning irrelevant stuff where possible by several editors has been undone. Because one editor knows (without argument, discussion, or consensus) he is always right Arnoutf 09:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
PS number of edits on this talk (or where-ever) is no argument; it is the quality of edits that counts. Arnoutf 09:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm on Arnoutf's side here, and I believe the majority is. —Nightstallion 11:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

@User:Arnoutf Again!: no written content has been deleted. And to say it straight: The month long contemplation about 'pruning' irrelevant stuff has resulted in: a) deletion of Euro currency image: central to the understanding b) deletion of Mandelson image: the only true representive of the bloc with enhanced unified political power) c) deletion of a map showing religious heritage, with no other alternative d) deletion of one of the most prominent common cultural activities within EU countries: sports section including an image e) deletion of the Galileo project image: a truly EU wide initiative with global impact f) deletion of an university building in Education section with no alternative to visualize the content. In other words, the article decreased in complexity, quality and visual representation. I constantly had an eye on the development without interfering and the extended ref section is an improvement. But the devolution of multiple crucial content must have an end now. Lear 21 19:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but it is a lot more than that. On your points though. a) It was not the euro image itself, it is where you put it. Yes the Euro is important but you were just slapping it randomly around the article looking for somewhere to put it. The image illustrates the text, if the euro is not mentioned in the text then it can't illustrate it! Hence my problem with you putting it in the European Community. Economy was all right but you did replace a more informative map of GDP. b) Only true representative?! The Trade Commissioner is hardly that, there are loads you can point to and again my objections on that were related to you putting it in the text where he is not mentioned or there already being too many. If you note when you placed that under CFSP (the first time you put the image next to text about him) I removed the military image instead because we did not need three - even though I thought it was better to have something different than another representative in the same block and Mandelson is not such a major figure he requires a picture. c) religious differences picture showed whole of Europe and there was little mention of the branches of Christianity - the article was more about the EU and secularisation, nothing big but no one else complained. d) sport is prominent? as stated in that section EU policy is only just starting. Areas removed though were uncited for ages - cite it if you want to keep it, speculation has no place in an encyclopaedia. e) Galileo information was moved to infrastructure, hence its absence from that section. f) university visualises what content? It talks about policies and programmes, not random universities (the EU is not responsible for them as states are) Give me a sentence in that section that is illustrated by a picture of Lund University (not the caption below, the caption illustrates the image, not the article).
This is not curtail content, it is decoration. Properly justify your images to people here and get a consensus. If there is support from other editors I won't stand in your way. - J Logan t: 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Logan. We should simply discuss the six images you would like to include case-by-case and arrive at a consensus for each; I dare say we're likely to include some of them in the proper place where they actually fit, but you won't get them in against consensus not to drop them in the article and hope they arrive at the right place at some point by osmosis. —Nightstallion 15:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Languages: German mother tongue

The number of people with German mother tongue has just been altered from 90 million to 100 million. The document cited in that paragraph (Eurobarometer survey, published Feb. 2006, based on data from Nov./Dec. 2005) gives 18% of 450 million (EU25). That amounts to 81 million. There can't be that many Bulgarians and Romanians with German mother tongue. Can anyone give a citation to account for an increase of 19 million mother-tongue German speakers since 2006?. Otherwise I will change the figure to 81 million (as of 2006). --Boson 09:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Eurostat figures should also have Romania and Bulgaria listed, that should provide the true figure. - J Logan t: 09:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any language statistics at Eurostat. Am I missing something? --Boson 14:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But the citation for that whole area is Eurostat, the link to the citation is in the first para of languages and at the top of the language table. From what I can see it doesn't look too wrong, but I haven't been able to look deeper into the figures and do the math to know exactly. - J Logan t: 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Are we are both talking about this:"Special Eurobarometer 243: Europeans and their Languages (Executive Summery)" (PDF). European Commission. 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-03. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) This is based on data from Nov./Dec. 2005 and states: "Today the European Union is home to 450 million people from diverse ethnic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds." and "German is the most widely spoken mother tongue in Europe (18%)". That gives 81 million. Even if we use the 18% (also given in the table) and erroneously apply it to the current population we still get less than 90 million. Romania and Bulgaria cannot have anything like a million mother-tongue German speakers, so the figure cannot be much higher than 81 million.--Boson 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point, like I said I didn't look deep into it. Yes we are talking about the same thing by the way. But the exact percentages should be in there somewhere - no doubt lower as you say. - J Logan t: 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reintroduction of Sport subsection

