Talk:European Union/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archived

Okay, previous discussions are now archived. For editors who have just arrived the issues have not been closed but we now focusing solely on the contentious sports section - so please do not bring up new major new issues for a while. The archive is here. - J Logan ^t: 09:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sports section

Talk:European Union/Archive 16#Sports

The question is regarding the future of the sports section. Contentious points are primarily the inclusion of data regarding the most popular sports in the EU and the inclusion of the sports section itself in regards to its level of relevancy for the European Union. - J Logan ^t: 09:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of most popular sports. I think this is difficult.

First of all, I think this is fairly trivial, and maybe more on the Europe-continent level then EU. However, as illustration for some emerging EU identity it might have some value. Overall, my preference would be not to include this, but I can live with it íf and only if it is supported by strong evidence (my second point)
Secondly, more a practical point, evidence has to be provided for claims about popular sports (everybody knows just won't do). For those references I require very strong data explicitly comparing all EU countries. Combining newspapers, summing up TV watchers without comparng to other sports, mentioning salaries of football players without giving an overview of all top earning sportspeople is not sufficiently strong. This will require very careful literature research for me to accept it. Arnoutf (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a difference a fresh page makes. My head no longer hurts! I mean I've said as much as I can on this I think, it might indeed be useful to leave the discussion now to those occupying the centre ground to see if they can help reach a fresh agreement. I understand that there were concessions made to, er, the other side to make the article GA beforehand but as Wikipedia says itself, consensus doesn't stand still and what seems to have happened is a number of editors have read the page in the meantime and been alerted to a number of problems, one particular one being here the sport issue (I mean, the Romano Prodi thing etc, that was really just shocking). From what I've seen, you've heard myself, SE and Sandpiper in particular give our views on why the section should be abolished, and what we would be happy with keeping as a compromise. Hopefully now SSJ or Lear will now do their bit and help us reach a consensus here. --Simonski (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the sports section including the paragraph about the Bosman ruling and one image appears to be the outcome of a recent discussion and a poll involving at least 9 editors. In some resolutions the image tends to overlap into the 'See also' section. An additional content could be therefore considered. There are several referenced options which would be a valuable extra information. 1. Amateur sports on EU citizen level: "50% of EU citizens actively pursue sporting activities on a regular basis within or outside a sporting club" 2. Professional level: 3. Specific example of prof. level: "Professional football players in EU member states are among the highest paid athletes in the world" 3b. Formula one could be mentioned 4. A sentence about other sports could be phrased like this: "Several European sport associations have actively been involved by commenting on EU policies. Among these are associations representing basketball, handball, icehockey, rugby and volleyball and can be considered as widespread in many EU member states". The list should be considered as a suggestion and could be altered.

Something completely different: Any editor interested in a global perspective on the European Union as single actor could benefit from the Google News (key word EU / European Union) [1] A frequent reading once or twice a week over a period of several months is recommended. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At suggestion 1; if you have a reference covering all EU countries (incl new member states) I could live with that. At 2, do not see the relevance of that, even if there is a reference, but perhaps you can clarify, why you think that might be an important addition. At 3. I do not see the relevance, but if this is to be included the salaries of top salaries of other big earning sports (Am Football, Ice Hockey, Baseball, etc should be provided for comparison). At 3b, I do not see the relevance of F1, all in all a relatively minor sports in the European field. Perhaps you can clarify why this maybe nteresting. At 4, I think it is a bit vague "actively involved in commneting" begs the question: What was this comment? Anyway, a reference needs to be provided supporting that. If that is provided it may make the long asked for relation sports-union EU official.

This said, I think we should be very careful not making the section much longer, as this would create unbalance in the article (the constraints of a large article). Perhaps these suggestions could be treated in more detail in a sports in the EU article? Arnoutf (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'll take several years studying the topic at an academic institution over a couple of articles found off google any day. I agree with Arnoutf that (for starters) any of the claims above would have to be very, very well sourced before being put in. Lear bear in mind that what a number of us would be most concerned about here would be making sure that there was still an emphasis on the individuality of the Member States rather than presenting it as if they were united when it came to the matter of sport. If you could address that issue then we might be able to make a breakthrough here. I mean, I'm gutted about Scotland not qualifying yesterday, but I'm certainly not jumping for joy because some of my European counterparts qualified! Rather I was hoping a number of them would fail miserably, including our lovely neighbours (nothing personal lads!). I'm really not sure Sport is the best example of the EU presenting a united front, as I've said. But anyway, back to compromise hunting! --Simonski (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lear, I must admit I am rather bemused by your comments above. I really don't see why people need be arguing the toss over whether a reference may be found extolling the virtues of football over golf, or how much either is played in Luxembourg. I had a look at the google link you suggest. It seems to have lots of entries starting 'the Eu did this', the 'EU did that'. Not a mention of England V Argentina in the world cup. If we devote as much space to sport as google does, then we should have no secion at all. Similarly, the reference you previously provided from the CIA briefing about the EU, no mention of sport in that. The difficulty is not whether people in Europe play sport, as they do in America, Africa, and so forth, but what relevance this might have to this article. It was commented previously using a somewhat scatological example that very many things happen within the territory relevant to the EU treaties which have absolutely nothing to do with the EU. Your suggestions above seem to fall into this category. To convince me that they belong here, you need to establish their relevance to this article.Sandpiper (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On your last point, this has been asked of Lear for nearly two weeks now, the fact that he has so far failed to produce such convincing 'evidence' just goes to prove what utter irrelevance sport (never mind a specific sport by name) is to this article. If Lear (or anyone else) cares so much for writing about UEFA, might I suggest they point browser this link just as if I wanted to write about F1 in Europe I would point my browser towards this link... SouthernElectric (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lear, if the image is so much of a problem then all that is needed is to delete it. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Or it might simply be shrunk to fit, or pushed up the page. I notice the image in the religion section has a similar problem.Sandpiper (talk)

Ditto, images sizes should not dictate text. Lear has put forward useful contributions though, even if the condensing attitude in regards to the google comment could be lost.

On sports associations commenting, I think perhaps a way to avoid Arnoutf's point would be to say they are consulted on policies (surely they must be, don't have a reference though which we need of course). Don't think highly paid footballers are relevant though, unless you link this as being caused by free movement/Boseman (references needed but I am sure they are around). On Lear's first point, I don't see any point in saying lots of people do sport though.

So, perhaps a phrase: "Several European sports associations are consulted in the formulation of the EU's sports policy, such as those representing popular sports such as basketball, handball, icehockey, rugby, volleyball and football. Recently, associations lobbied the EU to get sport exempted from market principles under the Reform Treaty, these principles had led to the Boseman ruling which removed caps on foreign players from other EU countries in football clubs. One result of this is that the salaries of EU football players, along with the gap between rich and poor clubs, is higher than anywhere else in the world." - something like that? It covers what is already said and brings in Lear's material, I've tried to make it relevant. Thoughts? Needs references of course. - J Logan ^t: 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A better version perhaps: "Several European sports associations are consulted in the formulation of the EU's sports policy, such as those representing many popular sports. Recently, some sports associations lobbied the EU to get sport exempted from market principles under the Reform Treaty, these principles had led to the Boseman ruling which removed caps on foreign players from other EU countries in football clubs. One result of this is that the salaries of some EU sports men and women, along with the gap between rich and poor clubs, is higher than anywhere else in the world."? I just don't see why any sport needs to be especially named, once one sport is named many other sports can and most probably will just get added to the 'list' - even if the list turns out to be a in-line list rather than vertical. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I reckon we could slip in a reference to football being popular at least as that is what Lear is arguing for, I think the above misses his point. Doesn't need to be a list, we can pop that one point in as relevant prose. Small point: "sports men and women", athletes might be more succinct? - J Logan ^t: 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Logan, if you are now arguing for inserting a reference to football being popular, perhaps you can take up the burden of explaining why this is relevant to the article? Sandpiper (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to slip in 'Football', I'm going to slip in Motor racing (not just F1) and I'm sure others will want to slip in their own favourite sports, the fact remains that one should be able to write about sport within the EU without mentioning any particular sport - after all what we need to get over is the regulative aspect and not what happens on the field of play. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things. Firstly, I always thought it was Bosman, not Boseman? (unless its to do with language or something?). Secondly, I didn't mind the two sentences suggested above, but is there actual evidence that because of the EU's involvement in the freedom cases, sports people participating in the EU earn more? Is there definitely a link, and is it actually true? American golfers, NFL, NBA stars all definitely earn less than say, Kaka, Rooney and co? (I don't know which is why I'm asking). I actually am also a bit puzzled why of all the sports talked about, golf is being ignored, despite it being the only sport I can seriously think of where individuals compete as a "European" team at the Ryder cup, using the EU flag etc! (even though the EU strictly isn't involved here) --Simonski (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Golf wasn't being mentioned because none of the editors play, watch or are otherwise involved in the sport, if you get my drift?... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The references: [2] There should be no problem to include golf and for example tennis as widespread sports as well. AND: 27 EU states out of 27 are members of UEFA = 100% = unity = relevance. Lear 21 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Any and all sports could be mentioned, and probably will be if any one sport is mentioned, I can see another lock being placed on this article if certain people don't start learning how to compromise... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lear there are 3 reasons why your addition violates good wiki practice

The references ARE a problem; whatever you say. For example: Mentioning the salaries of football players is useless if for example a third rate golf player makes 5 times more. How do we know that is not the case. We don't, your reference is useless for that.
Also your logic is flawed as your argument requires symmetry. The other way around of the 53 UEFA members only 27 are from the EU~52%=non-unity=small majority=irrelevant.
Within the new discusson consensus UC-1 (provisional as not all regulars pitched in yet) is that these sports should NOT be mentioned.

Both reason 1 and 3 are immediate disqualifiers of your edits, with reason 2 merely being a very serious objection. In other words you have to convince the community here these issues are solved. In my proposal above I gave you suggestions how to. If you are not willing or able to do so, that is not my problem, and not a reason to insert text. Arnoutf (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: The reference about major sports commenting on EU policy has accepted the most, correct? The inclusion of "27 EU members are members of UEFA and other associations" should be also included because of high relevance. @Arnoutf: This article is about EU and not UEFA. Therefore: 27 out of 27= 100%. The intro claims prominently 21 NATO members, other examples of significant coherent membership would be Schengen, ESA, Bologna process, Eurozone, etc. Lear 21 (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi lear. nice to hear from you again. Can you please explain why sport is highly relevant to the EU? As far as I am aware UEFA has nothing to do with the european union. Nato is relevant because the EU concerns itself with foreign affairs, military action, and is currently developing its own (bang bang, you're dead) army. What you need to do is demonstrate how the EU is involved in sport, not how European nationals are involved in sport. Sandpiper (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Except for NATO the EU was involved in founding of and provides most of the members of all the treaties mentioned by Lear, this is exactly the reason why it matters that in UEFA the EU provides only 27 of 53 members, compared to all other mentioned examples the EU interest in UEFA is small (NATO is big if only because military issues are sensitive to the extreme). Arnoutf (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missed this point in all the weasel words but, why does UEFA need to be mentioned at all. I'm really getting feed up with people using weasel words in an attempt to 'explain' why it should be, apart from Bosman what other EU regulations impact on football alone? Also, if less than half the members of the UEFA need to be EU countries then that means that the FIA is far more worthy of mention... SouthernElectric (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Half time

1) Argued for its inclusion in an attempt to reach a compromise. Football because it is notably brought up in reference to EU action, all the media i have come across has talked about freemovement etc in relation to football players. (also it being most popular across most countries - sorry that it is an everyone knows but as I have stated previously that should not be put in without a ref) 2) Re SE's comment on editors playing, the only sport I am involve in right now is fencing, not football - I can't stand that thing, beautiful game my arse. 3) On ref, must be one some where, the EU consults loads of people and wouldn't make sport policy without consulting the relevant association. 4) Just on Sandpiper's last comment, Lear is not saying the EU plays a part, he is talking about society. He is simply taking a wider view of what the EU is, after all people are subject to EU decisions while influencing its development. So I don't think asking him to make a connection from one view to the other is very helpful to us. We have to reconcile these two perspectives. - J Logan ^t: 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me state that I'm not against a sports section as such, what I am against is the need (or desirability) to name any particular sport, if sport can't be mentioned without naming the sport then the sports section should be made an article on it's own (with the briefest mention here) and thus linked from this article - just as many more worthy (in terms of EU regulations / law etc.) subjects have, remember that this page functions more of an oversight of the subject that is 'the EU' rather than an in depth article about all things EU. SouthernElectric (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Logan, I think you just argued that if something is popular within the Eu, then we ought to have a section about it. Are you seriously saying that is your view? If so, I shall dust off some 'Harry arbitraryPotter' articles and stick in a paragraph about the unprecedented popularity of this book and its importance in encouraging reading. Does anyone know a good survey about popular reading matter in the EU? Now, I mentioned before, what proportion of the EU watches Star Trek. What proportion of TV programs are made in the EU, and what imported? Perhaps we should delete the section discussing the institutions of the EU and replace them with a section about favourite cheeses? Delete the section about foreign relations, and have a good wines guide instead. Writing an article is about selecting those matters which are of core importance to the subject. People played sport before the EU, would do so if it had never existed, and will continue to do so long after it is gone.Wine and cheese are much more influenced by EU legislation than is sport.

The ref produced above by Lear re google news about the EU pretty conclusively demonstrated that sport was not something google reports on in the context of the EU. Or put another way, Lears chosen ref demontrated the irrelevance of sport to EU action. All the media I read mentioning freedom of movement are talking about polish plumbers coming to the UK. Good plumbing is taken very seriously here, more so I would hazard than football. Sandpiper (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Look I think it is balls to but it is called trying to find a feckin compromise rather that complaining about everything non-stop! We do not need more long sarcastic lists of obvious comparisons reworking tied old arguments, it gets us NOWHERE. I am not 3 so start actually helping for once. - J Logan ^t: 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When I suggested you might attempt to justify Lear's position I was thinking in tems of convincing points you believed would carry weight, not repeating arguments you found unconvincing just for the sake of summarising them. Making a compromise is all very well, but that is no reason not to state the position as you see it. If we do have two sides in this with several editors on each, I want to know why those editors believe this information relevant and important. I don't believe I have had that explained to me yet. We could make this an article about Harry Potter, wine, cheese and olives, but I was rather hoping people might see this was a little ridiculous, even Lear. Sandpiper (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Logan's point though is more that we've already had the long, fun debate on whether there should be a sports section or not, and that after all that, 3 editors remained in favour of a sport section. As much as it does indeed suck balls, the only thing that can be done other than edit back and forth is to try and get Lear and SSJ to help build a new consensus. At the moment we're at the stage of debating whether Lear/SSJ/anybody else can provide an agreeable content to the section. Something that might be worth noting here by the way, everybody go have a look at the African Union page and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations page. The African Union, despite aiming to one day have the "Afro" (haha, I know, so funny) as its common currency, and therefore to a degree some social/political integration, has no sports section. The ASEAN page does have one, but it is limited to the actual involvement of the organisation in sports. I'd like to see the EU page follow its lead here if we're going to have a section, and have it limited to what the EU has actually done. --Simonski (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, other issues are coming back again and we'll be back to square one. If anyone as a thought on how to resolve it, please put it forward and also copy it direct to Lear and SSJ please. A small tropical island who gets Lear to say yes to it, but if he refuses to come back here we can consider him outside the discussion by his own choice. However I would like to see SSJ's assent. So come on, I've come up with enough points during this debate so I won't bring up more, what are we going with? - J Logan ^t: 14:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a third para: "Several European sports associations are consulted in the formulation of the EU's sports policy, such as those representing popular sports such as basketball, handball, icehockey, rugby, volleyball and football(ref incl. white paper inserted). All EU member states and their respective national sport associations are participating in European sport organizations such as UEFA (ref incl. UEFA mainpage inserted)." Lear 21 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I'd still be for removing the sports section etc etc, as far as compromises go, that sentence might well be enough to end the discussion once and for all! I'd be relatively happy to accept Lear's proposal, except for I still think it would maybe be wiser not to have the "such as basketball, handball, icehockey.. etc" bit. --Simonski (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Sounds good. Shall we go with it SE? Any objections? - J Logan ^t: 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem is mentioning any one (or more) sport by name, firstly it gives undue weight to those sports (that might not be as popular in some member states or even as popular as their supporters or governing bodies assume), the other issue is that a list tends to attract piecemeal additions and before we know it the article will have changed from a political one to one about EU sport - if Lear wants to write about "Sport within the European Union" then might I suggest he creates such an article, but the problem there is, sport is so irrelevant to the "European Union" (rather than Europe) that it would have to be classed a stub of a stub! SouthernElectric (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

SE seems to be on holidays. So I´m bold, and take the last statements as a common agreement. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

...and duly reverted as the same issues as before are present, basically you are just reinserting the same irrelevant content as before, it's just that you have re-arranged the words and attempted to find a citation that agrees with your 'editorial line' - if the flat Earth society published a document saying that the Earth is flat and everyone else is wrong would it be a valid citation? - in other words Lear, if you want to go forward at all with this at least try and cite either an official EU document or better still an independent document to back up your content. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably a bit hasty there assuming it was an agreement! I had a feeling that SE and Sandpiper wouldn't be happy with the proposal, like I said maybe if you get rid of the "football, tennis, motorsports" line and it just says "such as those representing popular sports." you'd be able to bring them on board too. SE I think Lear did word it differently to an extent though, and the way it reads now certainly is less neutrality-disputable (I just invented a phrase!). By saying its ok I'm not saying I like it personally, I'm saying its a good compromise so we can get on with fixing up the article elsewhere. --Simonski (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes those are the two main issues, aside from writing style, the list of sports and 'self citation' (the Flat Earth society says, in this document <ref>...</ref> the world is flat so it must be true sort of problem). If some text dealing with these issues can be propose (rather than WP:BOLD inserted) we might actually get some place but all the time people want to name a favourite sport or what ever this is just going to drag on. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The list of sport associations derive from the White Paper. They are explicitely mentioned in an official document. Further adding of selected unsourced sports in the future will be prevented. Lear 21 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And to think we were almost there. Lear, why must you always be so rude, its shocking. You could have said the above sentence in a far nicer way that would help other editors to try and help come to a compromise with you. When you come out with crap like "it will be prevented" as if this is your personal EU page, then 1) nobody will take you seriously and 2) you just end up with people thinking "well screw dealing with this guy then". Please try to be a bit more polite to other users. Considering everybody is happy with your bit as a compromise, except for this ONE line, you'd think you'd just be able to say "ok, that is a compromise, lets end this and move on to improving the article elsewhere". --Simonski (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To be more precise: An arbitrary adding of countless other sports as feared, has not occurred the last year and will likely to be reverted from the editors most involved or interested in this article. Please keep content oriented. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To be more precise Lear: this sports section (bar a short introduction) should be in either of these articles, Sport policies of the European Union or Sport in Europe and not here, lists of editors favourite sports is certainly not warranted or required. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get Lear's last post? Anyway, I'd be a bit sceptical as well if those bodies in the white paper were the only ones that the EU will be communicating with. But the last sentence, I get what Lear is trying to say, but I think it needs worded differently on second thoughts. What about "Several European sports associations are consulted in the formulation of the EU's sports policy, including FIBA, UEFA, etc etc(ref incl. white paper inserted)." Surely that would be enough really, does anything else need said? Wouldn't it then be clear that the Member States are all involved in them all since they were talking to the EU, does the sentence after that not state the obvious? --Simonski (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You're proposing to replace one list with another, why not just say something like "Several European sports associations and governing organisations are consulted in the formulation of the EU's sports policy". The problem with listing anything (unless it's by nature a definite list, i.e. there aren't any more to be listed) is that people are sure to come up with a rational for adding their favourite sport - I could form a very rational argument for the inclusion of the FIA in your list but if the paragraph has already been written concisely and thus inclusive of all sports why on earth would I need to? SouthernElectric (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Lear is waving about this White Paper response that only involved 5 or 6 major organisations, if it makes sense thats why he's claiming those sports can be mentioned. However we all know just through common sense (ie. the Tobacco advertising thing and the derogation granted one time) that the FIA are consulted at times as well and that the White Paper response group of organisations aren't the only ones. --Simonski (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if we just list the one, or two, largest as examples without going into any detailed list. If it is just one it is less likely to attract the "just one more" additions as it is a greater change than just making 6 into 7. Basically, we give an example without going into a list. - J Logan ^t: 16:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that largest by members (or 'participants'), income, contribution to the EU GDP, or fan base?... SouthernElectric (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think hopefully by common sense! Lets just choose 3 or 4 to give as examples. UEFA and FIBA would be the two I'd say should be in there. But either way, Lear jeez come on just be a bit patient and wait a few days until we just finally all agree before putting that bit in. You have to admit SE the section could be far worse. Hopefully over time when sport and the EU become further separated the section will be rendered completely pointless and removed. But for now, I guess the final point would be, listing the Association names or the sports themselves? I'd rather it listed the associations rather than the sports names as it would read more professionally I think. People could then click on the relevant association's page and learn themselves what the link/limited link is with the EU. --Simonski (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Injury Time

