![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The way the largest cities section is organised, is ridiculous. For example, for London and Rome the municipi and boroughs are counted, although for Athens the municipalities (essentially subdivisions) that are part of the city (I'm NOT talking about the metropolitan area), are not! An analogue would be that London equals the City of London, therefore London is not one of the largest cities in EU! This is just silly and should be changed.
Peter
85.75.165.141 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong! Watch also the metro size population. Taking all measures to estimate the city size, madrid paris,london,berlin are the largest cities in EU. They are presented with picture. Lear 21 14:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Metro Area size in the table! It balances the slighty unsharp assumption that, for instance, Paris is smaller than Madrid, Berlin. All cities are listed by size of its city proper, that is only one( out of 3) measurements to estimate citysize. London remains therefore, with Paris, to be the largest in total. Lear 21 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I accept the Peter's opinion and I have added Athens into the list, using confirmed information of the Athens article of the Wikipedia. In the first column there is the urban population uncluding the population of the 42 municipalities of the Athens Lecanopedion. In the second column, there is the metro area population, including Athens Lecanopedion municipalities and the metro area municipalities of Thriasion Pedion and Mesogaia area. In the last column, there is the city (Athens Lecanopedion) population density. Unfortunately, a day after I added it, I saw it was removed and I don't know why. It is ridiculous to be added relatively small cities like Bucharest, Budapest or Vienna and there is no an Athens entry. If we count in this way, we should add Salonica as well. If I see Athens be removed again, after my second adding, I'd ask the editor why he did it? I'd be glad to discuss his disagreements. It is one of the biggest capitals of the EU and the most important historical city of the union, so it is just ridiculous to don't be included.
miv 21.40, 15 February 2007 (UTC+2)
User Lear 21 deleted edits, but the intro should treat the EU as both a politcal issue and a legal entity. Additionnally, the intro should placve the EU in the context of an expanding and deepening process of integration, and should say that it is open-ended. The constantly shifting structures of the EU are one of its most notable features. I propose to use this version: Paul111 12:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You say that the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU. This is not completely true: the Treaty of Rome mentions the goal of "ever closer union", which some might interpret as meaning ultimately a single federal state. Luis rib 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
User Lear 21 reinserted a version of History which makes a false distinction between 'pacifist' and 'military' unions. The idea that the Roman Empire is an EU predecessor is not historically viable or accurate. Neither is the implicit suggestion that Europe had a menu of 'good' and 'bad' unions in the 1940's. The naming of Victor Hugo in this section would distort it, (unless many others are included as well) since his proposals were not particularly influential. I have proposed splitting the History of the European Union article into a pre-1945 and post-1945 section, to avoid Whig history. See that article's talk page. Paul111 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea that the Third Reich attempted to create an European Union is quite bizarre. The Nazi ideology wanted to grab Eastern Europe to expand the "Lebensraum" of the Aryan race - this Lebensraum would be taken from the Slavs which were considered as a minor race. Conquest of France, Denmark, Norway and the Benelux happened for military reasons; these countries were BTW not added to the Reich, contrarily to Polish, Czech, Russian and Ukrainian lands (these were formally annexed). So the aim of the Third Reich was to create a German (not European) Empire that would span over the most of Central and Eastern Europe; it was not to create an European superstate. Luis rib 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems in relinquish both first sentences. Lear 21 13:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are of course right concerning Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine, Eastern Belgium etc. My apologies for not having mentioned them. Luis rib 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
These points seem to have disappeared during recetn edits. Harmonisation is not the same as the acquis, and the initial role of harmonisation was to facilitate the single market. Food safety standards are the classic example, if consumers are not sure that imported food meets their own national standards, they usually won't buy it. Harmonisation, as a de facto major policy, should get more attention. Paul111 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Acquis mentioned in Law is first priority, correct. Lear 21 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a need for a section on the underlying major issues, separate from accession controversies. They are not sufficiently covered in the current issues section. They include the question of European identity (still no major article on this) and the boundaries of 'Europe'. The related issue of a 'Christian Europe', and the so-called European values, should be included, in this context. I suggest a section on European identity and values placed before the Current issues section. Paul111 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I support this idea. It has the potential to be a single section in culture. Including headwords like greek democracy, latin language, roman law, middleage, christianity, reformation, enlightment, liberal tradition and pluralism. Very important seems absolute accuracy in tone and proof, because this is a major POV trap. Every comment about current identity(last 50 years) or the future has to be referenced with very credible sources. Lear 21 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
We need to be careful about scope. A full treatment of European culture belongs in the 'Europe' article, not this one. The EU is not the same as Europe, and it isn't a country. That said, those elements of the institution that want closer integration are attempting to encourage a common sense of identity, e.g. through educational programs, and funding rules for cross-European political parties and groupings. This is an interesting development, and deserves some treatment. Countersubject 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
These need correction or rewriting:
The image of the Constitutional Treaty in section politics must be kept. a) official document signed by 25 head of states b) the most present issue examplifiyng the section c) nothing emotive, simply a fact d) arguebly one of the most decisive documents in world history, if ratified e) has been on the article for months, nothing wrong with it.
The image of the G8 summit in section international relations must be kept. a) the 2 highest officials attending it regularly, for nearly 30 years now b) best evidence in section for IR politics apart from CFSP. c) documents the EU status in economical, trade and fiscal matters d) if questioned, because of alleged democratic vote, see [1] Lear 21 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The best example of an international organization where the EU is represented is the WTO. It's the only important organization where the EU has a seat instead of its member states. It's the one where the EU actually exercised international political power - i.e. by threatening other countries to levy anti-dumping duties on their exports to the EU, or by engaging in economic retaliation (as in many trade disputes with the US). Luis rib 12:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
@ Countersubject. First of all I´m sorry for the term 'alleged'. Vote is vote, and I havent criticised it once, though I could have. I´m fine with the outcome. But it is also right to inform everybody about WIKI rules concerning democracy. In weighing the results of votes with the stated arguments, I reinserted one image - G8, which hasnt been tackled at all. Something different in general : This article is not about UK in EU. This article is written in English, coincidentally the mother language of a rather reluctant EU member (very diplomatically), when asked about attitudes and involvement towards EU. But the English language is understood and read around the globe and has to be written from an external position as well. Frankly, I´m shocked about some editors, who are influenced by serious desinformation, almost emotional disgust about facts, and the insisting on statements about policies, which are superseded for over 15 years. Only one example now @ Countersubject again. You wish to present the article about EU showing economic and political co-operation between sovereign states. But EU economy is handled supranationally with directives, there is one Commissioner, Mandelson, representing all members in terms of trade- not the national ministers. Because of this blind eye on reality, it seems even more important, to inform on factual base. all the best Lear 21 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the G8 picture received the following votes: 5 deletes - 1 keep. So the G8 photo should go in accordance with the other pictures that were deleted. On the other hand, the Constitution picture only appeared after the vote - so obviously there is not yet a consensus on whether to keep or delete it. For my part, I don't see the big deal about it - the Constitution is the treaty that is (still) currently being discussed and it has been approved in 17 countries and rejected in 2; the others haven't given any opinion yet (and don't come with the argument that the UK would reject it - the UK could easily approve it in Parliament without going through a referendum). As such, I don't see why it is unbalanced to have a picture of it - it is after all an issue that is being hotly discussed in the EU. Luis rib 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
G8:Please discuss Treaty image in section above. Please accept this ! [2]! . As far I can understand user:Luis rb, he wants a better picture, which is currently not available. The user does not object a)- d). Please correct me when I´m wrong. User:Countersubject hasn´t object to a)-d), please correct me when I´m wrong. all the best Lear 21 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
a) -d) refers to 4 arguments stated at the top of the section. Lear 21 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I conclude: the G8 image is kept. Lear 21 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The G8 is highly determined by economical issues. So is the nature and the current status of EU dominated by economic foreign policies. Also, the EU has almost governmental/ supranational authority in first pillar politics. Face It! That impact is proven by this picture. Stop argueing what everything fails and lacks. All sections are lacking something (and are not deleted), but still describe the reality as close as possible. I change the sentence under the picture - so could user:Countersubject do. Lear 21 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
These should be together, and have their own sections. "Members" doesn't belong with geography. Geography is about the natural environment, not political groupings. Also, international relations is a different thing to candidate country negotiations - the term enlargement is a better header, which is why I've substituted it. I understand that one or two people may object to this because they might not like Turkey, and don't like the prospect of enlargement, but the article's contents does not make it bias in that direction. Wikidea 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal of the starting section, it was to one sided, also the emphasized country names is good work. I can´t support the move of Candidate countries : 1.a)C.countries are not included in any internal policy, not in Parliament, not in any legal framework- as you know best, nor in any other. b) It remains unclear and open if any of the C.countries is ever joining. c) There is a section called foreign relations concerning every non EU relation d) 'Enlargement' has lower priority as politics, law, institutions. The structure as it was will be reinstalled. 2. I can´t support the move of member states in a single section. a) Remember where you learned everything about countries in school? b) the current content only features accession date and map. MAP? = Geography. I think its clear case. all the best Lear 21 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1a) is irrelevant, because internal policies have nothing to do with this contents page 1b) as I said above, just because you don't like Turkey does not mean you should bring out your prejudice on the wikipedia page; I agree that the candidates may never join; so what? 1c) the foreign relations links down the bottom are all to do with the issue of membership and accession if you read them - you should at least agree to putting those with the candidate countries section: I'm putting those back separately. 1d) on what basis do you say enlargement has a lower priority than law, etc? I think that where you come from, East Germany, joining the EU was one of the best things that happened last century, after the UK joining of course. 2a) you've obviously learned something different at school; Geography is quite different to political groupings. Members an enlargement are their own thing. 2b) the members section is itself the history of enlargement. I would say that both belong next to the history section. Yes, it also contains a map. But perhaps its the geography that should be lower down? 2c) points get tiresome, so let's not argue this way! Wikidea 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I count 2 to 1, but please accept [3] . 1a) Is the primary argument, nobody would mix up interior with exterior ministry. 2a) provocation is ignored/ and if country is not acceding how can it be member states? d)When you read the London article tell me, what priority (table of section) is the 2012 Olympics? Same with c.countries, its speculative and future but not reality, it ranks further down, after all bodies and policies. 2a) we can keep member states separetely. Lear 21 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a new section for this - it is not a part of cultural policy (which is very limited) so I moved it from there. The EU does not have a policy to create a European identity or culture, it assumes it already existed. The 'European values' idea precedes the European communities. However, the present text badly needs editing for neutrality. Paul111 11:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not write the section, but merely moved it and added the header. Paul111 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I never said you wrote it. Rex 13:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The section will be reinstalled. When I, the author, said it HAS to be referenced, thought on claims like how the future,bounderies,politcs, etc will be shaped. The current content mainly, very much creates circle of influences around the values/identity, but not naming it and avoids any national specifics. It is very balanced and general, but helpful. @Paul111: state what is not neutral. It has to be corrected, linked, and expanded of course. Lear 21 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Paul111 has requested a section like this, it has not been generally rejected and was also approved by the later author, me. It is balanced, not yet finished, and is, you are right: pioneer work. It adds valuable content and overview / outside view on EU and its countries. Lear 21 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I must add that it was written for the former section culture, and should remain there. Because of one reason: there are and will be editors who will almost hysterical react about these 2 words 'Identity and values' in context with EU. It triggers very explosive irrationality and should be renamed. Lear 21 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose to delist the article as a Good Article. This notification allows other editors to improve the article, see Wikipedia:Good article review.
