Talk:European Union/Archive09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Map change

Why are some people changing maps all the time? Can't they get along or something?

Well I suspect the recent map change had to do with the two new members of the EU at the turn of the year. Syrthiss 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was away for just a week and the whole article seams to look a lot better, however am I the only person who thinks the map under "law" (Image:452px-EGKS.png) is awful and pointless? 161.76.99.156 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU vs Turkey

I see that there are many accusations against the Republic of Turkey in this article, presented as "facts". Those sections need to be revised to keep the article objective. --129.42.208.182 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a list of sections you are unhappy with.--Lucy-marie 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future enlargement and close relationships

Probably the part on Turkey needs to be greatly trimmed, just hitting the hightlights, but I don't have the time or expertise for that. I thought I did well just to organize it.  :-) Mdotley 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and cut out the part detailing the Cyprus dispute. People can use the wikilink (also provided within the same section) to the main article for further reference, so there is no need to repeat the same details here and crowd this page with redundance. I also added a mention of Republic of Cyprus veto based on the Cyprus dispute, as per Aristovoul0s's pointer to the issue. (The section I removed did not mention the veto) Take care Xasf 14:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a little bit of a revert-struggle going on between me and Aristovoul0s regarding the Turkey section and I'd like to elaborate my point of view once more. As I've mentioned above a couple of days ago, I agree that the section needs to be trimmed. I think the part detailing the Cyprus dispute (that I cut out) is redundant because:
  • it does not reflect the issue in the context of the article and merely recounts the military intervention and the ongoing dispute because of that.
  • the negative effect of the Cyprus dispute on the Turkish accession is already mentioned in the section, and readers can access the main article for further reference on this specific issue.
  • as Aristovoul0s pointed out, the Cyprus issue brings on the question of a veto by Republic of Cyprus, which is also mentioned in the section (and not present in the removed text).
I hope that we can discuss and address any further concerns here before going on to riddle the article with constant reverts. Take care --Xasf 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIA World Factbook Section

I propose the renaming of the "CIA World Factbook" section to something like "Treatment as a nation" (please suggest better alternatives). The CIA World Factbook is mearly a reference to the point rather than a direct subsection of the EU. ie Though an important reference source, the CIA World Factbook is not really associated to the EU to be worthy of a subsection of the topic. --E! 09:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree ! It should be merged with the section above "Comparison with other regional blocs".The section name could summarize it : "International perception and comparison with regional blocs". all the best Lear 21 15:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "If Ranked" bias

If the E.U. wants to be counted as a country why should it be counted only in positive things like GDP even though there is no E.U. treasury and member states cannot touch other member's money? Why not negetive things like external debt, obesty, and unequal wealth between member states? This is just an ego trip for arrogant and anti-american europeans who like to use the "What if" scenario so they can think that they are better than Americans. We all know how europeans think Americans are fat and uneducated but if you were count the E.U. as one country they would be the fattest country in the world, one the most uneducated countries in the western world, and the most in debt country in the world. Why not count NAFTA as a country as well? NAFTA would be the richest in the world "If Ranked". That some bullshit, the E.U. is not a country and nor will it be anytime soon or ever, so I have no idea why it is counted as such. Wow, they have a flag and some countries have a common currency, big fucking deal, that doesn't make it a country.