Whilst we're on the subject of keeping the content of the section relevant, you might want to cite this/mention this alongside what you're saying. http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=2048/newsid=628119.html This sort of thing is what the article should be on about, not how often sports are played in EU countries etc, I dunno, everybody else think its worth mentioning here? Seems like a pretty major development. --Simonski (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is more something we should mention. And I agree on the above common sense point, lets just take a risk please and try it. Lear and SE, stop reverting and see if we can agree on this. From the point I post this message, I'll revert whoever makes the next revert on the sports section, whichever version it is. I hope some other users might help out on this regardless of the position on what the content should be. Simonski, based on the link you have given, how do you see the section as the best compromise? - J Logan ^t: 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm quite willing to have Lear's section in the form he's proposed it if he'll agree to the Competition, Single Market, Single Currency sections being put in. Otherwise I'm going to have to withdraw my willingness to compromise with the keeping of the sports section and agree with SE's tags. As for how we'd mention the thing above, I'm actually not sure. Given that I have no interest in the sports section its difficult to try drafting something. I'm surprised Lear's not added it to the sentence he's battling with SE over. I still think the fact is that Lear's most recent draft has been far differently worded from the mess he was originally trying to put in, and the fact that the bodies quoted were linked to a discussion with the EU through that white paper discussion, make it easier to accept now. If SE really wants the FIA mentioned, then he can easily find a similar document to do with their discussions with the EU over the tobacco advertising directive, and cite it after the white paper document reference. The way its written now, I mean the way its worded, surely there aren't serious grounds for claiming that somebody would read it and think that the ones listed were the most popular sports played within the EU. Hopefully that makes sense. --Simonski (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On another side note, Lear this might be an opportunity for you to - politely - try and convince SE that you've made the article more sport neutral, rather than simply aggrevate the situation with some sort of rude response. --Simonski (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The version as it was a day or so ago is all that is needed, the additional content that people are now suggesting belongs in the dedicated article that I (and the "Further information" section header) keep pointing to, FFS we keep trying to limit the size of sections that have far more relevance to the EU and how it runs and affects other countries (not just other member states) but here we have the same people suggesting we add even more to an irrelevance! Sorry but if Lear can play the rules by being belligerent so can I. As far as I'm concerned we had the consensus the other day when Lear's content was copy edited by at least three other people besides myself and not one reverted previously removed content - that is, until Lear returned and reverted the whole paragraph regardless of the discussion that has taken place... SouthernElectric (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC) and edited @ 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

SE you know already I'd like to see the section removed as well, but that in order to try and move on it probably has to stay in some form since at least 2 editors insisted on it (SSJ deciding to put us in this f'ing hole and then leaving us to it wasn't particularly helpful I might add). Though actually you do make a good point about there seemingly being a consensus of the section being kept but without the last sentence until Lear put his back in. At the same time it wasn't getting put back in because there hadn't been any exact consensus and I think he was waiting (surprisingly, but it was welcome definitely) until there was one, rather than end up with an edit war again. My point above SE should be taken as saying "well if you're going to keep this section which I think isn't needed, then it should at least have relevant info in it". Ie. I wouldn't have a sentence stating the quite frankly, obvious - that the national sporting associations located within the EU are members of UEFA etc - but instead I would mention things like the EU's recent "Get active" campaign or the Anti-hooliganism movement its just launched with UEFA. --Simonski (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record: 4 editors and 1 unknown voted for the section! 3 have clearly articulated support for the 3rd para! The issue: The last proposal by Lear 21 included content suggested by SSJ and was rephrased by JLogan ! Now, Simonski had a changed draft by naming the associations only. This is not the wording of the White Paper, nor is elegant in combination with the 2nd sentence. It almost repeats itself. The JLogan/SSJ/Lear 21 draft was more convincing. Lear 21 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lear, again you are twisting things again - there were prior to the archiving, 3 editors (I'm not counting the unknown editor who just suddenly magically seemed to show up when you needed a bit of support) were in favour of the sports section being kept. Since then, the ones who have been saying right fine, keep the section but do this, have been simply fishing for a consensus. You know for a fact that Logan would remove the section if it was up to him and him alone (as would Arnoutf and Sandpiper) but instead we are now trying to reach a compromise that satisfies all editors. For as long as there are 2 editors who don't like what you're proposing, then there is no consensus and this page will just keep going in circles (that is assuming the lock at the moment isn't indefinite). You need to realise that and be a bit more helpful. And I think you'll find it was the "Lear21" draft, neither Logan nor SSJ came here and proposed your draft. I prefer personally the SE draft (blank). And I disagree with you, I think it reads more professionally with the naming of the sport associations and allows for individuals to go and investigate further for themselves the link between the association in question and the EU. --Simonski (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here-here. Lear you should be careful to interpret people's positions more accurately. The position we are seeking is a compromise, it is not whole-hearted support for the sports section or your view on it. It would also be prudent not to trigger another escalation by moving too rapidly before there is sufficient consultation of an idea among the editors. However SE, if such an situation comes along please do not escalate, the world will not end if Lear has his sentence for a few days while we discuss it. All we have gained now is an article tagged and locked. I think we have something reasonable and if this is accepted in return for Lear backing the entire new economy section, I believe the article should be weighted enough in favour of important areas to make the sports section tolerable. - J Logan ^t: 11:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have stated my position (above), it's not helped by Lear trying to use socks to bolster his position, trouble is, he is so inept that he changed his mind but forgot to change the tense of his message from third person to first - check the edit history of this talk page for the last 24hrs (or here) if you don't believe me! SouthernElectric (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add as well that my position above is not set in stone, I'm willing to be convinced either way. But certainly as far as I'm concerned I could accept the most recent proposal of Lear's if he'd not oppose the economy section changes Logan suggested below. As I said, would you really say SE that Lear's recent sports sentence gives the impression that it is only the listed sports that are played within the EU? Surely instead common sense and the word "including" make it clear to the reader that it isn't the case. Of course the sentence afterwards that the national associations are taking part in UEFA etc is stating the obvious, but at the same time I don't think it reads in the same way as a sentence like "Spectator sports are popular in the EU". --Simonski (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to any lists, the current list is no better than the original list of named sports, all that will change is that people will start adding sport governing bodies rather than the name of the sport, sorry but I'm not going to move from this, we had a sports section version that I was and still am prepared to accept (this version) even with the two governing bodies mentioned, the extra content that some are now wanting to add is better placed in the dedicated article and not here. SouthernElectric 13:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the Simonski version with a slightly rephrased 2nd sentence. The tags will be removed as well then. Lear 21 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've told you which version I can live with and unless that version is accepted by you Lear nothing will change, the tags will stay and the lock will most likely stay too. I will not be moved on this as we have all, except Lear, move many Km since Lear's first attempt at placing this content - I don't really want the sports section at all, I don't really want any lists of sports or governing bodies but I am prepared to accept this version, as previously mentioned. Your move Lear, or should I say, it's time for you to move a cm Lear and accept what everyone else is happy with or at least found acceptable (in so much as they either left it alone or copy edit rather than finding the need to revert). SouthernElectric 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. The way I see it here its now just a case of SE and Lear having to come to some sort of agreement. Like I said, I'd be happy with it removed, but I'd also be just as happy with the sentence as it was last put in (even if was the list of sports rather than association names). As I keep pointing out, theres a big difference between saying that certain sports associations are consulted in how the EU forms its policy, and saying which sports are the most popular in the EU. At the same time, as I've already said, I think I'd be looking for a compromise elsewhere on the economy section (see below) if there was to be this final sentence, purely because a number of us have gone from wanting the section gone completely to being quite reasonable in negotiating a consensus. Ahh, sports. --Simonski 18:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

SE, if your really going to escalate this, I hope your prepared to follow though on what would need to be done. If you are, please get on and do it. We're not going to get anywhere if this persists. And I agree with Simonski on the list, better without a sports section but I can live with it if we get the deserved areas on economy more space. - J Logan ^t: 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, how about this. The sports section with the list stays for now, BUT: when we go for FA, if the reviews object to it and think it should do, Lear has to agree not to reinstate it after it is removed. That way it is a clear third party opinion from several editors not involved in this disagreement and is an opinion on the quality of the article which could block our FA. - J Logan ^t: 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

J Logan, I think you have stated your true priorities, thanks for your honesty... As it is, I've stated my position so we need to see what Lear thinks first.SouthernElectric 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC) edited @ 22:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the paragraph as it is now. I´m not able participating on speculation on how to deal with the section in cases of "when", "if", "what might" happen in future situations. Economy is a different issue dealt with different arguments. What a SURPRISE, isn´t it? Lear 21 08:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I was going to agree to J Logan's suggestion but as Lear will not undertake (promise) to accept the judgement of others (independent reviewers) there is little point now, this article is moribund, thanks Lear!... SouthernElectric 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was DOOMED ! What now? Doomed or moribund? Or both? Lear 21 10:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that an opinion or a wish? SouthernElectric 10:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Penalty shoot out

OK, I'm prepared to go with Logan's suggestion of an independent review regarding the merits of a sports section - if this can be done before going to FA, as this might still be a while away yet, so much the better but if it has to wait until the FA so be it - so what I suggest is a straw poll; SouthernElectric 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the sports section be left as it is now (as in the currently locked version) and the consensus of an independent review regarding the merit of the whole or part of the said sports section be obtained and any such independent review be binding on the future permissible content of the article - in other words, if another editor comes along later, it's within order to point towards the said review as reason enough to delete or add the content to the said sports section? A simple YES or NO is all that is required below and then sign ~~~~ (again, due to being unverifiable, IP votes are indicative and non binding). Polling ends at midnight UTC/GMT 8 Dec 2007.

Yes SouthernElectric 11:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes - J Logan ^t: 16:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sounds fair. —Nightstallion 19:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes --Simonski 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
vote from Arnoulf removed as it violated the terms of voting - see his talk page SouthernElectric 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes (in that case unconditional) Arnoutf 11:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes Bjarki 11:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No Sandpiper (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No --Boson (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Of course only one persons vote really matters here...- J Logan ^t: 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really as he is still editing other pages, see here, if he decides not to vote then that is his problem... Just so he can't complain should we put a note on his talk page? SouthernElectric 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice to check this page put on his talk page at 17:33hrs UTC. SouthernElectric 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I didnt get the content of the voting choices. I assume a YES vote acknowledges the current version. In this case I´m fine with it. If it means that in a foreseeable future new editors will be reminded of the now achieved consensus I´m fine with it. Because of this assumption I have requested to unblock the page yesterday, without result. Every speculation about "independent review" (what and who is it) have to be declined. Lear 21 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Look like someone is trying to implement WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than accepting Wikipedia:Consensus. SouthernElectric 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The relevance and existence of the sports section has been decided in earlier discussions and votings. There is no base nor justification to reopen a discussion or requesting external reviews. This is the final comment regarding the issue for this year. Lear 21 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, consensus can, and does, change you know... SouthernElectric 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, read WP:OWN, this is NOT your article. SouthernElectric 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sod Lear's vote then. Everyone else supports following an external opinion, lets put it forward for that and just follow that? Then we have a good consensus then with just one dissenting voice. If Lear goes against it then he is alone this time and we can take action.- J Logan ^t: 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering we had some muppet peer review the page a while back asking where the tourism section was, I'm not sure I'd hold my breath. Certainly the Consensus-1 thing might help below with the new Economy debate. Anybody got the energy for it? --Simonski 10:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not as though he is unaware of the current vote taking place, will this mean that admin/arbcom will take the same view on this as the consensus or will he still have half a leg to try and hop around with? SouthernElectric 10:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully rather he'll just read the sports section, laugh heartedly, and ask us why this amateurish paragraph has been tacked onto the rest of the article so haphazardly. We'll see anyway. Still laughable that its included (I mean come to think of it, just as relevant as a tourism section after all) but there you go, thats wikipedia. Maybe I'll go edit the Wikipedia "Scots" version [[3]] of this page instead and actually make some progress! No doubt though I'd bump into a "McLear" arguing for a "Fishing" section or something. --Simonski 10:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He gets around more than you might think. Anyhoo, as soon as I realised how hard it was here I've been concentrating on other articles. Right now the law and economic ones need the most attention. How come you two haven't joined WP:EU yet anyway? @ Simonski, yes that can be a problem, which is why I was after the FA as you have several people report back on that, we need numerous people who experience in reviewing a lot of FA articles.- J Logan ^t: 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the proposal means. If I interpret the proposal to mean that there is a provisional consensus, barring significant changes in the real world, to leave the content of the Sports section substantially as it is for a reasonable length of time to allow for a review, and that after such review we should see if a new consensus has been established, then I would vote "Yes". However, I am not sure the proposal can be interpreted in this way. A Yes "vote" might be interpreted as a vote to accept the binding decision of a person or persons as yet unknown to change the content in an unknown manner on the basis of as yet unknown arguments. In that case my vote would be "No". Cetere censeo: Yes/No votes without comments do not help establish a consensus. --Boson 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the later (as it says), an independent review (such as a FA assessment) will decide on the merit of the sports sections inclusion. As for comments, FFS we have been arguing/discussing this issue for the last 6 week or so, how long does one need... SouthernElectric 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pehaps we can ask the specific "sports" question somewhere; and accept its outcome. There seems to be clear consensus in favour of such an approach, even if Lear votes against, we are still at a sold U-1. Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two people who have expressed an opinion who have yet to cast a vote (expressing an opinion is not voting BTW...), what's the position if they both vote against - meaning a U-2 situation? SouthernElectric (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you mean me, or if I'm a further complication. I came close to saying yes, with a couple of provisos, but as I see provisos are disallowed, I would have to vote no. First, the section as it stands is not good prose and needs editing to read better. For example, the first sentence does not really make sense in plain english, and is closely followed by two sentences beginning 'however'. However is frequently unnecessary. I am not arguing about the current essential content, just the way it is written. More seriously, the terms above are seeking to make a binding agreement. Everyone here ought to know that a consensus of 10 editors is no more than 10 people agreeing. Another 10 may take an entirely different position. My position remains that the whole matter of sport is essentially irrelevant and does not deserve a mention here. However, so long as it is factually correct, and it remains modestly relevant by illustrating an area of EU non-relevance, I dont seriously object to it...so long as it is not at the expense of something more important. A little light relief can help an article on a serious subject along. I am somewhat bothered by the sentences about '...list....' of organisations being consulted about sport. If we are to mention every organisation consulted by the EU on anything this article will be very very long and very boring. Sandpiper (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the best position for this. I'm replying to SouthernElectric's reply "It's the later (as it says) . . .". I was attempting to apply the EU principle of "harmonious interpretation". If that is how it is being understood, I'll have to vote "No". I don't think we should try to vote here to treat a future FA assessment or similar review as some kind of binding arbitration on content. As regards review, I would suggest that we attempt to agree here on a shortish description of the issues involved and then add an RFCHist template to put it on the Community Portal main page. This might give us more insight into what people who have spent less time studying the EU might expect to find in the article. As regards the question to be asked, I would restrict it to something like "Should there be a sport section, and if so should it include only those matters discussed by EU institutions or should it also have a brief description of sports in EU members states and/or deal with those issues regulated by other (non-EU) European organizations?". The short description of the issues should include our rationale regarding possible implications for the question of whether the EU is state-like or not. Nobody should object to good faith copy-editing once the article is unlocked. --Boson (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so we should ask what people want to read rather than what they should be reading, well yes that might work if you want an article about straight bananas and every other miss informed article the media has written about the EEC/EC/EU since 1957! Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to inform people who don't know?... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are trying to inject some humour into the discussion, but I will nevertheless explain what I meant. What I wrote was This might give us more insight into what people who have spent less time studying the EU might expect to find in the article. We tell them the truth (to the best of our ability), but only the reader knows where he or she will look for the truth on which topic. So if an average American, say, who is informed about the inner workings of the EU about as well as most Europeans are informed about the division of competences between the US federal government and the individual states, is likely to look for information about sport in the EU in this article, this may be a good place to put some of that information. If he or she is likely to be misinformed about the extent to which EU institutions are involved in sport, this may be a good place to explain the truth. If the reader is likely to expect the same sort of information here as in the article on the United States, we should take that into account. At the opposite end of the scale, if we write only for the experts who know it all already, we could leave the article blank. As regards the straight bananas, regulations related to penis size etc., it might indeed be a good idea to have a link to an article on "European Union myths", since people are not likely to look there first if they don't already know which imagined facts are myths.--Boson (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was actually trying to be deadly serious, if I want to find out what sport is played on the Mars and I look at a concise article but find sport not even mentioned I would be safe in assuming that there is no sport what so ever played on the Mars, but if I was to read a section entitled "Sport" and then a diatribe of badly written text of what sport could or might one day be played on Mars I could actually find myself thinking that sport is already played on the planet and thus by extrapolation (someone or something must live on Mars) that Martians are a fact! OK, a far fetched example but miss information can very easily lead people to the wrong assumptions. What we need to do, seeing that we (as editors) can't or won't come to a mutual agreement is to ask others who know or at least understand the subject to review it and give their opinion as to what is relevant and what isn't, it's pointless asking people who do not know or understand the subject to do so as they don't know what is relevant and what isn't - we want/need a review of the content and not readability. Anyway as things stand this is all pointless as there will be no consensus and thus no way forward, except into another edit lock or worse. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do want a review of the content and not readability, but, as you point out, the dispute is about the relevance; not the factual accuracy, of the material; so we do (also) need to think about what readers will look here for. Even if you or I prefer to look at the EU primarily as the sum of its institutions and their activities (or even just their competences), others might look at it primarily as a political, geographical and social entity, perhaps in the same way as they look at the United States. Actually, until this poll started, I was beginning to think that a consensus had almost been reached to include sport in the article, but only to the extent that there was some involvement of EU institutions, and to refer readers to other articles about sport in Europe. --Boson (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If the content is irrelevant then it is factually incorrect for the article as it could miss lead. A good encyclopedic article (like good factual newspaper articles or TV programmes) contains what people need to know and not what they want to know, even highly relevant content often needs to be constrained - I'm sure someone could match the word count of this whole EU article whilst writing about the EU wine lake or butter mountain but to leave such content un-a-bridged would give far to much weight to such matter in this article. No one has said that there is a relationship between sport and the EU, just that more than a passing mention (which is what the position was before the current extra content was added) together with a wiki link to the Sport policies of the European Union article. This dispute is more about copy editing that what subjects should be included, given the realistic space available before someone slaps an article length tag on it, even Lear accepts this is an issue but like all 'junior hacks' doesn't like the copy editor taking the blue pencil to his own work... The point I'm trying to make is, it needs an someone with the knowledge to know what others need to know, hence why this article needs something like a FA review to do the final copy editing rather than just a review of what those without knowledge think they should read. SouthernElectric (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 10:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay okay, lets just leave it for now then, live with the section as is, and either get an external opinion on it (formal or not) or go to FA so we can return to the issue after we hear back on that? If it isn't FA make clear we are heading for that so their opinion is if the sports section blocks out FA or not, that should make this debate a bit more solid. Meanwhile, lets settle the other issues in debate and get this unlocked so we can implement them.- J Logan ^t: 14:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

community of states

I inserted 'community of states' into the intro, and ssolbergj removed it. We did discuss this in the archived debate under 'founding treaties' when no one opposed that change. My reason for the amendment is to make clear that whatever it is, it has 27 members, not 500 million. It is a club of 27 members who are all independent sovereign states who have entered into an agreemement. Whatever the EU may commonly be said to possess, it does so only by 'borrowing' from the member states, or by simple addition of the whatever for its members. The intro must make clear it is an organisation of states, not people, because that is what it is. Sandpiper (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny that, I'm sure, the last time I looked, my passport is an EU passport and not a United Kingdom one and that I'm a Citizen of the European Union and not just of the UK - I can't be one of only 27... SouthernElectric (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused! I didn't get if SE's post was sarcasm or not! As far as I see from my passport (both of them actually!) Its always the name of the country and then underneath/on top (depends on the country) "European Union". Plus the concept of EU citizenship is pretty developed now in the courts, without having to go that far. Anyhow, I don't think that was really Sandpiper's main point for putting the community of states bit in. I don't see why it'd hurt to put the "of states" bit on, if anything it is slightly more objective. --Simonski (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Simonski beat me to it. Mine has that wonderful phrase; Her brittanic majesty's secretary of state requests and requires all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance. Technically, I think it is corect to say people with UK nationality have no citizenship at all. They are subjects of her brittanic majesty. Her majesty has kindly entered into a treaty with the european union letting us do all sorts of things in foreign countries without having to get special permission. Very kind of her. (My recollection also being that treaties are made by the sovereign?) Sandpiper (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with your first analysis Sandpiper, I see no problem with it, in fact I can see that wording serving both pro and anti sides. Though what is your argument SSJ? - J Logan ^t: 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think British nationals, at least those who are EU citizens, will normally find "British citizen" in their passports under "Nationality". As I understand it, British subjects, within the meaning of the Act, are, by definition, not British citizens; however "British subjects" used to be equivalent to "Commonwealth citizens".--Boson (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Member States vs. Members

Original correspondence between Sandpiper and myself can be found here

The EU is more than just an equivalent to the NAFTA, were each countries citizens have no more rights than given to them by their own government, the EU is different in that the EU has given citizens of all member states certain rights in excess to those otherwise granted by their own state - such as freedom of movement within the EU - this surely makes every EU citizen a member of the "EU"? SouthernElectric (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope; we are citizins of EU, not members (i.e. we are not allowed to be in all meetngs open to members, hence we cannot be members). Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard anybody use the phrase "members" of the EU before. EU citizenship exists as a concept and we are all "EU citizens". And before anybody chimes in with "but the member states!!!", the phrase "citizens of earth" is also a phrase that people can use in day to day life. --Simonski (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is an odd term. I've never heard it, general if you're a "member" it is like a club. You hold a little card and everything and you've signed up with other members who comprise the club. That is what the states did, and the states have citizens. We have citizenship, not membership, we do not comprise the club, the states do. No one says I'm a member of France or I'm a member of NAFTA. Sorry, we're not members, we're citizens.- J Logan ^t: 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

From my reading on EU treaties, the status of individual EU citizens is somewhere in the middle. Status as Union citizens (in the words of the treaties) shall complement and not replace national citizenship. (see #REDIRECT Citizenship_of_the_European_Union) So, no, individual people are not "members" of the European Union - the state(s) they belong to is/are. However, EU law recognizes this distinction: some laws deals with rights of the member states, such as vetoes on certain policy issues and seats in the Council and Commission, while others deal with the rights of the citizens, such as civil rights and the right to vote for the EU Parliament.