1. Structure is not clear and not yet logical, and EU structure itself, its values, it policies, and political controversies about those, are mixed in with each other. Headers do not always match section content, politics section for instance is more about structural issues. Article needs to be read twice to understand it. Too much about the location of EU institutions rather than what they do.
2. Some dubious claims (EU largest economy, EU prevents war) are not sourced.
3. Coverage of values, European identity, and future orientation is weak, and not stable either. List of largest cities is listcruft and does not belong here, associated images even less so.
4. Neutrality is undermined by the concentration on legal aspects, the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance, but you would not guess that from the article. History section has too much Whig history.
5. Article is certainly not stable. Paul111 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if using the "nuclear option" is really the right solution. You may launch an edit war by resorting to such a radical solution.
Concerning your comments: 1) structure may not be perfectly clear, but somehow you're the only one really annoyed about it;
2) sources for these claims can easily be found, I'm sure, as these claims are quite common (also: the EU did prevent war between member states since it was founded - or can you prove the contrary???);
3)Values, identity, etc. are obviously vague since the EU means different things to different people and member states. The largest cities list is not really necessary, I agree with that, but that's not really a reason to delist this article.
4) I would dispute the argument that "the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance". Can you source that? As I see it, the EU is first of all an economic entity; the political aspects are secondary. Internationally, the EU has a rather low profile, internally, however, it is the major source of legislation for the member states nowadays. The (rather small) history section just lists the major steps of the EU (with a disproportionate emphasis on the Constitution, IMO), in how far has it too much Whig history???
5)Well, haven't you considered that you may be one reason for its instability? Luis rib 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If my comment above was seen as a personal attack on Paul111, then I apologise. What I meant by my rash and unfortunate wording in point 5 was that the current instability is the consequence of the discussions that we are having here on the talk page. Obviously, as long as some points are hotly debated, the contents in the article concerning these points will change and evolve. Paul111 naturally has the right to propose changes, but Lear21 (to name just one contender) also has the right to challenge these proposals. So while such an issue is discussed, the article will be unstable - yet the instability will be caused by both editors, as they modify the contended wordings to and fro. So blaming the instability of article just on one part of the editors (and this is what I suppose that Paul111 was meaning by his above comment in point 5))is not correct. Furthermore: threatening to challenge the status of Good Article based on the instability of the article - which has been caused by both sides - is IMO unfair as it aims at stopping discussion and imposing the view of just a parts of the editors. Luis rib 20:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The coverage of the Schengen agreement is misleading. The impression is given that's it's an EU thing, but that's not wholly true (another subtlety). A total of 30 countries – including all European Union states and three non-EU members, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland – have signed the agreement and 15 have implemented it so far. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom only take part in the police co-operation measures and not the common border control and visa provisions. The agreement was signed outside of the structures of the EU because of a lack of consensus amongst members, and because of a Nordic desire to retain traditional freedoms of movement, irrespective of EU membership. However, the Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated Schengen developments into the European Union framework.
It might be better to give the Agreement a section of its own, perhaps as part of the reorganisation that editors are beginning to suggest. That would give room to explain these matters more accurately, and it's certainly a significant development.
Also (and I hesitate to raise this), the current photo of a 'Schengen' border-crossing is inappropriate to the Geography section (which is itself arguably inappropriate to an article on the EU). It looks like another example of the compulsion to post graphics, irrespective of their relevance and the value they add to the text. It's a kind of graphical diarrhoea. Countersubject 09:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I support an extended coverage of Schengen. It has to be one paragraph in 'History' and even a section in 'Politics' (This para was added by Lear 21, 16:19, 1 February 2007.)
Schengen is hisoric achievement and section-because of implications mentioned in intro. Lear 21 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The text: "The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control and customs checks for most member states within EU's internal borders, creating, to some extent, a single area of free movement for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest" is still very misleading, as it confuses passport control with customs control, and implies that Schengen is responsible for the freedom to "live, travel, work and invest." The freedoms to live, travel, and work pre-date Schengen by many years; the "freedom to invest," together with the abolition of customs checks, are an aspect of the Single Market. This distinction matters historically, but also on an everyday basis: EU countries not fully in Schengen may still have passport checks, but there are no customs controls, nor other constraints on the movement of people and capital (and if you live in one of these countries, as I do, these are not just academic distinctions!)
Currently the section on languages the only information it includes is on the classification in language families of languages spoken in the EU. I believe this information should be summarised and instead information on which languages are spoken the most, which are the official languages, which the EU language policy should be included. In fact, this is the same kind of information one expects in a country-like article. All these are available in Languages of the European Union, an article a little bit messy, but with all the needed stuff present. I can give it a try, if you agree. -- Michkalas 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Green light for expanding. I would prefer to keep the language families, articulating that these are also the official ones, though. EU language policy is needed! And maybe a word about regional languages like Catalan. Lear 21 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work. Lear 21 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the sections I've added 'unreferenced' to: the reason is, that it's unreferenced. It also doesn't tell people what the institutions do. Do we agree that this ought to be changed? I'm not too keen on Barrosso and Merkels' smarmy grins either. Wouldn't pictures of the buildings alone be more permanent? (although I know how high temperatures are flaring over the pictures). Wikidea 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
'Unreferenced is justified'. Section is a mess. Please change list of institutions in prose including the purpose, if you want to. The introduction has to be rewritten as well. Images have been widely discussed and will be kept. Lear 21 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) And as a Humboldtianer, you might want to look at the German-EU-article. The institution section is quite accurate. Lear 21 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Countersubject: Stop nonsense blabla in serious discussions! Lear 21 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What is to be done with passages such as this, vague and often random material? Paul111 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What appears to be random at the first look, is at least a start. Sentences like the questioned one are not true for China, USA or the UN. The EU has a status between these three. There is no purpose of the article, just a collection of facts reflecting the current situation. More than half of information is dealing with institutional matters. Plus, there is a EU-European heritage/culture and it is mentioned. And for the last times : There is a common room - Geography, which is not only created by Schengen, but simply by the proximity and the relative smallness of area. EU area is much smaller than Australia and is comparable with the size of India. Lear 21 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is the problem mentioning spectator sports as popular pastime? Rugby is watched in UK, France and Italy. Icehockey in the eastern and northern sphere. Handball is at least popular in Spain, France, Germany, Poland and Scandinavia. Together they cover all EU countries. Lear 21 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Please try to imagine an outside EU view. The 3 questioned team sports together cover probably around 400mil. EU country population. Next to soccer they are second or third most popular in their country, with 2000- 10000 spectators. Anyway, there should be no problem to add Hockey and Basketball. Lear 21 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of inviting further personal abuse on my user discussion page, I'd like to suggest that all this still begs the question of what we're aiming to do in the 'Culture' section. Or to put it another way, what distinctively EU cultural phenomena can we describe? We can certainly include EU cultural and sporting policy, and the ways in which they're implemented; they wouldn't exist as such without the EU. But the sports, literature, music, art, philosophy etc exist independently of the EU, except inasmuch as they are the subject of EU policy, or engage with the EU as an idea or institution. It's therefore not appropriate to put them into this section. Countersubject 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The EU member states are the masters of the treaties, so nothing wrong to describe the cultural traditions as set of influences they have experienced. In a very general way. Its an introduction.... Lear 21 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that on the 27th January, someone introduced the following sentence to the 'Education' section, in relation to the Galileo Project:
Several other nations are joining the project co financing the development such as China, Israel, India, Marocco or South Korea.
