Talk:European Union/Archive 14

Archives
Archive 1 (pre 2004) Archive 2 (Jan-Apr 2004) Archive 3 (Apr-May 2004) Archive 4 (May-Jun 2004) Archive 5 (Jun-Dec 2004) Archive 6 (Dec-2004 - Aug-2006) Archive 7 (Aug-2006 - Dec-2006) Archive 8 (Oct-2006 - Jan-2007) Archive 9 (Jan-2007 - Jan-2007)

Template:FormerFA

Largest Cities section

The way the largest cities section is organised, is ridiculous. For example, for London and Rome the municipi and boroughs are counted, although for Athens the municipalities (essentially subdivisions) that are part of the city (I'm NOT talking about the metropolitan area), are not! An analogue would be that London equals the City of London, therefore London is not one of the largest cities in EU! This is just silly and should be changed.

Peter

85.75.165.141 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! Watch also the metro size population. Taking all measures to estimate the city size, madrid paris,london,berlin are the largest cities in EU. They are presented with picture. Lear 21 14:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please will you clarify your disagreement, Lear 21. What precisely in what Peter's written is "Wrong!"? Is he wrong to say that different rules are used for different cities? And what do you mean by "Watch also the metro size population"? What about it should we watch? I watched, and nothing struck me to make Peter's observation obviously "Wrong!", but then I might have missed the obvious. I'm sorry if I have. Countersubject 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Metro Area size in the table! It balances the slighty unsharp assumption that, for instance, Paris is smaller than Madrid, Berlin. All cities are listed by size of its city proper, that is only one( out of 3) measurements to estimate citysize. London remains therefore, with Paris, to be the largest in total. Lear 21 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can understand your response, it doesn't seem to address Peter's point. He seems to be saying that the city sizes are not consistently calculated on the same basis (that we also have a metro column is therefore irrelevant to his observation). Do you think his observation is true, and if so, what do you suggest we do about it? Countersubject 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New intro paragraph

User Lear 21 deleted edits, but the intro should treat the EU as both a politcal issue and a legal entity. Additionnally, the intro should placve the EU in the context of an expanding and deepening process of integration, and should say that it is open-ended. The constantly shifting structures of the EU are one of its most notable features. I propose to use this version:Paul111 12:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union of democratic nation-states in Europe. It currently has 27 member states. The EU represents the current phase of European integration: it was established under that name in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty. Predecessor entities, with fewer members and more limited in scope, were formed after the Second World War. Since then, membership, competences, tasks, and goals have expanded. The process of integration is open-ended: although the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU, eurosceptic fears that it will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty have made the EU (and its future) a major political issue in itself.

You say that the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU. This is not completely true: the Treaty of Rome mentions the goal of "ever closer union", which some might interpret as meaning ultimately a single federal state. Luis rib 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that all talk of federal or confederal structures, from within the EU, has stopped. There are very few outside the EU who still advocate them either. In fact they exist primarily as a eurosceptic bogeyman. Note that there are other options, such as a unitary state.Paul111 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Reich and Roman Empire as predecessor