In short - the EU has 500 million citizens, each of whom is also citizen of one (or more) member states. My passport says both Republique Francais and Unione Europeenne because I am a citizen of both. Vonschlesien (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You only have to read the Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) Part Two: Citizenship of the Union

This Citizenship gives every citizen

the right to circulate and reside freely in the Community;
the right to vote and to stand as a candidate for European and municipal elections in the State in which he or she resides;
the right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of a Member State other than the citizen's Member State of origin on the territory of a third country in which the state of origin is not represented;
the right to petition the European Parliament and to submit a complaint to the Ombudsman.

--Thw1309 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal System

Right, I'd shown Logan the changes I'd proposed to the Legal system bit, and as minor as they were I think almost all the main points are touched on. It might still be a bit long for some people's tastes but I think everything's pretty relevant there. The national courts and their relationship with the ECJ is something which was particularly important which shouldn't have been missing in the first place. The way I've left it the layout/citations need fixed so if anybody who's used to doing it more can help out there that'd be great.

For the national courts bit, its Article 234 EC that lays down the spirit of cooperation/the preliminary reference procedure. For the fact that only the EU courts can annul EU legislation the correct citation is Case 314/85, "Foto-Frost". I know its not perfect probably, but there you go. As for Subsidiarity and Supremacy, well, if you look closely the person who drafted it first time pretty much talks about supremacy at the start without mentioning the word, and I'm sure if anybody was really adamant that a similar sentence on the matter of subsidiarity could be squeezed in. --Simonski (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, great work. I've put a few extra wikilinks in. I think there might be a ref template for court cases though. Oh one idea, I was wondering if it was worth having some kind of chart showing the relationship between the ECJ, National Courts, the CFI, the Civil Service Tribunal and the ECHR? Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLogan (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just from my point of view I'd definitely advise against trying to make a chart... at the moment it would only be accurate if it was presented as like a chain rather than a hierarchical system. Strictly speaking the ECJ isn't the "supreme" court of the EU (though in a lot of ways we all know it kind of is), and this is an issue that has caused many to argue either for "regional EU" courts to be developed or on the other hand the EU to switch to an appelate system rather than continue to use the current preliminary reference system. The thing is, national courts can apply EU law as much as they want, but if an individual involved in the case feels that they shouldn't be deciding the matter on their own and that they should be referring the issue to the ECJ, there isn't anything they can do about it (if the national court is acting within its rights, ie. it feels the EU law question can be answered clearly by itself). They can really only just go "please please please send it to the ECJ, please!", without any guarantee that the ECJ will send back a conclusive answer. (The answer the ECJ gives in most situations actually leaves the answer up to the national courts, providing instead only guidance on how to go about solving the question).

For the moment, the system is a bit of a mess basically. I was reading that apparently its because at these Intergovernmental conferences, where the Member States are making deals/compromising etc, judicial reform is always very low on the list of things that get dealt with. So yeh, I would avoid the chart! Add in the ECtHR to the mix and it'd be one screwed up chart with lots of exceptions needing to be noted! --Simonski (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me the discussion about supremacy in this article is somewhat different to that in Law of the European Union. The latter says that while the EU court claims it is supreme, some national legal systems accept this, and some do not. It is necessary to insert that this claim is disputed in a somewhat fundamental way, into this article. As mentioned above, from hearing the news, the result of court cases in the Uk is frequently that courts will find in favour of native UK law, not EU law. The loosing party then appeals to Europe, which tells the UK to fix its own law. That seems to me to mean that native UK is supreme and upheld by Uk courts, and people living here will be compelled to follow it untill and unless it is changed by the UK parliament. This can take a very long time, and may or may not eventually result in a change to UK law, depending on how important the UK government feels the matter to be. Sandpiper (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I need to clarify a couple of things here. Firstly, there were only really 2 Member States where Supremacy was really, really fought against, and that was in Italy and Germany. Since then, through the ECJ's tweaking of the concept, they both eventually accepted it. Every member state now accepts the concept, particularly because it is well balanced now against the Subsidiarity principle. The Law of the EU article may well be a bit misleading if that is what it is saying, as the real situation, to quote Craig and DeBurca, is:

"Most national courts do not accept the unconditionally monist view of the ECJ as regards the supremacy of EC law. While they accept the requirements of supremacy in practice, most regard this as flowing from their national constitutions rather than from the authority of the EC treaties or the ECJ, and they retain a power of ultimate constitutional review over measures of EC law". (Chapter 10, 4th ed)

I don't know who here is familiar with a monist/dualist system, but basically monist systems = international law/treaties are automatically part of national law. Dualist = international law/treaties are only binding in national law if there is a domestic legislative act enforcing it. Ie. When the UK joined the EU (or the EC as it was then), the European Communities Act 1972 was passed which allowed EU law to be applied in the UK. Without it, like let's say Cameron got in power tomorrow and repealed it, EU law would have no effect in domestic law, and little Jimmy who would then go to court saying "but I lost out on this contract through Article 81EC" would be told by the English court "I'm afraid Little Jimmy EU law isn't part of national law and therefore is only persuasive in nature. Since there is recent UK legislation on the matter I have to ignore EU law here". So in that sense, EU law isn't really supreme, but in another sense, it is, as the European Communities Act 1972 has made it so.

On the issue of what happens in practice, what happens generally in the UK (moreso than in Germany for example where there is like a knee-jerk reaction by their courts of "refer! refer!") is that an individual will raise an EU law issue, and that because in the English common law system passing the buck is seen as weak judging, it is quite likely that they may try to solve the issue themselves. However, it is certainly not because it believes it has to save national law or anything, and I don't know what example you're referring to Sandpiper when you mean UK law was upheld over EU law. I'm a bit confused again. What would happen in such a situation is the individual would want to plead the question the validity of a national law compared to EU law, the national court would say "nah, national law is fine thanks", but then if national law was considered by the Commission to be against EU law, they would try and have the member state brought before the ECJ under a 226/228 EC action (I'm simplifying here but lets just say that Member State would have to pay a fine and disapply the national law in question). That is a mouthful but hopefully clarifies a couple of points, and surely gives a fair enough reason not to try and explain supremacy more than has been done at the moment! --Simonski (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A really, really key point I missed - Individuals have no right of appeal to the ECJ after a national case has been decided. Individuals may only go to the EU courts to challenge a decision from the EU institutions addressed to them and may not go to the ECJ to attack national legislation. If a national court tells them to go away and that national law is fine, they will have to try and get the European Ombudsman involved or try and alert the Commission to a possible breach of EU law by a Member State. Individuals have no right to request a reference to the ECJ be made during a national case, and just have to try and convince the national court that one would be worthwhile. --Simonski (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Simonski, I think judging from your quote that you agreed with me, at least as to the point which needs to go into this article, that strictly speaking supremacy of the EU is not accepted in most member states. The situation seems to me (not a lawyer) similar to divisions of justice within the uk, or any other state, where one court deals with one matter, another with another, and independant state quangos make binding rules about certain things which have been delegated to them. No one claims from this that one or another set of courts dealing with different laws is supreme as against the national government, nor that the state commission on dog fancying is supreme against the national government, simply because that government passed a law saying the dog fancying council could make laws in a certain area. I rather think I agree with both of them (The EU court and the national one). They are both interpreting the situation as it is presented to them. But both points of view need to be presented here. I think this is a very important point of principle as regard detractors and supporters of the EU. Sandpiper (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, though an individual may not go to the ECJ to attack UK legislation, they may go through the UK court system, which will be bound to override UK legislation (even legislation passed after European Communities Act 1972). This is, of course the present situation; the situation under British law could be changed by explicit intent if Parliament decided to repudiate its treaty obligations (cf Lord Bridge in Factortame and Lord Denning in Macarthys Ltd v Smith [1979]). Ref. e.g. : Steiner p 79., Craig p 367f). I don't see how UK courts will (without being overruled by higher courts) "find in favour of native UK law, not EU law" after Lord Bridge stated "Thus whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law. Thus there is nothing in any way novel in according supremacy to rules of Community law in those areas to which they apply . . ." [[Quoted by Craig/de Búrca] --Boson (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: It is law lords who are using the phrases "limitation of sovereignty" and "supremacy".--Boson (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, because of the European Communities Act (a piece of domestic legislation), any national judge who does not apply EU law over a conflicting national provision is essentially misapplying domestic law, which could then be appealed to a higher Scottish/English court on that ground. It is key though to emphasise that however unlikely, as soon as the European Communities Act isn't in play (ie. was repealed), along with all the other Competition/EU related domestic acts, once they're gone, EU law would no longer be a part of Scottish or English law. --Simonski (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To an extent Sandpiper, yeh, I was mainly trying to clarify the situation before anybody else gave their opinion here, that strictly speaking, a number of Member States are basically humouring the ECJ with the whole Supremacy idea, in that they are like "yeh yeh, good good, supremacy, wonderful, ok stop nagging us now" even though they then sit in their court rooms with smug faces whispering to one another "tee hee, the constitution is still supreme, idiots at the ECJ". But supremacy still exists on a practical level though, that was what I was trying to point out, and that at the end of the day, whether the constitution/national law is supreme domestically or not, the Member States have to accept that if they want to stay in the EU club, they have to give EU law precedence over their national laws. Therefore, what I would say is it could be worthwhile mentioning this whole idea of certain Member States considering supremacy to exist in the sense described in the Craig and DeBurca bit quoted above, but I think it has to be conjured up in one sentence. Anybody any ideas on how to word it/do it justice? A greater description of the issue really belongs on the Law of the EU page, not really on the main EU page I'd say, but its true then that it could well be worth mentioning briefly here rather than to mislead people I suppose. --Simonski (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly a lot of bluffing is going on. I am minded to believe that no one sleep walked into joining the EU without considering exactly what it meant. While members might not like certain details, they all think it better to be in than out. So to that extent every one of them is humouring the EU, which thinks it is running the show. But I also think that should any serious disagreement occur, where a member really could not accept some rule or other, an agreement will always be found to get around it. Thus we have lots of opt-outs, for one thing or another. So in that sense also, the EU is not supreme. People who really cannot accept something don't sign up for it. It is not all or nothing. I return to my previous comment, whether practically speaking members accept EU legislation or not, the reserved possibilty of simply walking away from the game is an important one, especially for eurosceptics, and needs to be clearly explained. I though the 'Law of the European Union' article managed to do this. Sandpiper (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, it is true that Member States (such as the example of France I gave on the other page) pay their fines and obey the rules etc because without doing so the EU would collapse. I think here the Member States have realised that they can't have their cake and eat it. But we're now at the stage where I would say if a Member State (or even 2 or 3 member states together) started disobeying the rules, they'd face severe sanctions/be shown the door. When you speak of opt-outs, I think you do exaggerate their number a bit Sandpiper, and indeed it has tended to only be certain countries like Denmark, the UK and Ireland that have had certain protocols/opt-outs added to suit them (ie. the Irish one on the abortion issue). At the end of the day, if you are a member of the EU, EU law must apply over any conflicting domestic provision - there is nothing incorrect about the sentence currently in the article. From a practical sense, EU law is "supreme". From a technical sense, as we've discussed, it perhaps isn't exactly. Just consider it an unfortunate choice of wording by the ECJ. As I said though, if you can find a way to put the "but" in the bit on supremacy in a succinct sentence or 2, then be my guest!! --Simonski (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

By definition it will always be the minority which opts out, because the majority is following the majority path where no opt outs are necessary. If France and Germany, and maybe the UK wanted something opposed by all the others, I remain convinced they would get it in the end. Now, if you name the three smallest countries demanding something, then I don't doubt they might expect to be steamrollered. But this kind of reasoning is very back to front. The countries in the EU are there for a reason. All the national quibbling about EU rules is generally about things which are considered unimportant to voters. We ridicule the EU for rules about naming sausages, but it makes no real difference to anything. However, it does place the issue of the extent to which the EU influences UK legislation into some perspective. Your point about states refusing to pay fines seems quite pertinent to the issue of supremacy. The final arbiter of supremacy, surely, is the final outcome at the very last extreme. All the european courts do is interpret the treaties and arbitrate between countries as to what they have agred to do under them. It seems to me that this is the very definition of a sovereign entity, whether people obey because they are compelled or because they choose to, and we seem to agree that member states obey of their own free will, not because of coecion by the EU courts. I am pleased to say that I feel considerably more educated about the nature of EU law than I did before going into all this. But my conclusion remains that the article needs some tweaks. Sandpiper (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree there then I'm afraid Sandpiper, I think these days even if Germany, France and the UK teamed up, they'd have to contend with 24 other countries, and I'd hardly say Poland, Spain, Italy, Benelux and the others would allow themselves to be pushed over. Instead you'd just see the 3 countries get given an opt-out here and some form of compromise. It certainly isn't the case now that any member state can show up and demand something without compromising somewhere, I just don't see how politically they could do it. How you view supremacy will differ from person to person, but what I've tried to emphasise is that from a practical perspective, the article's description of supremacy is accurate. I think we can give people enough credit to read this article knowing that the Member States of the EU can leave it if they want to! You'll have to be more specific about where you think there should be tweaks though - is it basically that you just want it mentioned in some form that the Member States have agreed to be bound by EU law for as long as they are members? That sentence could be slipped in easily if so. --Simonski (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On a side point by the way, I think its always worth remembering that effectively our domestic Employment Law has basically been made by the EU, as have our Competition Laws and other really important areas of law (to an extent Company law too). Its not just about sausages etc!!! There are some really important EU law related issues coming before national courts, and what you'll find is that in most member states the judges know enough now to handle applying EU law themselves. There is no national court which deliberately sets out to avoid referring to the ECJ. I can't remember if I mentioned, but as of 2003, any court which doesn't refer, and it turns out they should have, will result in that Member State being fined (Kobler). --Simonski (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry if this has come up but I am a tad lost by the huge length of the above. Is there agreement now? I can't tell, law isn't my forte and I haven't had any tea all day. But on the supremacy point, EU law managed to override the German constitution, isn't that a tad of an indicator on the matter?- J Logan ^t: 14:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if any German lawyer heard you say that they'd make you eat the constitution :) From a practical point of view as I've said, yes, but technically not. I'd imagine if you took any German judge aside he'd tell you he felt the German constitution was supreme. There is a very important point worth noting that the German and Italian Constitutional courts have never referred a case to the ECJ. Basically, Craig and DeBurca's point above (the bit in italics for those who can't be bothered trapsing through everything again) sums it up precisely. I think from what I gathered Sandpiper is in agreement generally here (and hopefully reassured a bit!) and if anything will only want an extra sentence or something put in? Am I right? --Simonski (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, many international treaties have the explicit condition they override national law (including constitutions) if (and only if) there is a conflict. This means that anyone who has reason to doubt whether national law contradicts international treaties can complain. In the case of the EU such a person can appeal to ECJ at least I think that was one of the ideas of the constitution. That Italian and German courts have not done so may mean the conflict between EU and national law was never shown, or that the courts do not follow the rules (which would open up appeal to ECJ). This is how I think it is, but I am no lawyer and this is complex stuff (as all law issues appear to be).Arnoutf (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The point thats been made above though and that is widely accepted by most national courts, is that these international treaties can say what they like, but at the end of the day their "supremacy" would flow through the constitution/national law making it so. Again, it might seem an odd situation depending on what you're used to domestically, I know for instance the Dutch system is an example of a monist system where international law forms part of national law without requiring domestic measures to bring it into play. As for changes that were supposed to come into play with the constitution, well, you'd really be surprised but there was pretty much no change at all with regards to how individuals can access the ECJ etc. I think I mentioned earlier that its because at these Intergovernmental Conferences the last thing the Member States have on their mind is how little Jimmy can get to the ECJ to complain. The ECJ is so overloaded with work as it as the moment that making access any easier would probably cause the system to collapse. Concerning the Italy and Germany question... I think after almost 50 years of case law now its probably more of a reflection of the thinking of the Italian and German constitutional judges.