Where is 'Marocco', and why the fractured English? That we've let this survive without question or correction for a number of days says a lot about the rate of change to this article, and our willingness to pussyfoot around imprecise and even unintelligible edits. We're so phased by the rate of change and worried that we might offend someone (or frankly can't face the hassle of the edit war) that we just let this kind of thing pass. Shame on us all. Countersubject 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The current introduction is speculative, and does not belong in a neutral written head. The written quality is worse than the version before. Both contributers who reinstalled the version know that. Stop these contraproductive tactics. Please, with sugar on the top, accept Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER Lear 21 00:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The new version has to be explained, compared to the neutral version, which is the introduction for months. Lear 21 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Conlusion so far : no arguments for change. In 12 hours the old version will be reestablished. Lear 21 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Paul111 b)Who says there is a controversial relationship between nationsstates and EU in terms of identity ? That is speculation or true for single cases and must be mentioned in politics or culture. The introduction has to present the state of being. In the UK article introduction, I cant read anything about controversials about the queen or the house of lords disputed status....And responding to argument a) the EU is not a Union of classical nation-states anymore like UN maybe. It is enough to mention that they democratic states. Lear 21 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, there might be some truth to that. After all, being a nation-state is not a prerequisite for being a member of the EU; indeed Bosnia - a potential future member state - is not a nation-state. Neither is Cyprus, thinking of it. And Spain has recognized Catalonia as a nation, I believe. Last but not least - the UK is not really a nation state either; after all, a major party of one of its constitutive parts (Scotland) is thinking about organizing a referendum on that region's independence. I would also suggest to delete the reference to nation-states in the first sentence of the introduction. Luis rib 20:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
There is an aspiration and a momentum at the heart of the EU project for greater political integration. The intention of the Schuman Declaration was to make "the first concrete step towards a European federation" (unquote). "Ever closer union" is one of the stated aims of the Treaty of Rome. It's repeated by the Maastricht treaty, which also talks about a new stage in the process of European integration. The phrase was dropped from the proposed constitution, but it does extend majority voting into 26 new policy areas, create an independent and personal EU Presidency, and extend the competencies of the EU and its institutions in a number of ways.
Equally, there's been a continuing tension between 'ever closer' union and member states. This hasn't been limited to the UK and 'new Europe', but has also been an issue for members like France that have traditionally supported greater integration. It's also become an electoral issue at times, with governments sometimes failing to persuade their electorates of the virtues of closer union, or doing their best to avoid the need for popular ratification.
The EU can't be properly understood without an understanding of this tension. It's so fundamental that an introduction which doesn't allude to it is incomplete. That isn't to say we can't discuss the form in which it's described. Also, I'd suggest it's important enough to have its own section. Countersubject 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with that. I just objected to the word "nation-states". Luis rib 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Controversial issues no matter what color are part of every social, political, historical process. The EU has achieved a certain status after 50 years of evolution, these facts and nothing else have to be captured in the introduction. All other pros and cons can be part of the sections, but only there. Lear 21 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not sufficient to use the term member states, which could include empires. That would negate the historical background, the transition to a continent of nation-states. The controversy is not a country-by-country issue, but derives from the inherent contradictions of a union of sovereign states. Additionally, each of those nation-states derives its legitimacy from its status as national homeland of the nation (4 nations in the UK case), whereas the European Union does not correspond to a nation, people, ethnic group, or any similar entity. These issues have played a role in the evolution of the EU, and in its current state of crisis. These points need more emphasis, starting with the intro. Paul111 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we think about adding a section about controversies, Euro-sceptics and Euro-fans. I think today this is one of the most dividing and interesting issues among the EU population. Some of this information is already explicitly mentioned in other sections, but I think the importance is argument enough for an explicit/separate section. Also this may balance the overall very enthusiastic tone about the EU in the article to provide a more NPOV. Arnoutf 00:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The tension between 'ever closer union' and its opponents is, as Arnoutf says, an issue of such significance that it should have a full treatment. That's best given in its own section, whatever the title. The other advantage of such a section is that it would allay the impression that the article has a tendency to reflect a particular view of the EU's development. Countersubject 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
All of this acting as though the EU is a country is very debatable. What counts as a "geopolitical entity?" The EU does not have a unified military nor military policy (look at the conflict in Iraq; some EU countries sent troops, some didn't); it does not have a unified currency (although the Euro is eventually supposed to be it); it does not have a free flow of services; they don't even have a single alphabet; etc. So where does it stop? You could state that the UN is a geopolitical entity, or even ASEAN. In that case, both of those have a larger population than the EU. This EU bumping the USA ranking pettiness ought to stop, especially while the EU is not yet a single nation-state.
Chiss Boy 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The European Union IS its member states. There is no EU-spaceship coming out of a sudden and created a three pillar system. All decisions were made by democratically elected head of states, not by aliens or other anonymous bureaucrats. There are a lot of indications which lead to the assumption of a "country" - like entity (term used by CIA): Common market, common policies in many fields, election every 5 years, European parliament, EU court of justice, the currency Euro is adopted by 300 mil inhabitants, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate ,-Passport ,-Drivinglicense ,-Anthem , Common room without borders, EU is financing infrastructure, education, social projects and in official pressconferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag. Some of these indications might be not implemented or realized (mentally) by all members or their population. But it does not mean that this view prevails in this article. Lear 21 14:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Lear 21, let me begin by asking you once again not to shout. Now that's done, I think there are three things about your response that I'd like to discuss. The first is that a decision by some or all member states to cooperate in a number of ways doesn't make the EU a country. As you rightly observe elsewhere, the member states are the 'masters of the treaty'. The second is that you spoil a potentially interesting case by over-statement. While the EU isn't a country, it does have a tendency to attempt to acquire more country-like attributes, and that might or might not eventually lead to its transformation into a country. However, it hasn't done so yet, as the beginning of the article acknowledges by describing the EU as an inter-governmental and supra-national body. The third is that it isn't wise to ascribe widespread failure to see your point of view as some kind of mental failing. That's not only offensive, but also more than a little weak as an argument.
Finally, I must beg whoever has been impersonating Lear 21 on my user discussion page, by leaving abusive messages, not to use this discussion as an excuse to do so again. Lear 21: have you had any luck yet in identifying the imposter? Countersubject 15:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of Strasbourg as a lesser capital in the factbox on the right?
Chiss Boy 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This a another example of the knots we tie ourselves in when we attempt to treat this article like a country article :-). Countersubject 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think this is one of the issues where the EU-integration has not yet been complete enough to add to the template. For example the GDP of Denmark is about 5 times that of Romania. There is a huge difference in HDI as well within the EU. That this is an issue can also be gathered from the relatively weird wording now used to justify the template. In other words, I would suggest jsut leaving these numbers out of the infobox and discuss it in some more detail under economics. Arnoutf 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No doubt! Its not only a standard figure, but estimating the size and status of the EU-entity it is indispensable in the the infobox. Lear 21 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Lear 21 doesn't like the changes to the introduction made by Paul111, so he reverted them, initially without discussion, subsequently explaining that he felt the changes were "speculative", and that they'd had an adverse effect on the "written quality" of the article (see "Introduction", above). I believe Paul111's edits included some valuable contributions, though felt they would benefit from amendment, so I asked Lear 21 what in particular he believed was speculative, and in what manner the written quality of the article had been affected. Frustratingly, he refused to explain, and said that unless given a good reason, he would would remove Paul111's edits again. Users Paul111, Luis rib and Arnoutf struck up a discussion about the use of the term 'nation states' in Paul111's edits, and they were amended accordingly. Subsequently, Lear 21 reverted the edits anyway, so I put them back in again.
