![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A two-speed European Union was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 November 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Multi-speed Europe. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is tagged as dubious: "Ireland only reluctantly agreed to stay out of the treaty to avoid creating a physical border between the Republic and Northern Ireland because the UK had refused to sign." While I agree it is need of a citation, I do think it is a widely held view as to the attitude/reasonings of successive Irish governments. (Although, due to the usual diplomatic reasons I doubt the Irish government would say so publicly.) -- SJK ( talk) 10:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The table on Inner Europe visualizes the integration process - and unlike some pictures it can be easily updated as soon as some member countries enter another step in the integration process. From my point of view it also easier to see where countries opt-in to follow the integration process very tightly - not like Core Europe but sharing some attributes with it - while other countries have opt-outs that are unlikely to change next year. Guidod ( talk) 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The article contains many grand assertions that are not supported by citation. It reads as editor opinion and WP:SYNthesis. If the article is to remain in place then the citations requested are urgently required. -- Red King ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A selection of information can be misleading in itself. The emphasis on multi-speed (Europe a la carte) elements in European integration during the last years can quickly lead to the impression that every country just chooses what it likes. That is far from reality. Instead you do have a "Core" although that it is not quite like idea of a federation inside the confederation model that was en vogue a few years back. It can be shown by selecting a range of items from the 100+ integration elements and depict the central cluster as well as the movement into that direction. Of course, using another selection would yield a different result (see European Regional Integration for examples). Still I have the impression that your opposition on depicting the direction in the integration process towards an inner europe comes from doubts that such a thing exists in the first place. Surely, more references would be a good thing to any article but the real importance of that comes for those articles that are in doubt. Guidod ( talk) 11:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
@RedKing wake up, the wiki-rules are just a combination of opinions based on the consensus-process, and consensus can change. It is not carved in stone and therefore the wp-articles actually demand that you adhere to proper reasoning. I had run a number of debates where the fundamental rules were just wrong - the Ich bin ein Berliner myth is a good example because the "reputable media" has called the myth to be the truth while the opinion of native speakers was called WP:NOR according to the rules. In the discussion we managed to allow references to some blog-articles which makes the article look like it is well-referenced but you shouldn't look too closely. It's a compromise born in months and years of discussions - as a fundamentalist you may want to restart the whole thing? Guidod ( talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
@Ssolberg addtional citations are a good thing. Making it a part of a long article like European integration might not be a good thing however. Actually the whole article has assembled a number of terms like "Core Europe" and others - in the German variant one has even added the Inner Six / Outer Seven relation to the text (only the English Wikipedia has it as a standalone article while the other wikipedia languages tend to speak about a different speeds in europe in a separate article covering multiple terms). I think you are right that looking at "two speeds" in the integration process is the normal way to look at the speed attribution of European integration - "multi-speed europe" seems to be more of a compromise for a general term that even covers terms like Europe-a-la-carte (which I expect more to be a British invention). The table itself is a compressed way to look at the speed attribution (there are more than 100 treaties in Europe that could be joined or not) that only makes sense when looking at other terms covering the speed attribution of the European integration process. So may I assume that you think the speed attribution has been overemphasized with this article? Note that in Germany and France the Core Europe idea had been covered in the media for decades very often so I would not say it is overemphasized in itself but the other terms seem to have come up around that idea (mostly trying to counter that position) so that one may need to check the article structure again to reflect the two-speeds idea a bit better. Guidod ( talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Since no supporting evidence has been produced, I have deleted the material that is clearly original research and/or editor opinion. -- Red King ( talk) 20:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The current article does not hint on the Schäuble-Lamers-Paper explaining the idea of Core Europe. It does not give a hint on the different characterisations of the multi-speed europe ideas, like a federation inside the confederation with its own institutions. It does not tell the users on the relation of having a bunch of formally unrelated treaties and the action to replace them by a single law like the treaty of lisboa. The reader is not given an idea about the tendencies of countries acting towards a strict integration and countries trying to hold off the process arguing for cherry-picking on elements. Overall, the most-parts-deleted article is greatly misleading. Guidod ( talk) 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#multi-speed_europe. Alinor ( talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Although I agree that this is an important topic and the article is filled with good information, I have nominated it for deletion. The title is very confusing and the article seems to be about one aspect or point of view of a larger topic. Wouldn't it be better to present the information in a more general article such as European integration? Jaque Hammer ( talk) 13:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Multi speed Europe is a concept in itself. Sorry, but I don't see the purpose of creating confusion by merging it into a different one. -- Pgreenfinch ( talk) 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I've only just come across this article. Never before heard of Multi speed Europe. If Multi speed Europe is a concept, I would dearly love to know what that concept was. Good articles start off by defining the title. This one doesn't. Not to my reading anyway. Major changes are needed to make it at all meaningful to an uninformed reader. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The term is certainly used by the European (especially UK) press, so it should appear in Wikipedia, even if only a redirect to a paragraph in another article. It is a real concept - some states have a more federalist agenda than others, and in different areas. Unfortunately it is a word used a lá Humpty Dumpty 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.' ( Through the Looking Glass). So the article or paragraph must be properly based on primary sources. This is of course true of every wikipedia article but all the more so with this one because of the tendency of some journalists and politicians to use it as a soap-box. So to summarise, "keep but needs a lot of work".-- Red King ( talk) 13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Having a table with many many columns might be good for European Integration but for the article of Core Europe / Multispeed-Europe you need a table that puts countries into classes per "level of integration". A single scale metric. The original table was using color for that and the countries were sorted by class/color and time/year. The current tables removes the support to give an impression of what multispeed is about - which is that some countries push forward while other countries stay out of some options for an extended period. The tension between them is what this article should talk about and the fact support in the table should point to the foundation (when the actual text about the facts was cut was the only thing that was left to point to the fact support of the idea). Guidod ( talk) 10:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The map legend lists three colors and their meanings, but the map itself uses four colors. It is unclear what the two shades of blue (blue/azure) represent. -- Khajidha ( talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I just saw this article. I think it is very interesting. Could we put it somewhere in the entry? http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9476 PLEASE HELP! -- Gironauni ( talk) 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are several countries bolded? [1] -- 80.187.106.76 ( talk) 20:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
But neither bolded nor marked as blue in the map of europe. - 13th May 2015
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Multi-speed Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This article Needs to be updated to include Brexit and remove references to the UK. ( MOTORAL1987 ( talk) 17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC))
I restored Multi-speed Europe to its 17 October 2022 version as there was no consensus to merge that to European Integration. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 08:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A two-speed European Union was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 November 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Multi-speed Europe. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is tagged as dubious: "Ireland only reluctantly agreed to stay out of the treaty to avoid creating a physical border between the Republic and Northern Ireland because the UK had refused to sign." While I agree it is need of a citation, I do think it is a widely held view as to the attitude/reasonings of successive Irish governments. (Although, due to the usual diplomatic reasons I doubt the Irish government would say so publicly.) -- SJK ( talk) 10:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The table on Inner Europe visualizes the integration process - and unlike some pictures it can be easily updated as soon as some member countries enter another step in the integration process. From my point of view it also easier to see where countries opt-in to follow the integration process very tightly - not like Core Europe but sharing some attributes with it - while other countries have opt-outs that are unlikely to change next year. Guidod ( talk) 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The article contains many grand assertions that are not supported by citation. It reads as editor opinion and WP:SYNthesis. If the article is to remain in place then the citations requested are urgently required. -- Red King ( talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A selection of information can be misleading in itself. The emphasis on multi-speed (Europe a la carte) elements in European integration during the last years can quickly lead to the impression that every country just chooses what it likes. That is far from reality. Instead you do have a "Core" although that it is not quite like idea of a federation inside the confederation model that was en vogue a few years back. It can be shown by selecting a range of items from the 100+ integration elements and depict the central cluster as well as the movement into that direction. Of course, using another selection would yield a different result (see European Regional Integration for examples). Still I have the impression that your opposition on depicting the direction in the integration process towards an inner europe comes from doubts that such a thing exists in the first place. Surely, more references would be a good thing to any article but the real importance of that comes for those articles that are in doubt. Guidod ( talk) 11:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
@RedKing wake up, the wiki-rules are just a combination of opinions based on the consensus-process, and consensus can change. It is not carved in stone and therefore the wp-articles actually demand that you adhere to proper reasoning. I had run a number of debates where the fundamental rules were just wrong - the Ich bin ein Berliner myth is a good example because the "reputable media" has called the myth to be the truth while the opinion of native speakers was called WP:NOR according to the rules. In the discussion we managed to allow references to some blog-articles which makes the article look like it is well-referenced but you shouldn't look too closely. It's a compromise born in months and years of discussions - as a fundamentalist you may want to restart the whole thing? Guidod ( talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