Daniel 18 January 2007

Ummm, I don't think your reasoning really makes sense, as you fail to distinguish between absolute and per capita measures. Measures such as the "fattest country in the world" are measured on a per-capita basis: i.e. the average American tends to be fatter than the average European. It's not as if they calculate the whole weight of the American population and compare that to the EU population :) In that case, there is no reason why the aggregate EU figure for "fatness", if you like, would be any bigger as a whole than the sum of its parts. Same with levels of education: these aren't calculated on a compound basis, but on an average/per-capita basis. And I don't see why the EU would be more uneducated than the USA. If we take the median weighted educational attainment of the EU, it would probably be higher than the US, considering that the US usually fares towards the bottom of the OECD tables in this regard (this is not an insult, just a fact).
As to external debt: perhaps yes, we should calculate the external debt of the EU as a whole. As to unequal wealth between member states: again, I also think it would be interesting to work out a Gini coefficient for the EU as a whole, because even though the individual countries within the EU all have small Gini coefficients, the wealth gap between member states would mean that the overall EU Gini coefficient would be quite high (though I don't think it would be higher than the US one). In any case - can you find any published source which has computed a Gini coefficient for the EU?
Your comparison between NAFTA and the EU isn't entirely accurate, because there are significant differences. Whereas NAFTA is pretty much just a free trade area, the EU is also a political union, with an elected legislative assembly, a single market, free movement of persons, an executive body and binding laws in the form of directives. Integration between EU countries is significantly higher than that between NAFTA countries. Finally, no-one is implying that the EU is a "country". By ranking the EU as an aggregate, however, it can be compared to other countries more precisely, and for the purposes of this article, that is useful. Ronline ✉ 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay first of all in the U.S. all of our are pretty much the same when it comes to wealth because even our poorest states are richer than countries like France or the U.K. so do not compare the unequal wealth between states in the U.S. and member states of the E.U., I mean do poor countries like Poland or Albania compare to California or New York? No, they certainly don't. Also europe would be much fatter because in the U.S.individual states are much thinner than european countries of equal size and population, it is only when you count the whole country does it appear to be fatter. If you were to count all of the E.U. member nations together they would be much fatter than the U.S., especially in countries like the U.K., France, and Germany which are the fattest countries in europ. Also E.U. members like the U.K., Germany, and France which are the only countries that matter economically, politically, and militarily are more in debt than the U.S. if you were to count them together and they are not capable of paying their debts as fast as the U.S. because as I said there is no E.U. treasury and member states pay their own debts. The U.S. on the other hand is the richest country in the world and is a real country with a treasury so that means it can actually pay it's debts very fast. Also according to the CIA world factbook the U.S. over took the E.U. in GDP in 2006 so that makes that "If ranked" garbage needs to be moved back one : ) Also it will stay that way because the U.S. economy has a higher growth rate than the E.U. and our growth rate has been steady for the past twenty years and there are no signs of it getting lower, while the E.U. economic growth rate is lower than the U.S. and is getting getting lower every year, not to mention the declining population which will be over taken by the U.S. by 2030 and a GDP - per capita much lower than the United States. Daniel 19 January, 2007

I really must say I find your claims dubious. I don't even understand what you're trying to say about the differences between inequalities in U.S States and European Countries, perhaps you could try to explain better what you actually mean. As for the "fattest country" thing, there is absolutely no doubt that America is by far the fattest, all the statistics bear that out. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what the title of "fattest country" means, it means simply the country with the highest proportion of obese people (that is the USA), now remember that doesn't mean what country has the Overall most fat people, it's the amount per capita. It's possible that if measured by total numbers then the EU has overall more fat people than the US, simply because it has a much larger population than the US, but the proportion of fat people to non-fat people is still much higher in America. I'm not sure about the debt issue, the US certainly has the biggest in absolute terms, though I haven't seen any statistics on the EU's collective debt, it could be bigger but I don't know. As for who has the biggest economy, well the US and EU are very close in terms of GDP, it tends to fluctuate who is No.1 and who's No.2, though I believe with the accession Romania and Bulgaria the EU is the biggest again, but of-course it changes from year to year. 'The U.S. will have a bigger population than the E.U. by 2030'? Huh? Where did you get that figure from? Even if the US population continues to grow and the EU's continues to fall, that is absolutely not going to happen. The EU is currently about 500 million people, the US 300 million, according to Encarta, the predicted population for the US by 2025 is 335 million and about 400 million by 2050. The EU's population is predicted to fall by about 5% over the next 50 years, which would make it about 475 million in 2050. But of-course that assumes that the EU will not expand to include any more countries than it already has, which is obviously not true, the EU could easily have 600 or 700 million+ people by 2050. Essentially there is no prospect that the US population will exceed that of Europe at any time in the 21st century. Frankly I just don't even know what you're getting so upset about, at the start of your post here you accused this article of presenting some Arrogant, anti-American, European POV, well it sounds to me as though you are the one here who's acting arrogant, angry that the US is not being presented as the greatest place on Earth and that another rival is bigger than it. Well all I can say is, Face the facts. --Hibernian 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel compares Poland and Albania in terms of both those countries being "poor", not noticing that the former is an EU member state and the latter is not (and is not yet scheduled for membership as far as I know) and that Poland ranks 23rd on the list of countries by GDP and 48th per capita, while Albania is respectively 112th and 100th. What does this say about the EU vs the USA? Nothing. And one more thing - "European" begins with a capital letter. Just like "American". Dawidbernard 09:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography needed!