What do we do next? If an editor - and especially a regular one - has a problem with the article, then this is the place to discuss it in detail. Unfortunately, Lear 21 doesn't seem to wish to do so. Perhaps the problem is that he and I seem to have offended each other, and I have to say that Paul111 and I have suffered abuse from him (e.g. see my discussion page). Nonetheless, it's the article that matters, so if anyone out there would care to engage Lear 21, and persuade him to detail his particular problems with the original edits, then we might be able to find a way forward that improves the article. I'd be very grateful. Countersubject 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Controversial issues no matter what color are part of every social, political, historical process. The EU has achieved a certain status after 50 years of evolution, these facts and nothing else have to be captured in the introduction. All other pros and cons can be part of the sections, but only there. Lear 21 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Introduction 2.: a)"It currently has 27 member states. The EU represents the current" - double "current" - bad style. b) "Predecessor entities, with fewer members and more limited in scope, were formed after the Second World War." - unprecise, old version more specific. c)"The EU represents the current phase of European integration" - blank sentence d) "although the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU, eurosceptic fears that it will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty have made the EU (and its future) a major political issue in itself" - highly speculative generalisation - not needed. Parts which can be kept: e)" "The process of integration is open-ended" - or remains open. Lear 21 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do this properly Lear21. I agree with point (a) and have changed it slightly - please check over. Point (b) I think needs more explanation Lear21, can you say how you think it should read? Point (c) I don't understand - the sentence seems good to me. Can you elucidate further please? Point (d) - Euroscepticism - is such a big issue across Europe that I think most editors would think it worth mentioning in the introduction. Point (e) - I agree. Thanks. MarkThomas 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Good listing very constructive. (a) Indeed bad style; change that pleace. I think intro 2 has the benefit that the mentioning of current implies this is not the final stage. Ie it may increase in the future. That is the bit I like about that version (b) I agree this is unintelligable as it is in intro 2. I would say something like: The EU is the continuation of the European Economic Union established in 1951 with fewer members, and focussing on economic cooperation only Or something similar. (c) Ican't really see the point here. I think we all agree the EU is in a process of change. (d) I agree the sentence is POV. I would like to keep scepticism in though perhaps not linked to giving up sovereinigty. Perhaps something like The growing influence of the EU over the internal actions of its member states is not without critisism. Among the population of several countries there is a certain level of [[euroscepticism]. Or something like. (e) useless addition, does not add anything I agree, take it out. Arnoutf 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Arnoutf That could be a direction. More moderately : Supporters of the EU believe ...., while critics doubt .... - that would be acceptable, plus, mentioned after all the factual basics. I´m off for a drink. Viva Europa! Lear 21 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just come back from feeding the family. I'll have my say, then go for drink, too. And btw, Lear 21 - please don't confuse the EU with Europe :-).
I believe there are strengths and weaknesses in both versions. Firstly, I'd like to address Paul111's introduction of material concerning integration over time. This material is, directly or indirectly, the subject of points b, c, d and e. The chief problem with the original version is that it focuses on the EU as a set of current structures, and doesn't mention the EU as an ongoing process of 'ever closer union'. This is at the heart of the project, from the Schuman Declaration to the proposed constitution, which has been stalled by popular rejection in two founder countries, and which is now the subject of negotiation by the German presidency. As an issue, it's therefore very much part of the status quo, and therefore deserving of mention in the intro. On the other hand, the revised version treats it at too great a length for an introduction, and invites the perception of POV on what's clearly a very sensitive subject. I think this is in part because the main article lacks direct recognition of the issue. One way forward would be to change the introduction so that this aspect of the EU is mentioned more concisely, and develop a more detailed account in the body of the article. We could also add relevant external references.
Apart from that, I agree with observation a, and believe that the unexplained reference to the "three pillars of the European Union" needs to be removed. It's not prefaced by an explanation of what the pillars are, or accompanied by any direct mention of its two fellows. This concept belongs in the detail.
Also, the Schengen paragraph gets a little head of the status quo when it says that the "Agreement abolished passport control and customs checks for most member states." As I understand it, of the 30 countries that have signed it (3 of which aren't in the EU), only 15 have implemented it so far. It would be good to find a form of words that avoids overstatement.
Finally, "within EU's internal borders" should read: "within the EU's internal borders". Countersubject 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Galileo system from Demographics, it has nothing to do with population. Section on largest cities was already moved to Geography of the European Union. I rewrote the culture intro section, which was in fact on identity and history, and gave it a better title, and removed the pointless listing of sports. Intro paragraph restored. Paul111 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Stop deleting content from this article. This has an end now! Lear 21 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The article simply does not meet the criteria for a Good Article, and stability alone would be enough to delist it, as this talk page evidences. Editing disputes do indeed make an article unstable. However, there is absolutely no obligation on editors to refrain from editing, simply to preserve Good Article status. Paul111 18:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Paul111, Don´t abuse this article for personal attitudes! Stop it ! The suggestions of your changes are not answered or supported. Lear 21 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Countersubject: I´m happy as always. Stop your psychological assessments. Stick to the content. By the way, have you supported delisting? Lear 21 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Since simple editing is apparently not possible, the culture section must approached in terms of an accuracy dispute. The following points need some evidence:
@User:Arnoutf Your approach to the culture intro leads in the right direction. Judeo-Christianity and globalization have to be mentioned. Now it seems that regions are the determining forces of traditions. Thats not sufficient. Globalized attitudes and habits are widely spread. plus : I wonder why climate influence on culture is questioned. Remember how Christmas is celebrated in Australia? Correct! on the beach! Thats climate. Lear 21 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Indoor - Outdoor activities/ habits is an interesting point. The Spanish 'siesta' is cultivated, because of hot temperatures in summer, and the last meal is taken after 21.00 h because during daytime its to hot. 2. : The cafe outdoor culture in the mediteranean regions are also influenced by milder temperatures compared to Scandinavia. Lear 21 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What theory are you talking about? The connection of 'productive life' and climate seems very shaky. The fact of different indoor / outdoor culture caused by temperatures is reason enough and basically obvious. Lear 21 10:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved the list from the Culture intro to the Sport section, and it now reads: Paul111 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Sound like a relevant move. Mind you the classification of sports is done without references (although I am pretty sure of Soccer, Korfball and Crickett). However it may well be that some of the fewer countries sports should be widely played sports and/or vice versa. If anyone has some numbers there from some kind of sports magazine, that would be a great help in getting it right, and above discussion. Arnoutf 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose permanent removal to Geography of the European Union. Please indicate below if you support or oppose. Paul111 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to follow on from Arnoutf's comment, and my own earlier note, to suggest that we have a problem with this discussion: that a number of votes have been cast without explanation. As Arnoutf and Lear 21 rightly point out, Wiki isn't a democracy - the point of the vote is to encourage focussed discussion. When an editor casts a vote but doesn't explain it (or does so in an unintelligible, aggressive manner), then there is no discussion, just a face-off, and the likelihood of further edit wars. If you're one of the editors whose votes fall into this category, I strongly encourage you to add an explanation. If you haven't yet contributed and feel you have something to say, please add your vote and reasons. Thanks, Countersubject 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we use the (optional) property largest city in the country userbox. I think not, for much the reasons I outlined above.
I have to say the above strikes me as being a separate table. It is quite interesting to see a table of the largest cities in the EU by population. However, the existing table is not really as informative as it should be - it should be based on metropolitan areas. On that basis, Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester should all be on the top 10 table with London. Also, what do you base your assertion that London is not a typical European city on? Do you mean it doesn't have Hanseatic-style overhanging houses? It used to - they were all bombed flat by the Germans! Or is it the international financial success and powerhouse media/fashion capital that is different? That would be correct as Paris and Milan are both in decline to London and Frankfurt is virtually giving up and handing over to London as financial centre. MarkThomas 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, but I think the framework you're viewing it from Arnoutf (EU = EU countries who love the EU beyond measure and uncritically) is fairly POVist - I would prefer a much more factual approach as I think that's what the typical reader would prefer - which is that all countries officially in the EU are in the EU and that's what the page needs to be about. Tables in particular are about statistical facts and not opinions. If you look at the facts, the largest metropolitan cities in Europe, in order, are London, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, Birmingham, Milan, Madrid, Manchester, Rome, Naples. The East European ones are very small in comparison as they are not on the whole bloated conurbations. That's fine for the table called "Largest cities in the European Union". The table you are talking about could be called "Largest cities in EU Euro Monetary Area countries with a tendancy Not to Challenge Brussels". MarkThomas 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:MarkThomas Please see Largest European metropolitan areas and Largest urban areas of the European Union to adjust knowledge of city size. @User:Arnoutf The London entry is a standard feature, but also dispensable. a) largest cities are already covered in own section and are put in perspective with others extensively. b) infobox constantly overlaps with history section / space could be saved. c) in this case, the very official(institutional) facts in infobox are outweighing and London is not in line. I´m not hardcore about this, but it can be removed. Lear 21 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, further to the above, we should use this data from Eurostat, which is by far the best from a scientifically worked out point of view. Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in the European Union. MarkThomas 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I just found two recordings, public domain, from http://www.navyband.navy.mil/anthems/all_countries.htm. If yall want them, let me know please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The claim that superpower status is acknowledged by the CIA is spurious, I removed it. The cited source, the CIA Factbook, simply does not say this. The Washington Times is not a reliable source in general, and the online news cited does not say what the original source is, the 'Chineese report' which sees the EU as a superpower. It is not verifiable. China does support EU expansion, but this is not enough for a reliable statement of its views. Paul111 10:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue can be resolved by citing the original source, the "official paper" from Beijing. As it stands it is untraceable, and therefore not verifiable. There should in any case be no problem in finding an official Chinese view of the EU from the Foreign Ministry website. Further discussion of the The Washington Times is then unnecessary. Paul111 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved this issue to a new article Location of European Union institutions, at an overview article the Institutions section should focus on the institutions themsleves, and not on the location controversies. I reverted re-insertion, others may comment here. Paul111 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The way the largest cities section is organised, is ridiculous. For example, for London and Rome the municipi and boroughs are counted, although for Athens the municipalities (essentially subdivisions) that are part of the city (I'm NOT talking about the metropolitan area), are not! An analogue would be that London equals the City of London, therefore London is not one of the largest cities in EU! This is just silly and should be changed.
