Talk:European Union/Archive 21

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

West-European centric sentence regarding First World War.

"19th century Liberalism and (sometimes) negative elements such as the World Wars." This falsely attributes West European feelings for World War I to Central and Eastern European members of EU. The perception of First World War is quite different here since it ended the opressive rule of three foreign empires and brought freedom to several nations that were denied their statehood. A minor note is that some EU nations never had 19th century liberalism movement as they were concerned with wholy different issues. If nobody opposes I will change World Wars to Second World War.--Molobo (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't, we need more of a balance with what happened in the east. But if possible please cite such changes.- J Logan ^t: 09:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with more balance if it is indeed biased to west. The phrase you refer to is a summation of some of the elements in the (history of the) EU; and not conclusive, also the original founders of EU who were more from the west. Also I would seriously hesitate that there can be any but negative feelings about WWI anywhere (including Germany and the countries of former Hungary-Austria) considering the human drama and casualties alone; and the resulting political instability in central Europe that was (according to majority historian pov) the direct cause of WWII. Arnoutf (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Also I would seriously hesitate that there can be any but negative feelings about WWI anywhere " Why should Poles mourn an event that brought them freedom from opression ? WW1 is simply skipped over here, sure we learn about French and German people dying, but the celebration of independence and freedom regained is the most important aspect of this event in our history classes. "and the resulting political instability in central Europe that was" For Westerners perhaps Polish, Czech, Lithuanian freedom from Russia and Germanty is "instability", but I assure that the 20 years of being free and able to develop one's state and culture are seen as one of the best periods of our existance.--Molobo (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what Arnoutf may have meant though Molobo, is that there can really be nothing but negative feelings about the incredible scale of loss in the First World War. Even if for some countries there could be said to have been benefits from WWI, surely the whole point that the article was trying to make was basically "After 50 bloody years of fighting, the continent of Europe was a bit fed up with fighting each other. Instead they wanted to develop a common sports policy... hang on a second...". --Simonski (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was indeed what I meant. While the "short 20th century" - 1914-1990 indeed lead to the collapse of totalitarian monarchist, fascist and communist empires; and a lot of freedom for different states, and a more peaceful approach with regard to European Unity (in my opinion all good things); I nevertheless would not like to say that the actual war(s) triggering these collapses of totalitarian regimes in themselves were a good thing. A necessary evil perhaps; but an evil nonetheless. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

EU GDP / Trade figures etc.

Just wanted to say thanks for keeping the gdp figures as up to date as possible, and the eu article as a whole is really informative, keep it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.76.90 (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for people to stop quoting estimated figures please, not only is it Crystal ball gazing (even if it is cited) but allows others with POV edits to do there own estimating. The last certified/audited figures should always be used.SouthernElectric (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lately for the GDP figures it has been worse than that. People have been using the IMF estimates for 2008 and then listing it as a GDP figure for 2007. That's not only crystal ball editing it's also grossly inaccurate as they are listing the figures as belonging to 2007. There's no excuse for it either as the link to the source displays the 2007 figure right next to the 2008 estimates.Zebulin (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2007 Lear 21 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

updating the source should allow that data to be used.Zebulin (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one use 2007 figures when we are still in 2007, I've never come across any such figurers that have been pre audited, surely the most recent figures that could be used are those from '2006 assuming that they have been audited? SouthernElectric (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get to the bottom of that but the auditing process is not clear. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/index.aspx seems to be the best starting point for shedding some light on the issue.Zebulin (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs co-ordinating with other articles, particularly the United States and Japan. Perhaps this has been discussed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. I was wondering if it would be possible for such information to be kept centrally and fetched for each article using the Infobox. I suppose it could be done with a selective template. Ideally, I would like several figures: last "audited" year and estimates for all subsequent years up to the current year. One problem with using 2006 figures is that the EU now has more members than then. --Boson (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Permanent semi protection

The article has by now a considerable degree of maturity (GA). Throughout every month in the last year anonymous IP- editors keep vandalizing or deleting content. I suggest to ask an administrator to install a permanent semi protection with a discrete tag (pp-semi-protected|small=yes) for more stabilization. Lear 21 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I support that. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In principle so do I, what I'm concerned about is if it will actually stop many of the problems, yes it will stop the 'school boy' vandalism but it will not stop the many POV edits that are made either in good faith or as blatant POV vandalism and it most certainly won't stop the disruption from WP:OWN edits... SouthernElectric (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it won't stop all the vandalism, we'll still have to watch it, but it will cut our workload. This topic attracts vandalism like a minor celebrity attracts chavs, no doubt that would only increase if the article were to get to FA and thus become more prominent. It certainly wouldn't hurt. I support. Just keep in mind we do still have to sort out our own internal problems.- J Logan ^t: 17:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I almost forgot, on registered user's good faith edits: how about an FAQ page for this article? So we don't have to keep repeating the reasons why, for example, there is no criticism section or why the EU symbols DO exist and hence are staying on the page. Might help?- J Logan ^t: 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual IP /anon vandalisms are relatively infrequent and can easily be reverted. The most problematic is differences in opinion between established editors, where this will not help. Therefore in the free spirit of Wiki I would not support this. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look through the logs, and this article isn't actually hit that badly. There were also quite a few helpful IP edits, mostly typo fixes, which would be a shame to lose. For such a high profile article, it actually has surprisingly low levels of vandalism. (But a FAQ seems like a good idea) henrik•talk 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It has periods, but fair enough. I would be inclined to seek protection on certain occasions, for example if this gets on the main page we should defiantly protect it.- J Logan ^t: 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say I have thought that an FAQ page would be quite helpful; I certainly think the one on the United States page is. I haven't got a strong opinion on it though. Rossenglish (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both semi-protection and a FAQ. —Nightstallion 11:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FAQ

Wasn't aware the US had one, I've stolen their style and started the FAQ page here: European Union/Frequently asked questions. I only have two questions down so far as I'm not sure what we should address beyond those two - for example the "political centres" hasn't come up since we agreed on that term, but may do. What do people think? Please edit the page.- J Logan ^t: 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a FAQ page. Lear 21 (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool image in Culture

I prepared this license free image from flickr [2]. It is intended to replace the Sibiu image in Culture on 01.01.2008. Any other high quality free license images are welcome. Lear 21 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we could just use Image:Liverpool 2008 Flag.jpg as it broadly states the capital of culture point, doesn't show off the city but it is closer to the topic. If we want to show off the city, we could also ask the people on the Liverpool page for their suggestions, something they think shows off the city from the perspective of people who know the place.- J Logan ^t: 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, side note: they have a page on it we should link to: Liverpool European Capital of Culture 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLogan (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Failing that, any cleared pictures of the The Beetles?!... Joking aside, I would prefer the flag as Lear's image, whilst being Liverpool though and through, could be mistaken by our international readers as an image of St Paul's Cathedral London - look at both images! SouthernElectric (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreement on structure?

Okay, has died down a bit so can I just ask if anyone really has an objection to the current structure (copied below). If you do, can it be debated before the current structure is changed - especially if you're the only person arguing for it.

• 1 History
• 2 Member states
  • 2.1 Geography
• 3 Governance
  • 3.1 Politics
• 4 Legal system
  • 4.1 Legislation
  • 4.2 Courts
• 5 Justice, freedom and security
  • 5.1 Fundamental rights
• 6 Foreign relations
  • 6.1 Humanitarian aid
  • 6.2 Military and defence
• 7 Economy
  • 7.1 Single market
  • 7.2 Monetary union
  • 7.3 Competition
• 8 Development policy
  • 8.1 Agriculture
  • 8.2 Energy
  • 8.3 Infrastructure
  • 8.4 Regional development
  • 8.5 Environment
• 9 Education and research
• 10 Demographics
  • 10.1 Languages
  • 10.2 Religion
• 11 Culture
  • 11.1 Sport
• 12 See also
• 13 References
• 14 Further reading
• 15 External links

And if there is an objection, I hope it is more than a personal preference -if it likely to be opposed- as we do need to have a compromise here.- J Logan ^t: 17:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Replies

I can live with this, although I think education and reseach and culture (incl sports) are a bit orphaned in this structure, so suggestions to host these 2 I would welcome.Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with the above on two provisions: 1/. That Culture is renamed, I would suggest something like "Culture & Society" (but don't really car as long as it is renamed), because sport is most certainly has nothing what so ever to do with culture, unless we are going to talk about the sports played by the ancient Greeks and Romans! 2/. The second is, that this is not set in stone for ever more, meaning that as content is added there is scope for a review of the structure? SouthernElectric (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Demographics should change position with Education & Research. But for now, I´m fine with it. Lear 21 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport isn't culture? Isn't that a bit classist SE? :p Lear, what do you make of "culture and society"? Any objections. I don't mind Edu&R switching places with Demo.- J Logan ^t: 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, when I read Society, which is also my understanding of the term, I don´t see the content yet justifying a renamed section. Lear 21 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well do you think it would be detrimental, or just not worth it?- J Logan ^t: 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about a level two "Culture & Sport" with the actual sections being level 3 headings thus the above content list becomes;

Further levels above.

• 10 Demographics
  • 10.1 Languages
  • 10.2 Religion
• 11 Culture & Sport
  • 11.1 Culture
  • 11.2 Sport
• 12 See also

Further levels below.