User Lear 21 reinserted a version of History which makes a false distinction between 'pacifist' and 'military' unions. The idea that the Roman Empire is an EU predecessor is not historically viable or accurate. Neither is the implicit suggestion that Europe had a menu of 'good' and 'bad' unions in the 1940's. The naming of Victor Hugo in this section would distort it, (unless many others are included as well) since his proposals were not particularly influential. I have proposed splitting the History of the European Union article into a pre-1945 and post-1945 section, to avoid Whig history. See that article's talk page.Paul111 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the Third Reich attempted to create an European Union is quite bizarre. The Nazi ideology wanted to grab Eastern Europe to expand the "Lebensraum" of the Aryan race - this Lebensraum would be taken from the Slavs which were considered as a minor race. Conquest of France, Denmark, Norway and the Benelux happened for military reasons; these countries were BTW not added to the Reich, contrarily to Polish, Czech, Russian and Ukrainian lands (these were formally annexed). So the aim of the Third Reich was to create a German (not European) Empire that would span over the most of Central and Eastern Europe; it was not to create an European superstate. Luis rib 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems in relinquish both first sentences. Lear 21 13:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just some correction to Luis rib's comment (who should know better;-)). While the attacks in teh west were indeed not part of the "Lebensraum" concept, some territories were neverless annexed and integrated into the Reich (Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, parts of Belgium (possibly also small parts of the Netherlands and Denmark)). Not all of the eastern states and territories named were annexed either (General Gouvernement was administred but not annexed, though I have no doubt it would only have been a matter of time until annexation...) On the other hand I do agree that the 3rd Reich's policy has very little if anything in common with the EU. The same obviously applies to the Roman Empire and the EU.--Caranorn 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are of course right concerning Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine, Eastern Belgium etc. My apologies for not having mentioned them. Luis rib 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Harmonisation and acquis

These points seem to have disappeared during recetn edits. Harmonisation is not the same as the acquis, and the initial role of harmonisation was to facilitate the single market. Food safety standards are the classic example, if consumers are not sure that imported food meets their own national standards, they usually won't buy it. Harmonisation, as a de facto major policy, should get more attention.Paul111 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Acquis mentioned in Law is first priority, correct. Lear 21 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Countersubject 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Boundaries and identity

There is a need for a section on the underlying major issues, separate from accession controversies. They are not sufficiently covered in the current issues section. They include the question of European identity (still no major article on this) and the boundaries of 'Europe'. The related issue of a 'Christian Europe', and the so-called European values, should be included, in this context. I suggest a section on European identity and values placed before the Current issues section.Paul111 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea. It has the potential to be a single section in culture. Including headwords like greek democracy, latin language, roman law, middleage, christianity, reformation, enlightment, liberal tradition and pluralism. Very important seems absolute accuracy in tone and proof, because this is a major POV trap. Every comment about current identity(last 50 years) or the future has to be referenced with very credible sources. Lear 21 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to be careful about scope. A full treatment of European culture belongs in the 'Europe' article, not this one. The EU is not the same as Europe, and it isn't a country. That said, those elements of the institution that want closer integration are attempting to encourage a common sense of identity, e.g. through educational programs, and funding rules for cross-European political parties and groupings. This is an interesting development, and deserves some treatment. Countersubject 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Countersubject that we have to distinguish carefully between EU and Europe (for example I am pretty sure the Swedish culture has more in common with the Norwegian culture (non-EU) than with the Romanian culture (EU)). that not-withstanding there is some effort to come to a common culture/identity in Europe not only with the education and funding but also in relation to Culture (cultural capitals), and research (the EU framework programs). Nevertheless we have to be careful to avoid POV forks and original research. Perhaps the Eurobarometer can give some input. Especially about future developments we have to be wary of crystal balling.Arnoutf 09:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Points for attention

These need correction or rewriting:

• GDR did not accede to EU

• optimumpopulation.org not a reliable source

• Washington Times not a reliable source

• statistics from secondary sources, use Eurostat preferably

• institutions section is mainly about their location

• law section includes structure, should be in structure or status section: EU law does not establish structure, the treaties do

• international relations includes accession countries, but accession is not part of Solana's competences

• peace between member states is not an aspect of EU foreign policy, since by definition it is internal to the EU

• historical location of the EU within the Atlantic alliance is ignored - until 1989 some current member states had nuclear missiles targeted at each other

• the ambitious Lisbon strategy has apparently failed, and little is heard of it these daysPaul111 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Treaty image

The image of the Constitutional Treaty in section politics must be kept. a) official document signed by 25 head of states b) the most present issue examplifiyng the section c) nothing emotive, simply a fact d) arguebly one of the most decisive documents in world history, if ratified e) has been on the article for months, nothing wrong with it.