The Sport section has been a stable part of the article for more than half a year. It is referenced and written in with common knowledge (football a major sport in EU countries) which is credible even without citation. It is a standard subsection within Culture among comparable Country or City articles. Two third of the subsection deals with EU policy issues. Lear 21 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The areas removed were uncited and had been marked for a while. Section was only absorbed into culture only because it was then too short. Provide citable information and it would be fine. - J Logan t: 09:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Lear, considering the way previous discussions have gone I'd suggest you try to get support from others before forcing the uncited sports content back. As far as I can tell above comments have generally been against your recent edits rather than for, if you get support here then I won't fight your edits. Is it so hard for you to wait for support before yet again forcing your edits on everyone? I have made a point of only reverting your edit to sports right now but again you have shown no interest in doing likewise. - J Logan t: 09:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Common knowledge like 'football is a major sport' does not need necessarily citation to be credible. Your argument applied to the whole article would lead deletion of every sentence unreferenced. Lear 21 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

About everything else is references. Besides, that is not the only thing said. How about anti doping convention etc? And it being the most popular is disputable, and saying it is major is a bit of a weasel word. - J Logan t: 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It can be improved, for sure, like the article in whole is rather written in an essayistic/ blog style rather than encyclopediac prosa. But the significance of the section remains. Lear 21 10:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Then rewrite it then, for once add something to the text. So long as there are citations for the facts I have no problem with a sports section. - J Logan t: 11:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If the content is notable, relevant to the article (like the bit about the court case regarding free choice of workplace for football players) and cited, I'm okay with it. —Nightstallion 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I just removed the second para as if your read, all the facts in there are in the first. I think I made a point of that when I first reduced it. One bug I still have is the picture, I haven't removed it yet as I want to know if people really think that has anything to do with the text? It's a ramdom stadium, what sentence does that illutsrate? The anti-doping convention? Maybe there is a better picture at least. Anyone know a sports stadium that has been supported by an EU policy mentioned? thoughts? - J Logan t: 17:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reintroduction of map in section Religion

The map is valuable content to provide a quick overview of the religious heritage in Europe. Because EU member states covering more than 70 % of the population in Europe the relevance is given and not misleading. As long no other maps are available for this issue the map is reintroduced and maintains the quality of the section. Lear 21 10:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the map should be replaced by Image:Europe belief in god.png, which shows more clearly what the religious situation in the EU. The current map covers the whole of Europe rather than the EU, while dealing with "religious heritage" (i.e. historical situations) rather than the present-day reality. There's nothing wrong with keeping the map there as long as we had no alternative, but I believe that the "Belief in God" map based on the Eurostat survey carries a better information load by essentially showing the current levels of religiosity within the EU. Ronline ✉ 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic Ronline, I quite agree. Far more relevant to the information in the text. - J Logan t: 11:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Aye, I agree. —Nightstallion 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the map now. On religion section as a whole, one thing I was wondering was if we should move the whole text to a new page ("Religion in the European Union") and just leave basic demographic details. That way it could justly be reincorporated into demographics and reduce overall text on this minor subject. Thoughts? - J Logan t: 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the old map (religious heritage) because many of the issues between members of the EU stem from their historical relationships which are nearly entirely based on their religions. To ignore historical religious divisions would be to entirely ignore internatinal relationships within the EU. The current map is of little use because the EU has nothing to do with national religious trends or policies. I don't think it's very relevant to this article. JRWalko 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think this mainly comes down individual opinion. I personally don't believe that religious heritage is a particularly significant source of division between member states. The EU has three dominant religious heritages - Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy - and I don't really see any evidence of relationships between EU states based on these heritages. Many Catholic-heritage countries have more in common with Protestant-heritage countries than with other Catholic-heritage countries. The more significant determinant of relations between EU member states is political heritage, manifested in the divide between the old and new member states as well as (arguably) the divide between those states which had authoritarian regimes up until the 1970s and those which have an entrenched history of democracy. Another source of division is that between the more secularised and irreligious members of the Union, and those where religion plays a more significant role. Ultimately, however, I think that the current map is useful because it shows the current demographic conditions in the European Union, which is what should be presented in the Religion section. The religious heritage map is undoubtedly useful, but would be more appropriate in a section dealing with the history or traditions of the EU. Ronline ✉ 11:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any kind of Catholic/Protestant split in the European Council JRWalko. Plus, such information is not in the religion section, therefore there is no text to illustrate on that ground. The current map is directly related to the text, illustrating points made in it and I think actualy shows more about the EU. That being the division between the more religious and more secular countries - on abortion or gay rights for example. That can be seen with arguments over same-sex marriage for example and the mentioning of god in the constitution - which are noted in the text. - J Logan t: 18:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious heritage has a lot to do with the types of political parties that EU citizens elect and thus directly influnces what their countries may do. Catholic countries tend to be more conservative and although religion probably isn't on their minds when voting I'd wager it's still a significant influence. This isn't a major issue for me but I think the old map would complement the current one. It also provides invaluable insight into some of the less publicized issues with the Turkish candidacy. JRWalko 02:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
But I'm not sure if you could even argue that Catholic countries tend to be more conservative in their politics. Perhaps as an aggregate, Protestant-heritage countries are less conservative than Catholic-heritage countries, which are in turn less conservative than Orthodox-heritage countries. However, the diversity within each of these blocks are so large that there is no room to make any meaningful generalisations. For example, Catholic-heritage France and Spain are just as liberal as Catholic-Protestant Germany, and significantly less conservative than Protestant Latvia. There is a much stronger link between religiosity/belief in god and political conservatism, than there is between religious heritage and political conservatism. I agree that religion can be significant influence on politics, and I thus believe that a map which shows the degree of religiosity is more useful than one that simply show heritage. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to including the "heritage" map, but I believe it would just clutter the article with more photos (and there is alread a Religion in Europe article). Ronline ✉ 07:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Protestant/Roman Catholic divide in western Europe is dealt with in the Religion in Europe article. This article deals more with the secular/religious divide in the EU and the argument over religious references in the constitution and treaties. The image Image:Europe belief in god.png is more useful for this article. Caveat lector 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sui generis