SouthernElectric (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a bti convoluted?- J Logan ^t: 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really but if you find it unacceptable then lets make Lear's day and put Sport back on a level 2 heading again, the fact is sport and culture are not the same. Sorrry. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm thinking there might be another way than just a heading, but I do think sport is cultural - if you could expand upon your argument maybe?- J Logan ^t: 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original structure and I do consider sport a part of culture. —Nightstallion 11:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Best tell that to the UK government (and others, I suspect) then, they seem to be under the impression that sport and culture are to distinct areas - otherwise their government dept. is in effect called the Department for Culture, Media and Culture... (rather then the Department for Culture, Media and Sport)! I'm not saying that they are not bed-fellows, just that sport is not a subsection of culture, what I'm trying to suggest is that the level 2 heading (that both culture and sport should be level 3 heading) needs to use different title. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is simply them trying to be exact, usually when departments are constantly merged and split so people know where things have gone. I don't think we should take it as a definition of if sport is cultural. Personally, it is very much a cultural activity - the huge effect it has on a lot of people, in the lives and identity. When a group of friends go to play football, are they doing it to keep fit? Or go in hordes to a match or gather round the tv for major national events. For many people the victory in 1966 is more important than the one in 1945. Sport is culture just like music, painting and drinking. Though I suppose how you personally see the meaning of the word "culture".- J Logan ^t: 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So why is sport not demographics, if demographics is supposed to be about what people do? Ditto culture. Sandpiper (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I suggest that you best start editing this article as I for one can't see any mention of sport (let alone International Olympic Committee or FIFA) anywhere in the article... SouthernElectric (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture is a large topic. Look, reason I reverted is were discussing the version I just put up and so far on this point -aside from us two- the only other person to comment had said he considerers sport a part of culture. If you jump t he gun you'll only prompt another batch of revert wars. Can we just discuss things as they stand first and let the comments come in?- J Logan ^t: 13:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who made the whole-sale changes a few days ago did that, just because those edits were not contested at the time doesn't mean they were accepted (especially at this time of year wee people have other things they have to get done before the holiday shut downs start). Sorry but this issue is not one I'm going to even compromise on - as I have said, the two are close subjects but they are two distinct subjects, they both would fit below a common level two heading but one can't be a sub heading of the other, it's like trying to put level 3 "Competition" under the level 2 Legal heading rather than the Economics heading, yes they would fit but only on a single level (ie. competition law). SouthernElectric (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport is a part of my culture, and indeed my country's culture, but I still think that when you speak of "culture" properly you aren't referring to Sport. So I would agree with SE here, even though what I just said probably makes no sense. Sport should come under "Social policy". I mean the EU does now deal a bit with social policy, surely we can put the sports section in a new Social policy bit. It would make far more sense to me. Putting sport down as culture, and nothing else being beside it, pretty much highlights for me how the section sticks out like a sore thumb. --Simonski (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport, specifically as spectator event, is in a wider sense entertainment and therefore very close to popculture phenomena. Nothing wrong to keep it in Culture. Lear 21 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very true Lear, sport is very much on the same level as pop(ular) culture, which is why sport can't be allowed to be a sub heading of culture, just as culture can't be a sub heading of sport. They each hold equal weight, that is, they should stand or fail on their own merits... SouthernElectric (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, like the EU, I would prefer a section "Education and culture", containing a sub-section "Sport":

The European Commission is composed of Directorates-General and several departments. Within the Directorate-General Education and Culture, is the Sport Unit, which is responsible for the following main areas . . .

--Boson (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to SE, it doesn't matter who changed it - leaving it be till we've discussed it is not heresy. Its not like the article will explode if it is not kept perfectly in line with x y or z's view of it. Can people just put up with something that is wrong rather than insisting their version stands until it is voted against? Applies to all.

But back on topic, I like your point Boson. But does education coverer research? How about Knowledge and culture? Trying to think of a more technical term, Academia and culture? But that way we can have culture, sports, education and research as subsections of that. If you still object to culture in that title SE, how about Academia and society?- J Logan ^t: 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and also SE, you commented you wouldn't compromise on this. Don't you think that is the very thing everyone was complaining to Lear about? Compromise is essential to Wikipedia, if you state you would ignore all else in refusing a compromise, are you not as bad as Lear over WP:OWN?- J Logan ^t: 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Sorry on this I will not compromise, it's not as though I'm insisting on the addition or deletion of content, we are talking about a frecking section heading FFS, finding a level 2 heading that both "Culture" and "Sport" can sit under as equal level 3 sections, failing that both culture and sport have their own level 2 heading - the article is hardly going to be crippled. SouthernElectric (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see whats wrong with "Social policy" as an idea. Anyway, I think its best to avoid another bout of "There will be a sport section for as long as I have the internet - waaah waaah", SE surely you don't want to stoop to that level man. Granted it does seem to be the only way to get a contested point to go your way around here (and you might even get a barnstar for it! w00t! But still, it would make you an assclown in the long run to position yourself that way) --Simonski (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only a Barnstar but I can then selectively delete items I don't like others seeing on my user/talk pages... As for the rest of what you say, it's not as though I'm not giving a lot of room anyway, all I'm asking for is that we find another level 2 heading (whilst putting the content at level 3 headings) or have each of the effected content on their own level 2 headings - again, sorry to repeat myself, it's not as if I'm insisting that content is either added or removed - I'm just asking for a modification to the heading levels. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the principle, not the content. But regardless, back to the topic. What do people say about the above ideas? - J Logan ^t: 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits while this discussion is not concluded

I would say that pending final agreement on the structure; no changes to the structure of the mainspace article should be made. In other words, please do not demote/promote or rearrange sections untill we achieve consensus here. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps with the end of Christmas, and SE's melodramatic exit, people could comment on this again and see where we get? (this is just a quick note, I'm back properly in the morning)- J Logan ^t: 09:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Woah, I didn't even realise that, bit odd that but fair enough, WP is incredibly frustrating at times so I can sympathise. Anyhow, I'd really say the current (at the time I'm writing this) structure is fine, it seems to cover every angle. I'd like to see the Euro coin (full pic) replace the picture of the notes but apart from that the consensus that the page currently represents seems fair surely. --Simonski (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He did go blank the talk page which, together with his other actions before leaving, is why I have no really sympathy for him right now. Anyhoo, this has been sitting here for ages, seems most of us are happy enough. I don't really care if culture is sitting under demo or on its own so don't mind if it stays like that or is rv back. So, on the last day of the year I'd like to call this closed. Still not the basic work to do but if we can not argue about the structure anymore, this has been going long enough and is now a largely abandoned debate. So, happy new year. Lets see if we can get this to FA before 2009. Don't forget to update the article on the euro when the clock strikes 12 in Cyprus (not before).- J Logan ^t: 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

er, yes, I did have some observations on the page structure, quite a few, but they seem to have been archived. The points made remain, however. I didnt see any real consensus amongst the comments, except perhaps anything for a quiet life. Sandpiper (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

mmm Naming the Demographics section 'Facts and Figures' is in my opinion not a good idea for two reasons. (1) There is little insight from the content on the top of the page what is happening in such a section (admittedly the subsections clarify, but it is still weak). (2) This title is almost synonimous to 'Trivia' which is discouraged. I think we have to come up with a better title. Arnoutf (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Most European countries see rising immigration ?

"There is some increase in population expected, primarily due to net immigration, present in most European countries"

Isn't there a clear divide between West and East European members of EU regarding immigration ? In fact I am quite sure that Latvia, Poland, Lithuania had experienced a large exodus of their citizens to England, France and other Western European countries to seek jobs. The sentence should be clear that immigration is the issue in West European countries of EU.--Molobo (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On average, check the ref. I think there is a rise in all though, the East has more coming from the East of the East not the East is in the EU so the East East wants to move to the East as the East wants to move to the West, rather than like how the West does not move to the West West much any more.- J Logan ^t: 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you run that past me again please?! :~) Yes, JL is correct, whilst people from Latvia, Poland and Lithuania (etc.) are moving west those even further east (such as the Ukraine) are also moving west into the countries mentioned, this has been one of the concerns about the border of the Schengen Agreement moving further east into recent accession countries. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue as far as I know, do you have any sources supporting this ? The migration from those areas is not significant. Ukrainians prefer to work in Russia then in Poland for example, due to easier border access and language ability. And of course the migration can't happen in the same scale as within UE due to border. Also illegal immigrants to Poland, Lithuania only use them as transfer countries to rich West.--Molobo (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, I remember reading a BBC article a while back on Ukrainians crossing the border, as SE said the movement of the Schengen border had this debate. Have you looked at the ref provided in the text? It does regardless say "most".- J Logan ^t: 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, thanks for providing the much needed Central/Eastern EU counter balance to our reasoning. If you can provide a good source about these migration numbers please do; that would be interesting to integrate into the article; however without such reference we should be careful not to insert feelings and speculations (that may or may not be true). Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would just interject that historically every less developed country joining the EU has seeen a migration of its population to other countries, only for them to come back home when their own economy has got up to speed. Anyone remember 'auf widersein pet', comedy about UK builders going to germany to find work? Sandpiper (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems indeed the case e.g. the Italian immigrants. Although some migration waves predated accession to the EU as well with Spanish, and Greek, and other mediteranean immigrants of countries that (at that time) were not yet EU members. But anyway, a good point we should take into consideration. Arnoutf (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

European (land mass) population figures in first paragraph

It seems strange that someone should be suggesting that one can compare population figures in the opening paragraph of the article, in fact not to do so is almost a POV stance. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so why are you putting it up there? Pop comparison yes, but why not keep it in demo, the intro is supposed to be an quick summary to the main body.- J Logan ^t: 09:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Because, as I said in an edit summary, it gives a bit of perspective in the introduction, under your logic there shouldn't be anything more in the intro other than "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features." - if people want to know more they should read the whole article - should we remove the rest of the intro?... Also, I was not the first to 'put it up, I'm merely leaving it up (as did you) against someone with a WP:OWN problem who unilaterally decides "It's not needed so 'we' are not having it." but refuses to discuss the issues. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the comparison in population numbers EU-Europe is too much detail for the introduction; and I would argue against its inclusion. This is of course a subjective judgment.