We need a Geography section here. all the best Lear 21 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Currencies

"Currencies Euro (EUR or €), Pound, Lev, Pound, Koruna Krone, Kroon, Forint, Lats, Litas, Lira, Złoty, Leu, Koruna, Krona"

This list mentions two pounds and two korunas, and the only way to tell them from each other is to look at the URLs they point at. Not a good way to list the currencies in my opinion. A better solution could be to include the country name ("British pound", "Cypriot pound", "Czech koruna", "Slovak koruna"), or to use the currency codes (GBP, CYP, CZK, SKK). The names "krone", "leu" and "lira" may also cause some confusion, because people might be unaware that Norway, Moldova and Turkey aren't part of the EU (and might not read the appropriate sections in the article text).

It might also be useful to add CHF to the list because it is used in some German and Italian exclaves. (58.188.97.134 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Why not just have another page on other currencies used within the EU with details about which currency where, lesser used ones such as CHF mentioned above or unofficial usaged such as American and Russian currencies. It would clear up the info box a bit. 161.76.99.156 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maps on national pages

Very correctly, all infobox geo-location maps for individual EU countries have recently been harmonised. Unfortunately though, a few editors on Luxembourg, Spain and United Kingdom have resented this for national POV reasons and constantly push them back to inferior versions that do not show the standardised EU look. I would be grateful if other editors could look in on these pages and help with the harmonisation. Thanks! MarkThomas 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will simply ask who decided about this harmonization and where the decision was taken. All I've seen so far is a discussion rejecting the use of those maps. By the way, the user who reverted your map changes in the Luxembourg article is neither a national nor living here, so I can't see how you could accuse him of pushing a national POV.--Caranorn 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussions you refer to rejecting them took place where? MarkThomas 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that harmonisation was 'very correct', and that reversion to other versions is POV, is itself POV - you don't support your preference with a verifiable justification. I don't mind your opinion as such - it's perfectly arguable - but you really shouldn't call the kettle black. Countersubject 09:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you can't find such a discussion except on country article pages where the POV is always nationalist. If there hasn't been a harmonisation discussion there needs to be, and this is it! Can we have a discussion based on objective criteria about it? The issue is that (1) the maps re-inserted on a few country article pages are basically the same but remove the EU (2) infoboxes are not only to do with the article you are on at any given time - they also contain information about related groups of pages and this is common practise in many areas of Wikipedia (3) the maps are harmonised across all EU countries so that any casual browser of EU pages can immediately see how they all relate and be reminded that they are all in the EU, which is the most important international organisation those countries belong to, and this is a very good idea. Other views? MarkThomas 10:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is an ongoing vote about those maps. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#A final solution for the entire maps issue.3F. I believe there is more talk about teh subject on that page as well. As it stands I feel it is unreasonable to go and change the maps unilaterally as you've done (and then claim the other articles already use the maps when most indicate recent changes).--Caranorn 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The vote is fairly inconclusive and anyway votes are indicative not binding. Why is it "unreasonable" to change them? Surely they are better harmonised? For Wikipedia users I mean. Isn't the encyclopedia supposed to be for end-users rather than the POV-pushers on each country page? Maybe not if this is any indication. MarkThomas 12:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well to me it looks like it is you changing all those maps (I did not check all 27 EU member pages, so I could be wrong) so you can't talk about harmonizing. I'd rather consider it the opposite. There is absolutely no need to change maps at this time.
And yes, I'm also for harminised appearance of country pages, which is exactly why the old maps should stay until a guideline has been determined for all countries.--Caranorn 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem we have here is that the pros and cons of EU harmonisation are a POV issue. That's where the discussion needs to begin. That you (MT) apparently don't see this is a problem, though I'm sure it's one we can surmount! Countersubject 15:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear (following Carnorn's comments above) it wasn't me who introduced the new maps to all EU pages - I just changed back to those new maps on the few country pages where they were not kept. MarkThomas 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As a note, the new maps were inserted around January 4 (indeed not by Mark Thomas as I first suspected, sorry), that is at a time where the votes were 10/4/7, that's definitelly a majority against those maps. Currently the vote is 15/7/13, still a clear majority against the maps (but the vote is moving towards new maps, but not the ones that have been inserted since January). Another note, in many cases the new maps were inserted without edit summary, they were then reverted at least once (in those articles I sampled) based on the inconclusive vote.--Caranorn 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful summary Caranorn. I'm happy not to do further reverts on them until there's general agreement on Project Countries, but even so, am in favour of the sort of harmonisation of infobox geo-locators it presaged, since it makes travelling around the site from country article to country article much more satisfactory. If people agree to the latter point, wouldn't it be better to promote such harmonisation anyway and go with the flow of the votes on which exact base map should be used as it emerges? Therefore in other words to support the current euro map over a disorganised situation? MarkThomas 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For now I'd tend to wait and see. So yes, I won't be reverting the maps at this time and wait for the outcome of that vote (note I haven't voted yet myself as I'm still undecided). I'd also prefer one single style map for all country articles, regardless of which map style is finally chosen.--Caranorn 00:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Harmonisation of the way this information is presented definitely makes sense. Harmonisation for EU members in advance of a general agreement is a different matter entirely. Countersubject 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that changing the maps on the European pages (no matter whether with or without the EU shading) could act as a catalyst for similar maps for the other continents also to emerge. For the moment, everyone is discussing and discussing, but still we have the old ugly grey maps. Why not use the new maps for Europe for now? If a better alternative or a consensus emerges, they can still be changed. In the mean time, they will at least be much nicer than the grey ones. Luis rib 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a very extensive and detailed discussion on it going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries where the aim is to try to standardise the formats of geo-locator infobox maps for all countries, so after some considerable exposure to this discussion, I now realise we should all participate in that where we have views. Personally I agree Luis though that the new EU set would be better than the current random acts by in-article editors each doing their own thing. MarkThomas 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Sections of Religion,Military,Sports,Infrastructure needed!