G8 image

The image of the G8 summit in section international relations must be kept. a) the 2 highest officials attending it regularly, for nearly 30 years now b) best evidence in section for IR politics apart from CFSP. c) documents the EU status in economical, trade and fiscal matters d) if questioned, because of alleged democratic vote, see [1] Lear 21 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The best example of an international organization where the EU is represented is the WTO. It's the only important organization where the EU has a seat instead of its member states. It's the one where the EU actually exercised international political power - i.e. by threatening other countries to levy anti-dumping duties on their exports to the EU, or by engaging in economic retaliation (as in many trade disputes with the US). Luis rib 12:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bring an image of EU in WTO and I´m fine with it. For the time being, it will be kept. Lear 21 13:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to write about a problem. I'd like to preface what I have to say by asserting that there's nothing personal about it, and that I've hesitated to write it. It would be easier for me to pass off the problem and the fractured reasoning in which it sometimes appears as a joke. However, it's time for those of us with an interest in this article to take a deep breath, and examine the basis on which edits and comments are made.made

A number of contributors' edits and comments lack balance. We all have points of view. For example, I'm a British Eurosceptic, who thinks that EU membership may or may not be beneficial to the peoples of continental Europe, but isn't in the best interests of the citizens of the UK (I'm undecided about the Republic of Ireland; but that's an Anglo-Irish thing). In the unlikely event that you've examined my edits, that won't surprise you. One's edits will inevitably reflect one's interests and judgements. However, I do my best to take this into account before I make a contribution. So, while I feel that British membership of a federal European state as it's developing is against my democratic and financial interests, I believe Wikipaedia's articles about or related to the EU should be factually accurate and devoid of spin. For example, I would prefer to see the EU exemplify economic and political co-operation between sovereign states, rather than drive towards political integration, and I believe that the effects of membership on the UK have reached the point where we'd be better off out than in. However, that didn't prevent me from adding to the History section the quote from the Schuman declaration that shows federacy to be at the heart of the project. My commitment to the encyclopaedic principals on which Wikipedia is founded demands this, and I don't find the commitment at all onerous. Unfortunately, some editors let their enthusiasm for the EU and integration get the better of them. I have no problem with this enthusiasm as such - it's another point of view - but it should be combined with self-awareness and love for the facts. I don't ask for grey neutrality - merely that we do our best to write about things as they are.

So, to come back to the article (an Empiricist failing, I know): we ought to be able to make comments, additions, changes or deletions without care for any perceived slight on the nature or status of the EU. It's reasonable to object to a series of photos whose purpose appears to be to emphasise the goodness and greatness of the EU (for example, the sacerdotal photo of the proposed constitution, with the one-sided caption: The constitutional treaty as signed in Rome, 2004 by representatives of the EU member states. 17 members ratified the treaty, 2 rejected it). It's also reasonable to question the value added to the text by a photo of G8 meeting participants; I'm willing to discuss this issue rationally, but am disappointed when the issue, and any other questioning that might appear critical of a particular form of EU development, appears to become a matter of amore propre.

I'm also disappointed by the repeated re-insertion of graphics that were removed after considerable discussion. I know Wikepaedia isn't a democracy. But its ethos is, or should be, good-natured. There's been a long-winded dispute about graphical content in this article (guilty, m'Lud). We've done our best to resolve it with discussion and a vote. I don't think the results of the vote went far enough, but I'll live with that. So should those who think it went too far.