The rest of your (SE) last comment I cannot appreciate. First of all, reversing your argument to JLogan - following your own logic we should also add comparisons like "The EU's population is 7.3% of the world total, yet the EU covers just 3% of the earth's land, amounting to a population density of 114/km² making the EU one of the most densely populated regions of the world." (copied from demographics) to the intro; hey why not add all of the article to the intro.... I hope you agree that is not a good idea.

Secondly, while I agree Lear21 has some problems with among other WP:OWN, that does not mean he is not occasionally right. In this case he made a decent edit summarry with a realistic argument (whether others agree or not is an issue for the talk page, not a revert war). From your above comment it appears as if your revert is at least partially motivated by a personal grudge. That is not ok. Arnoutf (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So we are agreed that all but the briefest information should be given in the introduction paragraph then, fine but as I said it amounts to nothing more than "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features." - who is going to remove the excess detail?... As for Lear's edit summaries giving a realistic argument - "trimmed dispensable extra information" or "not needed" or "intro can´t include data on Europe as a continent" - It was precisely because his edit summaries did not (and he did not start a discussion here) give a rational argument that I reverted and I have as yet still not read any rational argument for the exclusion of valid information, as I've said, if the rational is valid why are the GDP figures given in the intro, why are the population figures (of the "EU") given, why are the bureaucratic/legislative 'offices' mentioned when the reader can (if interested) read the relevant main sections?! SouthernElectric (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 12:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Summarising is difficult, and will always include some subjectivity. However, your suggestion for extreme reduction does not follow WP:LEAD. Regading your first argument - that seems pretty close to WP:POINT.

Secondly Lear gave his personal argument why he though this argument should not be part of the introduction; as I said summarising is somewhat subjective, I think that was sufficient for the initial bold removal of text. However, apparently this was not obvious to all (ie you SE). So I agree subsequent reversions and re-reversions should indeed be discussed first here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, you're going over the top now SE, this is not OWN, please discuss without reverting further. We do not need two people guilty of OWN. I for one am against it being in the intro, so is A and so is Lear. Please do not change it again until after further discussion.- J Logan ^t: 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

The article has too many pictures. Pictures are all and good and make articles pretty, but too many - particularly if they are not telling us anything- just get in the way. There is not room for three pictures in history, and the lisbon treaty is considerably less important than the rome one. There is no room for two pictures of pretty scenery, which are anyway frankly not adding any usefull information, in geography. I like the mountain better, but I really don't care which one goes. Sandpiper (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you sentiment about the two examples (ie that there are too many images there), on the other hand I think the legal system section (very lengthy only a single image; and the demographics section, admittedly 2 tables but no image at all) could use an additional image.Arnoutf (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an argument that they slow down page loading (which I used to find very frustrating on dialup), but I am mostly concerned where the pictures are disrupting formatting of the page. Some websites suffer from advertising spam, maybe we suffer picture spam? There is another difficulty in that the result depends on your own page width setting. I would not agree the legal section was too long to have only one picture, nor do I think that every section should automatically have a picture. Particularly, a picture ought to show something useful to the reader unless an article is completely desperate just to get anything. Sandpiper (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We do have too many, I have said time and time again most are there for decoration. In terms of law needing another image, I think it can only need' and image if the section demands a certain something to illustrate it, rather than a need to fill the space. So I agree with Sandpiper on this, however I hope you have not forgotten about the hand from above that comes to sweep away the changes of man?- J Logan ^t: 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

education and research

E and R is a minor part of the EU budget and does not merit a major section. It comes nicely under the heading of development policy, which is exactly what it is. The EU does not play a major part in education or research in Europe. Sandpiper (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a relatively small part of the budget (I think from the top of my head between 5 and 10%); but the whole foreign relations (including military) will in terms of budget not be much more (that sais nothing about its impact). Hence budget alone is not a relevant criterion.

There are indeed some development policies involved (especially if Energy, and Environment are included there).

I disagree the EU does not play an important part in E&R in Europe. Yes it is mainly a national thing but don't underestimate the amount of academic research grants in FP7. I think most serious universities are competing to get some of it. Don't underestimate the agreements for international exchange and the impacts it has on curricula, ECTS, etc. (this may not be visible to most students who remain in their own country, but universities have to build and maintain large systems to accomodate this). So I disagree that the EU is not important in E&R right now.

Anyway, I can live with its inclusion in Development (but not Economy), although I think the arguments given are oversimplifications. Arnoutf (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in economy. If I summarise correctly, you to agree that it is a minor part of expenditure, but argue it merits a section for other reasons. I'm sure universities will be competing for money, etc, but that still doesn't mean it is an important proportion of their funding, or even if it were, that this alone would merit a section. Personally, I think the foreign relations section is at risk from this same argument, but I see it as a contentious issue (unlike education), and one likely to expand (also unlike education/research)Sandpiper (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with putting it in "development". That section was once called economics, but its renaming removed much of my problems. I think the EU foreign policy is essential; and indeed much more important then E&R. If we only go for part of budget the CAP should have most of the article, I guess nobody wants that ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, under development. Simple, accurate and keeps down the headers. And I see no problem in giving it its own section, certainly more important than some others....- J Logan ^t: 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Beast?

No discussion of The Beast from the Book of Revelations as a symbol of the EU? I know it's far fetched, but certainly worth discussion. 76.186.118.246 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Em, no it isn't. This is the main page for the EU, there's no space for spurious religious conspiracies. Perhaps on a more precise page somewhere.- J Logan ^t: 10:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the beast; why worth the discussion??? I have never heard of any serious link between the beast and the EU. If such a link exists it is probably written by the same kind of people who also say the EU is actually the Third Reich reincarnated. In brief- I agree- should not be discussed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Text sign off

Excluding structure and images, I thought it might be good to check through the text. If you read through, check and correct a section, and it is upto scratch in quality, just name the section below and who you are. So we don't do the same work over and over? - J Logan ^t: 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the Member states and Geography sections' texts, and changed/removed a few bits. Rossenglish (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through History but we might need some more citation in some bits if someone kicks up a fuss.- J Logan ^t: 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ditto Gov't and pol sections - J Logan ^t: 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION political and economic community=confederation

The introduction is partially restating what a confederation is supposed to be,the intro is not the place where you explain what a confederation is,the intro is suposed to be simple with out going to much in detail.Or refrased in an other way, what's more appropriate for the intro, "a political and economic community of sovereign states with supranational and intergovernmental features" or "a confederation".--88.82.32.100 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While I mostly agree on that point, without any authority stating it few others do. In a sense they are right in it being an over simplification, even if it is an intro, but if you manage to convince everyone else then I'd support it.- J Logan ^t: 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

More non-NPOV BS creeping in

"Another way to sum up this spreaded vision of unity is the quote : "Europeans have different cultures but the same approach of culture""

I couldn't seem to log in (problem with this particular PC) until just there so that 79. IP was me removing this line. And I fully intend to keep removing it. It sounds so amateurish, not to mention biased. Many people would argue that there is no such united approach towards culture in Europe (particularly post-enlargement for goodness sake how anybody can claim it is insane), and so therefore such lines must be removed from the article. I would have thought you'd recognised that yourself Solberg. --Simonski (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with you there, it isn't very encyclopaedic.- J Logan ^t: 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive info for Geography section?

"Including the overseas territories of member states, the EU experiences most types of climate from Arctic to tropical, rendering meteorological averages for the EU as a whole meaningless. In practice, the majority of the population lives either in areas with a Mediterranean climate (Southern Europe), a temperate maritime climate (Western Europe), or a warm summer continental or hemiboreal climate (Eastern Europe).[30]"

Surely, this sentence is pretty much admitting itself that its pointless, as far as the article on the EU goes? Given that the article is already a bit too long, this sentence can be deleted without affecting the rest of the Geography section? If somebody needs to read about the climate of Europe they can go to that page, rather than get it here surely? I mean these days the EU pretty much = continental Europe as far as Geography goes. Would there be opposition to the removal of this sentence? --Simonski (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to say something about climate; and this sentence gives the relevant informatio ie that the EU covers all types of climate. It might be condensed in length but I would not favour complete removal. Arnoutf (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to say anything about climate? what impact does this have on the workings of the EU? Sandpiper (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of frost bite, winter depression, storm damage, desertification, or heatwaves. All climate, all of importance for the EU's economy and agriculture and hence the core of the EU. In any case it is very impolite to effect a change that is under discussion (decently introduced by Simonski) and where a clear difference in opinions (ie my response) exists. I reverted it, and hope you have the decency to leave it at that until consensus for change is achieved. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the EU policy on treatment of frostbite, depression, effects of heatwaves, desertification, etc, and do you think any of it is important enough to mention here? No one has yet. Wouldn't all this properly go into the section on Agriculture, or the relevant subsection, if it went anywhere? Which are the most important areas of fundamental EU policy which have been affected by climate? The oil price, the cost of labour in china, the policies of the russian government all affect the economy of EU countries seriously, but we do not mention them. Your argument for including climate seems to be equally an argument for mentioning all of these, or none. Simonski seems to me to have made a good point, which you have not rebutted with any specific examples of the relevance of climate.

As to undue haste, sometimes I find it helps encourage a debate. No one else have any views?Sandpiper (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance of climate? The recent controversy about prohibiting adding sugar to make wine (allowing more alcohol during fermentation). In Southern Europe, this is not necessary and is used to create large volume of low quality wine from the sub-prime grapes; thus reaping more CAP subsidies for wine. In Northern Europe this practice of adding sugar is essential; even to make high quality wines (actually very few cheap wines are produced in that region), and this practice has been applied since ancient times. In this case climate differences between mediteranean countries and northern countries leads to problems which would either result in substantial overuse of a subsidiary budget by countries with warmer climate; or to the ending of a century old culture of wine producing in countries with a more moderate climate.