I doubt many people reading the article know what this means. I certainly didn't. I think all instances of its usage should be removed. I'm sure it's probably someone's pet phrase though. Votes in support or opposition of removing all uses of the term in the article please. Abc30 22:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree I liked it because it forced me to learn a new phrase. :) That said, I do agree that it shouldn't be there as it more obstructs the meaning than clarifies it. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, it's the word used most often to describe the status and structure of the European Union. —Nightstallion 10:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - the fact that many people don't know what the word means isn't reasonable grounds for its exclusion. Readers can easily find the definition of "sui generis" simply by clicking on the link. I also agree that this is the most precise term to define the EU. Ronline ✉ 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree If it appears it needs to follow a plain English description along the lines of 'the EU has a somewhat unique status ('sui generis'). Latin and technical legal terms should only be used sparingly. CBM 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Is the best term for now see its definition sui_generis 88.149.209.60 17:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose What's wrong with it? It's just right! Mastermindsro 11:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Latin terms are used all the time in everyday life (vice versa, i.e. etc), and you can easily guess what sui generis means, and if not, you can click on the link. You wouldn't omit all instances of the word 'mediaeval' when describing a castle, just because not everyone understands what it means - why should this be any different? Rossenglish 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that sui generis is quite a bit less common than vice versa, i.e., etc., or medieval, although admittedly I am biased because I didn't know what it meant. I've heard a lot of people here use the simple word unique to describe it, so why is sui generis a better term? What about CBM's suggestion? (To use another word that I've actually seen used more often, how would you feel if the word choice options were poikilothermic versus cold-blooded? I could give you a reason why the former word is a better choice than the latter, but I truly believe that the latter word would be the best option unless there was something you were specifically contrasting to the "cold" in cold-blooded.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, and I suppose my Latin examples aren't the best comparison, but one supposes you can so what I was getting at...! Although in this case, I still believe that sui generis should be used rather than say, unique, because unique is not a strict synonym, and sui generis has (rather fittingly!) a unique and specialised meaning, which is what is needed in this context. Rossenglish 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've re-read the sui generis article, and I have to admit that I don't see what specialized meaning it has that is not conveyed by unique. Here's an additional thought: perhaps there is a language/culture divide involved here. I dare say that most editors for this article are from an EU country, and so have been exposed to the term much more frequently than us Yanks. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it has virtually no public visibility here either. It is very popular, though, among EU enthusiasts who like to present it as argument that this entity is somehow almost a country. Strange it should keep appearing here. DSuser 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Surprisingly, that may be because the EU *is* "somehow almost" a country, but I can see why you would prefer to disconsider that notion; it might actually cause you to have to re-think a pre-set notion of yours. ;) —Nightstallion 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As Boson said, unique and sui generis are different, in that they cannot both be applied in all cases. They may have a very similar meaning, but cannot be used in a similar way. Rossenglish 21:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Some further explanation why I believe this term should stay as is now: There is no official definition on this fact, so sui generis means unique, EU political structure is unique. This term is particulary used in such cases and in various other domains like Legal applications, sociology & other... It is usually used when an entity, idea etc. can't be compaired with anything else; is unique in its characteristics... Mastermindsro 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose removal. It is exactly the right term to describe the unique status. In my experience it is quite a common expression. There is no reason to dumb down wikipedia. People can look up the expression when they don't understand. −Woodstone 15:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose removal. "Sui generis" is the most precise term. It is not quite the same as unique: every human is unique, but not sui generis. The United States and Germany are each unique but can both be classified as federal states. In other words, the characteristics of the EU (i.e. the presence or absence of specific attributes) do not permit it to be uniquely classified as belonging to another sufficiently narrow and relevant category (e.g. federal states, free trade areas). --Boson 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that still true considering the existence of the Union of South American Nations (which I have just recently learned about)? Also, if it is the most precise term, and neither "unique" nor the article on sui generis conveys the reason why it is the most accurate term, then how are those of us who aren't familiar with the term supposed to really understand it? I.e., if you don't already know that the EU is sui generis, then what have you learned by reading that it is sui generis, that you wouldn't have learned (more easily) from the word unique? (Despite my continual "debating" on this point, I don't want anyone to think I have strong feelings about it. I really am just trying to understand. I am amazed by how many people think this term is important. When it was first proposed, I thought that surely everyone would agree that it was somewhat pretentious, like using poikilothermic where cold-blooded would do.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I am also not that worried about it, but I think I have explained why I think "unique" is not adequate. One should perhaps remember that generis is the genitive of genus. It is difficult to find an alternative term that is equally accurate and concise. After a previous edit war I changed it to something like "in a category of its own" because some people were obviously misunderstanding the term (and apparently not clicking on the link), but someone changed it back. I don't think it's anything like "cold-blooded" versus "poikilothermic"- more like "left" and "right" versus "port" and "starboard" or "equal" versus "identical". The Union of South American Nations doesn't look to me as if it's in the same class; that looks more like a free trade area with some plans for something more. This is not really the place to discuss all the different characteristics of the EU but it seems to me that various characteristics prevent the EU being classified as a federal state (e.g.the degree of sovereignty of the members and the current lack of legal personality), while other characteristics make it inappropriate to classify the EU merely as a free trade area, currency union, or whatever (e.g. the concept of EU citizenship, the direct election of the European Parliament by EU citizens, the right of EU citizens to vote in local elections where they reside, the right to take up permanent residence anywhere in the EU, the enforceability of court judgments across the EU, the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality among EU nationals - with a few exceptions for civil servants exercising sovereign power).--Boson 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose removal. I hate it, I hate it and I think it is misleading. However any attempt to define will create a civil war as no one anywhere can agree on what it is. However, it does need to be clarified. I suggest more text be put into describing its powers and how it works, then readers can decide for themselves what it amounts to. - J Logan t: 16:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistake - the EU has no anthem or motto