Finally, a difficult and sensitive issue. I'm aware that English is not the first language of many who edit these pages. I'm therefore loath to criticise the form of others' comments, especially when I happen to disagree with the content. What I see as gaps in reasoning may just be a problem of translation. However, I think that some contributors exhibit a tendency to emote rather than reason, both in their article contributions and their comments on the discussion page. For example, insisting that particular graphics are "crucial for the article", without an explanation of the way in which the article absolutely depends on those graphics, gives the impression that the argument is based on sentiment. This impression is reinforced by a blanket refusal to countenance the removal of any graphics, irrespective of the arguments. Also, the phrase "alleged democratic vote" (see above) may be a criticism of how we went about resolving the dispute. If so, I'm sorry. But I suspect it's an angry reaction to loosing the vote, and it's startlingly reminiscent of post-war communist slogans. Countersubject 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

@ Countersubject. First of all I´m sorry for the term 'alleged'. Vote is vote, and I havent criticised it once, though I could have. I´m fine with the outcome. But it is also right to inform everybody about WIKI rules concerning democracy. In weighing the results of votes with the stated arguments, I reinserted one image - G8, which hasnt been tackled at all. Something different in general : This article is not about UK in EU. This article is written in English, coincidentally the mother language of a rather reluctant EU member (very diplomatically), when asked about attitudes and involvement towards EU. But the English language is understood and read around the globe and has to be written from an external position as well. Frankly, I´m shocked about some editors, who are influenced by serious desinformation, almost emotional disgust about facts, and the insisting on statements about policies, which are superseded for over 15 years. Only one example now @ Countersubject again. You wish to present the article about EU showing economic and political co-operation between sovereign states. But EU economy is handled supranationally with directives, there is one Commissioner, Mandelson, representing all members in terms of trade- not the national ministers. Because of this blind eye on reality, it seems even more important, to inform on factual base. all the best Lear 21 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above, because you've seriously misrepresented what I said, and illustrated the problem. You accuse me of wanting to use the article to push my view of how the EU should develop. Actually, I said that we must strive for impartiality, and I illustrated that with reference to to one of my edits, which introduced material with which I'm not politically happy. I made my own views clear only to show how it's possible to put aside a strong POV in order to make objective edits. You then go on to push your POV on the EU. How many times and in how many ways does it have to be said for you to understand: this isn't about our personal politics; it's an encyclopaedic article, in which enthusiasm for or against a cause has no place. We're merely trying to describe a subject in calm, rational terms. Think about it. Please. Countersubject 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the G8 picture received the following votes: 5 deletes - 1 keep. So the G8 photo should go in accordance with the other pictures that were deleted. On the other hand, the Constitution picture only appeared after the vote - so obviously there is not yet a consensus on whether to keep or delete it. For my part, I don't see the big deal about it - the Constitution is the treaty that is (still) currently being discussed and it has been approved in 17 countries and rejected in 2; the others haven't given any opinion yet (and don't come with the argument that the UK would reject it - the UK could easily approve it in Parliament without going through a referendum). As such, I don't see why it is unbalanced to have a picture of it - it is after all an issue that is being hotly discussed in the EU. Luis rib 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You've identified the underlying problem. The pros and cons of the Constitution, and the extent to which European electorates should have a direct say in its adoption, are hotly debated. It's therefore unwise to use a photo that presents it like a quasi-religious book to be venerated. It looks very much like a precious bible or missal, sumptuously bound and printed, open on the lectern at the reading of the day. If that doesn't convey a positive impression, I don't know what will. It's also a good example of the touchy-feely, feel-good content that we should avoid. The problem with the caption isn't so much what it says, as what it leaves out. To simply state that 17 states have ratified it and two haven't begs so many questions as to make it undesirable. If we were to retain the picture (and I don't think we should), a better caption would be 'The constitutional treaty as signed in Rome, 2004 by representatives of the EU member states. The ratification process is currently stalled.' Finally, when you admonish me not to 'come with the argument that the UK would reject it - the UK could easily approve it in Parliament without going through a referendum', you're coming perilously close to the kind of political debate that I'm arguing against. I'm not going to respond in kind. Repeat after me: Neutral Point of View. Countersubject 23:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