Peter
85.75.165.141 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong! Watch also the metro size population. Taking all measures to estimate the city size, madrid paris,london,berlin are the largest cities in EU. They are presented with picture. Lear 21 14:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Metro Area size in the table! It balances the slighty unsharp assumption that, for instance, Paris is smaller than Madrid, Berlin. All cities are listed by size of its city proper, that is only one( out of 3) measurements to estimate citysize. London remains therefore, with Paris, to be the largest in total. Lear 21 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I accept the Peter's opinion and I have added Athens into the list, using confirmed information of the Athens article of the Wikipedia. In the first column there is the urban population uncluding the population of the 42 municipalities of the Athens Lecanopedion. In the second column, there is the metro area population, including Athens Lecanopedion municipalities and the metro area municipalities of Thriasion Pedion and Mesogaia area. In the last column, there is the city (Athens Lecanopedion) population density. Unfortunately, a day after I added it, I saw it was removed and I don't know why. It is ridiculous to be added relatively small cities like Bucharest, Budapest or Vienna and there is no an Athens entry. If we count in this way, we should add Salonica as well. If I see Athens be removed again, after my second adding, I'd ask the editor why he did it? I'd be glad to discuss his disagreements. It is one of the biggest capitals of the EU and the most important historical city of the union, so it is just ridiculous to don't be included.
miv 21.40, 15 February 2007 (UTC+2)
User Lear 21 deleted edits, but the intro should treat the EU as both a politcal issue and a legal entity. Additionnally, the intro should placve the EU in the context of an expanding and deepening process of integration, and should say that it is open-ended. The constantly shifting structures of the EU are one of its most notable features. I propose to use this version: Paul111 12:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You say that the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU. This is not completely true: the Treaty of Rome mentions the goal of "ever closer union", which some might interpret as meaning ultimately a single federal state. Luis rib 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
User Lear 21 reinserted a version of History which makes a false distinction between 'pacifist' and 'military' unions. The idea that the Roman Empire is an EU predecessor is not historically viable or accurate. Neither is the implicit suggestion that Europe had a menu of 'good' and 'bad' unions in the 1940's. The naming of Victor Hugo in this section would distort it, (unless many others are included as well) since his proposals were not particularly influential. I have proposed splitting the History of the European Union article into a pre-1945 and post-1945 section, to avoid Whig history. See that article's talk page. Paul111 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea that the Third Reich attempted to create an European Union is quite bizarre. The Nazi ideology wanted to grab Eastern Europe to expand the "Lebensraum" of the Aryan race - this Lebensraum would be taken from the Slavs which were considered as a minor race. Conquest of France, Denmark, Norway and the Benelux happened for military reasons; these countries were BTW not added to the Reich, contrarily to Polish, Czech, Russian and Ukrainian lands (these were formally annexed). So the aim of the Third Reich was to create a German (not European) Empire that would span over the most of Central and Eastern Europe; it was not to create an European superstate. Luis rib 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems in relinquish both first sentences. Lear 21 13:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are of course right concerning Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine, Eastern Belgium etc. My apologies for not having mentioned them. Luis rib 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
These points seem to have disappeared during recetn edits. Harmonisation is not the same as the acquis, and the initial role of harmonisation was to facilitate the single market. Food safety standards are the classic example, if consumers are not sure that imported food meets their own national standards, they usually won't buy it. Harmonisation, as a de facto major policy, should get more attention. Paul111 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Acquis mentioned in Law is first priority, correct. Lear 21 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a need for a section on the underlying major issues, separate from accession controversies. They are not sufficiently covered in the current issues section. They include the question of European identity (still no major article on this) and the boundaries of 'Europe'. The related issue of a 'Christian Europe', and the so-called European values, should be included, in this context. I suggest a section on European identity and values placed before the Current issues section. Paul111 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I support this idea. It has the potential to be a single section in culture. Including headwords like greek democracy, latin language, roman law, middleage, christianity, reformation, enlightment, liberal tradition and pluralism. Very important seems absolute accuracy in tone and proof, because this is a major POV trap. Every comment about current identity(last 50 years) or the future has to be referenced with very credible sources. Lear 21 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
We need to be careful about scope. A full treatment of European culture belongs in the 'Europe' article, not this one. The EU is not the same as Europe, and it isn't a country. That said, those elements of the institution that want closer integration are attempting to encourage a common sense of identity, e.g. through educational programs, and funding rules for cross-European political parties and groupings. This is an interesting development, and deserves some treatment. Countersubject 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
These need correction or rewriting:
The image of the Constitutional Treaty in section politics must be kept. a) official document signed by 25 head of states b) the most present issue examplifiyng the section c) nothing emotive, simply a fact d) arguebly one of the most decisive documents in world history, if ratified e) has been on the article for months, nothing wrong with it.
The image of the G8 summit in section international relations must be kept. a) the 2 highest officials attending it regularly, for nearly 30 years now b) best evidence in section for IR politics apart from CFSP. c) documents the EU status in economical, trade and fiscal matters d) if questioned, because of alleged democratic vote, see [1] Lear 21 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The best example of an international organization where the EU is represented is the WTO. It's the only important organization where the EU has a seat instead of its member states. It's the one where the EU actually exercised international political power - i.e. by threatening other countries to levy anti-dumping duties on their exports to the EU, or by engaging in economic retaliation (as in many trade disputes with the US). Luis rib 12:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
@ Countersubject. First of all I´m sorry for the term 'alleged'. Vote is vote, and I havent criticised it once, though I could have. I´m fine with the outcome. But it is also right to inform everybody about WIKI rules concerning democracy. In weighing the results of votes with the stated arguments, I reinserted one image - G8, which hasnt been tackled at all. Something different in general : This article is not about UK in EU. This article is written in English, coincidentally the mother language of a rather reluctant EU member (very diplomatically), when asked about attitudes and involvement towards EU. But the English language is understood and read around the globe and has to be written from an external position as well. Frankly, I´m shocked about some editors, who are influenced by serious desinformation, almost emotional disgust about facts, and the insisting on statements about policies, which are superseded for over 15 years. Only one example now @ Countersubject again. You wish to present the article about EU showing economic and political co-operation between sovereign states. But EU economy is handled supranationally with directives, there is one Commissioner, Mandelson, representing all members in terms of trade- not the national ministers. Because of this blind eye on reality, it seems even more important, to inform on factual base. all the best Lear 21 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the G8 picture received the following votes: 5 deletes - 1 keep. So the G8 photo should go in accordance with the other pictures that were deleted. On the other hand, the Constitution picture only appeared after the vote - so obviously there is not yet a consensus on whether to keep or delete it. For my part, I don't see the big deal about it - the Constitution is the treaty that is (still) currently being discussed and it has been approved in 17 countries and rejected in 2; the others haven't given any opinion yet (and don't come with the argument that the UK would reject it - the UK could easily approve it in Parliament without going through a referendum). As such, I don't see why it is unbalanced to have a picture of it - it is after all an issue that is being hotly discussed in the EU. Luis rib 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
G8:Please discuss Treaty image in section above. Please accept this ! [2]! . As far I can understand user:Luis rb, he wants a better picture, which is currently not available. The user does not object a)- d). Please correct me when I´m wrong. User:Countersubject hasn´t object to a)-d), please correct me when I´m wrong. all the best Lear 21 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
a) -d) refers to 4 arguments stated at the top of the section. Lear 21 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I conclude: the G8 image is kept. Lear 21 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The G8 is highly determined by economical issues. So is the nature and the current status of EU dominated by economic foreign policies. Also, the EU has almost governmental/ supranational authority in first pillar politics. Face It! That impact is proven by this picture. Stop argueing what everything fails and lacks. All sections are lacking something (and are not deleted), but still describe the reality as close as possible. I change the sentence under the picture - so could user:Countersubject do. Lear 21 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
These should be together, and have their own sections. "Members" doesn't belong with geography. Geography is about the natural environment, not political groupings. Also, international relations is a different thing to candidate country negotiations - the term enlargement is a better header, which is why I've substituted it. I understand that one or two people may object to this because they might not like Turkey, and don't like the prospect of enlargement, but the article's contents does not make it bias in that direction. Wikidea 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal of the starting section, it was to one sided, also the emphasized country names is good work. I can´t support the move of Candidate countries : 1.a)C.countries are not included in any internal policy, not in Parliament, not in any legal framework- as you know best, nor in any other. b) It remains unclear and open if any of the C.countries is ever joining. c) There is a section called foreign relations concerning every non EU relation d) 'Enlargement' has lower priority as politics, law, institutions. The structure as it was will be reinstalled. 2. I can´t support the move of member states in a single section. a) Remember where you learned everything about countries in school? b) the current content only features accession date and map. MAP? = Geography. I think its clear case. all the best Lear 21 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1a) is irrelevant, because internal policies have nothing to do with this contents page 1b) as I said above, just because you don't like Turkey does not mean you should bring out your prejudice on the wikipedia page; I agree that the candidates may never join; so what? 1c) the foreign relations links down the bottom are all to do with the issue of membership and accession if you read them - you should at least agree to putting those with the candidate countries section: I'm putting those back separately. 1d) on what basis do you say enlargement has a lower priority than law, etc? I think that where you come from, East Germany, joining the EU was one of the best things that happened last century, after the UK joining of course. 2a) you've obviously learned something different at school; Geography is quite different to political groupings. Members an enlargement are their own thing. 2b) the members section is itself the history of enlargement. I would say that both belong next to the history section. Yes, it also contains a map. But perhaps its the geography that should be lower down? 2c) points get tiresome, so let's not argue this way! Wikidea 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I count 2 to 1, but please accept [3] . 1a) Is the primary argument, nobody would mix up interior with exterior ministry. 2a) provocation is ignored/ and if country is not acceding how can it be member states? d)When you read the London article tell me, what priority (table of section) is the 2012 Olympics? Same with c.countries, its speculative and future but not reality, it ranks further down, after all bodies and policies. 2a) we can keep member states separetely. Lear 21 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a new section for this - it is not a part of cultural policy (which is very limited) so I moved it from there. The EU does not have a policy to create a European identity or culture, it assumes it already existed. The 'European values' idea precedes the European communities. However, the present text badly needs editing for neutrality. Paul111 11:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not write the section, but merely moved it and added the header. Paul111 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I never said you wrote it. Rex 13:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The section will be reinstalled. When I, the author, said it HAS to be referenced, thought on claims like how the future,bounderies,politcs, etc will be shaped. The current content mainly, very much creates circle of influences around the values/identity, but not naming it and avoids any national specifics. It is very balanced and general, but helpful. @Paul111: state what is not neutral. It has to be corrected, linked, and expanded of course. Lear 21 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Paul111 has requested a section like this, it has not been generally rejected and was also approved by the later author, me. It is balanced, not yet finished, and is, you are right: pioneer work. It adds valuable content and overview / outside view on EU and its countries. Lear 21 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I must add that it was written for the former section culture, and should remain there. Because of one reason: there are and will be editors who will almost hysterical react about these 2 words 'Identity and values' in context with EU. It triggers very explosive irrationality and should be renamed. Lear 21 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose to delist the article as a Good Article. This notification allows other editors to improve the article, see Wikipedia:Good article review.