The EU to my knowledge has no anthem or motto - these were scrapped in the discarded 2005 Constitutional Treaty and have deliberately been taken out of the new Reform Treaty as there was a large public sentiment against symbolic EU-nationalism. The Commission and the governments in the various member-states have been very explicit about this detail, that the EU will have no official anthem or any motto, because it is not a country.

I find it misleading and incorrect to list a motto and an anthem in the Wikipedia entry when these do not officially or legally exist and have therefore removed them.

--Pontoppidan 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Pontoppidan, 1st August 14:00 GMT+1

As of today, it does have both

http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/index_en.htm. RCS 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

RCS is quite right, they may not be in the treaties but they do exist. Just like the flag they have been adoped as symbols, and need I point out that the UK flag and anthem also do not enjoy any legitimacy as symbols. - J Logan t: 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


As I understand it, the motto and anthem existed before the treaties (constitution/reform) but like other mottos and anthems had not been introduced by treaty or constitution. They were and are documented on the EU Web site. They were mentioned specifically in the proposed constitution, which would have raised them to constitutional status. I would interpret the fact that they are deliberately not mentioned in the reform treaty to mean that their status remains unchanged. I assume some people thought that mentioning them in the constitution could be interpreted as conferring statehood on the EU. I don't think it should be interpreted as meaning that they do not exist. The official status of the anthem is documented here:

In 1972, the Council of Europe (the same body that designed the European flag) adopted Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" theme as its own anthem. The well-known conductor Herbert Von Karajan was asked to write three instrumental arrangements - for solo piano, for wind instruments and for symphony orchestra. Without words, in the universal language of music, this anthem expresses the ideals of freedom, peace and solidarity for which Europe stands. In 1985, it was adopted by EU heads of State and government as the official anthem of the European Union. It is not intended to replace the national anthems of the Member States but rather to celebrate the values they all share and their unity in diversity.