G8:Please discuss Treaty image in section above. Please accept this ! [2]! . As far I can understand user:Luis rb, he wants a better picture, which is currently not available. The user does not object a)- d). Please correct me when I´m wrong. User:Countersubject hasn´t object to a)-d), please correct me when I´m wrong. all the best Lear 21 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lear 21, what has the debate on items a - d got to do with the G8 photo? I don't understand what you're trying to say, and I wish you'd do your best to be more clear. I'm quite happy to have a further discussion on the G8 photo if it helps, but in the meantime I'd be grateful if you and Ssolbergj would stop reverting the delete, just as I've left the picture of the constitution in place while its discussed. It's partly a matter of courtesy to those who took the matter seriously enough to vote on it, and partly a practicality - that is, if you're going to impose your way whatever the results of the discussion, what's the point of engaging with you? Countersubject 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

a) -d) refers to 4 arguments stated at the top of the section. Lear 21 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at a) to d) above, I'm still not sure whether you're talking nonsense or whether something's been lost in translation. Which mild invective brings me to my next point: for now, those of us who've been involved in this increasingly acrimonious argument and edit war - particularly Lear 21, Ssolbergj and myself - should go away and forget about it for a day or three. We might even find something more useful to do with our time! Goodnight. Countersubject 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning G8: it's true, I can't find a better image right now (astonishingly, there's not a single picture at World Trade Organization. So personally I'm fine with leaving it for now - until a more representative one can be found.

Concerning Constitution: If you can find a more neutral image, Countersubject, please feel free to present it. You are also free to change the caption, if you want (although the current one just states neutral facts: 17 accepted it, 2 rejected it; if you want you can add that 8 have not made up their mind yet). Personally, I don't feel that the picture glorifies the constitution or anything - why put an ugly picture of the Constitution if this one is perfectly fine? Concerning the current debate about it: that best goes into the text. Sorry about the UK thing - I repeat after you: Neutral Point of View. :-) Luis rib 10:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I conclude: the G8 image is kept. Lear 21 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sad, Lear 21, that you've not followed my suggestion to take some time out, or even discussed it. Instead, you've taken advantage of my time-out to conclude consensus. This isn't very Wikipedian. Nor is your refusal to even consider the removal of any graphics, and the bluster, POV, misrepresentation, insult and on occasion menace with which you respond to such suggestions. As another editor has begged of you: "please stop".

As to the photo itself and its caption: they're misleading, because they fail to convey the subtlety of the EU's position at the G8 meetings. The EU isn't a G8 member as such, because it isn't a national government in the sense that the 8 are. It attends but does not chair or organise and host meetings, as do the 8. Unfortunately, a readiness to appreciate subtlety and layers of meaning hasn't been evident in much of the discussion of graphics. Indeed, it's a failing of the article.

I'm also bemused by the approach that acknowledges the problems with particular graphics, but which is only willing to consider replacement by some hypothetical alternative. If we were always to follow this approach (perhaps we should call it the acquis graphique) the page would be even more overrun with visual cruft than it is now. Countersubject 08:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The G8 is highly determined by economical issues. So is the nature and the current status of EU dominated by economic foreign policies. Also, the EU has almost governmental/ supranational authority in first pillar politics. Face It! That impact is proven by this picture. Stop argueing what everything fails and lacks. All sections are lacking something (and are not deleted), but still describe the reality as close as possible. I change the sentence under the picture - so could user:Countersubject do. Lear 21 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. At some point, Lear 21, you may begin to understand that accuracy is all in an Encyclopaedia, and that attempts to prevent mis-statement or over-statement don't need to be seen as a threat to you personally, or to the EU. I hope you'll also learn that your interpretation of a photo isn't necessarily proof of a particular point. So: the presence of EU representatives in the G8 photo says nothing about the nature of the EU's participation in the G8 meetings. The photo is only evidence of their being there, neither more nor less. And given that their participation is different in some ways from that of the others, that needs to be pointed out. The graphic itself doesn't make this clear, and so creates a danger of incorrect inference.