As to undue haste, that would not have been "undue" (only hasty as you are well aware almost any change on this page is likely to be contested) if the idea had been yours from the start, to implement the change after an objection however is (IMHO) indeed unduly speedy Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying we ought to mention cold climate/sugar added to wine on the page? Unless you are, how does this make the climate relevant? Do you think anyone reading a mention of climate will suddenly think 'ah, of course, very important for the wine policy of the EU'? Climate may be very important for farmers, but how does it affect EU policy? Ah, I see: you mean the policy of banning adding sugar to wine. So again, you consider this important enough to be explained on this page? I would regard it as a detail which no doubt goes into negotiations over subsidies, but not anything worth mentioning here. That is really the point, I don't see how any EU policy would be significantly changed if the whole place was hot/cold/wet/dry/whatever. Sandpiper (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that something should be deleted because it has nothing to do with the workings of the EU. The article is entitled European Union. Not "workings of the EU" or "Politics of the EU" or "Treaties of the EU"--Boson (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf was seeking to argue the importance of climate to the EU, hence the reason for mentioning it here. I am open to persuasion by arguments explaining how climate has changed or influenced or otherwise affected the EU, but they have to establish why climate and any such effects are sufficiently important compared to other stuff here (or more detail about stuff already here) to be worth a mention. Frankly, I don't see this. Sandpiper (talk)

What Geography section, by the way? It seems to have been inadvertently deleted completely. Or did I miss something? --Boson (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

well, quite. What would you say is the reason for having one at all?Sandpiper (talk)

Yes, indeed the Geography has almost disappeared, I cannot recall ever having seen a discussion to that effect here; wierd as the removing edit explicitly mentions such a discussion. Anyway, you asked why climate would be important for the EU; I give an example that there are situations where it is (not meaning it should be on the page); hence I responded to your request on this talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you havn't. I am not arguing climate has no effect on the EU. A sunny day no doubt makes the head of the commission much easier to work with, for example. But even if we found a report from his secretary confirming this, why would we include it here? It is just trivia. To satisfy me that we should discuss climate here (and I would have thought, satisfy yourself), you need an example where the climate has an effect sufficient for the whole thing to be worth mentioning. Better to have a paragraph on fishing policy rather than a discussion of the length of the EU coastline. Come to think of it, not mentioning fishing is something of an omission when we find space to mention sport. Sandpiper (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fisheries, there is an EU involvement (and a reason for Norway not wanting to be a member).

I think we have a sligthly differnt outlook on this article. While I think the policies are of primary importance, some background information on the context in which the citizens of the EU live is in my opinion worth mentioning; if alone to understand there are differences and/or similarities. The climate is definitely such a background context; as is Geography; where for example the coastal area's and seafishing industries of e.g. Netherlands and Portugal have more in common than those of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Althoug I would not argue to build up these relations to the policy level (as that would increase the size of this article manyfolds) some brief and basic listing of such context is in my opinion valid. We should be careful about which type of context is relevant though and which not; but in the end there will always be a grey area (where sports is located for instance...) Arnoutf (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a Geography section is for some editors here, necessary for the article. Me personally, I'd happily see it gone, though I'm not getting into that dispute. All I was highlighting was this particular sentence, which itself seemed to me to be saying "This sentence is pointless". Given the fact that the area covered by the EU is now essentially continental Europe, and therefore has no common climate, it just seems like such an unnecessary sentence for an already excessively long article. I really don't see the harm that would be caused by removing it, leaving room for more relevant information to be placed. The EU these days is all about four things really - Competition, Consumer Protection, EU Citizenship and Climate Change. I think by focusing on things such as the many different types of climate the EU now covers belongs on this page, rather instead it belongs on a page about Europe, the focus of this page is misplaced. I'm surprised Arnoutf you want to keep it, I'd have thought man you'd agree it was a bit unnecessary. Come to think of, perhaps there should be a section on EU citizenship, it is an increasingly important concept. In order to make room for it though stuff like the above sentence has to go surely! Particularly since many of things you listed above Arnoutf really aren't important as far as the EU goes... you'd be really stretching it here to say they are. Are you for budging here you think man? Anybody else? --Simonski (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison EU - US (Role of Geography)

(previous title did not reflect my point) Tang Wenlong (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I do not understand why you are so much opposed to properly covering issues like geography in the EU. The US article has a proper geography section. Why not the EU? Surely, lengthy elaboration can be put into country articles, but a basic overview, e.g. major mountain ranges, coastlines, climatic areas, temperatures, and so on would be fair.

This discussion leaves me with the impression that the EU is all about policy. Do you think people in the US spend their day only thinking about the administration? I am sure that culture, art, leisure, climate, and social life is more important for most of us. Tang Wenlong (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Tang its also important that you don't come away from this article thinking that the EU is a country. Its not a federation precisely either. So comparisons to the US are not 100% helpful. Much of how the EU works is just about policy. Where the EU acts, it acts because the Member State countries have decided that it is better to have a common EU policy on a certain matter. Much of this is carried out through directives - which leave the implementation to the countries involved, allowing for some national discretion. The EU, as it stands today, is one big bowl of policy making. Its an international organisation with some federal features. If somebody comes away from the wikipedia article confused about this, they can go and do some further reading. The fact that they're resorting to Wikipedia for information on the EU is not a good start I might add. Any article on a contentious issue at Wikipedia should always be taken with a grain of salt. --Simonski (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tang, I worry sometimes that even though I complain about certain things in this article, people coming from the USA may understand the words used in the article completely differently to myself (and hence not get the impression intended). Specifically, when I write 'state', I mean a sovereign country. I suspect anyone from the USA understands something like an administrative region. I do not aim to write an article here talking about all aspects of a country, because the EU is absolutely not a country. What it really is has been deliberately fudged by all concerned (especially by the EU itself), in the hope of not offending anyone, so it is arguably difficult to report. People perceive it differently. It might be better to think about the relationship between countries and the EU as between parents and their child. Lots of arguing about who is boss and what baby is allowed to do. If this article leaves anyone reading it with the impression that the EU really is a country, then it has seriously failed. Bear in mind that the EU as an institution, compared to a national scale, has essentially no revenue, no tax raising powers, no police, no army, no citizens, no land, no border control, three conflicting means of government, seriously limited powers to make rules. I think the article should leave you with the impression the EU is all about policy. As an EU citizen I have never thought of the EU as having anything to do with my experience of 'culture, art, leisure, climate, and social life'. If I go to Europe then I expect to experience the culture etc, of the country I am visiting. That's how it is. Sandpiper (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I write too much. Tang, I see you come from America, so I value your impressions of this article which is generally edited by Europeans. Would it change your impression of exactly what the USA is, if every 6 months there was a meeting of the governors of every state, who by agreement amongst themselves had absolute power to amend in any way the constitution? That is how the EU works. It is hard to say what makes something a country. One aspect is that the people inside it accept it as a country. The other is the legal structure. I think the EU fails on both grounds. Sandpiper (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Sandpiper hit the nail on the head. And its not for us to present this article through one viewpoint on the EU or the other, but to provide a balanced view. I'd say the current article is a fair compromise between the two views. --Simonski (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sandpiper, you write a lot, but that's fine ;-)

Clarification:

a) I lived myself in the European Union for a while. I exactly know what the EU is, what it is not, and how it works.

b) For many foreigners, including Europeans, the US might seem just as a simple country, ruled by the administration. But that's mainly foreign policy, exactly what concerns other countries most. Internally, there are big differences between states - laws, infrastructure, taxes, and ... you name it - differ substantially, more than a foreigner might expect!

c) It is undisputed, that European countries - although having given up parts of their sovereignty - are far more independent and influential (let's say relevant) than the states here in the US. (I don't think anyone ever said something different)

I am sure we all agree on this "policy side", how the EU "works" etc.. Tang Wenlong (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I tried to make clear in my comments. The EU is primarily a political organisation; hence that deserves most attention (in my opinion it gets it). But it is not limited to a political organisation alone; and there should be some other background information. My first point here would be to get an agreement that the following is indeed the consensus:

• EU = political entity; so that requires significant attention.
• The EU is more then just a political entity; some more background is needed to contextualise that larger role.