[my emphasis]--Boson 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

EU in lists

DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrap up for GA

Okay, I just made a few changes. First, the demographics image was of the Berlin Wall with a caption on enlargement so I removed it. That okay? If people think we need an image, do we have something that illustrates the population growth or migration?

Second is on culture, sports section again - sports is now very small with a random stadium image (mentioned above, no comments on it) so I removed that. I still thought it should be moved into Culture but we've gone through that before so I looked at the section, expanded it on my comment I made a while back which enlarged the generic culture section. With that I moved cultural policy with sports policy and hey-presto, we now have a full policy sub-section. Thoughts on that, is it okay?

But I think we are at a good point here, and we have some stability. Shall we go for GA or does someone have another idea to do before hand? - J Logan t: 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead. That's already one vote. RCS 19:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see no objections. It has been nominated. Keep your eyes out people! - J Logan t: 15:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Lear is doing the same changes he did before. Withdrawn GA nomination till this is sorted because ti is just getting ridiculous. - J Logan t: 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to withdraw nomination. The article should have achieved GA quality by now. With the maintained standard content of course. Lear 21 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Like hell it will, there is a conflict here and I'm not just going to roll over to a dictator on this one! - J Logan t: 15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyway stability is a requirement and as long as we can't figure it out among ourselves I would fail a GA nomination. BTW, why was the assessment upped to A instead of B. I think we cannot live up to A class yet. Arnoutf 21:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we are close to sorting out stability, not that Lear is helping much on contributing to that, but we can get it soon. As for class A, I agree - I think it was Lear being overoptimistic with his above content.
On one point though, for stability, I'd like to suggest that we all agree (thinking about Lear in particular here) that if a change is challenged then we bring it to the talk page. We do not get into edit wars about what each of us wants again. I think we need to get a better culture of coming to the talk page - people not involved in the editing as well to help with consensus. - J Logan t: 11:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
About the use of talk page I agree, I try to do so, and can state that for this (contested) article I have 232 talk page edits, against only 127 mainspace edits (in other words I have been involved about twice as much in discussion compared to unilateral edits). Arnoutf 11:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
And I thank you a lot for your involvment here. It is a tad depressing there is more work on the talk page than the article! Lets hope once the final issues are rounded up there won't be so much debate over it all :). Once we have the GA sorted, I will be glad to see this talk page archived! - J Logan t: 12:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

HTML usages

I noticed that you are using a lot of HTML in the wikisource. You might consider using templates instead. A simple example of why using raw HTML is short-sighted is <br>. If you want to be XHTML compliant, you should really use <br /> . I noticed you got swatted down about the scrollbar on the ref list. I do think that the infobox looks great, but is the infobox really a one-off or could others benefit? If you abstracted the desirable features into templates, other articles might benefit.--SallyForth123 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes on the HTML, I'm glad we have that improvement. On the infobox however, I think most is a one off, unique subjects need unique presentation. - J Logan t: 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree, yeah. —Nightstallion 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Note on images

In regards to images on the left and the right. My personal preference is right, it is more tidy, professional and creates smoother text. They have all been aligned right for a while now although three are now to the left. Considering Lear is involved, I have not put them to the right as I have no desire to start yet another edit war with him on a trivial matter such as we are applying for GA. I would however appreciate comments from people on their preferences and I am willing to follow whatever consensus emerges.

Sorry to bring up a trivial issue, but I'm sure some of you understand why I have brought it up like this. - J Logan t: 12:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Prefer to the right, unless it's a special case. —Nightstallion 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
See FA promoted articles for the prefered layout design. The mixed left/right illustration is the vast majority here. Lear 21 14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't mean it has won it the FA. I am compromising with you on those three for now as there are already two in those sections. Not others though, wait for other people to give their thoughts. - J Logan t: 15:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone read this? I'm not trying to be funny or anything; it's just that everyone is talking about their own preferences, comparing other articles and so on, when there already exists a widely accepted set of guidelines for wikipedia articles to follow. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought there was something but couldn't find it. I'd still stick with preferences but I'll accept left right - just not in the among that is coming up. Having a single picture in a section placed half way down on the left just looks silly. - J Logan t: 11:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lear (RfC)