You suggest I should just make changes to the article, rather than discuss matters here. That suggestion is problematic in a number of ways. Firstly, discussion is good for cooperation and resolution of difference. Secondly, editors ought to be able to have such reasoned discussion without an enthusiast for the subject excitedly accusing them of trying to undermine it. Finally, in this atmosphere I'm wary of "just making changes" to this article, for fear of the edit war and insult it all too often engenders. To that extent, your behaviour is intimidating. Please stop it. Countersubject 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Members and candidate countries

These should be together, and have their own sections. "Members" doesn't belong with geography. Geography is about the natural environment, not political groupings. Also, international relations is a different thing to candidate country negotiations - the term enlargement is a better header, which is why I've substituted it. I understand that one or two people may object to this because they might not like Turkey, and don't like the prospect of enlargement, but the article's contents does not make it bias in that direction. Wikidea 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed this starting section from the "enlargement" section (previously candidate countries) because it is unreferenced and unsubstantiated swill:

"The candidate countries' accessions tend to grow more controversial. The rejection of the EU Constitution by France and the Netherlands, and the slow economic integration of new members have cast doubt on whether the EU will be ready to accept new, far poorer members after 2007. The prospect of large-scale economic migration from Romania and Bulgaria into the major EU economies such as Germany, the UK, France and Italy has also reared its head. These countries have only just begun to manage the major influx from the 2004-accedant member states such as Poland and the Czech Republic (especially in the UK and Germany). Both Romania and Bulgaria also fear that they will suffer a national "brain drain" of their skilled and specialist workforce, similar to that which the 2004 member state entrants are experiencing now and are already suffering of a lack of unspecialised workforce, especially in the constructions field."

I see weasel words ('accessions tend to grow more controversial'; 'cast doubt'; 'Romania and Bulgaria also fear') and the tone of the intro is anti enlargement, and quite silly. So I've replaced it with parts from the far better intro from the Enlargement of the European Union page. Wikidea 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of the starting section, it was to one sided, also the emphasized country names is good work. I can´t support the move of Candidate countries : 1.a)C.countries are not included in any internal policy, not in Parliament, not in any legal framework- as you know best, nor in any other. b) It remains unclear and open if any of the C.countries is ever joining. c) There is a section called foreign relations concerning every non EU relation d) 'Enlargement' has lower priority as politics, law, institutions. The structure as it was will be reinstalled. 2. I can´t support the move of member states in a single section. a) Remember where you learned everything about countries in school? b) the current content only features accession date and map. MAP? = Geography. I think its clear case. all the best Lear 21 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't support your conflation of geography and member states; nor international relations. Neither does the German translation of this page, and neither did User:Paul111 when I raised the issue before under "structural change" before. So it's 3 to one, so it'd be very impolite to revert it again without some more support, which you don't seem to have.

1a) is irrelevant, because internal policies have nothing to do with this contents page 1b) as I said above, just because you don't like Turkey does not mean you should bring out your prejudice on the wikipedia page; I agree that the candidates may never join; so what? 1c) the foreign relations links down the bottom are all to do with the issue of membership and accession if you read them - you should at least agree to putting those with the candidate countries section: I'm putting those back separately. 1d) on what basis do you say enlargement has a lower priority than law, etc? I think that where you come from, East Germany, joining the EU was one of the best things that happened last century, after the UK joining of course. 2a) you've obviously learned something different at school; Geography is quite different to political groupings. Members an enlargement are their own thing. 2b) the members section is itself the history of enlargement. I would say that both belong next to the history section. Yes, it also contains a map. But perhaps its the geography that should be lower down? 2c) points get tiresome, so let's not argue this way! Wikidea 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I count 2 to 1, but please accept [3] . 1a) Is the primary argument, nobody would mix up interior with exterior ministry. 2a) provocation is ignored/ and if country is not acceding how can it be member states? d)When you read the London article tell me, what priority (table of section) is the 2012 Olympics? Same with c.countries, its speculative and future but not reality, it ranks further down, after all bodies and policies. 2a) we can keep member states separetely. Lear 21 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant the German page as one vote. Your right, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. How about just giving enlargement a separate section then? We can have it further down, as you want. But it's a different issue to foreign relations! And please stop calling it candidate countries! The main article is enlargement, which encompasses the "potential candidates". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidea (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Identity and values