As far as this article goes though, I do think whats been said is all that has to be said!!! Further discussion of it all would have to go onto an "Supremacy of EU law" page or on the Law of the EU page. I think the legal system bit is pretty concise now and says all that needs to be said. Does anybody have anything in particular they'd want to see added/clarified in the section? --Simonski (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like an expert view on the issue, and I agree, these subtleties should not be in the main artcle.Arnoutf (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we may be broadly in agreement on the facts of the situation. I still think it is important to explain that situation precisely and will have a go at it when I have some quality time time to devote to it, if no one gets there first. Sandpiper (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The section should be re-converted to fluent text, without extra lisiting. Fat letters can be tolerated. The creation of a subsection should be deeply considered. Right now the section is a mess. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering Lear many of the sections of the page you have edited were left with non-fluent/incorrect English, I'd be careful there. Simply stating the section is a mess without stating why isn't very helpful. I'd imagine you think it is a mess because you haven't understood it or something, when instead EU law is about as much of a mess/about as complex as it gets. Subsections for Regulations, Directives and Decisions perhaps, but I'm sceptical as to how you could put subsections in there without ending up with 5 or 6. Now that would be a mess. --Simonski (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Woah, actually, I just read it, and somebody has changed it quite a bit? Who and why? Not sure I like how it reads now, particularly the primary/secondary law bit - too much info for the page (I mean a large number of legal systems have the primary/secondary law distinction and it probably belongs more on the law of the EU page) and it read much better the way it used to I feel. Lear, was it you or was that what you were referring to? Either way I've changed it back to how it was and what everybody was happy with a sec ago, if the person who changed it disagrees then they'll hopefully let us know here! The problem re: subsections remains though, what does everybody else think anyway? --Simonski (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary sources

Ok so it was Dan who changed it, Dan can you discuss here why you think the legal system bit previously agreed to should be changed? I really don't think it is necessary to give the primary/secondary law description. This isn't a law book, but a brief description of the legal system and I think the introductory sentence describing that the Treaties lay down the basic law of the EU and that then Decisions, Regulations and Directives further it, is enough. If anything needs sorted here its just the layout surely. I can't be bothered getting into another edit-back-and-forth situation here so hopefully somebody else will give their thoughts? --Simonski (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

number of Meps?

it is here reported that there are 785 MEPs, but elsewhere on wiki it says there are 750. Hmm?Sandpiper (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is 785, (expanded after Romania and Bulgarya joined in 2007) which is higher then considered desirable, after 2009 elections it will be reduced to 750. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As A says, if you look on the EP pages you will see the data on seats. Perhaps you can provide the page so it can be seen if it an error or not? - J Logan ^t: 18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the link I followed while copyediting for President of the European Parliament. While I am at it, I notice now that the article European Parliament cites the separate article as 'main article', yet in fact contains rather more detail about the role of president than does the daughter article. Sandpiper (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is just behind in development. If you find something like that just copy the data over, I'll do that to the President article in a sec, it is on my todo list though to build up that article. As for the number, that is because there it is talking about the post-2009 changes and hence wouldn't be correct to use pre-Lisbon figures.- J Logan ^t: 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that, but the wording still rather implies(d?) that it is the correct figure. Sandpiper (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

bicycle wobble ref

I have removed the following ref from the politics section. The ref talks about trade negotiations, and I don't see how it is relevant to integration and enlargement both being important processes going on in the EU, which was the article text. Perhaps someone knows where it belongs? <ref name="FT Bicycle">{{cite web|last=Bounds|first=Andrew|authorlink=|coauthors=|title=Brussels blog: Bicycle wobbles on the way to Doha|work=|publisher=[[Financial Times]]|date=2007|url=http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2007/05/bicycle_wobbles.html|format=|doi=|accessdate=2007-06-27}}</ref> Sandpiper (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It refers to the bicycle theory as its title spells out. - J Logan ^t: 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

mmmmmmmmSandpiper (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting (Justice and the law)

The section on Justice ... should be part of governance.
Infrastructure Section: Wow - didn't see that coming - I like it. It is notably missing in many country articles.
Personally I also like Demographics and Culture to be included within a section named "Society" as (at least one of) the China article(s)--Keerllston 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

On Justice, we're semi-following the three pillar structure, don't know if anyone else is thinking about changing it? I agree on the Society point, would simply matters, thoughts people?- J Logan ^t: 16:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I'd agree there. The reason you won't find infrastructure on many country page is because the EU is not a country. Anyway, the idea of a European "society" would certainly be drifting into non-NPOV waters. I'd oppose the idea (without hopefully opening another can of worms here). What China articles do you mean exactly? I wish people would stop suggesting we copy the UN/nation state template for this page, the EU is completely different from both. --Simonski (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't countries have an infrastructure section? And I think you're over reacting on Society, it is just a title and there is still a society whatever it is, policies can relate to society without saying there is a single society. Demographics doesn't mean everyone is the same age.- J Logan ^t: 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Its probably a tomayto/tomatoe, military/security, fundamental/human rights type question, and not something I'd go mental over if it was changed. Certainly though I could picture in future a band of editors, similar to the sports objectors of recent months, coming along and disputing the presentation of the page as inferring some sort of united "European society" and coming across as pre-enlargement propoganda. I'd only be against "society" because I think it would give the wrong impression, personally. --Simonski (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I read this comment I was also thinking that justice belonged with the sections discussing the institutions of the EU and its legal system (and still do). They are naturally the same topic from an organisation of information point of view (rather than how the EU sees itself as organised, which is rather lopsided). So I would at least suggest bumping it up the order to be immediately after 'legal system' and before 'foreign relations'. As to 'infrastructure', this is quite an important part of EU activities taking up quite a lot of the budget. Sandpiper (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving....

Sorry but I've had enough of the belligerent Lear, in my opinion he is a vandal playing the WP:RULES. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I fear you'd be giving him what he wants by doing that. I wouldn't leave the page or anything, particularly when its clear we're almost at the end of the sports thing. Considering it now isn't banging on about everybody playing sports as a happy EU family and Romano Prodi waving EU flags at olympics, surely it could be worse. --Simonski (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, stick to it, we can work something out. Sometimes you have to deal with people you don't like to get the results you want.- J Logan ^t: 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets just say it was a bad day and saying what I did vented the possibility of being even more uncivil. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sports

The sports section has been repeatedly deleted by user SouthernElectric. After a recent discussion about its relevance and existence the actions of the user have to be considered as vandalism. I ask the established users to reintroduce the content on a frequent basis. The user SE has to be informed that his actions have violated a number of Wiki policies.Lear 21 (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, he isn't technically violating the rules as we failed to reach a consensus in the end. I don't think you helped Lear by putting your final sentence in without coming to a complete agreement, which we were so close to. If you check the Wikipedia rules on vandalism, I don't think there's anything you could pin on SE here. Instead what we have to do is finish the discussion above, which was based on keeping the sports section but not yet decided on how the final sentence should be worded/presented. Lets get a consensus and move on! --Simonski (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please lets finish the discussion above, I have noted on this there and responded to your request also. I agree there is little you can pin on SE right now and I think jumping ahead of the discussion has caused this problem. So please, let us return to the discussion. - J Logan ^t: 15:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say as well that I'd agree that SE is entitled to put those tags up that he has but hopefully we'll get a discussion on the go here that can see them unnecessary soon enough. --Simonski (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that you should just keep the sports section. The fact is that sport is a major event in Europe and most games are played across europe in equal measure bar handball which isn't really played in the Uk. If you don't some to a resolution soon then none of the EU article will ever be edited again. (Is there a way to just stop the Sports section being edited). So sort yourselves out guys. (Electrobe 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

I would just point out that this article is about the European Union (the "EU") and not Europe (the landmass). As for the sections merits or otherwise, that is being discussed / voted on in another section SouthernElectric 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Electrobe, if you want to know why there shouldn't be a sports section (mainly for the 100% valid point that SE just made), go read the archived discussion on it which points out the holes in your point above. As it is though I guess we're keeping this section in order to maintain a consensus, see above. Thanks for the useful input. --Simonski 10:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When i say europe i meen the eu which is in europe and asuch commanly played games in europe must be commanly played in teh EU. And to be frank im not bothered about the sport section its more the fact that it stops edits to the rest of the page taking place. (Electrobe (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

We all agree the edit war has to stop; and the vast majority is either for complete deletion or a very much trimmed down version; however it is basically one very stubborn (a mule is easily persuaded in comparison) who is keeping the debate alive. You could as easily say to him: "I think that you should just delete the sports section.", for much the same reason. Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in fact the rational that Electrobe used could almost be used to have a 'sports' section in the Earth article - at the end of the day it comes down to common sense, sorry Lear and Electrobe... SouthernElectric (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey i'm not on either side i'm just trying to stop the edit war and not feel stupid at the same time. (Electrobe (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

The point electrolube, is that the EU as an organisation has virtually nothing to do with sport. Better to discuss the mining industry, the car industry, favourite television series. None are really worth going into much detail about here. There are a lot ofthings which happen in Europe which the EU affects more than it does sport. Sandpiper (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Electrobe observed that the current sports sections seems to be relatively harmless, and wanted to say so; without wanting to engage in this troubles debate. So I think the overly wordy reponses (including Sandpipers last one) may have been a misinterpretation of the original meaning Arnoutf (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you thats precisely what i meant. (Electrobe (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

The problem is that Lear21 has declared the sports section unilaterally sacrocanct on his conviction his opinion is infallible; this makes any discussion and reasonable suggestions by other editors moot. Reference to a host of Wiki guidelines (most notable WP:OWN) have not worked; any suggestions for dispute resolution (which require agreement of involved parties) have been turned down by Lear21 (apparently either he sees the weakness of his case, or he likes frustrating other by prolonged disputes, otherwise he would have embraced the opportunity). It is only the stubborn entrenchment of myself and other editors that kept this section in control. Arnoutf (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Military and defence

The current main section contains several duplicated information and should be trimmed. Lear 21 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who keeps trying to put a "Military" section in but its a very bad idea I'd have to say. Haha perhaps we're about to being a new fun discussion on whether there should be a military section or not. --Simonski (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is ill thought out and I don't see how it is meant to help. Plus it does not warrant its own section given its low level in the EU. - J Logan ^t: 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a dammed-sight more important than the sorts section... SouthernElectric (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather support a subsection with this content in Foreign Relations. The section name "Military and defence" could be kept. It would give the reader a clearer orientation and would be more distinctive to the section below "Justice, freedom and security". Lear 21 (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Lear but military (or what ever it gets called is more than defence, IIRC the EU has taken part in peace keeping roles under the EU flag, min short there is not other heading it can be placed under other than it's own - but if your rational is correct there is also no need for sport to have it's own sub heading. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lear is not the only one objecting to this SE, the ESDP is related to the CFSP, I for one see it best under that heading, the sections flow better and all round I don't see it worth as a stand alone. - J Logan ^t: 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its better as "security" personally, purely because its what the EU calls it itself, never mentioning "military" really. (Simonski) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.125.251 (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Security" is far better and actually more relevant, in fact external boarder and airport security would be natural 'bed fellows' in any such section. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be different meanings for security, but I agree with Simonski that we might as well just stick to the EU term and considering the following term I don't think it will be confused. However I can't say I'm that bothered.- J Logan ^t: 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Economy

Okay, while back I said I was working on economy sections. Sorry for the slight delay there but if you want to take a look here: User:JLogan/Sandbox - will probably need a copy edit and the top economic section needs expanding but as a base it should work. Any objections to me putting it up on the EU page for further work by editors at this stage? - J Logan ^t: 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please keep ONE economy section. And keep it brief. The section is already a big one. Education & research should be kept in Culture for layout reasons. To many subsections should be avoided. Lear 21 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow Logan, great work. I understand Lear you're wanting to try and maintain some sort of warped balance between social and economic factors on this page but the single currency, the single market and Competition law are three of the main things about the EU and this should be highlighted on the page. It by no means takes away from anything below on the page. They are both the three true EU success stories. I'd definitely be in favour of that proposed section (and the Competition bit) going up. Again, good stuff! If there's a sports section, there surely has to be this stuff mentioned as well. --Simonski (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

One new section in Economy seems reasonable. Possible title "Single market, currency". Lear 21 (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But surely the single market and single currency are two completely different things. Its like throwing human rights in with foreign policy. What you're proposing is like the Chewbacca defence - it just doesnt make sense. --Simonski (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though the currency does aid the market. However seems like a very odd title for it and I don't know how that would improve the situation. And Edu*R in culture for "layout reasons"? Can you stop giving vague demands perhaps?- J Logan ^t: 11:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a second draft in the sandbox now. The written content has been kept. Lear 21 17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets get the sport problem dealt with first please. Doing anything else is pointless as the article is locked and will probably stay that way until we can demonstrate that the problems surrounding the sports section are sorted. SouthernElectric 17:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ay carumba! In a sense they may have become related now, bargaining-wise. How about we have a merged section called "Sports and Economics"! [/sarcasm] --Simonski 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well that was kind of my idea (the related not the merged!) on trying to get something more worth while out of this mess than a single sentence. But seems this is all heading nowhere fast. Well done, well done. But you know what really gets me with all this? I expect this kind of behaviour with or between nationalist nutters around here, not between us who - in perspective - have a similar outlook on all this. - J Logan ^t: 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I get that comment Logan. If you're referring to the claims that the sports section should be removed, up until the moment of agreement I think people were entirely justified in wanting the section gone. "Nationalist nutters" (I'm assuming they're the same brand as 'Pre-Maastricht dinosaurs) are just as dangerous to this page as Pre-Enlargement visionaries, that is important to make clear. As somebody pointed out somewhere on another page though, its just as well that any users of wikipedia who read an article on a contentious issue will know to take what is read with a grain of salt. To not have people leave this article knowing fully that the three main success stories of the EU have been the Single Market, the Single Currency and Competition, but instead focus on telling them that UEFA once had a nice chat with the EU, is just a real shame. For me, making sure people are properly informed (which obviously I can say will never be possible with this page from the experience of the past couple of months) is far more important than aiming for some bs FA status. --Simonski 10:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The sports section is prioritized at the end of 23 sections. In addition, it is one of the smallest parts of all. There is no focus on sports neither a disbalance within the article. The major issues concerning European Union are mentioned in the introduction and appear to have high priority in the content table. Single Market and Currency (there are more than one) are specifically mentioned in the introduction and worth a new section. Competition is a detail in the legal framework but not more, it can be mentioned in the introduction of Economy. Lear 21 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Views on the proposed changes?

Being mentioned in passing in the introduction, or in a minor sentence in a section, is hardly the same as having its own section. There is only one Single Market and one Single Currency, the fact that there are member states outside the single currency doesn't make it any less the "Single Currency", though you blatantly know that and are just splitting hairs now. Competition as a detail in the legal framework???? Lear you can't possibly claim to be editing this page knowing what you are talking about if that is how you view Competition's position in the EU. Anyway, that aside, what are everybody's views on Logan's proposed new additions to the economy section? I'd be greatly in favour, would perhaps be the finishing touch that the Article needs for the FA status. (I can see an FA reviewer asking why Competition Law, Free movement and the Single Currency aren't given more airtime) --Simonski 10:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Small note, I have changed "Single Currency" to "Monetary Union" to side step that issue regardless, also included a note on the other currencies.- J Logan ^t: 15:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Research should be in Culture. Competition and the Economy introduction have small content & fit perfectly together. I can´t see a reason to separate the section in two. @Simonski: There are 27 commissioners; one of them is responsible for Competition. Your self esteem as an EU-Law expert is respected, but it is one fraction among many in this article. Lear 21 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

One remark about possible FA candidacy: The EU article is among the most read articles in the Wikipedia. It´s constant influx of editors will very likely result in permanent adjusting of the article in the future. My comparison of FA articles makes it clear that a number of reasons make it very difficult to achieve and even more important to maintain this kind of status. Though it is a desirable aim there should be no illusions about that. Lear 21 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Without checking the details, I think the suggestions for the Economy section look good. I agree that more prominence should be given to currency union etc. though political and social integration should not be downplayed. I don't think Research belongs under Culture in an English-language encyclopaedia. This may be due to the fact that education etc. is regarded as part of "Culture" (Kultus-) in non-English language communities. --Boson 20:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things, 1) I think I preferred "Single Currency", and 2) Lear, I'm actually speaking now from a common sense perspective. You are really suggesting a lot of ignorance here Lear, surely you are aware that of all the 27 Commission posts, Competition is regarded as one of, if not the most influential/important post available? Competition is at least in the top 5 activities carried out by the EU (currently EC) and I actually think you know this and are just being stubborn for the hell of it. I hope you are at least getting something from it. And bonus, 3) Research certainly doesn't belong in Culture, just this guy wants to beef up the culture section. Which is frankly a bit odd, why somebody would have such an agenda. --Simonski (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd still be interested in everybody elses views though incase we can set about aiming for consensus-1 and actually make some progress. --Simonski (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

About research in culture. There are some issues here. (1) Can we split up Education and Research? (I think not as Universities are instrumental in both). (2) If Research is not in culture; where should it be? And is that also feasible for education (considering we don't want to split them - per issue 1). I think Economy is not suitable for education (although I may be convinced). (3) If it cannot be in Culture (per comments) and cannot be in Economy (per my remark 2), there does not seem to be a section that is suitable to host Education and Research. This leaves 2 options - Create a stand alone section (this was done in the past, but the current section is just too short to justify such a stand alone version, while expansion would inflate the article length unduly); or split them anyway (which I think is not a good idea see my issue 1).

In brief, while I agree the fit research-culture is not ideal, I nevertheless think it is the best solution we have. (I am open to change my mind if carefully presented arguments for an alternative can be provided). Arnoutf (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Agree with Arnoutf on research: The section right now is named Education and research and with more than half of the content it covers student exchange. This is not Economy, very simple. There is also no reason to split the section 2) A section named Single Currency is not possible because there is no single currency, there are 15 ! 3) Competition is important, correct! Therefore it fits perfectly in an introduction of Economy or even in Single market. Note that this article has overlength size. Lear 21 (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making a very good argument to remove the sports section; indeed the article is too long but the Euro is more essential to the EU then any sport. Arnoutf (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair point that the article is oversized in length already (though you want to see long - go see the French/German version of the page), so maybe the Competition bit isnt essential, but at least the Single Market and Single Currency section need to be included, it would a disgrace if they weren't! Of course technically there is no such thing as a "Single Currency" in Europe, but there is also technically no "Supremacy" of EU law, its simply put, EU-speak. If its called the Single Currency throughout Europe why not call it that here? In the Reform Treaty, its laid down that the aim of the EU is to eventually have the Euro as its common currency (like the AU with the Afro - bwhahaa) - Article 3(4) TEU will read "The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro." Lear surely given the sports section's usefulness is debatable, you'd be happy to accept these 2 short sections being included? Then we'd finally have peace here! --Simonski (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst there is no 'single currency' (yet...), there is the Euro Zone (together with other currencies being pegged to the euro), which is actually very important - just as EADS has discovered. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On "single currency", the name and aim of the euro is "the European single currency". It is the single currency for 13 members and all but two are obliged to join.

On competition, as has been said above this is a major activity of the EU, by relating to it being just one Commissioner, well it gives the impression that you have no deep understanding of the EU's workings. Besides, it is like saying foreign affairs is unimportant for a country because there is only one foreign minister. In fact lets take you argument a bit further, there is only one Commissioner dealing with culture, along side other issues as well, so maybe we shouldn't mention that? Where is our Sports Commissioner?

Lear, you say the article is too long now, I do believe when we were wanting to cut it down before, you were protesting that it was a normal length compared to other country articles.

Research shouldn't sit under culture, nothing to do with it, the aim of the EU promoting research is for economical ends. Indeed I'd argue the same for education as education aims for the EU are different from national aims, it is designed for economical issues, but I also grant for cultural issues. Lear, you say there is no reason to split the section yet you do not give a reason, I contest that there is no reason to merged to two. These are different topics with only minimal links, just read it and you see there is now flow between the two topics. So lets just keep education under culture and research under economy?- J Logan ^t: 11:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, although placed under both mine and Arnoutf replies were you primarily replying to Lear? Secondly, no, I don't think I could accept leaving education under the culture heading for the very reasons you suggest it is not ideally placed there - one solution would be to make education and research a section on their own, perhaps following on from the economy section? SouthernElectric (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To JLogan; an argument why I think Education and Research should not be separated.

I am involved in both education (university teaching) and EU research (FP5-6-7). We do use some of the outcomes of EU research in our teaching, we do (sometimes) involve students in the experimental research work (either as participant, as a student assistant, or for MSc thesis work). For those reasons I would say that higher (university) education and academic research (not to be confused with business research) cannot be separated in general.

As most (if not all) EU education policies are mostly aimed at university level (e.g. the Erasmus program) rather than high-school, or primary school; and as most (if not all) Framework projects do involve academic partners (and have to publish their findings as open source documents; i.e. Framework research cannot be kept confidential). I am convinced the focus of the EU Research and Education programms is on Academic research and Higher education, and hence cannot be separated. Arnoutf (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arnoutf stated the very obvious logic which is understandable by every rational reader of the section Education and Research. The Education part focuses university, the research part focuses university. Can anybody see the connection? And were is the business part in it, where is Economy? Nowhere! There arent even country articles were Education is placed in Economy. Please start thinking or at least comparing before making new proposals for reorganization. Lear 21 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree that education and research belongs in the section on the economy. Governments normally justify spending on education as an investment in the economy. Sport also fits more naturally in the section on demographics, if it is being argued that it should be included as a general fact about the EU. Similarly, I'd put 'culture' in that same general section. I think we are heading for an article organised in two logical parts. One about the EU, its institutions and actions, the other about its people and their (independent) doings. Lear, that makes a lot more sense to me re discussing sport at all. If the article makes some distinction between EU centralised government matters and non-legalistic social elements, I'm a lot happier about discussing the latter. Sandpiper (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can live with Education & Research in economics (although as an academic I see it as an outing of culture rather than cold money - but that is my personal POV). I can also imagine Culture, and Sports (in this case on equal header level) under demographics. That would fit reasonably well with Religion (imho related to culture) which is already in the demographics section.

My only doubt is that we might end up with very few, very large level 1 sections. Arnoutf (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we went a little off topic here, I was asking about views on the Single Market and Single Currency sections! --Simonski (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

@ Arnoutf, yeah education would seem more culture in general, but looking at the content I don't think the link is as strong as we'd think in terms of the topic. And my attempt to split economy was the thinking behind avoiding very large level 1 headings, though it is the nature of this topic it seems, I don't think I would object to a stand alone Edu&R section if we wish to deal with that problem.