Lear, we have to talk about this. You do the same changes without making a case, and without support. I've tried to accommodate you but I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to say that the changes you've made, which I've brought up here without you engaging with anyone other than a stuck up nose, are opposed by the other editors here. If editors agree with your comments, please come forward and engage in the discussion. i don't mind ceding to a consensus but you do not even seek one. Show respect to the hard work of others here. As I've been watching you've done sod all for the content here and your rv are constantly setting back attempts of others to improve this. Now, simple questions. Will you engage in discussion before re-editing the whole article again and will you accept the outcome of mediation? - J Logan t: 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And if anyone wants a guide on how to insult your fellow editors, just read Lear's edit summerys in responce to a talk page request: "reinstall deleted standard content / see country or city articles for layout structure" - J Logan t: 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Some aspects for orientation to guide this article to higher quality: a) learn section and subsection structure from country or city articles, the content or issues raised here are comparable to the EU b) maintain standard sections like sports c) use references other than Europa.eu for higher credibility d) use encyclopedia prosa to raise credibility / avoid essayistic narration e) give illustration to sections and/or written content especially to content claimed in introduction Annex: The user of this statement contributed extensively in all aspects to one city and one country article. The result has been a status improvement from 0 to A class (city) and from FA class to Featured article of the day (country). The user has read and compared hundreds of city and country articles in several languages. Lear 21 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Other articles are not the law, and your are not a policeman. We do this thing call talking to resolve a disagreement and compromise. The EU may be comparable, but it is not a city or a country. Further more, there is different information here and different levels of detail. Something standard in a country article, detailing something in several paragraphs, may not be appropriate for this article given the small relationship between that topic and the article. On your c and d notes, like you can talk, you've done sod all for the prose of late and stifled attempts to put any references. As for images, as I have stated time and time again they are meant to illustrate the text, if they have no connection to the text then they are pointless - this is not a glossy magazine or children's pop-up-book.
I have tried to talk and compromise with you, but you have not once actually engaged with the issues, just rolling off you computer-like retorts to the mere thought there may be another way. I will also note that you have not answered the two simple questions I have put to you, so I am taking them as a no.
Just for notes, here as the edits and the problems I have with them;
  • Languages and Religion include far more than demographic information and hence ought to be separated from demographics if kept in their current form. Furthermore, changes to languages table do not account for source, e.g. "other" was not updated to account for new figures. Also, it was agreed that Russian would be removed. See above (and this is not me pushing my agenda, I opposed it at first then accepted another the other editors proposal after taking account of their argument)
  • Sport: Second sports paragraph is about European culture as a whole without note to the EU, in addition the claims are uncited. Same for image. Third paragraph contains information already in first (again a sign you do not even read this article). Hence with those sections remove, the body is too small which is why it was placed into culture. I compromised on the sub-heading by creating a sub-section for overall policy, half of which was devoted to sport.
  • University picture, generic images pointless - no reference to the EU by it and does not illustrate the body of text. See support for the removal above.
- J Logan t: 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

STOP deleting major visual content! All monthlong established images present content from EU countries and are in direct connection to the section. They enhance the understanding of the EU article as a whole. STOP turning down the quality of the article. STOP vandalizing visual content without alternative ! Lear 21 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you just for once actually talk instead of demanding? You have not addressed these points, you have not waited for the opinion of others, you have not even shown respect to the other editors here. You are not a King, you do not rule by decree, you will is not almighty and people have opinions other than your own that - shock horror- may be better than yours. So sit down, listen to others and agree to follow a consensus before you continue to vandalise this page. - J Logan t: 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
And now you are going over the top, we have talked about this loads of time before and I thought we were over all that. I really can't belive you're for real, even the most insulting people I know can atleast see beyond their own nose. Is there even any point in me pointing out everything in yoru latest edits, We've said it before and you didn't listen then. - J Logan t: 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute

A violent content dispute is opposing, since July 26 ([1], [2]), several users (in decreasing order of importance : JLogan (talk · contribs), Arnoutf (talk · contribs), Ssolbergj (talk · contribs), RCS (talk · contribs)) and Lear 21 (talk · contribs), who is perceived as being very stubborn. Unceasing and unnecessary mutual reverts are the consequence. Although owner of a long block log, Lear has not been considered guilty of 3RR in this case after a complaint had been filled against him on July 27. RCS 16:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don´t call me stubborn while maintaining high quality visual content. Rather call me "evangelical computer out of a StarTrek episode" [3], haha! Lear 21 16:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, the article has been stable for months with useful images in most sections visualizing the most important features of the EU as political body or of the EU countries in their entirety. User JLogan improved many sections while adding references to the claims. When starting the deletion of images the user was tolerated by one maybe two users. This deletion tour has been stopped, nothing more nothing less. To say it straight again, if editors are unwilling or unable to illustrate the EU article, I will. It enhances a comprehensive understanding of the EU article. I´m neither focused on my work nor on changing images from time to time if there are convincing alternatives. But no visual content won´t be an alternative. AND: Please stop accusations, whining or insulting my behaviour or person as I´m completely ignorant to that (the funny ones can remain though). I´m strictly content orientated and won´t deal with questions in the past or "who said when, what and why". all the best Lear 21 19:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I responded in good faith to a request for comment. I'm sorry that you don't like my opinion, but it is important to realise that other editors do have a right to see things differently, that you are not in a position of authority here, and that this is not your article. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you SheffieldSteel for your comment. To be honest I didn't expect Lear to listen to anyone but it was worth a try. - J Logan t: 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you list some example diffs of the disputed changes please? Thanks, User:Krator (t c) 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Random selection : [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]... RCS 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Most popular sports?