Once we agree about that (or agree this is not a way forward) we can discuss what this background should exist of (I think demographics, geography and even culture deserve a place, but am willing to discuss). Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Given my comment above about the "policy side", I think we can shift our focus to the question of 'culture, geography, social life, etc.'

a) I like Sandpiper's example of travelling in Europe, visiting other countries, strolling Champs-Élysées, drinking an espresso in Milano, skiing in Tirol, etc. - it works the same way in the US. You go on spring break to the beaches of Florida, to the casinos of Oklahoma, skiing in Colorado. The US are far bigger than Western Europe. Texas and Massachusetts couldn't be more different! Still, they all have the same Wal-Mart, McDo, and (many) speak the same language, but the cultural contrast between Northern and Southern California is arguably bigger than between Northern and Southern Germany. Think about that.

c) You might argue, that a geography section on the EU is not necessary, because you will find that info in the 'Europe' article. The same holds for North America! But a Chinese guy travelling to the US or EU wants to find the info on that page, and not resort to the articles on the continents.

d) As pointed out earlier, I am not saying that I wish to include aspects which are relevant on a country level, but rather those which correspond in the hierarchy to the EU. No need to talk about the Vosges or Cologne Carnival. There is no word about Virginia's mountains in the US Geography section either. Tang Wenlong (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That being said Tang, I'm sure you'd agree there is far more diversity within Europe/the EU than there is within the states of the US. Going by your Wal-Mart/McDonalds example... isn't it the case now in a globalised world that you find these companies everywhere? There is no common language, common culture among other things in Europe as there perhaps is in the US, so its completely different. I have to disagree that I think a person travelling to the EU would not look to an article on the international organisation that is the EU, rather they would be sensible enough to look at the article on Continental Europe. I'm afraid this point has been made before - wikipedia is not here to cater to what the reader might want to read about but to present the facts as they are about what the EU is. I have to confess Tang to not understanding what it is you'd like to see included in the article that isn't already there. As it is the article reflects largely everything that the EU is involved in. If there is not more on social life/cheese/whatever in the article, its because the EU has no/limited involvement in that area. --Simonski (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, it wasn't a call for substantial expansion of geography coverage, rather I wrote my original post (now located under this section title) as a response to Sandpipers challenge "Why is it necessary to say anything about climate?", which took me aback (prev section). Therefore I wanted to remind policy-focussed editors that there is more than just legal mechanisms to the EU. (This is not a legal handbook. Compare also comments by Boson). Tang Wenlong (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Righto, I was a bit confused here you see. --Simonski (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That being said, Arnoutf I agree with your brief point above but I would really question whether a geography section is what is needed in this respect. Things such as a section on EU Citizenship, which are far more important, deserve particular focus but there isn't room whilst we have pointless sentences on things like the bajillion climate types that the EU covers. --Simonski (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone who has made arguments about why certain content is relevant is talking sense. I don't disagree that any of these points have a relevance and could and should be discussed somewhere. Most of the debate I have read about this article is not whether content is wrong, but more subtly what is the most important to include. I don't think we are too fussed about it, but this article is quite long, and it is true that it is difficult to read through. It is supposed to be an introduction to the subject, leading to other articles. Although I would probably be inclined to scrap geography entirely, I recognise the notion that having a few lines, even if they say there is nothing which can be said quickly, allows a link to a longer article somewhere. I think though, that such a link should be directing people to articles titled to be about Europe, not about the EU. Foreign relations for EU countries are very largely the concern of each country. The removal of many internal borders does mean that people can enter one country and simply travel around, but essentially their right to visit/stay etc is to the specific country they are in. Although the EU is seeking to centralise its foreign relations, it has not done so yet. If I was planning to visit any EU country, I would never expect to find information about their food, countryside,culture,etc, in an article titled 'EU something'. I don't believe people set out to visit the EU, they visit France, then Italy, Greece, whatever. So I continue to believe it is pointless for us to be discussing this here in premium EU space. Perhaps we should specifically have a note advising anyone interested in such things to check country articles. Thereby making it clear we do not expect to cover such things here.

Tang, I think you also overemphasise the differences between US states, and the similarities of European ones. Europe has a history of 2000 years of one country attacking the next. The USA has had one major civil war, but there were only two sides and one issue. Yes, I know that many of the states were founded by people with a particular mindset, different to others. But they have shared a single language, and constant immigration of dispirate races, which have spread through all the states. The ideological divide between some EU countries which made it difficult to visit, never mind trade or exchange ideas, only stopped within the last 20 years, bringing the most recent wave of new members. My former landlady was a refugee from Hitler's Europe, who ended up as a secretary at the Nuremberg war trials. Her husband was a post war escapee from somewhere, possibly czechoslovakia. They remained fearful of the rise of German imperialism, following reunification of germany. Another neighbour, raised in India, reminisces over the tail end of the raj and despises the EU. Ok, they are old people now, but they are not gone yet. The reason for the existence of the EU was an attempt to make it impossible for everyone to go to war again. The people who plotted that political course are gone now, with a result that the direction of the EU has wavered somewhat, but the whole idea was to enable utterly different people to somehow live together and get along. It was absolutely not about a stick of attacking and smoothing out their national characteristics, but a carrot of economic benefit. Thus the EU is not about culture (etc), but profit.

Let me restate my position. I think the EU is a fantastic invention, from the point of view of furthering my personal well being, my national well being, and arguably world well being. But I do not regard it as a country. It is a set of agreements between countries. I like the cudos and romance of having a pasport I can wave about which entitles me to travel in any EU country. I see the institution as giving me rights in foreign countries. I do not see it as making me a European rather than british. Ok, that is purely my view, but I think it is a pretty typical pro-EU view, never mind anti-Eu views. This is the reason peopler like me do not think this article ought to be discussing general cultural issues.

I think it would be considerably more usefull for readers if we had a section talking about what citizens think about the EU, rather than discussing whatever sport or culture they enjoy, or mountain they live on, which just isn't relevant. Here I am inclined to listen to people requesting a 'criticisms' section, but it absolutely could not be simply 'criticisms'. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we could easily create such a section, which would be an magnet for fanatics on either side.

Tang, re my addendum question again, if the US state governors had the power to override the president, senate, etc, would the USA be a different sort of beast? If 1/3 the EU members suddenly decided they had an irreconcileable difference with the other 2/3, can you seriously believe the 2/3 would go to war to force them to stay members? They would just walk away and form their own union, which would no doubt make yet more trade treaties with the rump of the current EU. Sandpiper (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I believe your latter question is not the issue of this discussion. I feel you are trying to ridicule my comparison of EU and US, neglecting the context. I aimed for instance at the question, why to include geographical info on the unions' level, and not on the continental or state (US) / country (EU) -level. I exemplified (Virginia/Vosges) how the US and EU compare in this respect. I didn't make any claim whatsoever that the political situation is the same, even though I found it worth mentioning that states in the US have significance, too. Tang Wenlong (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the EU is a different thing to the US. Articles about different things are likely to be structured differently, because what is important to discuss about one kind of thing is not important to discuss about another. The important thing to discuss about the EU is what it is, and what it does. The kind of ground it sits on, and other things which happen to occur in that same place are not sufficiently important to be covered in this particular article. Generally, articles about countries do not start with a long explanation of what a country is, but that is exactly what we have to do for the EU, because it is something other than a country. I am nonetheless interested in how Americans view the EU in comparison with the US, and indeed whether Americans (or anyone) see any merit in the distinction between a group which works together under central control, or one which operates by debate amongst equals. Sandpiper (talk)

Sure, every country is very different from any other. Tang Wenlong (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf, I think on balance I am not convinced the EU is more than a political organisation. Certainly, it aspires to be more, and it may yet become de-facto more. But it hasn't got there yet. Ask me again when there is an EU olympic team. Sandpiper (talk)

I never said it was a country, and why would sports being an image of something else then a political entity? But mention one strictly political entity that has all of these: own currency, education and research program, environmental regulations, no border controls, a similar passport cove, representation in G8, and so on, and so on. The EU is without doubt in transition between a treaty organisation (like nato) and a federational country (like the US). Whether it well ever arrive at the latter is not decided, but it already moved away from the first. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think there is considerable doubt whether the EU is in transition from one thing to another. It has expanded in scope, but every expansion has an alternative justification other than creating a new country. Some people see this as the aim, others utterly reject it. Historically, I think states cease to exist and combine when their people see advantage in it. But at present it is merely what it is (transitioning or not), and we should therefore describe it as a complex adjudication system for a series of international treaties. Sandpiper (talk)

Ok transition may not be the best word; nevertheless it is somewhere in between your minimalist "international treaty organisation" and a "federation". (B.t.w. the example of Czechoslovakia shows that countries can be dissolved peacefully). For now I think it would be best to agree we disagree and not spend time trying to convince each other (as I sincerely doubt that will do anything but creating frustration). Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not frustration. This is an interesting debate. People here are well informed and worth debating with. No idea if we are representative of views, mind. It does help to understand to what extent people believe things, and try to find out why. Our discussion now is rather like the argument over the flag and anthem. Whether they are formally written into the treaties or not, they will continue to exist. Our real difficulty is probably that whether and to what extent the EU is more than a 'treaty organisation' is simply a matter of public perception. If that is so, then strictly wiki should not report it as such unless there is source material discussing it. Writing this article in the style of a country article immediately introduces a bias that it is a country. This has to be justified. Sandpiper (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For follow-up see section below]]

Tang I wouldn't say Sandpiper has ridiculed your comparison of the EU-US, he's just trying to make the point that for many of us living under the EU banner, the US-EU comparison is flawed in many respects and whenever done so has to be taken with a grain of salt (using that phrase too often, apologies!). Either way I don't think its worth going down this route any further, since it doesn't really relate that much to the current question, which is whether the sentence on climates is maybe removable. I mean I'm not going to be devastated if it stays its just that when I read it it just seems so pointless. On a side note, man I thought this page was bad for the debates, its amazing how annoying some of the debates are you can come across on other pages! Compared to other pages the EU page is actually relatively peaceful I'd say! --Simonski (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking all this in mind... Is Switzerland a country? I believe that the concept of what a country is or isn't lives to strong in Sandpiper and Simonskis minds. As a Swede I see Sweden as my home country not the EU. But than again the concept of what a country are is to strong for me. If EU is not a country by the definitions above then Switzerland hardly qualify either.

Conclusion and Outlook

Right, this seems to be an interesting debate, and we reached a point where we know that we agree on our disagreements. Clearly that sentence on climate is not the issue anymore (and I guess no one minds much about keeping or deleting it (at least I don't)).

Now, people from the island have always tended to keep a more distanced stance than those from Western Europe. Surely Britons do things more differently than those on the continent - think pound, monarchy, traffic directionality, ties with the US, etc. What I am saying is, we must not forget, that everybody of us naturally has a different view on the Union.

By the way, Sandpiper, I found some of your pictures not really enlightening, especially the one with the goverors. But now, where you aware that you have exactly that in Germany? Ever heard of the Bundesrat? The Laender (provinces/states) in Germanyu do have power in the federal government.