But yes, as Simonski says: lets deal with the core stuff, what do people think. Anyone want to go back to "Single Currency" rather than "Monetary Union"? Other idea?- J Logan ^t: 14:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To implement shortly

4 vandalisms in the first three and a half hours after being unblocked. You forget how much they attack the page don't you, when we go for FA we better get partial protection. But that's for another time, not it is unlocked I'm going to put the economy changes up, I'm holding back for a few hours as there haven't been many people commenting on it yet, just to give you a chance.- J Logan ^t: 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would call it 2, as most were made by the same anon IP adress, so basically one extended vandalism attempt. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've put it up now. Hopefully it will get ironed out now, please don't start an edit war over anything but I expect some of the unresolved points will get kicked around a bit. You can check the original copy in my sandbox for a while longer and see its talk page for points that have already been raised. User:JLogan/Sandbox, User talk:JLogan/Sandbox. Thanks. - J Logan ^t: 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning tag

The warning tag stating: "This article's coverage of a controversial issue may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." was recently placed. However I think it is out of place because:

coverage of a controversial issue: What is the controversial issue? I think there IS a controversy, but not in the content, but about whether the content (sports) should be added. This is in my opinion completely different from what is meant here as the phrase inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints does not seem to be suitable (ie nobody argues about the facts (albeit about lack of references) in the sports sections, there is not even much disagreement about the fact that football is most popular in the EU (ie no unbalance). So the controversy is not IN THE ACTUAL VIEWPOINTS; but rather in the RELEVANCE OF THE INFORMATION FOR THE ARTICLE. Therefore this is not a controversial issue as meant in the template.
Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, There seems to be agreements that no viewpoints are neglected. The problem is that some editors consider the given viewpoints IRRELEVANT. Hence this line again does not apply to the article.
The controversial issue here is: "Should sports be seen as part of EU (union) or as part of Europe (geographic region)". However THAT SPECIFIC issue is not in the article itself, hence can never be "the controversial issue" in the warning template.

Hence I think this template completely misses the point and should be removed. (btw I agree with the (what I call here) meta-controversy about whether this should be in or out, but that is talk page controversy, not article controversy. Arnoutf (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please request unblocking again. As I understand it, there is an agreement to keep the sports section as it is now. This is the requirement. The tags will be removed as well subsequently. I have already requested the unblock with no success. Go ahead for another try. Lear 21 (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, you understand wrong, what a surprise. As it is, when protection comes off the top tag could well be removed BUT the two tags within the sports section will remain until we go to the FA (or another) review process and this {{ActiveDiscuss}} tag will be placed on this talk page within a section pointing to all the recent sports section discussion. In short, whilst the top tag might now be invalid (having reached agreement) the lower two tags are even more valid now than when first placed. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I was indeed only talking about the top tag; both local sports section tags do adress the actual ongoing debate. There is no agreement whatsoever about the sports section, the only agreement seems to be that we leave it as is now until a review is performed, after which we all accept the outcome of that review. Arnoutf (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree the tag at the top of the article suggesting it is neglecting controversial viewpoints is not only inappropriate, but under the circumstances itself encourages people to contribute to just one side of the argument, by adding further irrelevant material. Find an appropriate one if you want a tag, but there already seems to be a relevant one in the sports section. Sandpiper (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither tag adds anything to the content of the article. Please accept that this article has achieved GA status because of a reason. The quality of this article has been acknowledged already. The editor who has put this article in constant crisis and instability has no edit history in any EU European related articles. Instead this editor has repeatedly tried to delete content and images in several sections. I ask the established editors to take a clear stance on that behaviour. The article must regain stable access and must become untagged completely. Lear 21 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Those tags stay until FA review or the irrelevant content is removed. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, read Wikipedia's editing policy, someone could use a dynamic IP address and still have every right to remove irrelevant or add relevant content, as long as they can rationalise their edits. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given your remark on the role of Competition in the EU somewhere else on this page Lear I'd be wary of making comments about anybodys expertise on the issue of the EU. What if Jose Barroso himself was to sign up to wikipedia tomorrow and start helping to fix up the page, would that make his contributions less worthy of consideration? I think not. --Simonski (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, writing EU articles on wikipedia does is not a qualification in European studies. And tags can add a lot to an article if the issue of their inclusion is dealt with, they are placed because of a fault. I seem to remember when I first came here and an editor put citation tags up. Rather than adding citations to an article with next to no references you (Lear) just removed the tags. Had I and others not pressed on with referencing this article regardless this would not be anywhere near GA status with no chance of FA. - J Logan ^t: 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record and for JLogan: I mainly worked on three articles and in total gathered more than 100 references from different sources. I´d like to remind JLogan that I was the one insisting to cite correctly. Please accept that this article can´t be a personal notebook were the upcoming tasks are included. Note that the decision for inclusion of sections or content is only made in this forum and nowhere else. Please accept the outcome of a recent discussion AND vote about the sports section. By now there is even a majority of editors who are in favor of its existence. Please realize that any FA candidacy will fail from the start with any tags included in the article. And YES it makes a difference if editors have a long edit history in EU / European / Politics / Law related articles. It certainly would document a serious commitment rather than hasty harassment. Lear 21 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Lear for once again providing the arguments for removal of the sports section (i.e. majority wants to get rid of it; as discussed here in exhausting detail). Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See the Barroso point above. If somebody comes along tomorrow and is able to point out that a major part of the article is flawed, then it doesn't matter whether they've been involved in the editing of the page for 1 week, 1 month or 1 year. --Simonski (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

@Arnoutf (to refresh counting abilities and to prevent any myth about the outcome): [4] plus [5] (Electrobe) Lear 21 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What people have been saying Lear is, whilst some accept that a rational of sorts can be put forward for a 'Sports' section what they actually want is nothing more than an acknowledgement than; "Yes sport is played in EU member states but it has sod all to do with the "EU" and if you want to read more then the reader needs different article - such as the one pointed to at the top of the section". As such, the warning tags are relevant, well placed and will stay all the time there is anything more than a single paragraph on sports and certainly whilst the content is nothing more than a badly written diatribe... SouthernElectric (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

@ SE : You probably would also argue that England has nothing to do with the UK. But don´t worry I won´t elaborate on this, your capacity of understanding is limited and has proved no progress. Instead you have an edit history of deleting images and content in several sections of this article. The only reason why I´m one of the few who take part in this discussion is that the credible, longterm committed EU-editors are sick of your ongoing destructive approach. Your demanded tags are just another destabilizing act showing no acknowledgement to the achieved GA status. Your whole edit record indicates nothing else than discrediting the articles quality. This must end. The tags add no useful content for any reader. By the way, the USA article has started to include EU related references, data and content. It becomes very obvious that the world (not only the US) sees the EU as a multidimensional entity including more than its administration. The world recognizes the EU as Europe with all aspects of civilization. Start to accept that this global view is a central base of this article. Lear 21 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, while I sympathise with your argument, I will NOT tolerate you insulting a fellow editor in that manner! ("your capacity of understanding is limited") I demand you apologise before we go any further.- J Logan ^t: 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, thanks for proving just how weak your rational/argument really is and how worried you are than the sports section will be deleted... SouthernElectric (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not worried but certainly alarmed. Not because of sports but certainly because of every section. Your type of editor comes along this article frequently and follows a typical pattern. Most times without any edit history in even far related articles and issues and at the same time claiming "this content is not EU specific" without knowing the basics of EU characteristics in general. In your case it mingles even with inconsistent and unpredictable argumentation. On one side you have complained why Formula One and golf is not included in sports (many times) on the other side you advocate the deletion of the section. Further more there is no indication that your edits improve the EU sport policy article or Sport in Europe. I say it clearly and repeatedly, I have zero tolerance for this kind of editors. Feel free to feel provoked by this statement, but that´s how it is. Lear 21 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is all about opinions of editors; there are no guardians or owners of the project even administrators are only primi inter pares. This means that no editor should take the attitude (for whatever reason) that he/she has zero tolerance for any kind of editor, except of course for clear vandals. Personally I have very serious problems with editors who show (or voice) zero tolerance towards others. If you stick with above statement Lear, you seriously disqualify yourself as a discussion partner in the future, and probably even as a reasonable person in general. Arnoutf (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear's response above actually shows up two problems, the first is one of not understanding the WP:OWN policy and the second is being able to follow a written debate, I was never suggesting that I wanted Formula One (or what ever) included just that Lear's rational for including football (and his other named sports) would later give reason (that could not be rationally refused having accepted Lear's content) for others to add even more sports to the list of named sports - it seems to me that, whilst others might not have agreed with my opinions they at least understood the argument I was making, that is except Lear who is now trying to claim that I was suggesting the complete opposite to the above! I have no doubt that Lear can (as per is claim on his user page) hold a face to face English language conversation at a near native level but I am starting to doubt his ability to grasp written punctuations and phrasing etc. SouthernElectric (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Lear21 even ever clicked on the WP:OWN wikilink, let alone read that article, as it (IMHO) very closely describes his behaviour. Also SouternElectic, I thought your response were misinterpreted but did not want to speak for you. Anyway, this section was about the topmost Unbalanced template and we are back to sports again..... Arnoutf (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to topic

Apparently everyone agrees the template {{Unbalanced}} at the top of the page is indeed not warranted (there is discussion about other templates so these should stay). So I would like to ask an administrator to remove the unbalanced template. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, you'll need to use the {{editprotected}} template to request such a change. Secondly unless the U-2 decision (in the recent straw poll) is accepted as 'section policy' and consensus there is a danger than the weight of the sports section could increase should more content be unilaterally added and reverted back after deletion, this being so the unbalanced tag should stay as the article is unbalanced. Thirdly, if the vote is accepted as the consensus there is no reason why we should not ask for the protection to be lifted - meaning we can remove the said tag ourselves. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is not accepted as a consensus, perhaps we could at least try to agree on a voluntary ceasefire? Unless there is full agreement, no changes to the sports section. Ditto for other contentious areas if unresolved, e.g. law. - J Logan ^t: 11:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the {{Unbalanced}} that I placed, on the assumption that no new content will be added to the sports section until the sections status has been established by external review. SouthernElectric (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

and back to tweaking the legal system

I don't really subscribe to the suggestions above that nothing can be done while an article is locked. Reading, I noticed the following sentence in the 'legal system' section. National courts are required to enforce the EU treaties and the laws enacted under them, even if doing so requires them to ignore either their national or constitutional laws.[54] Er, no, I think that is factually incorrect. A court never ignores a law. It interprets all relevant law and draws a conclusion after interpreting it and assessing any conflicts. A national court enforcing a treaty implemented by its own government is hardly surprising in any way. On the other hand, I would be very surprised if the courts of any member state have ever ignored their own constitutional laws when forming a judgement. Sandpiper (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But the point has been made man, that the statement is true in practice. I might invite you into my house, and say "no smoking in my house though, if you smoke here I'll have to ask you to pay me 100 pounds", to which you agree. You don't lose the ability, or the free will to smoke in my house. However, if you were to smoke in my house I'd firstly ask you for the money, then if you refused to pay, I'd ask you to leave. My request would be supreme, but only because your free will was making it so. Whilst member states are members of the EU they must apply EU law over any conflicting national law. Ignore is not the correct word, and I'm not sure if its one that I wrote myself. If it read "are required to apply EU law over any conflicting national legislation" would that make it better for you? Like I said, surely the reader will have the common sense to know that a member state can leave the EU if it wishes, and no longer be bound by EU law? I don't think the article is misleading in this regard. --Simonski (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand my objection. A court which 'ignores' a law is a contradiction in terms. There can be no legal process if laws are simply ignored. What would happen is either that the national court exactly follows its own national law and declares whatever point made by the EU to be correct, or the court exactly follows its own national law and declares the point to be wrong. Either way a national court follows national law. How can it do anything else? National courts only follow 'EU' law in as much as it is also native national law of their own country that they do so. It might loosely be true in practice that EU law overrides national law, but it is not true in fact, and very misleading to claim it here when a simple rephrasing would put it straight. It is absolutely untrue that anyone is 'ignoring' laws. I logged it here because right now editing the page is inconvenient. If we are really taking things loosely, then I would argue EU law is not supreme at all, because any serious disagreement between states would be settled by amending the relevant treaty and the matter would be sorted, bypassing the EU legal route entirely.

re your example, I'm not sure if you wrote it correctly, but if you did, your will is supreme because it is your house, nothing to do with the will of the visitor. By analogy, laws in the UK house belonging to the Uk government are there by the will of the Uk government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We're just going to go round in circles here if you don't actually read what I say. I acknowledged that "ignore" isn't the right word to use! Override or disapply are both more useful terms that can be used. As for my example, I can't stop somebody from smoking in my house but I can ask them to leave if they do. The analogy transfers to how the EU works, not the UK's constitutional setup. The EU doesnt have the constitutional setup of a country and so I wasn't referring to how the UK house works etc. You smoke in the EU house, the EU house will ask you to pay up or leave. I still dont get what you aren't getting here man - as has been noted above, and is accepted throughout Europe, Supremacy exists from a practical perspective but not from a technical perspective. If you have access to Craig and DeBurca, get Chapter 10 out and it will answer all your questions, even just by flicking through it. --Simonski (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And again, you are just 100% completely oversimplifying with the whole "if the member states dont like it they will change it". They didn't amend the treaty to override the ECJ when it came up with Direct Effect, they didnt amend when it invented Supremacy, they didn't amend when it invented fundamental rights, they didn't amend when it invented the right to damages for breaches of community law. The ECJ has got away with murder basically, and have sneaked a number of things through the back door, and the member states generally just murmur about it and accept it. Of course if the ECJ gave a judgment tomorrow saying something absolutely insane, something would be done about it, but it would be the exact same case with any jurisdiction where a court makes an abhorrent judgment and the legislator would be forced to step in. --Simonski (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One last thing to think about by the way. Treaty Amendment requires unanimity between the Member States. Think about that - in order to override the ECJs interpretation of a treaty article, all 27 member states have to agree that it was wrong. Pretty unlikely situation as you can imagine. --Simonski (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What Simonski said. This is how it works in practice, theory is always balls. - J Logan ^t: 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The only instance I can think of off hand where something has happened which the UK really didn't like was the budget situation where we ended up paying rather too large a share. The upshot was that Margaret Thatcher had a bit of a chat and everyone agreed to change the rules. I remain unconvinced that this is not a big fish/little pond sort of scenario. The EU courts rush round being important and making rulings, but the real big players are entirely happy to let them get on with it so that the EU gets the blame for unpopular measures which states generally agree are nonetheless necessary. The EU courts do only what the member states have told them to do. I don't really see why anything you mention is particularly objectionable to national governments so that they would make it an issue to get something changed. The whole point of this club is that other nations agree to go along with the rules also, thereby extending national influence to other countries. I understand the arguments you are making, but this is exactly a glass half full/half empty situation. It is equally valid to claim a new sovereign entity the EU has come into existence which will never go away as it is to claim that the EU is simply a bunch of administrators working on behalf of a group of nations to check up on what other states are doing. I don't see that this article, or any EU article, can come down on one side of the fence, or the other. At this point in time the EU could still go either way. I think history favours its growth, but it is certainly possible that there will be a revolt against extensions of its remit and much clearer curbs on its powers will be introduced. What has it actually ever tried to do which the member states did not want done? As far as the article goes, it cannot come down on the side of the EU interpretation of EU law, but must retain a rounded picture. I rather think you quoted your favourite reference source making exactly this point in earlier discussions.

Returning to the house analogy slightly, the argument breaks apart because the EU does not have a house. Nations wishing to be members do not negotiate with the EU, but with the member states. Technically, the EU negotiates and no doubt provides them with reams of details on what they technically have to do to join. But the important issue is whether the existing states want them to join or not, and whether any necessary agreements can be made to adjust the rules to suit the new candidate. If you wish to consider the house as analogous to the EU, then you have to make it a block of flats or a house share, where every occupant owns a share of the freehold, and everyone has to agree on everything. Ok, maybe there is a paid caretaker whose job is to sweep up, hand out electricity bills to everyone and tell them off if they smoke in their rooms. However, if he gets too obnoxious the owners will simply sack him or tell him where his duties end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, the member states are wearing their EU hat during such discussions on membership. The house analogy probably wouldn't withstand many other comparisons which is why I have to stress I'm using it to try and paint the supremacy picture. Though even then, you could consider the EU house as having the member states living there as flatmates, and the rules of the house, such as who does the dishes etc, being the rules on procedure etc. A friend of one of the flatmates, Turkey, might want to move in, and they'll probably be interviewed by the other member states living in the house to see whether they'd be a suitable new flatmate or not. I never meant to give the impression that there was only one person, Mr. EU, living in the EU house. The things I listed, I mean these days we take forgranted, that the Member States, or at least a good number of them (remember it only took one country to like it for it to be impossible to amend in the next treaty) did not sign up with the idea that directives might have direct effect, or that they might have to pay individuals damages for breaching their community law rights. Such judgments by the ECJ weren't entirely popular. Quite recently there was an uproar by the UK government after agh, what was it, Opinion 01/03 or something where the ECJ declared that the EU had exclusive competence to sign the Lugano convention or something, even though it blatantly didn't have it.

The Thatcher example you gave is slightly different, and would fall into the category of things like the number of seats in the parliament a member state might have (and yes, lets not forget that Poland could have if it had really wanted to, completely have slown down the recent treaty drafting by making more of a fuss about the number of seats Germany has). How the Treaty articles are interpreted legally is a different matter is what I'm saying. But I'm confused now as to what we're disagreeing on. I think surely for the purposes of this article, if we just change the word 'ignore' to something else then thats all that needs to be done, rather than get into the political 'what ifs'. Like I said, if the ECJ made an insane judgment tomorrow, then the member states obviously wouldn't accept it, much like it wouldnt be accepted of any other court in any jurisdiction. --Simonski (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And one other thing that might be worth remembering is the separation of powers... Courts don't get told what to do by the Executive/Legislature. One of the bloody reasons the ECJ has been such a joke at times. I think we definitely take forgranted that much of the EU our nations is part of now, and how it affects our lives, has been influenced by their judicial activism. --Simonski (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole matter is decided. See

Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC), "Judgment of 16 July 1964, Flaminio Costa v ENEL, Case 6/64":By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their courts are bound to apply. By creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, its own legal capacity and capacity of representation on the international plane and, more particularly, real powers stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from the States to the Community, the Member States have limited their sovereign rights and have thus created a body of law which binds both their nationals and themselves. The integration into the laws of each Member State of provisions which derive from the Community and more generally the terms and the spirit of the Treaty, make it impossible for the States, as a corollary, to accord precedence to a unilateral and subsequent measure over a legal system accepted by them on a basis of reciprocity. Such a measure cannot therefore be inconsistent with that legal system. The law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, could not because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question. The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights. This describes the reason, why about 80% of today`s work of the nationals parliaments is just the simple transformation of community law to national law. Nevertheless, it is not true, that national courts are required to enforce the EU treaties and the laws enacted under them. Treaty establishing the European Community Article 234 (c):Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon. Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice --Thw1309 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So the Eu is pointing out that 'EU' law cannot be contrary to national law, because it is national law. We all agree, I hope, on that. However, I think the EU is being a little inexact as describing the transfer of sovereignty as permanent, simply becuse it has no time limit. The judgement also seems to imply that should any state start refusing to comply with EU law, the whole house of cards would fall apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think in the majority of member states, that is indeed the case Sandpiper. Key to note here though that its the ECJ, not the "EU" as a whole thats saying the above. At times what the ECJ says must be taken with a pinch of salt, because frankly sometimes, it talks out its arse. Costa v. Enel was an incredibly significant judgment, but several judgments have since then clarified its exact meaning. But yeh, the basic point - supremacy so on etc. The above ruling was coming from a then very bold ECJ, and the German/Italian courts were all too keen to point out afterwards basically "OI, ECJ... NOOOO!" and remind them that Community law would be supreme via national law. Anything else of controversy here then? --Simonski (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

fusion reactors

Mentioning european fusion reactors as such seems to be exaggerating somewhat. I suppose strictly they are, but not in the sense understood in the term 'fission reactor'. No one has built a self sustaining fusion reactor capable of generating power, and there is no likelihood of one any time soon. Sandpiper (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what discussion (or part there of) have I missed ?! SouthernElectric (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon, I was reading the article, not the discussion. Section about energy. Sandpiper (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think ITER as a high profile, multi billion Euro project deserves mentioning; although Research maybe a better heading compared to energy in its current status. Arnoutf (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I definitly think it wants mentioning, just that it is not remotely near generating power. I was also wondering what the EU research budget gets spent on, and whether a significant portion might be spending on energy, so that the research element might somehow be combined with energy. I liked Logans proposed rearrangement placing research into the economy section, so they would at least be together, perhaps adjacent. Sandpiper (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Euratom is mentioned at the Cordis FP7 site [6], so I think we can link it into research. Arnoutf (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think it could go in either, it is advancement energy production, even if just experimental, and indicates the direction of the EU. On the other hands it is a huge piece of research. Does anyone object to it being in research or energy?- J Logan ^t: 14:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Geography