1. Structure is not clear and not yet logical, and EU structure itself, its values, it policies, and political controversies about those, are mixed in with each other. Headers do not always match section content, politics section for instance is more about structural issues. Article needs to be read twice to understand it. Too much about the location of EU institutions rather than what they do.
2. Some dubious claims (EU largest economy, EU prevents war) are not sourced.
3. Coverage of values, European identity, and future orientation is weak, and not stable either. List of largest cities is listcruft and does not belong here, associated images even less so.
4. Neutrality is undermined by the concentration on legal aspects, the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance, but you would not guess that from the article. History section has too much Whig history.
5. Article is certainly not stable. Paul111 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if using the "nuclear option" is really the right solution. You may launch an edit war by resorting to such a radical solution.
Concerning your comments: 1) structure may not be perfectly clear, but somehow you're the only one really annoyed about it;
2) sources for these claims can easily be found, I'm sure, as these claims are quite common (also: the EU did prevent war between member states since it was founded - or can you prove the contrary???);
3)Values, identity, etc. are obviously vague since the EU means different things to different people and member states. The largest cities list is not really necessary, I agree with that, but that's not really a reason to delist this article.
4) I would dispute the argument that "the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance". Can you source that? As I see it, the EU is first of all an economic entity; the political aspects are secondary. Internationally, the EU has a rather low profile, internally, however, it is the major source of legislation for the member states nowadays. The (rather small) history section just lists the major steps of the EU (with a disproportionate emphasis on the Constitution, IMO), in how far has it too much Whig history???
5)Well, haven't you considered that you may be one reason for its instability? Luis rib 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If my comment above was seen as a personal attack on Paul111, then I apologise. What I meant by my rash and unfortunate wording in point 5 was that the current instability is the consequence of the discussions that we are having here on the talk page. Obviously, as long as some points are hotly debated, the contents in the article concerning these points will change and evolve. Paul111 naturally has the right to propose changes, but Lear21 (to name just one contender) also has the right to challenge these proposals. So while such an issue is discussed, the article will be unstable - yet the instability will be caused by both editors, as they modify the contended wordings to and fro. So blaming the instability of article just on one part of the editors (and this is what I suppose that Paul111 was meaning by his above comment in point 5))is not correct. Furthermore: threatening to challenge the status of Good Article based on the instability of the article - which has been caused by both sides - is IMO unfair as it aims at stopping discussion and imposing the view of just a parts of the editors. Luis rib 20:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The coverage of the Schengen agreement is misleading. The impression is given that's it's an EU thing, but that's not wholly true (another subtlety). A total of 30 countries – including all European Union states and three non-EU members, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland – have signed the agreement and 15 have implemented it so far. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom only take part in the police co-operation measures and not the common border control and visa provisions. The agreement was signed outside of the structures of the EU because of a lack of consensus amongst members, and because of a Nordic desire to retain traditional freedoms of movement, irrespective of EU membership. However, the Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated Schengen developments into the European Union framework.
It might be better to give the Agreement a section of its own, perhaps as part of the reorganisation that editors are beginning to suggest. That would give room to explain these matters more accurately, and it's certainly a significant development.
Also (and I hesitate to raise this), the current photo of a 'Schengen' border-crossing is inappropriate to the Geography section (which is itself arguably inappropriate to an article on the EU). It looks like another example of the compulsion to post graphics, irrespective of their relevance and the value they add to the text. It's a kind of graphical diarrhoea. Countersubject 09:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I support an extended coverage of Schengen. It has to be one paragraph in 'History' and even a section in 'Politics' (This para was added by Lear 21, 16:19, 1 February 2007.)
Schengen is hisoric achievement and section-because of implications mentioned in intro. Lear 21 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The text: "The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control and customs checks for most member states within EU's internal borders, creating, to some extent, a single area of free movement for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest" is still very misleading, as it confuses passport control with customs control, and implies that Schengen is responsible for the freedom to "live, travel, work and invest." The freedoms to live, travel, and work pre-date Schengen by many years; the "freedom to invest," together with the abolition of customs checks, are an aspect of the Single Market. This distinction matters historically, but also on an everyday basis: EU countries not fully in Schengen may still have passport checks, but there are no customs controls, nor other constraints on the movement of people and capital (and if you live in one of these countries, as I do, these are not just academic distinctions!)
Currently the section on languages the only information it includes is on the classification in language families of languages spoken in the EU. I believe this information should be summarised and instead information on which languages are spoken the most, which are the official languages, which the EU language policy should be included. In fact, this is the same kind of information one expects in a country-like article. All these are available in Languages of the European Union, an article a little bit messy, but with all the needed stuff present. I can give it a try, if you agree. -- Michkalas 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Green light for expanding. I would prefer to keep the language families, articulating that these are also the official ones, though. EU language policy is needed! And maybe a word about regional languages like Catalan. Lear 21 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work. Lear 21 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the sections I've added 'unreferenced' to: the reason is, that it's unreferenced. It also doesn't tell people what the institutions do. Do we agree that this ought to be changed? I'm not too keen on Barrosso and Merkels' smarmy grins either. Wouldn't pictures of the buildings alone be more permanent? (although I know how high temperatures are flaring over the pictures). Wikidea 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
'Unreferenced is justified'. Section is a mess. Please change list of institutions in prose including the purpose, if you want to. The introduction has to be rewritten as well. Images have been widely discussed and will be kept. Lear 21 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) And as a Humboldtianer, you might want to look at the German-EU-article. The institution section is quite accurate. Lear 21 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Countersubject: Stop nonsense blabla in serious discussions! Lear 21 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What is to be done with passages such as this, vague and often random material? Paul111 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What appears to be random at the first look, is at least a start. Sentences like the questioned one are not true for China, USA or the UN. The EU has a status between these three. There is no purpose of the article, just a collection of facts reflecting the current situation. More than half of information is dealing with institutional matters. Plus, there is a EU-European heritage/culture and it is mentioned. And for the last times : There is a common room - Geography, which is not only created by Schengen, but simply by the proximity and the relative smallness of area. EU area is much smaller than Australia and is comparable with the size of India. Lear 21 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is the problem mentioning spectator sports as popular pastime? Rugby is watched in UK, France and Italy. Icehockey in the eastern and northern sphere. Handball is at least popular in Spain, France, Germany, Poland and Scandinavia. Together they cover all EU countries. Lear 21 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Please try to imagine an outside EU view. The 3 questioned team sports together cover probably around 400mil. EU country population. Next to soccer they are second or third most popular in their country, with 2000- 10000 spectators. Anyway, there should be no problem to add Hockey and Basketball. Lear 21 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of inviting further personal abuse on my user discussion page, I'd like to suggest that all this still begs the question of what we're aiming to do in the 'Culture' section. Or to put it another way, what distinctively EU cultural phenomena can we describe? We can certainly include EU cultural and sporting policy, and the ways in which they're implemented; they wouldn't exist as such without the EU. But the sports, literature, music, art, philosophy etc exist independently of the EU, except inasmuch as they are the subject of EU policy, or engage with the EU as an idea or institution. It's therefore not appropriate to put them into this section. Countersubject 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The EU member states are the masters of the treaties, so nothing wrong to describe the cultural traditions as set of influences they have experienced. In a very general way. Its an introduction.... Lear 21 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that on the 27th January, someone introduced the following sentence to the 'Education' section, in relation to the Galileo Project:
Several other nations are joining the project co financing the development such as China, Israel, India, Marocco or South Korea.