A useful source is the Europe article. all the best Lear 21 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This article should not duplicate content from the Europe article, the EU is complex enough as it is. And it is inaccurate, since they do not coincide. For this reason, the sport section should be removed. If the EU has no policy on an issue, then it belongs elsewhere.Paul111 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beethoven?

The picture of beethoven with the caption "Ludwig van Beethoven wrote the EU anthem "Ode to Joy"" is not needed. In my opinion, he himself has nothing to do with the EU, and presence of the picture alludes to the possibility that Ode to Joy was written FOR the EU, which is false. I'm going to remove it... Kareeser|Talk! 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

EU brands initiatives like Galileo,Erasmus,Socrates using names of European personalities in history. Beethoven directly is the author of a now used EU symbol - the anthem. Nothing wrong with showing him in the first place. all the best Lear 21 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Beethoven didn't actually write Ode to Joy but he composed it. In any case, it is just a bit of a whole piece. EU adopted this bit.--Nauki 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Navigation Box would be good

Can someone make a [Navigation box] for the European Union. Ssolbergj 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] remove "intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism"?

I am really glad to see such good work on this article recently, especially in simplifying the structure. However I'd like to suggest that the "intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism" be removed. It's currently under the "law" part, but it doesn't have much to do with law. It's a discussion with, what I think people call, "weasel words" - some say that intergov. is good, some debate that and say it's bad, etc - and it's pretty baseless.

Here's a part from the Law#International law page (and the EU law page) that I've been editing:

I agree with the European Court of Justice back in 1962, and think the discussion is redundant! Most issues are not consensus based anyway. Are there any objections to me removing the section and putting in something else? Wikidea 05:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The section has no base and adds no essential content. The only reason I havent removed it yet is, that the topic examplifies the shown images in the section (Airbus and Ryder Cup- which are crucial for the article). all the best Lear 21 06:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hang on with the edit warring a bit