The geography section is a bit odd. While 'member states' may be considered geography, it really has more to do with politics. It seems to me the bit immediately after the heading 'geography' has rather more to do with the section presently titled 'demographics' and the two ought to be brought together. It might be possible to reorganise the whole, start with the section listing the states, move on to what is now the geog intro, listing the odd bits of Europe in and out, then the statistics on land mass and population, economy, language, and so forth. My problem with such a running order is that I think the section on which countries are in or candidates ought to be right at the top of the article as important fundamental info. So I suggest leaving 'member states' right at the top, and bringing the rest of Geography down to demographics. Possibly 'member states' should be before 'history', though perhaps it makes sense as a logical conclusion of the history to be stating who are the members now. Comments? Sandpiper (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, land surface has little to do with demographics. Although a restructure of order maybe applied where geography and demographics become neighbouring sections, I think that would indeed make sense. I am a bit hesitant about moving Demographics "up" as that is one of the more subjective sections where the boundary EU-Europe becomes blurred. So I am not sure exactly how to do such a thing. Arnoutf (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Demography, definition: 'scentific study of populations, especially with reference to their size, structure and distribution'. But whether you think that quite fits or not, I would still bring down 'environment' and the 'geography' intro alongside demographics. All general statistical stuff. Sandpiper (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Population distribution yes, but that is dealt with in demo, the concentration etc. No I think in terms of the content we have that is geographic, it starts out with clarification on borders as people know about the individual countries so it would help them picture it all. I would also be against bringing demo up to the top, it is not that high profile for this topic - esp. considering it would drag the language and religion sections with it. Also think History should remain at the top, with most articles it is the best thing to start with as it gives an intro into the whole topic, we would also have viewing problems with the map and the infobox.- J Logan ^t: 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost ditto by scanning the arguments. History and/or Geography belong to top. The Geo section shouldn´t be mixed up with other content. Lear 21 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

why is it more important to go into details about minor islands, principalities etc which are or are not in the EU, or mention its highest mountain and coastline, before explaining what its organisational structure is and what it does? This is less important additional detail which people are unlikely to want to read through first. I'm happy with 1)history, 2)member states 3)|Governance. This article needs some reorganisation to make it a shorter read to get to the central points. Anyone wanting to go straight to geography (or dare I say it, sport,) can use the index. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Its normal for, dare I say, country articles. I know! Don't shout at me! But I don't see any harm in it and I wouldn't want to split Geography and member states, that would seem a bit pointless, and member states should defiantly be up near top.- J Logan ^t: 11:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, wtf, good point Sandpiper, why on earth is there a section on 'Geography' before the section on the Member States? Absolutely baffling. Member States should be the 2nd thing on the list. As a compromise Geography could just go underneath Member States. --Simonski (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Member States as the 2nd thing on the page

I just changed it there. Wow, does it read better or does it read better. I can't believe I didn't notice that earlier, only when Sandpiper pointed it out there. The bit on the Member States should be right at the top without a doubt. Aside from the obvious, anybody else have any problem with the new look? --Simonski (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how long that will last, those two sections have been playing musical chairs with each other for months.- J Logan ^t: 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Think of it being my Jego-Quere - it probably won't last long but it'll get people thinking about how the previous setup has been crap. I'm quite willing to go into the whole sports-length/consensus bs here again on this one, I think its that important. --Simonski (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone thinking of this in comparison to an article about a country needs to remember that it is not a country and there are important differences. One is that it has members which are countries, nd they need to be mentioned early on. Another is that things like the actual terrain (physical geography) are relatively unimportant to most of what the EU does. Generally it is not necessary to explain for starters what a country is, but with the EU all that needs to be covered. Sandpiper (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I really like the new layout, well in Sandpiper. It just seems to make more sense how it has one half dealing with the setup of the EU and then the second half dealing with things like Education etc. It also means finally the Environment section won't look so bloody out of place, as it has for ages now. Good idea. --Simonski (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I'm cautious about environment as economic policy but considering the inclusion of REACH etc I suppose its the best we can do, it certainly did look out of place under geography. Still not sure about geography under demographics but I'm happy enough with it. On the country thing, we have been through the EU-not-a-country thing but even though there are differences, there are similarities so while we're not saying the EU is a country we can still look at the manual of style for an idea of layout, adapted to the EU. I am not trying to advocate it (I was one who pressed for it to be dropped originally) but just don't get too carried away with ignoring it. And indeed with "facts" such as EU-not-a-country, as what is a country etc... but save that debate for another time.- J Logan ^t: 09:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wherever these sections get moved around to, and wherever they end up, as long as the Member States section is the second thing on the page, I'm happy. It just makes far more sense. --Simonski (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Location of Geographical information

Lear (and anyone else), if you really think a brief description of the physical geographical highlights of Europe belongs near the start of this article, can you please explain why? I'm not necessarily hung up on exactly what the section should be called, but it is general info which ought to go with the other general topics, towards the end. Similarly, why do you feel that a discussion of the EU's policy on the environment ought to be tucked in between the description of its history and members, and its organisation? Environment policy ought to go together with other policy topics. Sandpiper (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the brief explanation offered in the edit history isn't good enough to be honest. Everything under the sun is mentioned in the introduction to the article. Nothing is more relevant than what countries actually bloody make up the EU. --Simonski (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And alternatively insert all state info into the member state section

Logan, since you asked, I see two sensible ways to organise the first paragraph of the 'geography' section. Either place it later in the article as relatively unimportant additional information about what territories are part of the EU or are not, or place it as a final paragraph in the 'member states' section (as I just did). This informtaion is already partially repeated in that section. It is relevant, as it is detailed information about what regions are part of the EU, and which are not. It may be argued that it is precisely what a reader will want to know when looking up which states are members and which are not. He will want to know that in fact the channel islands are not EU, so he can't go there, or that the Azores are included, so he can. The extent to which I agree Lear has an argument for keeping this material early in the article, is that for good organisational reasons it belongs with the 'member states' information. It does not belong with a discussion of land mass and coastline. I also think that the remaining geographical statistics belongs best as a section under 'demographics'. Sandpiper (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I'll get the speech for this but if I remember correctly states come under geography on the country template. Not saying we should follow the country template but something as simple as that we can use surely? I objected to your changes because it looked a mess, fine if you want to make a point or lead to getting rid of geography etc but long term it isn't very useful, organisation of the sections doesn't make much sense.- J Logan ^t: 09:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I havn't found a template, but looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries I see that they recommend separt main sections for 'geography' and 'subdivisions' (in our case, superdivisions). They even suggest that 'subdivisions' should go into details about overseas territories, etc. Not that I'm saying we should follow their guidelines, which also heavily emphasise that everything should be short, and they don't mention 'sport' at all. In what way did the change look a mess? I took out one of the geography pictures, because there were too many for the amount of text. On the whole we are a bit heavy on pictures. I'm not convinced there is very much useful to say about geography in the context of an article talking about an administrative organisation spanning an entire continent. Sandpiper (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've been looking at the country articles for too long, I forget that most don't bother to follow it. Okay, so if we go with that though I think at least we should move environment away from there (if people object to economic, perhaps "other policies" for that, education, culture and sports?- J Logan ^t: 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either environment or geography should be at the start. The country layout suggestions suggest that 'governance' should be before 'geography' and I would certainly agree. I don't really regard the 'environment' section as 'geography' either. As a section it talks about general policies of the EU, with a couple of examples. Actual physical geography is pretty irrelevant to it. I did place environment and geog lower down, but Lear moved tham back up again. Lear, perhaps you would care to explain why? Sandpiper (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

Guys, while I sympathise with your arguments I have serious problems with the action recenty taken by splitting geography and environment and moving a much shortened geography section backwards. This is for several reasons: (1) There are already more then enough main sections (in my opinion 10 excluding see also is the max to maintain a useful structure); the recent change created an 11th, this is not ok. (2) The new geography section is too short for a main section (2 short paragraphs) and is not acceptable in its current form. (3) The structure has been carefully constructed as a holistic idea. The current changes are haphazard and do distort the article (4) There was clearly no consensus for this change, changing it while the discussion is ongoing is not a good idea. As a result if I were to review the current article I would fail it as a good article; while I still stand by the Good Article classification of this article a while back. In summary overlooking the current changes (which are good faith I have no doubt) I think the article has degraded rather than improved since the GA review. That can not have been the intention, so where did it go wrong? Arnoutf (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1 and 2 Personally I don't really think geog should be a main heading, but it has failed to find a home yet. I think the info in the very short version is best partnered with the demographics section and could happily sit in there as another subsection. It is essentially statistical info presumably intended to give the reader some idea of scale about the EU. I think the current 'law' should be amalgamated back into 'governance', as it once was, as a very important main section about institutions. If anything, I think law should go with the governance intro and politics be separate, but I am happy with the three together.(see proposal below)

3) Any changes I make are not haphazard. My intention is always to collect together information which is related, and to present the whole lot in a way where one thing follows on naturally from the last. So, broadly, the most fundamental information first and the most peripheral last. First, what the EU is, then who makes it up, how it works, what it does, facts and figures. I feel very strongly that this article can not afford to say the same thing twice over in separate sections. If I was writing it to a word limit I would not waste any words on saying things twice which I could use to say something extra. Placing geography at the top of this article frankly baffled me, apart from the members info it is not central information.

4)I don't mind people making assessments of articles as good/featured/whatever, but I am not a fan of picky approval criteria which rely on having exactly the correct number of sections, or precisely summarising a 'main article'. I make sections because they look balanced, or even just a 'placeholder' as an excuse to mention a main article which is relevant but just too long to cover here. (for example, I think there ought to be a good, relevant and quite long physical geography article somewhere, just not on this main page) If you have an existing holistic scheme for the page I would be interested to see it explained, because I havn't come across one yet. What I have been doing is tidying up and getting to know the article. Wiki articles evolve randomly:I can't say how this article has been in the past, only how I see it might be better than it is now. As to debating, it is important, but so is demonstrating what can be done and fiddling about until things sort themselves into order. Sandpiper (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that geography may find a life as a secondady heading section, demographics is NOT the place for it. Demographics is not mere statistical information, it is population charateristics. You could as easily argue to merge Economics into Demographics as much in Economy is about numbers as well. Arnoutf (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sports vote, what now?

The straw poll ballot has ended, the question asked was;

Should the sports section be left as it is now (as in the currently locked version) and the consensus of an independent review regarding the merit of the whole or part of the said sports section be obtained and any such independent review be binding on the future permissible content of the article?

The voting here shows a 6 to 2 vote for the motion (with one apparent abstention / refusal to vote}, that seems to give a "U-2" consensus - so my question is, where do we go from here, are people going to accept this or not? SouthernElectric (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone established exactly how an informed review of the question might be obtained. The previous GA etc review struck me as hot on technical style points but a bit lacking on critique of the actual content. It was also my impression that the only vote which mattered was that of Lear, who didn't vote.User:Sandpiper

We need a group, like on FA, to make sure we have a range of experience editors. Risk of having a newbie come and do it all is too great. - J Logan ^t: 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, think we're going a tad off with consensus-2 (which is a tad closer to consensus-4). Of those two who voted against, I think the main problem was (correct me if I'm wrong) accepting an opinion not yet given. That doesn't stop us asking for the opinion but we should keep in mind that could gain a greater consensus if the opinion and argument is made well, rather than accepting them as outside. - J Logan ^t: 11:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think my own main objection was that the existing sport section needs copyediting and should not be left word for word as is. But I am also concerned how an informed external consensus on this might be obtained, since the most knowledgeable and interested people are already here? Sandpiper (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me say here that I recognise your concerns myself but I also recognise that we need a way out of this dispute/impasse and the suggestion of an external view (for all it's possible faults) does seem to be the best way forward. SouthernElectric (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps one course of action would be if the sides worked together on creating a subpage which described the dispute and proposed alternatives to resolve it as succinctly as possible. After that is done, uninvolved editors could be invited to vote. henrik•talk 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I created the page at European Union/sports dispute, and copied the current version, and my own preferences there. I propose to freeze the current sport version (ie subsection of culture, current text and image) and fight it out outside view of the reading community. Arnoutf (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this idea moving somewhere? I see nothing from Lear there yet. Can we get the damn opinion then close this debate? - J Logan ^t: 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect anything to be concluded in a hurry. But if Lear wants to boycot the debate, it is his right not to have his voice heard. Sandpiper (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Before unprotecting, I would just like to remind all participants that this is one of the 250 most viewed pages on wikipedia, with over 200 000 pageviews per day. Having a dispute is fine, but please don't disrupt one of our most viewed articles while doing so - if possible, keep obtrusive tagging to a minimum and discuss things on the talk page first.

There seems to be a rough consensus to keep the current sports section as it is for now, and request external review of it. I hope this can be respected and other areas of the article improved in the meantime. henrik•talk 12:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I respect your argument, but I think you misinterpret the situation slightly. It seems acceptable to keep the current sports section for many (including me) for the moment only, although most of us agree the version is not good (including me again). We look for review to resolve the dispute; and hope to find a way out, even if that means expanding, or if it confirms deletion of the whole section (the outspoken wish of many who accepted the poll). The reason why the current version is maintained is that we want to freeze the situation so review can be conducted on a stable version. Arnoutf (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Side note (anthems and paraphenalia)

If anyone wants a break from arguing about this article, I just want to give you a heads up on the WP:EU advert, drop by the project talk page if you have a mo please, thanks.- J Logan ^t: 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Or listen to this....[7] Lear 21 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps make a nice warm winter fire with all those leftover copies of the dead constitution. --Simonski (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh but doesn't it make you feel proud! Don't you just want to stand up and salute that EU flag you have hanging over your desk and sing along! Isn't nationalism the reason why the EU was created! :) - J Logan ^t: 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Without wandering into particularly controversial territory, to an extent yes it was, because some countries couldn't seem to keep their nationalism in check. Being nationalistic and supporting the EU is not a contradiction in terms - see the good old SNP in this respect. And anyway, those with the strongest pro-European views are ironically also nationalist in a sense, in viewing Europe and Europeans as superior to the rest of the world. The average European's view on America, anyone? --Simonski (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent chap Beethoven, though I think it needs a bit more 'concert hall' and rather less 'pc speaker'. I recall objecting earlier to the page advertising the adjective 'european' as meaning 'citizen of the european union', which it certainly does not mean. Now, shouldn't there be a section for anthems? Sandpiper (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

EU facts 2/28/06

Facts from the EU Commision, thought they might be good information for the various EU county articles and possibly this article also...Bronayur (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_nt1.asp?d=0&i=41066&L1=0&L2=0&a=41291 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronayur (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note on euro images

SE, I don't see how an image of the ECB building has less tokenism than an image of banknotes. It is just a temporary building where the bank sits where as the euro is the currency itself in the hands of several million Europeans. While I admit a picture is still a token, I wouldn't consider the ECB an improvement. It certainly doesn't aid understanding any better for a start.- J Logan ^t: 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to fight on this one, but I preferred the image of coins to notes, and notes to the signboard in front of a building. Sandpiper (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I went for the coin because it is more iconic, it is a euro, the euro, one euro. Far more striking than a bunch of notes I'd say, stands out more on the page. - J Logan ^t: 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And on SE's proposal just now, although it looks very flashy I think it should stay in the navbox. Maybe stylish but it doesn't even show the whole coin, I don't think it adds anything. What is wrong with the whole coin?- J Logan ^t: 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because who doesn't know what a coin looks like! This is a presentational issue not a content issue - eye candy in other words - something that will (hopefully) make people who would otherwise not do so, stop and read the sections text. This whole article could stand without any images (bar the member states map perhaps) but it needs images that will entice the unknowledgeable reader to read more than the introduction before giving up. As for the image not showing the whole coin, so what, the image of the brigade doesn't show the whole bridge and nor does the image of Mont Blanc show the whole mountain - are you going to suggest that they are replaced?! SouthernElectric (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes it could stand without any images but still showing what the currency looks like can be informative. People can actually recognise it, plenty people in this world can't. So I would say it does have some value in that, granted not vital but it is better than anything else thus far.- J Logan ^t: 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is one flaw in that argument, to do as you suggest (for the reason you say) would mean having 14 images, one image for each side of the notes and coins for each of the 13 member states plus one image for the common side!... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Em, no, even on coins with just one set of sides it is not obligatory to show both. This is why they have a common side, so Wikipedia doesn't get clogged up with images - they thought ahead those cleaver people.- J Logan ^t: 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Err yes, think about it, if only the common side is shown and someone sees a real Euro note or coin common side down they won't "recognise it"... SouthernElectric (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is getting a tad silly now, I mean the same is true for notes and we aren't running a recognise your currencies centre here, it is just a picture. One side is better than one and I think that is more useful than recognising the temporary HQ of the ECB. Besides, it is the most iconic side, which they will connect to the topic if they have seen it before.- J Logan ^t: 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's my point, we are not running a recognise your currencies centre here, we don't need to show the face of the Euro, never m,ind it's many faces... SouthernElectric (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It links it with the article though, it helps if we have some connection to the real world and people are very visual and won't read all of this. If they have seen it, or will see it in future, it is a visual link between that real life and this text. You don't get that with the ECB, the euro is everywhere though.- J Logan ^t: 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in with my opinion, I really preferred the image of the (full) Euro coin. I just felt it was so much better. I think the current half-Euro pic is actually a bit ugly! --Simonski (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Governance and Law

Sorry guys, but I'm at it again. This is a long article and it needs to get rid of repetition. There is quite a bit of stuff in 'governance' which is repeated or approached from a different angle in 'law'. We can't really afford to go over the different types of regulation or codecision vs whatever it is threee times over in the article, so I think these two sections will have to be merged. Tentatively I would keep heading governance and break some extra sections inside it. I think the intro on 'justice' would work as introduction to the whole section (talking about the treaties), then the current 'governance' section about institutions. 'courts' at the end of the stuff from 'institutions' about the parliament. the additional detail about types of 'legislation' should be integrated with the current last para of 'governance', which talks about the same thing. At the moment there is a whole collection of main article tags at the top of these and hopefully we can split them a bit to the smaller subsections. Sandpiper (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The only overlap I can see is the last para of governance, and that is a very basic over view! So, why? I don't see why we need to merge them, right now we have a good clear system from what I can see, the divisions you have mentioned do give that already and we do we have to keep splitting things into smaller sections all the time? Breaks the flow and isn't needed.- J Logan ^t: 10:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Social policy vs. Social issues vs. Culture

The EU (institutions) make Social policy, groups like NGO's campaign on Social Issues (often to get the EU to make better policies) whilst citizens of each country and or ethnic group have their Culture - thus, in my opinion, the level two heading should be "Social policies" due to the fact that this article is really about the institution of the EU and not either the land mass that makes up individual member countries or the people who inhabit the land mass (both these issues should really be dealt with at the country article level. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with southern, a good way of drawing the distinction. The subsections, including culture, sport or environment, are all things which might have been general social issues, but the text we have here specifically highlights policies/actions of the EU. Sandpiper (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How about, "Misc"?- J Logan ^t: 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not really... SouthernElectric (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriuosly? no, because it doesnt tell the reader anything.Sandpiper (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Environment section

The "Environment" section needs to be a section by itself, the reason I say this is because environmental issues stray into most (if not all) other sections, it really doesn't sit happily as a sub-section in any one section due to this. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I havn't yet tried sorting out research/energy/environment. I agree they interact and the article may perhaps be reorganised a bit to make them more individual. The environmental information basically amounts to a policy of the EU. I don't know whether the EU sees it as one policy area, but it is something which matters to the public so it makes sense to me to talk about it as a topic. If we have one main heading of 'social policy', then I think environment ought to be inside it rather than standing alone. but I don't have a fixed view on how this end of the article ought to be organised. Sandpiper (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the dilemma but what ever happens it really doesn't fit under the "Social Policies" (or what ever...) heading - and certainly not under a culture heading! SouthernElectric (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For structure/readability of the whole of the article there should not be more than 10 main (level 1) sections (excluding refs see alsos etc). Each of these sections should have a relevant length. We are currently at 11, so if you want to split of environment something has to go. Arnoutf (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that set in stone though, guide line are just that, guide lines, also this article has already shown up that it can't always fit the normal 'country' style guide. If a level 2 (not level 1, that's the article/page title!) heading has to go, why can't the level two 'Member states' be made a level 3 heading within the level 2 history section? Having the sections laid out in that order would still read correctly whilst if the list was based on accession date rather than alphabetical order it would fit well into the history of the EU. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I liked the egalitarian approach of an alphabetical list, but also there is a sort-of chronological list in the history section where it mentions countries joining as it goes along. Sandpiper (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the global warming bits go with energy, which already talks about it, the waste spill goes with law, as that is about criminal law which we can expand on if need be, and the rest is renamed 'health'. Social policies could be renamed 'social impact'.- J Logan ^t: 10:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But they all over lap, (waste) land fill can cause 'Global warming' (due to Methane emissions etc.), transport contributes too (due to fossil fuel use), the economy contributes by using excess processing (causing both excess waste and energy use), sport contributes by using energy (Lear's beloved football could play all their matches during daylight hours rather than under flood-lights...) and so on. As I said, it doesn't really sit happily as a sub heading under anything other than the article title. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying get rid of it, environment comes under so many different things we might as well spit it all up and call the rump "health". Hence avoiding the problem. We just stick it all under a title generic enough to cover it and just don't give a damn that there is overlap, it isn't the end of the world.- J Logan ^t: 11:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that environmental policy etc, relevant to a section subject, are dealt with within the subject sections I can live with that. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Brr. I think the environment is probably a relatively minor aspect of EU activity per se, though rather more important than eg sport. I would place it equally important to religion. Looked at from an external perspective, the environment issue is very important and will have a major impact on the EU and the rest of the world in the coming decades. It is also topical (always in the news!), so it is something we ought to cover as a collected topic, somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I reckon the environment is a major aspect for the EU actually, most national environmental legislation is from the EU and it is always on the agenda, look at the manifestos of all the parties, and it is getting bigger. It is a role everyone says the EU should do more on. WHich is why I put together the environment section and would like it to say, but it is getting dispersed and is so connected to others and we are having trouble on where to put it>- J Logan ^t: 13:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Environment, or Climate Change as it should be called if you ask me, is now a major policy consideration of the EU and has to be reflected in the article. I think in a post-Reform Treaty EU we're seeing that they (the EU institutions and the Member States) are coming out and saying that there are a few main things that are to be focused on in future - one of them being Climate Change, whilst others include stuff like sorting out the political situation in Serbia and so on. Definitely post-Reform Treaty the impression that is being given is they are starting to try and focus on things that are actually important to their citizens. Anyway, point being - Environment shouldn't be in Geography, it should be down as a Policy somewhere. --Simonski (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Improvement?