Countries can be very different. Some have just have a ruler/dictator. Many have the three branches (ex, leg, jur) but still then, what makes up a country? A football team? A president? A minister president? Elected? Recently I read that Switzerland doesn't have a president at all. (Which is obviously wrong, but I found it an interesting idea: No president, no prime minister :) ) And the UK obviously don't have a football team. (But several)

As I can see User:JLogan spent some time reflecting on this issue, with regard to the EU, just like many others did.

Typical (not necessary) characteristics of a country (sovereign state) include:

• Constitution
• Government with three branches
• Foreign policy, diplomatic service, citizenship
• Some sort of guard/defense forces
• Some sort of budget, fed either by taxes or contributions from sub-entities
• Currency, and a central bank for managing the currency
• No internal mobility restriction on people/tariffs on goods
• etc.

(And there are a few points which are certainly NOT necessary, but merely optional: - president - direct taxes - police force - health, edu, etc. services - and many more (the latter three can be assigned to lower-level authorities (state/province/district/municipality))

Now, if you look at the above criteria, and carefully feed it with the data from the EU - the justified, verified, proven, hard facts - then you will see where the Union stands between the two extreme poles of loose treaty-based confederation and a federal republic (sovereign state).

I am convinced that it is possible to make such an evaluation purely based on facts. Maybe with some graphic illustration. And that could even include history, in order to visualise transitions over time.

If there is one lesson to be learned from our discussion, then I would say it is that we (editors) might understand the Union's mechanisms very well, but we might still be unsure how it compares to the classical concept of a country. (Hence resorting to call it supranational, "sui generis" or whatever, terms not really enlightening anybody.)

Maybe a better example for comparison than the United States is Switzerland, which - existing for centuries- has four official languages, and substantial power is with its provinces, which are also somewhat involved with the management of the armed forces.

You are all invited to present the facts. Tang Wenlong (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't underestimate the new view on the EU brought to the table by the Central/Eastern countries though (on the whole the impression appears to be in countries like Bulgaria/Romania/Poland, at least that I get, is that they are reserving judgment, not being 100% enthusiastic.). Interesting stuff anyway Tang. I think as far as the Article goes though we shouldn't try to deal with it as its just too contentious and far too difficult to prove. Given that there is nothing else like the EU in the world at the moment, and that the 27 countries themselves probably couldn't actually agree as to what the EU currently is, I don't think we, in all our wisdom, should try to deal with it. I'd say putting stuff like this into the article would be troublesome for the same reason as a criticism section would be. (though I'm not sure Tang if thats what you were actually proposing!)

Either way, since you were lucky enough to miss the Sports section debate, I can assure you that editors working on this page are all wary of the different views on the EU. From Sandpiper to myself to Arnoutf to Logan to Lear an already incredibly diverse number of views are covered, and several others fit inbetween those. As far as I understood as well we also have a wide range of nationalities editing here as well, which has probably benefitted the article greatly. --Simonski (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonably good summary. I would ask all not to see the "treaty" vs "country" issue as a "black" vs "white" thing but rather as "shades of grey". Agreed, that will make defining the EU harder (as there is no longer an absolute "TRUTH"), but will do more justice to the real thing. Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologise for my absence from this debate, I have not had the internet of late and will loose it again now for an unforeseeable amount of time. Nice to see a new user involved though, welcome, and that we have been having a good discussion. However I'm not sure how fruitful it is for the article (as much as I like debating it, as my page you linked to shows) considering we'll never actually agree on it aside from it is unique, and that doesn't help us on terms of inclusion of geography. I for one think we might as well keep it (cut down as suggested) as it is common data (is similar to country but would not compare to sport - very uncommon and far from vital where as geography is universal and a major factor). Besides, it is one of those things that, if we remove, someone else will come along and add a poor uncited section every 5 mins because they think it is needed (granted that does not make it something that should be included, just an extra pragmatic point). Anyway, have to go again, pitty I'm missing such a good discussion.- J Logan ^t: 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tang, difficult to give an ordered response which does not become ridiculously long covering point by point. I just checked the article on germany, which says, Amendments to the Grundgesetz [constitution] require a two-thirds majority of both chambers of parliament; the articles guaranteeing fundamental rights, a democratic state, and the right to resist attempts to overthrow the constitution are valid in perpetuity and cannot be amended.. I take this to mean that the German state is capable of changing its own constitution by agreement of its various parts, and no external organisation can do so. The institution of the german state itself has a veto on any change to its organisation. This is not true of the EU. If all member state governments agree, change the rules so that the president is required to sit in a tree and eat bananas, they can do that and he can do absolutely nothing to stop them. That is the distinction, the EU has no power to control its own destiny. The article doesn't say whether individual states of germany have the right to cecede from the country without the consent of the others (anyone?).

The swiss article does not seem to explain how the government can alter the constitution. By inference I presume that it can. The article explains at more length that a sufficiently large group of citizens can require an amendment to any law or the constitution. (An excellent measure, in my view.) I don't know whether cantons are entitled to cecede. It is clearly difficult to compare some of these examples, while Swittzerland veers a lot more towards being like the EU than does Germany, the canton governments still cannot unilaterally change the constitution by themselves, and the central government can do so (at least with the support of a plain majority of voters in a referendum). The point I am arguing is where the final authority rests, and in our instance it does not rest with the EU.

As to the list of characteristics of countries, I can think of a number of countries which internally restrict movement of goods, people etc. Just about all countries have a security force, which I contend the Eu simply does not have (there is no force the president/etc can call upon directly). The EU certainly has a constitution, but as I said, has no way of amending it and is rigorously constrained by it in what it can do. It has no powers to demand additional funding. If the signatory states agree to give it more, it will get it, but it has no powers whatsoever to raise money of its own accord. It has no powers to grant or deny citizenship, nor permit or refuse anyone to travel through its border. It has no foreign policy to speak of, nor forces with which to carry one out, a limited 'aid' budget, primarily intended to foster accession countries. Its government does not follow the three part model. It only has competence to create legislation subject to the treaty instructions of the external executive governments of the signatory states. Indeed, its main legislative element is ex-officio the governments of those members, and their directly appointed representatives (the commission). Similarly, it only has judicial functions to make decisions regarding that delegated authority. Its own executive is limited to carrying out the instructions of those member states.

So after all this I conclude that the two elements essential to being a country are

• the ability to make laws independent of external control
• the consent of the population concerned that the country exists and that they belong to it.

Which is indeed an enormous aside for the specific issue of geography trivia, but at the same time essential when considering how to write about the EU. I think the USA is a country, because its governing institutions do have authority to control its laws, and because the people consent to it. The EU is not, because it does not have that authority, and its people all claim they belong to some different country. The EU should be treated as what it is, the arbiter of a set of treaties. Sandpiper (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets try to keep this reasonably brief:

• Nobody ever said the EU is a country.
• However, as an international treaty organisation the EU shows properties of a country (parliament, elections, currency, some foreign policy, education and research, shared border control (e.g. passport covers), etc. etc.). It does so at a much more extensive scale than any other international treaty (unless somebody can counterargue this).
• Hence it would undervalue the cooperation level of the EU, by insisting to treat it as merely another international treaty organisation.
• Therefore, we should treat it as a unique organisation; which is somewhere between a federal state and an international treaty organisation

(PS The three way division of power appears mainly an anglosaxon/dmocratic thing; e.g. Hitler controlled all these powers in Nazi Germany, and nobody doubted that was a country).Arnoutf (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The UK basically enjoys a combined executive and legislature embodied in the person of the prime minister. I am tempted to suggest the 3-way system is a rather American thing. Actually, Tang started this by implying the EU is a country, arguing that a similar institution, the USA, is written up differently. I have no interest in arguing whether there is any more complex treaty organisation than the EU. I don't think that matters. I am just not convinced that added complexity means a change in substance. I am also not sure how that issue matters to wikipedians. We ough to be reporting what it objectively is, as defined by what references say it is. I have seen lots if refs explaining what treaties say about its powers, but precious few claiming it has a relevance to all these other things which some people want to write about. Produce refs arguing it is more than this, and why we ought to discuss its geography and favourite sports, and I'm happy. The argument for including these things has been repeatedly that it ought to be written up like a country, because that is how wikipedia writes up countries. Why? prove it is a country and we shall treat it as one. Sandpiper (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be not this Black-White. Nobody says the EU is a country. The other way around I could argue the reverse, that many entities considered countries are not so following the most strict definition of country. In the most strict sence a country should be completely sovereign. That means that each and any entity who has committed itself to international treaty organisations (thereby giving)up some sovereignty - which applies even in signing something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights); should no longer be considered country. I hope you agree that is absurd Black-White reasoning. I would argue treating the EU on similar grounds as just another international treaty organisation is equally absurd. Arnoutf (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I pitched my stall. My definition is not whether a country has absolute autonomy from outside influences, but whether it has the right to make its own choices. Britain chooses to belong to the declaration of human rights. It chooses to have an army and a police force. It chooses how much tax to raise. The EU does not choose to confine its legislative powers to economic harmonisation. It does not choose whether to have an army. It does not choose how much tax to raise. It does not choose who enters its nominal borders. These things are decided for it. Sandpiper (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I think the core of this debate is one of the frequently asked questions. I tried to expand that one, trying to summarise this discussion. Feel free to edit, but make sure that it does not become too long and it reflects both sides fairly (ie try not to put in your own POV, I tried to keep mine out, but may have failed). Arnoutf (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

good point. But I am still concerned by the claim that it is a sui generis entity. Sandpiper (talk)

Not my wording, I am not at all attached to the phrase, but some other editor maybe.Arnoutf (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I strongly believe that there should be a section in this article addressing criticisms directed towards the EU. In order to truly understand the politics of an entity, ideology or figure, accurate criticisms need to be aired, with reasons as to why these are considered areas to be criticised by people.