I added a new section for this - it is not a part of cultural policy (which is very limited) so I moved it from there. The EU does not have a policy to create a European identity or culture, it assumes it already existed. The 'European values' idea precedes the European communities. However, the present text badly needs editing for neutrality.Paul111 11:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the section in question. It was unreferenced as the editor himself added a neutrality check to the section. Try to find references before implementing it into the article next time. Rex 12:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not write the section, but merely moved it and added the header.Paul111 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I never said you wrote it.Rex 13:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The section will be reinstalled. When I, the author, said it HAS to be referenced, thought on claims like how the future,bounderies,politcs, etc will be shaped. The current content mainly, very much creates circle of influences around the values/identity, but not naming it and avoids any national specifics. It is very balanced and general, but helpful. @Paul111: state what is not neutral. It has to be corrected, linked, and expanded of course. Lear 21 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's a ridiculous section. It's unreferenced and it has no main page! This belongs, if anywhere on the culture page in a subsub section. Wikidea 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Paul111 has requested a section like this, it has not been generally rejected and was also approved by the later author, me. It is balanced, not yet finished, and is, you are right: pioneer work. It adds valuable content and overview / outside view on EU and its countries. Lear 21 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I must add that it was written for the former section culture, and should remain there. Because of one reason: there are and will be editors who will almost hysterical react about these 2 words 'Identity and values' in context with EU. It triggers very explosive irrationality and should be renamed. Lear 21 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

pioneer work??!? At least you have a sense of irony! Wikidea 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

this section reminds me of a famous German's comments on identity; ich bin nicht stolz Deutscher zu sein, aber ich bin dankbar Deutscher zu sein. (I'm not proud to be german, but thankful.) Wikidea 02:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything Lear 21 writes is balanced, and anyone who disagrees is an irrational Europhobe. Countersubject 11:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Delisting as Good Article

I propose to delist the article as a Good Article. This notification allows other editors to improve the article, see Wikipedia:Good article review.

1. Structure is not clear and not yet logical, and EU structure itself, its values, it policies, and political controversies about those, are mixed in with each other. Headers do not always match section content, politics section for instance is more about structural issues. Article needs to be read twice to understand it. Too much about the location of EU institutions rather than what they do.

2. Some dubious claims (EU largest economy, EU prevents war) are not sourced.

3. Coverage of values, European identity, and future orientation is weak, and not stable either. List of largest cities is listcruft and does not belong here, associated images even less so.

4. Neutrality is undermined by the concentration on legal aspects, the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance, but you would not guess that from the article. History section has too much Whig history.

5. Article is certainly not stable.Paul111 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement

The coverage of the Schengen agreement is misleading. The impression is given that's it's an EU thing, but that's not wholly true (another subtlety). A total of 30 countries – including all European Union states and three non-EU members, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland – have signed the agreement and 15 have implemented it so far. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom only take part in the police co-operation measures and not the common border control and visa provisions. The agreement was signed outside of the structures of the EU because of a lack of consensus amongst members, and because of a Nordic desire to retain traditional freedoms of movement, irrespective of EU membership. However, the Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated Schengen developments into the European Union framework.

It might be better to give the Agreement a section of its own, perhaps as part of the reorganisation that editors are beginning to suggest. That would give room to explain these matters more accurately, and it's certainly a significant development.