Please compare this version (A) with this one (B).

Be honest and look at the whole article, read the story and look at the structure. Which is the better?
Being honest I think B on the whole is better. That is the version of 16 October which gained GA status. The version A is of today. I think many of the ideas implemented recenty were just not mature enough and have been implemented with good intentions, but the ideas being immature at the time of implementation. While boldness is in principe good, this is not satisfactory, and some effort to achieve agreement on important changes (more than 1 day to allow editors to respond) is desperately needed. Arnoutf (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, ignoring your typo (A is the older version), I actually think the article follows better now, don't get hung up on what a passed GA review said please (unless you want a stagnant article). Yes there are issues with the new layout and content but it's only been 4 or 5 days since editing recommenced, get it a few more days at least. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The principle is change is not always a good thing. Stagnant no but there is no reason to keep changing things over and over. Recent suggestions, like merging law and governance, don't really matter and we just end up going in circle as you guts propose another new thing then someone like Lear opposes and then we argue about it for ages and end up no better than before. Can people please just stop fiddling so much and concentrate on what is vital rather than their personal preference. If new stuff keeps getting proposed I'll have to start siding with Lear, in fact if an agreement isn;t reached on the sports section I'll actually support him in keeping the whole lot as is, it really isn't worth destroying this article over.- J Logan ^t: 10:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt simply siding with Lear in order to stop changes would actually accomplish anything. Just because SE or Sandpiper's names aren't listed at the top of the page as editors who can help with the page, doesn't mean that their contributions count for any less. At least SE and Sandpiper can be bloody reasoned with! Surely what is best done here is in the meantime leave it how it was (the setup) except for the Member States bit keeping its new number 2 position, and then we can have a discussion here on whether the structure should be changed elsewhere. Considering GA status isn't really that hard to get, and the crap that sneaked into parts of it, relying on the fact that the old structure got GA doesn't buy it for me. Look at the EU pages that have FA status, they've all got completely different setups from one another. So lets discuss rather than make any threats! --Simonski (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(Guys, check the page header, the magic of wiki has been at workSandpiper (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 13:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And actually, to be honest, I agree on the whole that B is the better version. Obviously there are some parts which don't need restructured that badly, but things like the Environment section always appearing so randomly at the start just have to change! At the end of the day, one of the main things said at Wikipedia is, if you dont' want to see your work edited, don't submit work to the page. At least be open to discussion I think. --Simonski (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

They are though. Anyway, can we at least get some direction. A number of points we agree need to be sorted and then we try for FA. Rather than get half way through one point then someone brings up five more and we fight about them too. From as far as I can see;

1. Generic future of sports section: seeking external opinion
2. Location of environment section
3. Location of geography section
4. Merge between Gov & Law
5. Heading for sections Culture, Sport, Education and possibly Environment.

Are there any other points people want to be addressed? Otherwise I say we just concentrate on these then run for FA. - J Logan ^t: 11:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, if any editor is more interested in gaining a 'FA Barn-star' then I really do suggest that do so in a less complex, less emotive and less vandal prone article. This article will always be in one form of flux or another, that is the nature of the beast - heck when MEP's can't agree how the hell does anyone expect WP editors to do so! SouthernElectric (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with those fecking barnstars, I want this article to reach FA because it is a decent external standard on if this is up to scratch, both so we know the standard here is good and so people visiting the page know that. I resent the accusation. - J Logan ^t: 12:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact I'm expecting this to fail FA eventually on grounds of instability, the endemic vandalism, but it is the principle of it passing the other criteria.- J Logan ^t: 12:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, aiming towards a FA (or what ever) is good, but allowing the desire of FA status to get in the way of the natural editing process is not - indeed the opening comment in this thread was to the effect of 'We got GA with the old layout so perhaps it's best not to change it', totally irrational IMO! Sorry. SouthernElectric (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Logan, what did you mean "They are though", I'm confused! (edit- ah, I see, their names are up at the top of the page - ok well you know what I meant!) I think first things first definitely is to stabilise the page. So I'd say discuss the structural changes further here, and come to some sort of agreement before implementing them. As I've said, I can be persuaded either way as long as the member states are the 2nd thing and the Environment section doesnt appear so randomly in the article. --Simonski (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SE, that was not what was said, it was that the older version looked better than what we have now, and that it may no longer reach GA standard. Please take these feelings into account as the "natural editing process" has consisted of a total overhaul of the article every time a new editor comes along, just look through the history. We need some stability, an agreed durable layout that we can stick by so we can fine tune it. If we keep amking huge changes it will be riddled with small errors. That is not a good article in anyone's books.- J Logan ^t: 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Version A (the older) has a more convincing structure. Please note that encyclopaedic articles can´t be much valued by constant change. Read [8] and understand why the EU is country-like and why it makes sense to orientate on comparable country articles. The location and topographical features (Geography) are dominantly prioritized at the top of those articles. As a GA article it also follows Wikipedia recommendations to organize an article according to its introduction. The location (Geography) is mentioned in the 1. sentence of the introduction. That is why Geography is among the top sections in the EU article. Environment as a subsection most dominantly includes issues associated with Geography . There is no convincing reason why Environment is included in social policy. Lear 21 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, stop adding nonsense, the EU is not a country, take your Federalist cap off and start editing with a NPOV!

I am gratified by your comment, but version B is the one with Geography at the end. Did you mean you preferred that, or was it a mistake? ( ah, just had an edit conflict, I see you fixed that mistake)

I favour geography somewhere at the end. The EU has similarities to a country only in certain narror respects. Anyone writing a country article does not start by explaining what a country is. They may detail the peculiarities of the government of each particular one, but in general everyone has an idea what sort of beast is being talked about and this does not need to be explained. On the other hand few people understand what the EU is, and we have to explain that first. Geography is only marginally relevant to the EU because 1) it has no territory of its own, 2)it covers such a huge extent that there is very little which can usefully be said in a paragraph or two, 3) the very patchy nature of the EUs areas of competence means that geography doesn't have much to do with it, 4)anyone wanting to know about European geography would not look under the heading EU. They might try 'Europe', or a particular COUNTRY. I will mention for the third time that the wikiproject on countries does not recommend putting a geography section at the start of an article. The CIA seems to do so, but perhaps that is because they have an eye towards the need to invade them or conduct covert operations?

I do not believe anyone in their right mind should write an introduction to an article which exactly uses one sentence summarising each following section, precisely in order of appearance. Such would be ridiculous. Some sections are not even sufficiently important to deserve mention in an introduction. But even if one did choose to match the running order of the article to the appearance of information in the introduction, I do not see any mention there of the topography of Europe, the EU or any member country. On the basis of making the article mirror the introduction (surely cart before horse?), there should be no geography section at all. The introduction quite properly starts by mentioning member states, and by your reasoning that is why we would also want to put the member states section right at the start. I agree with others that it sensibly follows after history, and if being slavish, one could argue that in fact the introduction mentions 'political and ecconomic community' before mentioning the members, so this might be seen as justifying a history lesson first to explain what it is. But this is all counting angels on the head of a pin stuff. Environment is included under policy because what is being discussed is the policy of the EU and how it affects environment. The EU doesn't have an environment, it has a policy. But making it a subsection is really about it not being sufficiently important to be a main section in its own right. As a subsection, I argue it is better listed alongside other policies, and in a separate section to that listing general facts and figures about the EU.Sandpiper (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See Talk section "Lear´s edits" Lear 21 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear's edits.

Further comments have been made on Lears own talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernElectric (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Lear but the EU is not a country so it does not and should not follow the normal country style guide - indeed making a point of not allowing the article to look like country articles would help reinforce the point that the EU is not (yet) a country in it's own right. Geography is actually not really that important, just as it's not important (and in some ways, irrelevant) to both the NATO and UN articles. SouthernElectric (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What is a country.- J Logan ^t: 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually a piece of land with one sovereign owner capable of holding on to it against all other claims?Sandpiper (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotland is described as a country, as is Great Britain, the United Kingdom and Ireland.- J Logan ^t: 11:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But they are all sovereign nations in there own right, something the EU is not, whilst there is no doubt that the EU behaves like (and certain people would like it to be) a sovereign nation in it's own right, at the moment it is not and thus for an editor to try and make it look like it's a country in this article is placing a personal point of view into the article even if it's only trying to use an inappropriate WP style guide. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So Wales and Ireland (not the Republic which is why I wikilink) are on a par with France in international law?- J Logan ^t: 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not, but they would have more claim to be a nation state than the EU in its current form, or alternatively, can legitimately follow the country template because they were at one time an independent sovereign state. If you ask me, there should be a "Regional organisation" template made for Wikipedia, so that the AU, EU, ASEAN etc pages could all look similar. Ahhh, the Afro. I wish the EU used the Afro! --Simonski (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and as I have said before, the EU has more in common (organisation wise) with the UN, NATO or NAFTA, if we need to follow a layout style already in in use then we should be following that sort of style rather than making the article look like something the EU is not. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Scotland and Wales are described as countries in much the same way as dowager duchesses are still duchesses, or Queen Elizabeth the Queen mother, was still titled queen, despite not beeing the same thing as when her husband was alive and King. It is just too embarassing to take away the title despite it no longer being quite true. The EU is not in the position of having once been a country, it is still trying to become one. Sandpiper (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get rid of the use of the word "country", as the word means any number of things and not what we're talking about.- J Logan ^t: 18:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So would it be better to say that the EU is not a sovereign nation? SouthernElectric (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, then in that case, what is a sovereign nation? - J Logan ^t: 10:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Its what Scotland and Wales once were, but the EU has never been. That should really suffice for the discussion? I mean to me a sovereign nation would be any state that has been recognized in the past or the present as independent nation state. The EU, rightly, has never claimed to be one. The only confusion stems from the fact that there are people out there who (and everybody is entitled to their opinion) would like the EU to become a federal united states of Europe, but sometimes mix up the idea of what they would like the EU to become with what the EU presently is. --Simonski (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep at this as long as you use the not-a-country argument rather than a more precise discussion on this article.

What would constitute a state being 'recognised'? - J Logan ^t: 12:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Logan, what do you actually want it refereed to, a Federal state... How about YOU telling us what you think a country is? SouthernElectric (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be referred to as anything, I just hate shouty arguments using words that don't apply to the subject. EI-is/is-not-a-country shouting matches don't actually have anything to do with the issue, only the perception, which is not a good ground for writing an article between editors of two different ideas.- J Logan ^t: 14:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is hardly anything controversial about stating the simple fact that the EU isn't a country. As for "recognised", that would be a reference to the fact that a majority of nation states consider that territory to be a state as well. I don't get what is so confusing/debatable about this. On Logan's page you can see clear as day there that he thinks its a federation already, and fair enough he's entitled to his opinion, not one that I would agree with myself of course. We're not talking philosophy here, we're talking from a practical, and international law perspective. --Simonski (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The EU today as an administration AND as a community of 27 member countries has developed an unprecedented high degree of integrated state/country - like conditions. This level in terms of policies, institutions, economics, even in integrated foreign relations surpasses most probably more than 100 UN officially recognized countries. This analysis of the EU state of being is independently accurate of ideological attitudes towards the subject EU and has been recognized by external non-Wikipedia authorities. If new editors are unable or unwilling to accept or understand this factual reality they will likely to find themselves in a constant confrontation to the editors who already integrated the actual EU conditions to their knowledge. Lear 21 (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, how do you justify arguing that the EU '..surpasses most, probably more than 100 UN officially recognised countries.' How? it has no land, no independant border controls, no means of granting or refusing citizenship, negligible tax raising powers, a miniscule and externally controlled budget, essentially no foreign policy, no army, no police or security services, no independant means of creating new legislation except in narrowly defined areas almost all to do with internal trade and even then only in accord with strict international agreements. Do not confuse the fact that many European nations do similar things for similar reasons as meaning they are all one state. Sandpiper (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Don´t worry Sandpiper you have already proofed not being able to understand or learn. You just keep asking questions without answering them yourself or trying to accept credible external sources. Note that this is no quizshow or educational institution. Lear 21 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great answer there Lear. You sure showed him (/sarcasm). What's that, ah thats right you had absolutely no basis for the 100 UN state comment, what a surprise. Typical Euro-nationalistic babble. Last I checked the Iraq war proved the EU is about as united on foreign policy as chalk is with cheese. I really don't get why some people have to be so anal about the EU and can't just be happy saying its just something else, there is no established description, but it works and is a good thing. It would make defending the EU against unfair/ignorant criticism so much easier. --Simonski (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just on my page, if you look into that you'll see the rest of my argument. And I am not trying to be philosophical about it. Anyway, I am not saying we should call it a federation and use the country layout, I am simply being critical of the established argument which can be misleading. But to Lear, the country template was dropped whatever you call the EU, and it does no harm to think about that is most important to the EU rather than what everyone else does. Readers coming to a page on the EU will not be looking for details on geography and sport but for the law, politics and economy because that is what the EU is perceived to be about. If you want to know about geography then you go to the Europe articles. We have to cater to the reader, not what we'd like them to look at. But to the others, Lear is not alone in his opinion and there are plenty of elements to the EU beyond law and economics, I see no harm in giving way on some issues if it reaches an agreement to stabilise this page. Something is better than nothing.- J Logan ^t: 18:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody who is familiar with how the EU works would deny that there is more to it than economics Logan. Just not as much as some people would make out. You hit the nail on the head though when you said the article is to be objective, describing what the EU is and what the EU does rather than what goes on in the territory of the constituent member states of the EU on a non-EU level. I mean technically this page, or indeed a page in a real encyclopedia, might have "EU" at the top, stuff about the EU, and then a section on each of the constituent countries below it. But that obviously isn't how Wikipedia is handling things. I can imagine people like Lear being frustrating for federalists such as yourself Logan in how they get their views across (ie. an unyielding "I am right" attitude), but it does have to be remembered that for those occupying the middle ground, people who are so analy federalist are just as annoying as the tabloid based eurosceptics. --Simonski (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Why isn't there a 'criticism' section in this article? The EU is quite widely criticised for a number of reasons. 131.251.134.131 (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ff m 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but be sure to cite and reference any such content, any content that is nothing more than simple undiluted rants (either pro or anti EU) will most likely be either copy edited at best or simply reverted. One other thing to remember though, it's far better to place subject specific criticism (such as criticism of, for example, Monetary union), within that section rather than trying to create an artificial section called "Criticism". The purpose of this article is not to be a political soapbox for either pro or anti the EU propaganda, but to inform the reader what the EU is, what it does and does not do and how it does so. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above reply, assuming good faith, if you are serious about editing Wikipedia and making constructive edits to this and other Wikipedia articles I would seriously suggest that you obtain a user account due to other editing activity on the same IP number. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth did he come from?

And lord not the criticism section thing again, how many times has this come up. Note that criticism sections are discouraged under WP policy.- J Logan ^t: 23:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Through the Ether?!... SouthernElectric (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Continual evolution and improvement vs. getting bogged down in a GA status

If having GA status means so much then I suggest that we revert this whole article back to the version that got GA and then ask for full protection, if we don't do that the we need to accept that this article will change and that change is a good thing even if GA status quality is lost at times. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to have a fixed article. My main issue for raising the issue is that some of the recent changes come across as revolution rather than evolution. Evolution has several elements; small accumulated changes, and discontinuation of usuccesful changes (ie changes that are no improvements). It is the second part I am worried about. Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Or you could revert the whole article to the version which got FA (which is entirely different). NO? surely not because everyone thinks it would no longer be acceptable? Sandpiper (talk)

The point is, are the changes helping? Not everyone thinks they are. Many changes are being carried out because they are personal preference, not because they are necessary for improving the article. Everyone is getting a tad to hot under the collar here and fighting over small things. Calm down and accept your version is not going to be the version, and most of all accept that if you are prompting a response against your work, then there might actually be something wrong with it rather than the person complaining.- J Logan ^t: 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop stop stoppppppppppppppp please everybody! I have to admit I'm completely confused by all the structural changes. If everybody was here just to briefly summarise what they think needs changed then it might help. --Simonski (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What needs changed in your opinion? (summaries only please!)

In my opinion, Environment should not part of Geography, instead falling under the category of a key EU policy, social policy to be precise. From the version Lear keeps reverting to, I would say the thing I would disagree with heavily is the placement of Environment at the top. --Simonski (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm actually quite happy with the current (as of this version) section layout except that I would prefer Education to be under the Demographics (or, ideally, on it's own level together with Science and research), it certainly doesn't belong under "Culture". Talking of Culture, I could live with a brief sports section under that heading but would like eventually like to have a section on media to (yes media could go under other headings but on the whole many equate media with cultural issues). SouthernElectric (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainly ditto to SE above, though if it will get an agreement then I'll support it. A also supports Edu&R section together, so a stand alone for it? We would then have a lot of sections - in that case I would reverse my previous opposition to Gov&Law. And just to clarify, I see nothing wrong with keeping geography at the top, it isn't doing any harm and its not worth fighting about-so long as environment is kept below.- J Logan ^t: 11:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Geo and Environment belong together at the top as it was. Edu and Research should be together either in Culture or as standalone. A new media section in Culture is reasonable depending on the content. Lear 21 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

makes sense to me to place education and research together as one policy area. As they are written now, I don't see they are demographics (ie statistics) or culture. Geography para on land area, coastline, mountain height belongs in/with demographics. Environment is deserving of being on a par with, and grouped with, energy/infrastructure/regional development/ed and research, all of which are general development policies. Agriculture is an oddball because it was once 2/3 of all spending, still 1/3: its aim was/is somewhat different but arguably it could still fit as one subsection in this same general policies section. Probably 'competition' should be moved to another subsection under 'economy', and the title 'economic policy' changed to 'development policy', or something better. Government and law need to be amalgamated. Geography per se is not a usefull main section for an article about the EU. I respect the comment by one of the reviewers that Justice is an important topic in its own right. Foreign affairs will become important, and indeed the EU does make international agreements. Sandpiper (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the above

Right, going from the above (to which people can add to still obviously), Lear surely you could just say "fine" here and accept a couple of the views just stated - given in particular that if you were to do so I think we'd finally have an end to any significant debate that destabilises the page. (Assuming SE that I'm right in inferring that you would give way on a couple of things) From what I gathered, SE has offered a compromise position, would be helpful if you could do so here too. I think given, as discussed, the page is oversized already the introduction of any new sections should be avoided though SE. --Simonski (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes look good, I've tweaked a few points. One thing I'm not sure of though is the current geography/demographics merge, seems very disjointed and messy. I think it is fine to leave it with member states really but if it must go udner demo I think it should be in a clearly defined section.- J Logan ^t: 11:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Side point on environment/climate change. Climate change may be caused by non-environmental factors but the section isn't discussing the EU's environment but rather its policy. It is "environmental policy", don't think there is a "climate change policy".- J Logan ^t: 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and some of those policies will affect economic, development, environmental policies - or even all three at once - that is why I feel that CC needs to have it's own sub heading, the EU might well have environmental policies about the 'yellow back spotted toad' (Hypth' exp') that has nothing to do with CC, in fact the 'yellow back spotted toad' might actually benefit from CC! SouthernElectric (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious though you're going to have to find a middle ground here with Lear (and whoever else), so I'm guessing one of the first things you'd compromise over is the need for a CC subsection? I think the article could survive without it surely! --Simonski (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's only Lear, if the article can survive without a CC subsection then it will survive even better without the irrelevance of a sports subsection then!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernElectric (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is lear objecting to a CC section? I'd be surprised. Though to be honest I've lost track of what he is supposed to be objecting to. I'll be happy with CC and so on if it gets an agreement, its no big deal. On what Lear has said in his summary though, the only real out standing issue is geo and environ at the top, I am fine with geo but environ ought to be with the other policies. Could we perhaps compromise there Lear?- J Logan ^t: 11:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not actually sure what Lear is objecting to now (other than not being allowed to get away with WP:OWN), half the problem is Lear's failure to correctly use the edit summary to tell us what he has done without checking every ruddy word he has added or removed... As for Geo, I can live with it as a level 3 heading under a level 2 member states heading but not as a level 2 heading near the top of the article and certainly not within the first five headings. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was Research and education split??