Whilst, I am sure that many will argue that this is a topic simply for facts and not opinions, it can be argued that criticisms are just as factual and relevant as anything else. Indeed, is not everything opinion in some way, shape or form.

I therefore propose that, on this page, issues such as problems with the Commission, the size of the EU, committment to the environment, Africa etc. be addressed. 81.152.129.23 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Steven

See European_Union/Frequently_asked_questions why there is no such section. Arnoutf (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the top of this talk page needs a prominent link to the FAQ page, like the one on Talk:United States:–

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

What does everyone think? Rossenglish (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Support ! Lear 21 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might also be useful to put it at the bottom of the page as well. To be honest I can't see it stopping people from asking though! --Simonski (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing. I was a little shocked that there was no Criticisms section, which I usually come to expect on Wikipedia articles. I, being the average, ignorant North American, would really appreciate a criticism page as I don't know enough about the EU or the social climate of Europe to make many conclusions on my own about it. I definitly support this. PimpyMicPimp (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See European_Union/Frequently_asked_questions as to why it is agreed not to have a criticism section. I think you may have misunderstood what was said above – what the supports above are for is not a criticism section but a link to the FAQ page (am I right Lear?); this was not a vote on whether to have a criticism section. Rossenglish (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, that must have been the case. If people want to read about criticism of the EU, or support, Wikipedia is not the place to look. A brief summary can be provided here: Its basically a debate in Europe of to what extent we should have an integrated Europe. Some are very much for it (ie Germany, Netherlands, Greece), some are very much against it (ie. UK, Denmark, Poland). Much of the criticism of the EU surrounds the flawed decision making process, the existence of a serious democratic deficit, the fact that the European Court of Justice has been excessively judicially inventive, that it costs too much through having for example a pointless second parliament building in Strasbourg, that the Commission has excessively curbed national sovereignty in its policy making etc. These are just some of the many. Of course its not perfect, but its difficult to construct a perfect organisation when you have such diversity between 27 (soon to be more no doubt) countries trying to reach an agreement. Try getting Poland and the Netherlands to agree on things for example - nightmare. Truth be told there is scope for a new article Criticism of the EU, to be established, but to try and fit all of them on the EU main page is ill advised, as it could not be done effectively. --Simonski (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I support a FAQ template at the top of the discussion page ! Not a single Criticism section in the article. Lear 21 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the FAQ box looks good there - you can't fail to see it. Rossenglish (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

demographics and culture

Lear lodged an objection in an edit comment that culture is not demographics. Once again, I don't follow this argument. As I understand demographics (or at least how it is being used here), it is information about people and how they live. I do not see why this does not include what their favourite sport is, or whether they like going to the opera or the pub. If people really think demographics is too specific a term, then as has been suggested before perhaps we can think of a better title for a section about society in the EU? This stuff belongs together. Sandpiper (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one do not mind much, you could stretch it to demographics but I wouldn't normally put the two together. A compromise title might be good, either way please do it without an edit war. - J Logan ^t: 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Member state agreement table

Anonymous IP user:84.78.189.58 recently added an elaborate table under the membership section.
I think this table is not wanted because:

1. The article is long enough as it is, this table does not give core information and should not be in this article
2. The table includes non-EU members such as Vatican City, further increasing size, and decreasing relevance for the EU core article
3. The table layout and size do not fit in well as it takes up too much space to be elegantly shown in many browsers.
4. There is no argument why the chosen treaty types are selected (EU, Common Market (EEA), Customs Union, Schengen, EMU (Euro), Military); and anyway why any of them except "EU" are relevant for the EU core article
5. There is a complete and utter lack of any reference to the table; in the text, so it is hanging in thin air.

I think each of these five reasons alone would be enough to delete the table, and the combination even more so therefore I deleted the table. Arnoutf (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, its on the member states page, we don't need that detail here.- J Logan ^t: 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was ambivalent about this when I saw it. I considered the mention of Vatican city, san marino, etc, quite interesting and it told me something relevant to the EU which I did not know. From my perspective, the EU is a network of treaties. Even the core states have not acceded to them all, so it is extremely doubtfull to argue we should dismiss any state from the article because it has only accepted just one. I find it highly relevant that this article should explain about affiliated states. The argument about lack of references is absurd, if it bothers you, then find some. All these treaties and who signed them must be readily on record with the EU websites. Now, I do agree the table is way big and doesn't fit into the article. But the details of what countries have agreed to what -all of them who have agreed to anything- is absolutely core information, way more important than some of the stuff we have been arguing about (ahem). Does this table come from another page, or could it be put on one so we could refer to it? Sandpiper (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the table is necessary though, as far as I'm concerned it really doesn't serve any useful purpose when all the information in it is basically found within the EU article/sub-articles. I'm not against a table of some sort like they have on the French version of this page for example (I think, or maybe its another version I'm thinking of) but the one proposed doesn't seem to me to serve any valuable purpose. Maybe the guy who's adding it will come here and try and convince us otherwise, I'd be happy to hear him out. In the meantime though I can't see any good reason for keeping it. Sandpiper I think what Arnoutf meant was that there was no actual reference to the table, not that the table did not contain references, as it just appears from out of nowhere, in quite an awkward manner I'd say. Every member state signed the EC/EU treaties, thats the important one as far as this article is concerned. --Simonski (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Simonski, I clarified my intent; above. Although the lack of sourcing is also worrying; as we emphasise the referencing issue on this page (@Sandpiper: it is the task of the person adding information to find the references; not the one asking for them). Arnoutf (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are being picky, I think it is only permissable to delete information on the grounds it has no source if it is unsourceable, not if it is merely unsourced. We all know this information is sourceable. A good faith measure would be to provide what is lacking in an article, eg add the refs, not delete something on a technicality. But I misunderstood Arnoutf. I don't know what to do about the table. It has some merit but is also a nuisance. On the whole I think it is too big to stay here as it is. Sandpiper (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I'm the one who built and added the "so-wide-and-too-detailed-table". I completely agree with the formal matters you said, and I must confess that I was already concerned about that when I did it. Maybe this is not exactly the right place to put it, and maybe it is quite wide, and for sure the work is not finished and it lacks from a reference in the text. But these are just formal details -to be solved- but not relevant ones to delete it, from my point of view, of course. As stated by Sandpiper, the EU is not a monolitic entity, but it is a conjunction of treaties. Not all the members have signed/implemented them all. And, many other countries have signed some of them without being EU nations. This is relevant information that I couldn't find summarised when I looked for it. Of course that, as said by Simonski, the information is already disseminated through dozens of articles and sub-articles relative to the EU, but you wouldn't have the big picture in that way. In my opinion, is really interesting to know the different levels of involvement of the European countries in the EU construction from its main agreements. Thus, I may answer that:

1. Being the article too long is not a reason to remove important information. The membership in the different EU core agrements -such the common market, the Economic and Monetary Union, the removal of borders, or the seed for a EU army- is core information.
2. Many non EU nations are already included in this article, just above the table, for example. Hence, Norway is not a EU country but it is a Schengen country, whereas UK and Ireland are not; San Marino, Monaco and Montenegro adopted the euro, whereas Sweden or Denmark didn't; Denmark has an opt-out in order not to participate in the common security policy, whereas Norway and Turkey -non-Eu contries- have joined common EU military units.
3. The size and layout should be refined, I completely agree with that.
4. I do not manage to understand why Schengen, Euro or Common Market agrements are not relevant in a EU article.
5. I support the motion to include a reference in the text, at his final location, in case it has one...

Danrowe 20:40, 14 January 2008

I think the table could have a relevant place in one of the articles, with a small pointer in this one. Howeve I think the level of detail, and the mentioning of this many states is in my opinion beyond the scope of this article, which, in the end, cannot be more than an overview of all that is going on. Arnoutf (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for coming here Dan and putting your point across. The info in the table is indeed interesting, and as other (including some of the FA status versions) language versions of the EU page do contain some tables that some here might consider to be awkward or unnecessary, I guess the idea can't be dismissed immediately. Of course the fact that the article is already too long would not be a reason for ruling out the table by itself, I think people were just adding it in as an extra together with their other points.. certainly whilst the dreaded sports section remains, arguing against the inclusion of possibly more relevant information on this basis isn't really convincing, I'll grant you that. To be honest though, I still think the article could survive without it, I would need to be convinced a bit more... I dunno, what do others think? --Simonski (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove any of the states (40) from the table since they are either EU states (27), or signatory of any of the agrements settled under the EU umbrella (in addition to be official candidates now (3), past candidates (1) or potential candidates in near future, and be in the EU geografic area). Thus, for instance, Schengen (22) has 4 non EU signatory states (2 of them have already implemented it), three of these are also members of the EEA (30); most of the microstates (5) have open borders, and have euro-adoption agrements while mint their own euros (3) or use it unilateraly (1), as some other non-EU included states (2); 27 out of 40 are creating the EU forces (including 2 non EU states); etc

So, in case that the table is finally added somewhere,

1. in which article can be placed? (general enough to cover EU, and Schengen, EMU, EEA, 'WEU', etc)
2. which states might be removed from it?
3. which details are perceived as superfluous? Danrowe (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Simonski. My point is that some sort of summarised information -like this table- is needed to have at a glance an idea of 'soft' EU membership, which, in my opinion, includes integrated economy, currency, borders, army, etc.. Danrowe (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer the "where" question. I think your argument about soft-membership with the table might find a place in the European_Union_member_state article. If you find such a place, I would suggest to take in the table as a whole and not delete anything. Subarticles are in my opinion a good place to store "encyclopedic" detail; which is then made accesible from the core article. That way you have both, the detail if you really want it, and a reasonable length/information content for the less involved reader on the main topic.