@Ssolberg addtional citations are a good thing. Making it a part of a long article like European integration might not be a good thing however. Actually the whole article has assembled a number of terms like "Core Europe" and others - in the German variant one has even added the Inner Six / Outer Seven relation to the text (only the English Wikipedia has it as a standalone article while the other wikipedia languages tend to speak about a different speeds in europe in a separate article covering multiple terms). I think you are right that looking at "two speeds" in the integration process is the normal way to look at the speed attribution of European integration - "multi-speed europe" seems to be more of a compromise for a general term that even covers terms like Europe-a-la-carte (which I expect more to be a British invention). The table itself is a compressed way to look at the speed attribution (there are more than 100 treaties in Europe that could be joined or not) that only makes sense when looking at other terms covering the speed attribution of the European integration process. So may I assume that you think the speed attribution has been overemphasized with this article? Note that in Germany and France the Core Europe idea had been covered in the media for decades very often so I would not say it is overemphasized in itself but the other terms seem to have come up around that idea (mostly trying to counter that position) so that one may need to check the article structure again to reflect the two-speeds idea a bit better. Guidod ( talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Since no supporting evidence has been produced, I have deleted the material that is clearly original research and/or editor opinion. -- Red King ( talk) 20:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The current article does not hint on the Schäuble-Lamers-Paper explaining the idea of Core Europe. It does not give a hint on the different characterisations of the multi-speed europe ideas, like a federation inside the confederation with its own institutions. It does not tell the users on the relation of having a bunch of formally unrelated treaties and the action to replace them by a single law like the treaty of lisboa. The reader is not given an idea about the tendencies of countries acting towards a strict integration and countries trying to hold off the process arguing for cherry-picking on elements. Overall, the most-parts-deleted article is greatly misleading. Guidod ( talk) 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#multi-speed_europe. Alinor ( talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Although I agree that this is an important topic and the article is filled with good information, I have nominated it for deletion. The title is very confusing and the article seems to be about one aspect or point of view of a larger topic. Wouldn't it be better to present the information in a more general article such as European integration? Jaque Hammer ( talk) 13:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Multi speed Europe is a concept in itself. Sorry, but I don't see the purpose of creating confusion by merging it into a different one. -- Pgreenfinch ( talk) 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I've only just come across this article. Never before heard of Multi speed Europe. If Multi speed Europe is a concept, I would dearly love to know what that concept was. Good articles start off by defining the title. This one doesn't. Not to my reading anyway. Major changes are needed to make it at all meaningful to an uninformed reader. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The term is certainly used by the European (especially UK) press, so it should appear in Wikipedia, even if only a redirect to a paragraph in another article. It is a real concept - some states have a more federalist agenda than others, and in different areas. Unfortunately it is a word used a lá Humpty Dumpty 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.' ( Through the Looking Glass). So the article or paragraph must be properly based on primary sources. This is of course true of every wikipedia article but all the more so with this one because of the tendency of some journalists and politicians to use it as a soap-box. So to summarise, "keep but needs a lot of work".-- Red King ( talk) 13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Having a table with many many columns might be good for European Integration but for the article of Core Europe / Multispeed-Europe you need a table that puts countries into classes per "level of integration". A single scale metric. The original table was using color for that and the countries were sorted by class/color and time/year. The current tables removes the support to give an impression of what multispeed is about - which is that some countries push forward while other countries stay out of some options for an extended period. The tension between them is what this article should talk about and the fact support in the table should point to the foundation (when the actual text about the facts was cut was the only thing that was left to point to the fact support of the idea). Guidod ( talk) 10:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The map legend lists three colors and their meanings, but the map itself uses four colors. It is unclear what the two shades of blue (blue/azure) represent. -- Khajidha ( talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I just saw this article. I think it is very interesting. Could we put it somewhere in the entry? http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9476 PLEASE HELP! -- Gironauni ( talk) 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are several countries bolded? [1] -- 80.187.106.76 ( talk) 20:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
But neither bolded nor marked as blue in the map of europe. - 13th May 2015
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Multi-speed Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This article Needs to be updated to include Brexit and remove references to the UK. ( MOTORAL1987 ( talk) 17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC))
I restored Multi-speed Europe to its 17 October 2022 version as there was no consensus to merge that to European Integration. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 08:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)