Where is 'Marocco', and why the fractured English? That we've let this survive without question or correction for a number of days says a lot about the rate of change to this article, and our willingness to pussyfoot around imprecise and even unintelligible edits. We're so phased by the rate of change and worried that we might offend someone (or frankly can't face the hassle of the edit war) that we just let this kind of thing pass. Shame on us all. Countersubject 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The current introduction is speculative, and does not belong in a neutral written head. The written quality is worse than the version before. Both contributers who reinstalled the version know that. Stop these contraproductive tactics. Please, with sugar on the top, accept Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER Lear 21 00:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The new version has to be explained, compared to the neutral version, which is the introduction for months. Lear 21 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Conlusion so far : no arguments for change. In 12 hours the old version will be reestablished. Lear 21 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Paul111 b)Who says there is a controversial relationship between nationsstates and EU in terms of identity ? That is speculation or true for single cases and must be mentioned in politics or culture. The introduction has to present the state of being. In the UK article introduction, I cant read anything about controversials about the queen or the house of lords disputed status....And responding to argument a) the EU is not a Union of classical nation-states anymore like UN maybe. It is enough to mention that they democratic states. Lear 21 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, there might be some truth to that. After all, being a nation-state is not a prerequisite for being a member of the EU; indeed Bosnia - a potential future member state - is not a nation-state. Neither is Cyprus, thinking of it. And Spain has recognized Catalonia as a nation, I believe. Last but not least - the UK is not really a nation state either; after all, a major party of one of its constitutive parts (Scotland) is thinking about organizing a referendum on that region's independence. I would also suggest to delete the reference to nation-states in the first sentence of the introduction. Luis rib 20:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
There is an aspiration and a momentum at the heart of the EU project for greater political integration. The intention of the Schuman Declaration was to make "the first concrete step towards a European federation" (unquote). "Ever closer union" is one of the stated aims of the Treaty of Rome. It's repeated by the Maastricht treaty, which also talks about a new stage in the process of European integration. The phrase was dropped from the proposed constitution, but it does extend majority voting into 26 new policy areas, create an independent and personal EU Presidency, and extend the competencies of the EU and its institutions in a number of ways.
Equally, there's been a continuing tension between 'ever closer' union and member states. This hasn't been limited to the UK and 'new Europe', but has also been an issue for members like France that have traditionally supported greater integration. It's also become an electoral issue at times, with governments sometimes failing to persuade their electorates of the virtues of closer union, or doing their best to avoid the need for popular ratification.
The EU can't be properly understood without an understanding of this tension. It's so fundamental that an introduction which doesn't allude to it is incomplete. That isn't to say we can't discuss the form in which it's described. Also, I'd suggest it's important enough to have its own section. Countersubject 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with that. I just objected to the word "nation-states". Luis rib 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Controversial issues no matter what color are part of every social, political, historical process. The EU has achieved a certain status after 50 years of evolution, these facts and nothing else have to be captured in the introduction. All other pros and cons can be part of the sections, but only there. Lear 21 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not sufficient to use the term member states, which could include empires. That would negate the historical background, the transition to a continent of nation-states. The controversy is not a country-by-country issue, but derives from the inherent contradictions of a union of sovereign states. Additionally, each of those nation-states derives its legitimacy from its status as national homeland of the nation (4 nations in the UK case), whereas the European Union does not correspond to a nation, people, ethnic group, or any similar entity. These issues have played a role in the evolution of the EU, and in its current state of crisis. These points need more emphasis, starting with the intro. Paul111 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we think about adding a section about controversies, Euro-sceptics and Euro-fans. I think today this is one of the most dividing and interesting issues among the EU population. Some of this information is already explicitly mentioned in other sections, but I think the importance is argument enough for an explicit/separate section. Also this may balance the overall very enthusiastic tone about the EU in the article to provide a more NPOV. Arnoutf 00:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The tension between 'ever closer union' and its opponents is, as Arnoutf says, an issue of such significance that it should have a full treatment. That's best given in its own section, whatever the title. The other advantage of such a section is that it would allay the impression that the article has a tendency to reflect a particular view of the EU's development. Countersubject 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
All of this acting as though the EU is a country is very debatable. What counts as a "geopolitical entity?" The EU does not have a unified military nor military policy (look at the conflict in Iraq; some EU countries sent troops, some didn't); it does not have a unified currency (although the Euro is eventually supposed to be it); it does not have a free flow of services; they don't even have a single alphabet; etc. So where does it stop? You could state that the UN is a geopolitical entity, or even ASEAN. In that case, both of those have a larger population than the EU. This EU bumping the USA ranking pettiness ought to stop, especially while the EU is not yet a single nation-state.
Chiss Boy 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The European Union IS its member states. There is no EU-spaceship coming out of a sudden and created a three pillar system. All decisions were made by democratically elected head of states, not by aliens or other anonymous bureaucrats. There are a lot of indications which lead to the assumption of a "country" - like entity (term used by CIA): Common market, common policies in many fields, election every 5 years, European parliament, EU court of justice, the currency Euro is adopted by 300 mil inhabitants, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate ,-Passport ,-Drivinglicense ,-Anthem , Common room without borders, EU is financing infrastructure, education, social projects and in official pressconferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag. Some of these indications might be not implemented or realized (mentally) by all members or their population. But it does not mean that this view prevails in this article. Lear 21 14:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Lear 21, let me begin by asking you once again not to shout. Now that's done, I think there are three things about your response that I'd like to discuss. The first is that a decision by some or all member states to cooperate in a number of ways doesn't make the EU a country. As you rightly observe elsewhere, the member states are the 'masters of the treaty'. The second is that you spoil a potentially interesting case by over-statement. While the EU isn't a country, it does have a tendency to attempt to acquire more country-like attributes, and that might or might not eventually lead to its transformation into a country. However, it hasn't done so yet, as the beginning of the article acknowledges by describing the EU as an inter-governmental and supra-national body. The third is that it isn't wise to ascribe widespread failure to see your point of view as some kind of mental failing. That's not only offensive, but also more than a little weak as an argument.
Finally, I must beg whoever has been impersonating Lear 21 on my user discussion page, by leaving abusive messages, not to use this discussion as an excuse to do so again. Lear 21: have you had any luck yet in identifying the imposter? Countersubject 15:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of Strasbourg as a lesser capital in the factbox on the right?
Chiss Boy 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This a another example of the knots we tie ourselves in when we attempt to treat this article like a country article :-). Countersubject 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think this is one of the issues where the EU-integration has not yet been complete enough to add to the template. For example the GDP of Denmark is about 5 times that of Romania. There is a huge difference in HDI as well within the EU. That this is an issue can also be gathered from the relatively weird wording now used to justify the template. In other words, I would suggest jsut leaving these numbers out of the infobox and discuss it in some more detail under economics. Arnoutf 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No doubt! Its not only a standard figure, but estimating the size and status of the EU-entity it is indispensable in the the infobox. Lear 21 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Lear 21 doesn't like the changes to the introduction made by Paul111, so he reverted them, initially without discussion, subsequently explaining that he felt the changes were "speculative", and that they'd had an adverse effect on the "written quality" of the article (see "Introduction", above). I believe Paul111's edits included some valuable contributions, though felt they would benefit from amendment, so I asked Lear 21 what in particular he believed was speculative, and in what manner the written quality of the article had been affected. Frustratingly, he refused to explain, and said that unless given a good reason, he would would remove Paul111's edits again. Users Paul111, Luis rib and Arnoutf struck up a discussion about the use of the term 'nation states' in Paul111's edits, and they were amended accordingly. Subsequently, Lear 21 reverted the edits anyway, so I put them back in again.