Note that the current member state section where you suggest to add the table already acknowledges that as one of the "main articles". A two line reference to that table could then be added in this article. Something like "Although official EU membership is reserved to 27 states, not all of them have signed all treaties (e.g. the UK has not adopted the Euro as currency). On the other hand, several European states that are not officially a member of the EU have signed treaties that were developed within the EU (e.g. Vatican City has adopted the Euro)."

Or something similar. That way you include the key idea in this article, while the details can easily be found elsewhere. Does that sound as direction to take this further?Arnoutf (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a brilliant proposal Arnoutf. The table would fit perfectly in the Member States article, and I'm assuming it would keep everybody happy. --Simonski (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the European_Union_member_state article as the place for such a table. That article is strictly devoted to complete membership --thereby, detailing issues as the number of MP's, for example. Further, there is no reference at all in its text to the Common Market, Schengen Agreement, Economic and Monetary Union, etc --contrary to the EU main article-- and hence the information contained the table loses its relevance.

Nevertheless, I agree with both of you about placing the table in a subarticle, and placing it as it is. What about Third_country_relationships_with_the_European_Union? Danrowe (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That maybe a candidate, isn't there some kind of "treaties of the EU" article. It might fit there as well (sorry no time to look for it right now). Arnoutf (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean Treaties of the European Union? Maybe, but I think we are talking about wider integration than the EU, how about including it as expansion of European integration?- J Logan ^t: 12:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very good. Arnoutf (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That should be the right place for it. Unfortunately, it nearly looks like a stub. Hard work has to be done before that article includes all the necesary topics ---and corresponding sections--- related to European integration, such as economy (EEA, Eurozone, Custom Union), politics or 'geography' (Schengen Zone), military, etc. Danrowe (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be an idea to form some kind of collaborative effort to improve it. After all getting Wiki quality up is hard work. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be good but WP:EU collaborations are rather meaningless right now - unless we seriously built on our co-operation here to bring common work alive again. Exactly who would be interested in continuing our work beyond this article?- J Logan ^t: 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor addition to the earlier US/EU debate

Just wanted to share with everybody something which I thought was quite interesting - I had the honour of having a conversation the other day with former UK judge of the ECJ, Judge Edwards, haha you won't believe the topic - Sport! Though only in the sense of Bosman, and the effect the Reform Treaty would have here. Just thought it might be interesting given the debate above about the US/EU comparison, that he also seemed to suggest to me that the EU was going through a period now where Member States were trying to limit the intrusion of EU law (which he seemed to be, predictably being a former member of the ECJ, against). From what I understood, he was suggesting the majority of the Member States are now going through a period of trying to reassert themselves over the EU Institutions *cough* the Commission and the ECJ *cough*.

Just really interesting anyway. Certainly, reflective of the conclusion that most reached above, which is that the EU really is in limbo at the moment. Whilst on the one hand its going one way with EU citizenship etc, its going the other with things like derogations on foreign workers getting into the public sector (like loads of countries using language requirements as valid barriers to the public sector). --Simonski (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 'limbo' might be bit strong. It suggests there is an uncertainty which has never existed in the past. I'm not convinced by that: rather I would suggest that some of the initial aims have been quite well achieved, but now that the EU is hunting around looking for other areas to colonise, those people who never signed up for anything more are making themselves heard. It will be interesting to see how the new treaty is received, and whether people, eg in the UK, really feel they have been railroaded into something they did not agree to, or the issue just fades away.Sandpiper (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think after 2009 the issue will fade away in the UK, similarly to Maastrict and pretty much every other treaty since the UK joined. Every new treaty is marked by Murdoch press with 'this is the end of an independent UK', and myths about what the treaty does, but soon after they come into force, those obsessed members of the 'better off out' club are soon silenced, and those who are in favour of EU participation wonder what the fuss was about. I know that this is supposed to be a talk about improving the article, but hey, we might need to address similar topics somewhere in a related article! Rossenglish (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of word "Law"

The article is sometimes speaking of "EU laws". I am very hesitant here as this may either refer to "regulations" (which IMHO is close to law) but also to "directive", or "direction"; which do not refer to specific "laws". I would be very hesitant to use the word Law in this article and refer to one of the terms (regulation, directive, direction) whenever possible. Arnoutf (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, I think its perfectly normal to speak of "EU laws". The EU is a unique legal order, and there is "EU law"... Directives, Regulations and Decisions are EU laws. If you were to go into more specific detail as to what circumstances directives/regulations/decisions are used in, this article would be neverending. The fact is generally there will always be the option of using any of the 3, so I don't see how using the specific term is 1) possible, or 2) necessary. I'm guessing in particular you have a problem with the Freedom, Justice and Security section mentioning EU laws in the general way it does, but thats about the only part of the article where I could see any real issue arising. --Simonski (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side note though, was just flicking through the recent edit history and I see what you mean, regarding the EEA countries. I think here "regulations" or "rules" certainly reads better for that particular sentence. Also, a bit concerned again that more Non-NPOV crap is coming through again. Solberg man I know you want Norway to join the EU but please don't start to let any bias creep into the content of the page. --Simonski (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It were indeed the recent edits that made me feel uncomfortable with the word law, I had no problems before. Arnoutf (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

History

Sorry for recent absence from this page, haven't been on the net long enough to reengage properly. But anyway, I'm not sure about these new subsections in history. The section is rather small for them don't you think? Especially three. I don't think it does any favours to the layout (doesn't help better understanding and it should have an into to the three sections at the top) and the headers seem odd choices.- J Logan ^t: 09:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The names could of course be improved, and the periods altered, but I really think we should have subsections. The history section of this article is of course not very long compared to e.g. that of the USA, (which has subsections) but IMO the EU history section should be a bit longer. (The Treaty of Paris is for example not mentioned, and no word of Robert Schuman or Jean Monnet) I think dividing it into:

• Post-war ECSC
• The period after the Treaty of Rome with the three communities
• Establishment of the modern EU & the segnificant eastward enlargement

...makes sense. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think in principle there's anything wrong with the idea of subsections for history, though here as always comparisons with the USA page should be taken with a signficant pinch of salt (arguably more a full salt shaker's worth) and thus there seems little reason for the History section to increase in length on the main page. Expansion of it would have to be considered very carefully so as to stop any non-NPOV views coming in (ie. The Libson Treaty paves the way for further EU integration or the Lisbon Treaty represents the fact that the integration of Europe is reaching a saturation point). --Simonski (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

While I do not object to subsections for history per se; I think in this case JLogan has a good point (BTW not so absent as your comment was within 10 hours after the subdivision first was introduced, so quick catch;-). The section is not very long, and the subsections do not appear to add much to readability. Subsectioning is ok, if it ever grows overly long, but IMHO that is not (yet) the case here. (I also agree with the choice of subheader names, but that is of secondary importance compared to the issue use subheading or not). Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think it adds to the readability. It's hard to debate the aesthetics about how long a history section should be, but right now on my 1024x768 screen, I think the three images, the three sub-headings and the 710 words, fit quite nicely together. If more text is preferred, I believe the subsections 'inspire' to additional writing, as opposed to having one massive bunch of text. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that ("If more text is preferred") is the main issue for discussion. There has been recent arguments against text with reference to the overall length of the article. Although I disagree with such an a-priori approach, I would advice caution in further expanding the article unless necessary. In that light I think it is not at all desirable to expand the history section from its current version for 2 reasons:

1) The history section already refers to the main History of the European Union aticle; so the information is available on Wiki, and can easily be found.

2) In my opinion the focus of this article is to describe the current EU, any historical section should be very brief, and only providing that information essential to understanding (I think the current text suffices).

If this line of argument is adopted, changes in structure of the history section inviting expansion of that text (as you state the subheading does) should be avoided. Only if we actually wish to expand history, subheading is a good thing in my opinion.

Readability improvements are not my primary concern; although very short sections do break the flow of the article and are disouraged somewhere in WP:MOS. However, even if subheading does improve readability, the heading titles need to be understandable, brief and to the point for the target audience. As this is basically the entry article for the EU, the target publc should include people who know nothing of the EU, or indeed Europe. IMHO the first two subheading (Pax Europea, The three Communities) are not easty to understand for people without any knowledge of the EU. The last (Reform and eastward enlargement) is not as to the point as it looks as it suggest (a) Reform happened first (which is ongoing), before Eastward enlargement (while e.g. Malta, Sweden are not really East). Also it suggests that this is about expansion and reform, while e.g. the Euro (not really reform IMHO) is also mentioned in this section. The alternative proposed by you are more to the point, but seriously lack briefness; so these are in my opinion also not good enough. Again, I think this is a minor issue, as the issue whether subdividing is a good idea, before going into the actual title, has to be solved first. Arnoutf (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You've convinced me anyway Arnoutf. My stance would be it should just go back to the way it was without the subsections then. I have to admit even I was a bit confused with the Pax Europea one! It does make sense to say the intended work here really belongs in the History of the EU page, maybe better to concentrate your efforts there rather than the main page. I honestly didn't think the previous history section read badly, and going by recent months, I'm guessing others didn't/don't either. Would be interesting to get more views here anyway. --Simonski (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I'd like to point out that the USA history is so long because they have more history than the EU. If you took any 50 years worth of US history on that page you'll find it would be much smaller than our section. If our history section becomes longer (which I think would be too much at this point), then subsections would be warranted, but not simply to encourage expansion. Perhaps we should concentrate on improving the EU history pages first? - J Logan ^t: 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And indeed compare to PRC#History which is about the same length without divisions and still has a slightly longer history than the EU.- J Logan ^t: 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)