Is football really the most popular sport in the EU or is this one of those myths that "everyone" erroneously "knows" to be true? In connection with the Tour de France (and the enormous numbers of spectators in Britain and France), a TV commentator claimed that cycling was in fact much more popular than football. So I tried to find evidence. If football really is that popular, it shouldn't be difficult to cite a source. As regards participation, I found data suggesting that football is not one of the two most popular sports in Austria, the UK or France; so it doesn't look open-and-shut (i.e. it requires a reference). In the process, I also came across statements suggesting that "a significant proportion" of health gains from sport "are lost due to sports injuries", caused by "popular sporting activities with a high injury risk like soccer . . .". In fact much of the EU interest in sport seems to revolve around sports injuries. --Boson 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim should be backed by references, you are right. But! My common knowledge tells me 3 things : Football professionals are the highest paid team sports athletes in EU countries. Football matches nationally and even more internationally draw the highest number of spectators in stadiums and on TV all year round. Organized amateur football can claim the highest number of members in various EU countries. Lear 21 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea on how to work around the problem, and to sort out some of the other conflicts between us. I have to find material first though but I'll be trying to deal with languages, religion, sport and education. I'll say when I'm done and we can discuss if it satisfies everyones designs. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask you to look at the remaing areas of conflict between us, and see if you can come up with a solution to our disagreement. As you can see above I am not alone in my view of your edits but I do not wish to see an end to them, just for your to work with the rest of us. I hope to see you ideas shortly. - J Logan t: 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Work, cooperation

Okay, I will explain what I've done just now and why.

  • Under Sports, if you insist on a section and an image, then I'm making it more relevant and citable. Mentions of football are now in connection to how it has been used by the EU. Same strategy I used on culture. Connected picture is now of the pitch used for the game mentioned in the text. I've also tied in the Olympics information better.
  • Religion and Languages, if you insist on having them as demographics sub-section, then I've stripped them down to demographic information. Details on official language usage etc. is talked about on the Languages of the EU page (or should be, I've copied the removed para to the talk page there just in case). As for Religion, I've created a Religion in the European Union page for information on the EU and religion, information left is about religions and belief (demographics).
  • Education, the uni picture is pointless, but as you won't leave a section without one I got one I could tie into the text. In the text there is a tad more on Erasmus and a mention that it was made into a film. Hence the movie poster is up. Although I'm unsure if the fair use covers it.
    • If it doesn't and can't be changed to do so, perhaps someone has a shot of the film we can use? I was hoping to get something of real Erasmus students. However unless there is something meaning full it would probably be of students drinking. An alternative might be to have the Erasmus student charter up maybe? As that would show the rights of a student under the programme.