What do we do next? If an editor - and especially a regular one - has a problem with the article, then this is the place to discuss it in detail. Unfortunately, Lear 21 doesn't seem to wish to do so. Perhaps the problem is that he and I seem to have offended each other, and I have to say that Paul111 and I have suffered abuse from him (e.g. see my discussion page). Nonetheless, it's the article that matters, so if anyone out there would care to engage Lear 21, and persuade him to detail his particular problems with the original edits, then we might be able to find a way forward that improves the article. I'd be very grateful. Countersubject 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Controversial issues no matter what color are part of every social, political, historical process. The EU has achieved a certain status after 50 years of evolution, these facts and nothing else have to be captured in the introduction. All other pros and cons can be part of the sections, but only there. Lear 21 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Introduction 2.: a)"It currently has 27 member states. The EU represents the current" - double "current" - bad style. b) "Predecessor entities, with fewer members and more limited in scope, were formed after the Second World War." - unprecise, old version more specific. c)"The EU represents the current phase of European integration" - blank sentence d) "although the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU, eurosceptic fears that it will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty have made the EU (and its future) a major political issue in itself" - highly speculative generalisation - not needed. Parts which can be kept: e)" "The process of integration is open-ended" - or remains open. Lear 21 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do this properly Lear21. I agree with point (a) and have changed it slightly - please check over. Point (b) I think needs more explanation Lear21, can you say how you think it should read? Point (c) I don't understand - the sentence seems good to me. Can you elucidate further please? Point (d) - Euroscepticism - is such a big issue across Europe that I think most editors would think it worth mentioning in the introduction. Point (e) - I agree. Thanks. MarkThomas 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Good listing very constructive. (a) Indeed bad style; change that pleace. I think intro 2 has the benefit that the mentioning of current implies this is not the final stage. Ie it may increase in the future. That is the bit I like about that version (b) I agree this is unintelligable as it is in intro 2. I would say something like: The EU is the continuation of the European Economic Union established in 1951 with fewer members, and focussing on economic cooperation only Or something similar. (c) Ican't really see the point here. I think we all agree the EU is in a process of change. (d) I agree the sentence is POV. I would like to keep scepticism in though perhaps not linked to giving up sovereinigty. Perhaps something like The growing influence of the EU over the internal actions of its member states is not without critisism. Among the population of several countries there is a certain level of [[euroscepticism]. Or something like. (e) useless addition, does not add anything I agree, take it out. Arnoutf 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Arnoutf That could be a direction. More moderately : Supporters of the EU believe ...., while critics doubt .... - that would be acceptable, plus, mentioned after all the factual basics. I´m off for a drink. Viva Europa! Lear 21 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just come back from feeding the family. I'll have my say, then go for drink, too. And btw, Lear 21 - please don't confuse the EU with Europe :-).
I believe there are strengths and weaknesses in both versions. Firstly, I'd like to address Paul111's introduction of material concerning integration over time. This material is, directly or indirectly, the subject of points b, c, d and e. The chief problem with the original version is that it focuses on the EU as a set of current structures, and doesn't mention the EU as an ongoing process of 'ever closer union'. This is at the heart of the project, from the Schuman Declaration to the proposed constitution, which has been stalled by popular rejection in two founder countries, and which is now the subject of negotiation by the German presidency. As an issue, it's therefore very much part of the status quo, and therefore deserving of mention in the intro. On the other hand, the revised version treats it at too great a length for an introduction, and invites the perception of POV on what's clearly a very sensitive subject. I think this is in part because the main article lacks direct recognition of the issue. One way forward would be to change the introduction so that this aspect of the EU is mentioned more concisely, and develop a more detailed account in the body of the article. We could also add relevant external references.
Apart from that, I agree with observation a, and believe that the unexplained reference to the "three pillars of the European Union" needs to be removed. It's not prefaced by an explanation of what the pillars are, or accompanied by any direct mention of its two fellows. This concept belongs in the detail.
Also, the Schengen paragraph gets a little head of the status quo when it says that the "Agreement abolished passport control and customs checks for most member states." As I understand it, of the 30 countries that have signed it (3 of which aren't in the EU), only 15 have implemented it so far. It would be good to find a form of words that avoids overstatement.
Finally, "within EU's internal borders" should read: "within the EU's internal borders". Countersubject 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Galileo system from Demographics, it has nothing to do with population. Section on largest cities was already moved to Geography of the European Union. I rewrote the culture intro section, which was in fact on identity and history, and gave it a better title, and removed the pointless listing of sports. Intro paragraph restored. Paul111 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Stop deleting content from this article. This has an end now! Lear 21 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The article simply does not meet the criteria for a Good Article, and stability alone would be enough to delist it, as this talk page evidences. Editing disputes do indeed make an article unstable. However, there is absolutely no obligation on editors to refrain from editing, simply to preserve Good Article status. Paul111 18:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Paul111, Don´t abuse this article for personal attitudes! Stop it ! The suggestions of your changes are not answered or supported. Lear 21 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:Countersubject: I´m happy as always. Stop your psychological assessments. Stick to the content. By the way, have you supported delisting? Lear 21 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Since simple editing is apparently not possible, the culture section must approached in terms of an accuracy dispute. The following points need some evidence:
@User:Arnoutf Your approach to the culture intro leads in the right direction. Judeo-Christianity and globalization have to be mentioned. Now it seems that regions are the determining forces of traditions. Thats not sufficient. Globalized attitudes and habits are widely spread. plus : I wonder why climate influence on culture is questioned. Remember how Christmas is celebrated in Australia? Correct! on the beach! Thats climate. Lear 21 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Indoor - Outdoor activities/ habits is an interesting point. The Spanish 'siesta' is cultivated, because of hot temperatures in summer, and the last meal is taken after 21.00 h because during daytime its to hot. 2. : The cafe outdoor culture in the mediteranean regions are also influenced by milder temperatures compared to Scandinavia. Lear 21 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What theory are you talking about? The connection of 'productive life' and climate seems very shaky. The fact of different indoor / outdoor culture caused by temperatures is reason enough and basically obvious. Lear 21 10:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved the list from the Culture intro to the Sport section, and it now reads: Paul111 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Sound like a relevant move. Mind you the classification of sports is done without references (although I am pretty sure of Soccer, Korfball and Crickett). However it may well be that some of the fewer countries sports should be widely played sports and/or vice versa. If anyone has some numbers there from some kind of sports magazine, that would be a great help in getting it right, and above discussion. Arnoutf 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose permanent removal to Geography of the European Union. Please indicate below if you support or oppose. Paul111 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to follow on from Arnoutf's comment, and my own earlier note, to suggest that we have a problem with this discussion: that a number of votes have been cast without explanation. As Arnoutf and Lear 21 rightly point out, Wiki isn't a democracy - the point of the vote is to encourage focussed discussion. When an editor casts a vote but doesn't explain it (or does so in an unintelligible, aggressive manner), then there is no discussion, just a face-off, and the likelihood of further edit wars. If you're one of the editors whose votes fall into this category, I strongly encourage you to add an explanation. If you haven't yet contributed and feel you have something to say, please add your vote and reasons. Thanks, Countersubject 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we use the (optional) property largest city in the country userbox. I think not, for much the reasons I outlined above.
I have to say the above strikes me as being a separate table. It is quite interesting to see a table of the largest cities in the EU by population. However, the existing table is not really as informative as it should be - it should be based on metropolitan areas. On that basis, Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester should all be on the top 10 table with London. Also, what do you base your assertion that London is not a typical European city on? Do you mean it doesn't have Hanseatic-style overhanging houses? It used to - they were all bombed flat by the Germans! Or is it the international financial success and powerhouse media/fashion capital that is different? That would be correct as Paris and Milan are both in decline to London and Frankfurt is virtually giving up and handing over to London as financial centre. MarkThomas 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, but I think the framework you're viewing it from Arnoutf (EU = EU countries who love the EU beyond measure and uncritically) is fairly POVist - I would prefer a much more factual approach as I think that's what the typical reader would prefer - which is that all countries officially in the EU are in the EU and that's what the page needs to be about. Tables in particular are about statistical facts and not opinions. If you look at the facts, the largest metropolitan cities in Europe, in order, are London, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, Birmingham, Milan, Madrid, Manchester, Rome, Naples. The East European ones are very small in comparison as they are not on the whole bloated conurbations. That's fine for the table called "Largest cities in the European Union". The table you are talking about could be called "Largest cities in EU Euro Monetary Area countries with a tendancy Not to Challenge Brussels". MarkThomas 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
@User:MarkThomas Please see Largest European metropolitan areas and Largest urban areas of the European Union to adjust knowledge of city size. @User:Arnoutf The London entry is a standard feature, but also dispensable. a) largest cities are already covered in own section and are put in perspective with others extensively. b) infobox constantly overlaps with history section / space could be saved. c) in this case, the very official(institutional) facts in infobox are outweighing and London is not in line. I´m not hardcore about this, but it can be removed. Lear 21 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, further to the above, we should use this data from Eurostat, which is by far the best from a scientifically worked out point of view. Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in the European Union. MarkThomas 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I just found two recordings, public domain, from http://www.navyband.navy.mil/anthems/all_countries.htm. If yall want them, let me know please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The claim that superpower status is acknowledged by the CIA is spurious, I removed it. The cited source, the CIA Factbook, simply does not say this. The Washington Times is not a reliable source in general, and the online news cited does not say what the original source is, the 'Chineese report' which sees the EU as a superpower. It is not verifiable. China does support EU expansion, but this is not enough for a reliable statement of its views. Paul111 10:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue can be resolved by citing the original source, the "official paper" from Beijing. As it stands it is untraceable, and therefore not verifiable. There should in any case be no problem in finding an official Chinese view of the EU from the Foreign Ministry website. Further discussion of the The Washington Times is then unnecessary. Paul111 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved this issue to a new article Location of European Union institutions, at an overview article the Institutions section should focus on the institutions themsleves, and not on the location controversies. I reverted re-insertion, others may comment here. Paul111 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)