Also (and I hesitate to raise this), the current photo of a 'Schengen' border-crossing is inappropriate to the Geography section (which is itself arguably inappropriate to an article on the EU). It looks like another example of the compulsion to post graphics, irrespective of their relevance and the value they add to the text. It's a kind of graphical diarrhoea. Countersubject 09:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read intro of the EU-article :"The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control and customs checks for most member states within EU's internal borders, creating, to some extent, a single area of free movement for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest"! Next to the Euro (and some other), this is one of the most important achievements in EU history, initiated by it. The image in Geography is right because it documents the claim in the introduction. It is signed, correct, by all members, though differently interpreted. Lear 21 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)@User:Countersubject : The article can´t be determined by statements about what EU is not, fails, lacks etc.It would suppose an imaginary model, which is speculative and not based on facts. Lear 21 15:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lear 21: the article is about the EU. We therefore need to be strictly accurate about what's in it. I'm calling for no more accuracy than can be seen in the main article about the Agreement, from where I took my points about it. What's the problem? You seem to see rabid Eurosceptics around every corner, slavering at the prospect of using this article to slander and belittle the EU and its achievements. I suggest you take a deep breath and re-read my observations and suggestions. They don't say that the EU or the Agreement are bad things. In fact, they suggest that the Agreement is so significant as to warrant its own section. And I don't say that the photo is inappropriate per se, but that the Geography section isn't the right place for it (in fact, it's even more odd in that location than its predecessor, the Polish forest). As a matter of fact, I think it would be a good candidate for a Schengen section or sub-section. Countersubject 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I support an extended coverage of Schengen. It has to be one paragraph in 'History' and even a section in 'Politics' (This para was added by Lear 21, 16:19, 1 February 2007.)

Either or both? Countersubject 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BOTHLear 21 16:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why both? Wouldn't that just be unnecessary duplication? And why does it "have" to be? Might it not be a good idea to put forward this idea as a suggestion to be discussed, rather than simply insist that it must be so? And please don't shout. Countersubject 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Schengen is hisoric achievement and section-because of implications mentioned in intro.Lear 21 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask whether it was historic or not. I asked why the material should be duplicated, and why you categorically insist it has to be, without bothering to explain why. You've failed to explain a necessary connection between the Agreement's historic significance and your idea for duplicating the material. Note that I'm not saying there isn't such a connection - merely that you haven't bothered to give it. Countersubject 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely the article should not, on principle, repeat itself. Wikidea 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. But then, that's probably my British Europhobia speaking. Countersubject 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Section on languages

Currently the section on languages the only information it includes is on the classification in language families of languages spoken in the EU. I believe this information should be summarised and instead information on which languages are spoken the most, which are the official languages, which the EU language policy should be included. In fact, this is the same kind of information one expects in a country-like article. All these are available in Languages of the European Union, an article a little bit messy, but with all the needed stuff present. I can give it a try, if you agree. --Michkalas 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Green light for expanding. I would prefer to keep the language families, articulating that these are also the official ones, though. EU language policy is needed! And maybe a word about regional languages like Catalan. Lear 21 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

institutions

This is one of the sections I've added 'unreferenced' to: the reason is, that it's unreferenced. It also doesn't tell people what the institutions do. Do we agree that this ought to be changed? I'm not too keen on Barrosso and Merkels' smarmy grins either. Wouldn't pictures of the buildings alone be more permanent? (although I know how high temperatures are flaring over the pictures). Wikidea 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

'Unreferenced is justified'. Section is a mess. Please change list of institutions in prose including the purpose, if you want to. The introduction has to be rewritten as well. Images have been widely discussed and will be kept. Lear 21 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) And as a Humboldtianer, you might want to look at the German-EU-article. The institution section is quite accurate. Lear 21 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Images have been widely discussed and will be kept". Well, that's you told, Wikedia! Actually, it's impossible to convince Lear 21 that any images should go. Countersubject 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Countersubject: Stop nonsense blabla in serious discussions! Lear 21 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not nonsense, but a serious point. It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you about graphics, because you won't accept the removal of any of them, and have a tendency to emote and become unintelligible when talking about them. Countersubject 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)