Now, I've moved for you, can you also do something? I'm sure you haven't been able to miss the problems that have been mentioned? - J Logan t: 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be fine for now. Lear 21 17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Coming back from holiday. Most problems seem to have been solved satisfactory. I think the sections on culture and sports is acceptable in its new incarnation, as it is much clearer on the EU-Europe distinctions and is now decently sourced. I have no major problems as it is, although I would support removing of the Reform treaty image, which is mainly a stack of photocopies; but that is a detail. Arnoutf 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good lord Lear, do you treat everyone like this? I've never met anyone so self-centred. And that is the most polite way I can think of saying it. Okay, I'm going to make a few more changes to images so it makes sence. If you don't like it, come here first and we can talk about how to sort it out before you go pasting it back up again. - J Logan t: 11:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Having said that there is some movement in the major issues, a new thorough copyedit is needed before applying for GA status again. I see two possibilities here. (1) I will go through again and remove unsourced/original research things, or (2) I will write a review as I would for a submitted scientific paper (I have experience with this as I am a regular reviewer of several scientific journals). Then it is up to others to answer to my comments. For both options however I want the agreement from both Lear 21, and J Logan, (and others) that my work will be appreciated; i.e. if you don't agree, only change it with a decent (neutral and objective) argumentation on this talk page. If I cannot get that agreement any more work will be pointless and a waste of my time. Arnoutf 11:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Has there actually been that much work? There have been bits on culture and sport for example but much of the body remains the same from as far as I can remember (then again, I can't remember what I had for breakfast). Nevertheless, if you think it is needed then it would be most welcome. Once can never have too many copyedits. As for how, I think the second would be better (but I wouldn't bother going into too much detail, and you may want to post it up section by section rather than in once go if there is a lot) unless you have Lear's agreement to the first - i.e. that he will leave the changes and make his point here rather than just rv things he doesn't like without waiting for others. But by all means fire away though, I for one am confident your changes will be necessary and warranted. - J Logan t: 12:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree, have not followed all as I was away for 2 weeks, At least the new sections need to be read carefully read. Will do that soon. Arnoutf 13:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Everybody is free to review the articles content. The basic layout and key content (mentioned in intro) should be kept though... Lear 21 14:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mandelson image

Okay, still trying to accomodate but I don't quite understand why you want to have Mandelson up so much. Yes he represents a major area but foreign affairs is centred on JS and BFW, not Mandelson. It is just like a Minister negotiation at a conference because that is his area, nothing more than that. But if you really want to have him up, then okay in the FP section but more than two images is a bit much. So is it Mandelson or the peacekeepers? Or are you, just once, going to try to find a compromise on this yourself?

And your move of Barroso to Institutions I think made things worse, he ought to be under Community I reckon and Mandelson under FP. As for the images in Institutions, perhaps we are concentrating too much on the buldings there though. I'll have a look for alternatives on that one. - J Logan t: 14:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On your comment he represents the single market, actualy the Commissioner for the Internal Market does that - hence the name - so who do you want?! And I don't see how you think Mandelson better represents the Community that Barroso - Barroso is the President! And he actualy has a lot of control over the others now. - J Logan t: 16:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mandelson represents the single economy in the WTO. This important policy is crucial for the understanding of the EU article. It is mentioned in the introduction and visualized with the commissioner. Lear 21 16:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

1. How dare you use such tones as "Stop your nonsense!" [9] I've tried damn hard to accomodate you of late and all you've done is throw it back. And you reverted my other changes without even giving an explination. You attitude here has been appauling, I had hoped that you might have learnt a little humanity at some point or at least taken my desire to resolve this to heart and made an effort yourself but I see I give you too much credit. - J Logan t: 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
2. On the points. I doubt a picture of the External Trade Commissioner is "crucial" to understand the EU, but I am willing to accpe the fact you want him in there. However he ought to be in the proper place, which if foreign policy. Barroso is the President of the Commission and hence has central importance to the Community over any indivudual Commissioner (who represents but one area and is subject to the Presidents authority). And incidentaly Mandelson is mentioned under FP nut not EC - logic would dictate that he should be illustration the part that mentions him. - J Logan t: 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Okay, idea. What if we hived off and expanded the ESDP para into its own section? Mandelson would be in FP but the peacekeeping image would also stay with the expanded Military section. - J Logan t: 16:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue that the EU as a body has a representative at WTO (next to each member) is (mildly) interesting, and is duly treated in the text. The actual 'puppet' (ie person) being that representative is much less interesting (IMHO). In general I think the politics part of the article is a bit overendowed with images of politicians; of course all 27 commisionars are important (ie Neelie Kroes has been fining several cartels for hundreds of millions of Euros), but nobody proposes to put them all up. Arnoutf 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well exactly, Competition is a major area that has had a huge affect on the whole world, just look at the GE-Honeywell case. I don't quite understand why Mandelson is being singled out with such vigour. - J Logan t: 09:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the single commissioner or the person Mandelson what is important here. I read google-news with the keyword 'EU' for more than a year. The major stories about EU on global affairs, putting up tariffs with China, India, Africa, Brazil, dealing with the US on subsidies are mostly discussed in the WTO involving External trade. It is one of the most relevant policies on a global stage. The Mandelson image including the caption exemplifies that (other images on that issue can be always discussed). Lear 21 09:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although I'm not convinced by Mandelson's power. Still, I'm fine with him there (In the FP section) and it is a contrast to having just another FP spokesperson I suppose. There may still be a better image around though that we haven't come up with yet so lets not treat is as gospel. - J Logan t: 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Union/Archive_13&oldid=1145855558"