There was clearly no consensus to split research and education. Nevertheless it was recently divided between culture and economy. There was no consensus about what was done to Geography.
I think the recent edits of this page are bold, blunt, offensive to people who try to reason, and in make the page worse rather then better. If you think such drastic changes are needed; create a page on the sideline where you create your perfect version before trampling all over the careful construction of the article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. No need to split it. Lear 21 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As there seems an overall idea to connect these two again, from the other discussions, I'll stick my neck out and merge them again, if someone objects revert.- J Logan ^t: 10:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't we create something like EU-identity. That could hold Culture, Sports, and E&R all as 2nd level headers. That would also allow us to merge 2 very short sections at level 1 to bring more balance in the article as a whole. Arnoutf (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think E&R is identity. Come on, research programmes? Erasmus yes, you could call that part of identity but even stuff like the Bologna process, I really isn't cultural. On EU-identity in general, if we could get some backing for a section it might be debatable but there is hardly anything on it besides speculation which will drag in POV claims.- J Logan ^t: 11:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How many new talk sections do we need? I'm lost!

Okay, can I just archive this whole lot then we have a talk page header for each header being discussed on the article. There are way too many new ones here branching off.- J Logan ^t: 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Give it a couple of days I think, I just want to see what exactly it is people are wanting changed/kept and whats causing all the fuss. --Simonski (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You can as well archive now as recent changes in the mainspace article are made with no attention whatsoever that what is said about these changes on this talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to the GDP figure

Can someone, who knows their way around the accepted reference work, please check the recent change to the quoted GDP figure made by an IP editor (62.243.176.52) here, it just seems one hell of a jump - from 15.8 trillion down to 16,574 billion US$). SouthernElectric (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't match with the ref just revert it, they're forever fiddling with the figures for POV reasons.- J Logan ^t: 18:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lisbon Treaty

I suggest to install a new section including the most significant details about the signed Lisbon Treaty. Even if not ratified it could be in force in 01.01.2009. The historical dimension and the degree of the EU evolution makes this Treaty worth a section on its own. I would suggest to place it in Governance or Legal system. Anyone willing to write or install the section is welcome. Lear 21 (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What, not prepared to write it yourself? How very unusual.

Personally I don't think it is worth it, there aren't many changes and we don't need yet another section, let people go to its article - its linked from the politics section.- J Logan ^t: 18:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming insane, how can it be argued that the article is already oversized and then people come up with wanting to have things like a media section or this idea. If people want to learn more about the Reform Treaty, surely they can go to that page. As it stands, what the Reform Treaty changes/does is incredibly complicated and I doubt it could be summarised efficiently and placed into this page easily. --Simonski (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a short section would be a good idea, perhaps as a subsection of "Institutions"? —Nightstallion 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am reminded that the constitution was also signed in a wave of excitement. Didn't cause many changes, however.Sandpiper (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely different situation though mate, this time the public have been excluded from any debate and barring the Irish presenting any obstacle, its going to be ratified. On one side, fair enough, the Reform is badly needed. On the other side, the whole process has been shockingly illegitimate. --Simonski (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain of that. Admittedly, it is a lot of posturing, but the conservative party are still kicking up quite a fuss about how labour had promised a referendum but then reneged. If there really was an election here before ratification was completed, then it just might get rejected here. Sandpiper (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Brown is stupid enough to call an election before 2009 with the poll ratings he currently has. Despite all that, however, the Treaty of Lisbon is certainly important enough to warrant a short paragraph. —Nightstallion 10:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it already mentioned somewhere? If not, then maybe a few sentences at most but I fear it is one of those things that will attract POV. But on Brown, do remember the Conservatives said they might hold a referendum after the treaty was ratified. - J Logan ^t: 10:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we can be pretty sure this one will be ratified as the EU just cannot afford not to. (I think that's why France and Netherlands did not go for a 2nd referendum). So yes, a different situation. Arnoutf (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I further suggest it´s mentioning as last sentence of the first intro para and as last sentence in the History section. Right now only Ireland seems to have a referendum on the Treaty with a potential of rejection. I assume that any edtitor recognizes the historical milestone to be as significant as the Treaty of Rome and Maastricht. Lear 21 (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Reform Treaty is anywhere near as significant as Rome and Maastricht which both changed the continent as we know it, but it goes without saying that obviously it must be mentioned in some form. I still think it doesnt need that much of a mention though given the indepth page on the Reform Treaty and for the other reasons I gave above. --Simonski (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider who gets preciously few details about the EU from my local media (I wouldn't know much, except for that 12th grade report I did on it, and for constantly reading European newspapers), I must say that this is the kind of information which ought to be included. The European Union is a quickly changing organization, and the imminent changes are important. I also think that the original constitution, and its failure, ought to be included, as they are. Information such as agriculture and structural policies are far less notable, IMHO. As such, the brief mention of the Lisbon Treaty is important too. However, I would argue for an inclusion of more such information, as it helps those unfamiliar with the politics of Europe to identify its direction, even if it means removing other sections (eg., Education and research, infrastructure, or sport sections, both of which we could entirely remove from the article, so far as I see). The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agriculture is less noticeable!? It is half the feckin budget! I don't know about anyone else but I'm not going to let the tabloids dictate what is notable in an encyclopaedia.

And to Lear on his history point, even if it is bound to happen, it has not yet happened so it is not yet history. Ergo, lets not jump the gun on the history section.- J Logan ^t: 11:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

@ Jlogan: The Treaty is officially signed by all member states now. There could be a second sentence mentioning the unfinished ratification process in History. It is clear that the ratification process and its media coverage will become an EU wide issue throughout the year 2008. @ Simonski: Your inability to estimate the historical dimension is the true "shockingly illegitimate" kind of awareness. Also: The Treaty has been developed by democratically elected leaders. Nothing wrong with the procedure. Lear 21 (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with Lear here. The treaty is signed and that should be acknowledged in the article. I added a single line at the end of the history section to that effect; I think that should suffice for now, as indeed the rest is in the future and further speculations are crystal-balling. About legitimacy, the procedure was not against any laws or rules. The dubious ethical dimension of asking the public for advice in a frst round and then being afraid of doing it again for the revised version, going against the majoritu of public opinion was indeed an issue in Dutch politics over 2007; unethical-perhaps or even likely - illegitimate-no. Arnoutf (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, don't make me laugh with your ignorance again like you did with the Competition comment a while ago. Go away and research what the Reform Treaty actually does - far less than Rome or Maastricht did (both huge turning points for the continent). Nobody will speak of Lisbon as a major turning point (though clearly you've ignored the fact that I did acknowledge it was still important) in the EU's history or anything, rather its been simply a process which has had to happen because the current EU rules were built for around 15 member states, not 27 (impossible to get unanimity on certain issues), and in general because the current setup is a bit of a mess. The next significant turning point for Europe will only come once the member states agree as to where the future of the EU lies (see Sarkozy's Wise Men committee), the Reform Treaty is simply a step towards the next move. As for the question on illegitimacy, it certainly can not be excluded that the behaviour of some of the Member States here has been so. At the very least, it could be argued that its been undemocratic re: referendum promises and so on. One could easily debate the fairness in EU decision making in general really, with the need to get France, Germany and the UK on board in order to really get anything done. --Simonski (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not go in there. We are here to build an article not to discuss different views on EU poltics/fairness. As I said above; no laws were broken, hence it was not illigimate (not withstanding the democracy/ethics involved). Only the future can tell whether the Lisbon treaty will be considered a founding treaty, let's not speculate and just insert a very brief reference to it. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the presumption probably ought to go with the expectation that the treaty will be ratified. Its existence and details are a fact, the only issue is whether it gets final go ahead, and people are interested in what it means. It should not be allowed to dominate this article, because I doubt most of what is written here will be affected by it. However, if it includes changes so that something here will become incorrect, then we ought to note there is an upcoming change. Sandpiper (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I provided a wikilink to the Lisbon treaty in my line, so the interested reader can find the future changes there.

Changes will only occur after jan 1st 2009, and then the information will only be incorrect because outdated. We will change that information when it happens, not before. Arnoutf (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually yeh, apologies, realised I was opening a can of worms there on the legitimacy issue. Anyhow, I wanted to add that I was just thinking - this is going to be an NPOV issue I reckon - the importance of the Reform Treaty in practice/principle (it'll be important not to get the two confused). Its completely up for interpretation I have to admit, obviously people like Lear are going to try and cling on to it as if it has kept the same importance that the Constitutional Treaty would have had, whereas I suppose I take the opposite view. I'm saying that mainly from a legal perspective as well I might add - since basically nothing much changes (bar the Charter and possibly Competition), its more like the EU is just tidying up its procedure etc. My point was really the Reform Treaty is important yes, but not by itself a Rome or a Maastricht. Something else would have to accompany the Reform Treaty changes in order to make it such a turning point. Hope thats clearer. In that respect, Lear I'm willing to admit if you would as well (though I'm sceptical you would) that the historical significance is open to interpretation. --Simonski (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sports review

Hi all, there seems some agreement that the sports section should be reviewed; and untill then not changed. While I agree in principal it is essential that the review is conducted very soon; it cannot be that a decision/sentiment for review results in the complete locking of a section. So either we start the review or we decide it is practically impossible to do so, and accept new editing in the section. Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is the {{Peerreview}} template that gets attached to the talk page requesting article review (or a section there of) by interested parties - bar the FA review perhaps that is the way forward? I agree that something needs to be done but would far prefer the section to remain dormant and bad than to reignite the issues and end up with the article locked again... SouthernElectric (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Make of it what you will, policy states that a page may not be repeatedly locked for the same content dispute. I presume that means we move on to banning repeat offenders. For my part, I would say this has been a very genteel dispute so far. Sandpiper (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Extensive deterioration and GA delisting

Within the first ten months of this year the EU article has slowly built up qualities in several aspects. Layout, references, comprehensiveness have improved and lead to GA status. The last month has experienced continual deterioration in all relevant aspects. Influenced by editors who have no edit history EU or politics related issues and neither indicate to build up such reputation. There is also no indication that these editors have internalized the most essential principals dealing with EU issues. The process leading to permanent instability and chaotic structure has not been prevented by several established editors with long still vivid involvement in EU related articles. There is no other choice to delist the article from it´s current GA status. Lear 21 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear, go read WP:OWN again, you still obviously do not understand WP policy on article ownership. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the article, if we'd just agreed those recent structural changes (which could have been done/be done through a bit more discussion) then there would be no more significant issues of disagreement. I have absolutely no intention to build up my Wikipedia "reputation" (I had to admit I chortled heartily at that one), I'm just quite happy hanging around this page and a couple of others giving my personal views on how this page can benefit. Given the balance of views that SE, Sandpiper and myself brought along, I would have said that if we had/do come to an agreement on how the page should be, that it would be easier for us all (with our different views/perspectives on the EU) to then defend the page against things like the bi-monthly "why isn't there a criticism section?" question etc. While you're reading WP:OWN by the way, it also might be worth checking the page on consenus... consenus changes over time. Don't like it? Then don't use Wikipedia. --Simonski (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, see the Barroso point made earlier. Poor guy wouldn't be allowed to edit this page in Lear's world. I'm sure he'd get a barnstar though for some good old POV edits! --Simonski (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Even furthermore, perhaps before deciding on the merit of one editor to another people should view the block logs for each editor, I'm quite happy to be judged on my blocks log, not sure if all the regular editors to this article would, even if they do consider themselves as the father of the article - and before any one person thinks that this is a civility attack on them, no, it's just a fact. SouthernElectric (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes Lear, if your so keen to be judged on past contributions, how about your log? Surely a good wikipedian would have a clean record? Anyway Lear, I remember you making similar comments to me before we got this to GA status - is your favourite band Status-Quo?

Hey, maybe we should invite Barroso though? See if he has something to ad. Then again he might end up trumpeting Lear with his empire comparison. Poor guy, he doesn't know how tabloid press works yet.

Back on topic though, there are only just a few more issues left and if we get out heads down we can sort them out and get a good compromise. Just concentrate on the issues and be imaginative. Lets see if we can get an agreement before Christmas?- J Logan ^t: 11:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't say how the quality of the article may have improved over the last ten months, but I do not see it has deteriorated in the last one. I came here because of a request to write a piece about agricultural policy. I found someone had beaten me to it, but there were a number of errors. There still are, I only bothered arguing about the main points and have not got back to that. Instead, I saw that there are a number of oddities about this article and areas where it should be organised differently. Perhaps some of this oddity is because some editors persist in trying to organise this as a country article. The suggestions on how to write such an article are entirely reasonable and in fact loosely encompass any version we have tried here. Nonetheless, the EU is not a country, and attempting to create sections which are essentially irrelevant, just because a typical country article would have them, are ill conceived. Some things, like sport, are not even mentioned in country articles and I don't understand how they have come to be here. Others, like geography, might be relevant to a country, but the EU and its history have had virtually nothing to do with the geography of Europe or its member states.

It may be the case that some editors here are blinkered by being themselves knowledgeable about the EU. A wiki article should not be written for the benefit of those already knowledgeable on a subject, and such people may not be able to see it with an outsiders eye. Any good wiki editor can contribute usefully to any wiki article. There are many online sources on the EU, and for the purposes of this article, largely a summary of others on wiki, it is not even necessary to look too far to find further information. What is needed is better organisation, and we have been seeking to attend to that. The simple fact that ,as I understand it, three new people have turned up here because of your attempts to get reviews and contributions, and they have disagreed with those already here, suggests that this article was not in such a finished form as you suggest. Sandpiper (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason there is a sports section even though there are few sports sections in court articles, is because Germany has a sports section. And, if you check is edit history, Lear rarely edits any articles aside from Berlin, Germany and European Union. Hence Lear's idea of a country article is Germany, hence he wants to make the EU like Germany (take that in whatever way you want) -no doubt that is why he welcomes a media section yet, like all things, he isn't prepared to write it himself as all he seems to be willing to do is rearrange what everyone else does.- J Logan ^t: 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting to too much, only this: The Germany article is one of the very few among the 100 most read articles (out of 2 millions) rewarded with the highest possible status, FA-Featured-article-of-the-day ! The layout and content has been independently copied throughout countless country articles. The same is true for the Berlin article and many city-articles who followed the concept....take that in whatever way you want. Lear 21 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest moving in and boldly changing stuff and then using WP:OWN against people who protest can almost be considered a hostile take-over, which by its wording alone is meant to say that new editors to an article should be careful not to use WP:OWN as a way to established their own ownership of the article.

Great work on Berlin and Germany, however the EU is neither a city nor a country. Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that, while I think Lear violates WP:OWN, that the bold changes have been slightly hostile - where there is no consensus. Though I think this is primarily due to editors jumping the gun mid discussion and engaging in edit wars before anything has been decided. I do sympathise though as Lear seems to have that effect on people. I would also just like to clarify I was not criticising the Berlin and Germany articles and they are fine in their area, just not for the EU - as A states, the EU is not a city nor a country.- J Logan ^t: 18:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

geographical statistics should be part of 'demographics'

The only part of the section originally listed as 'geography' which strictly belonged under that title was the paragraph about land area, coastline, etc. This is a short section of purely statistical background information. It clearly ought to be adjacent to the info currently listed under 'demographics', Perhaps people think this is a bad title and we should find something better to encompass everything better. Myself, I don't see a problem with geographical statistics being described as 'demographics of the EU'. Lear, why do you object to this information being placed alongside the essentially similar information on population, etc? Sandpiper (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument but I really don't think it is something people connect, if you come to an article and want geography you don't look under demographics. It is fine under member states, makes sense and isn't doing any harm. Especially if it helps get a compromise with Lear, it remains under member states but only as a level 2 header.- J Logan ^t: 16:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Logically, I prefer it as its own section adjacent to demographics if people insist no one would see demographics/geography in the index. It just has no reason to be at the top of the article. Sandpiper (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is one very good reason why geography can never be part of any demographics section: Geographical data is not Demographic data. We would not want to list any information on (let's say) Wines in a Steam Engine section either would we? Arnoutf (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now there we have a difficulty. To me, demographic data about a country would include things like land area, climate, coastal/mountainous etc. (not to mention GDP, trade partners etc etc). I tried looking at the wiki article on the subject and came to the conclusion it was wrong (and one or two others had already made comments). Sandpiper (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine for being technical, but does it really matter?- J Logan ^t: 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, I'm not sure if I am right or not. However, I am confident that I am correct organisationally. The point is to be presenting the figures about how big the EU is, number of bordering countries, climate, etc. alongside the figures on how many people there are, what languages they speak, what religions they follow. It is all general background statistics about the EU. Call it 'EU statistics' if you like and have a subsection geography. Geography just isn't important enough to justify a section. But if it must be one, then it should be immediately before the other demographic data. At least then I would consider it to be in the correct running order for a reader. Sandpiper (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As you correctly phrased on the demographics page, the key phrase in the definition of demographics is demography: the scientific study of human populations. The Geography section as structured now does not contain any relation to human populations (e.g. Mont Blanc will remain the same height regardless of human population); hence the section as written now is no demography (as it is geography). If the relation between the land, climate etc and human population is discussed; that might count as demographic data.

At JLogan, yes it does matter as we should be careful not to imply untruths (harmless as they may be). At Sandpiper again, background statistics... mmmm. Yes these are background statistics, but so are most economic parameters like GNP, so is energy use, so would be the number of spectators in soccer matches. I think that would be just too ambiguous to be a section header. To be honest, I think its current place (sub to member states) is not as bad as it could be Arnoutf (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On human populations, that is what I was wondering the first time Sandpiper mention this, as density etc as geographic information is dealt with under demographics. From the demographics article I have to say I can't come to the same conclusion, the only real geographic factor mention is "location of residence" - which is not mentioned in out geography section but it is mentioned in out demographics section. Is there any support from other users for moving geography to demographics? - J Logan ^t: 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with it would be that whilst for us it may be a case of "hmm, I suppose, why not, it gets the page moving again", its very, very likely that a new editor (or indeed another new bunch) would come along and go "What? Geography as Demographics? What? Geography? What? Demographics? What? In the same section? What?" and change it. Its not perfect, I'd accept it happily but is there any alternative? Could it not just have its own section (without Environment forming part of such a section)? --Simonski (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think practical considerations (ie moving the article forward) can never take preference over the scientific truth of the content (ie geography and demography are different sciences; neither is subordinate to the other and this should not be suggested in structural hierarchy). So on my account - no - this is not a good idea. Arnoutf (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lear violating edit summaries and the minor edit marker

Something has got to be done about Lear constant abuse of both the edit summary and minor edit tick box, article restructuring is NOT maintenance or a minor edit, a minor edit is something like a typo that when corrected doesn't change the meaning or flow of the article - changing the header level of a section or rearranging the article whole-sale (as was done a couple of days ago) and calling it "maintenance" is simple abuse of WP and needs to be stopped. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)