Let's try talking to him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left the report on WP:AIV for the time being with a small note about the situation. That serves two purposes - not having another one added, and allows people to see whats happening. ViridaeTalk 10:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He has not responded to your comment and it's been 2 days. I suggest just putting it back up, he has after all no legitimate reason for deletion of the discussion and he certainly has no right to remove other people’s comments. --Hibernian 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've just put back the section. I just hope there'll be no more trouble with this. --Hibernian 04:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the European Union

The two images on the left are remarkably similar. The first one depicts the German attempt to unify Europe during the 1940s, and the second one depicts the union as it stands today. Why does the article make no mention of the German contributions towards the goal of European union in the 1940s? TharkunColl 13:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no connection, unless of course you mean how survivors of World War II tried to do their best to prevent further wars of this type by proposing rapprochement between the European Nations. The Nazi German project definitelly was something entirely different, their goal also never was unification of Europe.--Caranorn 23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Himmler was very keen on the idea of a feudal Europe, with various regions all in a hierarchical status with each other. It is also incorrect to say that there is no connection between 1940s German amibitions and those of today. You will find that the current European central bank is located in the same city as the Nazi central bank, for example. TharkunColl 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was also a huge fan of Wagner's music, yet this doesn't discredit Wagner himself. Your frivolous explanation to the EU central bank being located in Frankfurt completely misses the point: Frankfurt is the biggest financial center in Europe outside London. Had the UK joined the euro zone from the beginning, it might instead have been located in London. Luis rib 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And who on earth would actually want it in London? TharkunColl 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's probably because it also happens to be a huge financial centre. any so-called connection is just a coincidence. You'll find that it's the ONLY eu institution in Germany. Zazaban 00:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet the German economy runs Europe. What did the British fight and die for in WW2? TharkunColl 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW: just checked on the German wikipedia: the Nazi Central Bank - the Reichsbank - was actually located in Berlin (it was originally the Prussian Central Bank). So obviously you got your facts wrong, TharkunColl Luis rib 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Their financial economy was run from Frankfurt, whatever the location of the corporate headquarters. As for getting my facts wrong, do you deny that the German economy dominates continental Europe? And how is this different from German aims in WW2? TharkunColl 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It's exactly the same, minus all the killing and stuff. Seriously, what are you trying to achieve here? The Nazi ambitions for a "unified" Europe are already mentioned in the article on the history of the European Union. --Bjarki 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not the Germans fault if the UK fell behind :-) You're just jealous, right, TharkunColl? Luis rib 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jealous of what? The UK fought long and hard to rid the world of the Nazis, and sacrified much. We have nothing to be ashamed of. TharkunColl 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This is also totally unneeded. --Bjarki 00:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting though, because in the maps debate, TharkunColl has systematically denied that he is motivated by an anti-EU POV, but equating the EU with the Nazi project above he makes his views plain for all to see. Not that there's anything wrong with having a POV, but at least we all now know what that is! MarkThomas 00:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nazis sought conformity, as do those who support the EU. This is your POV. TharkunColl 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Equating the EU with the Nazis is deeply insulting, and a perversion of the historical background of the EU. It was founded by people like French resistance hero Pierre Mendès-France who was tortured by the Nazis, democratic states and peaceful treaties. It has a liberal constitution and advocates human rights and equality before the law. There may be undemocratic structures within it that need revision but it is nothing like the Nazi project. Your views are pathetic, wrong and stupid. MarkThomas 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet it is run by undemocratic, unelected Eurocrats, and is dominated by the German economy. This is exactly how the Nazis ran it. It may be better today, but no one can deny that the modern European unification project was begun by the Nazis. TharkunColl 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the House of Lords is not very democratic either... Anyway, there is a simple reason why the German economy is the biggest in the EU - it is simply the country with the biggest population. BTW: your ridiculous argument could be taken further: wasn't Napoleon the one that first tried to create a pan-European Empire? Luis rib 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The House of Lords could be abolished at any time by the sovereign will of the House of Commons (because fortunately, we don't have a written constitution). They keep it because it's convenient. You are right about Napoloan of course, and William the Conqueror, and Charlemagne, and Julius Caesar (just to name the most famous - there are many others). All threats to British sovereignty have come from Europe. TharkunColl 01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it was the Romans Luis. MarkThomas 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to cool down. No serious historian seriously equates the Nazi and EU projects. Nor is this the place for pro and anti EU debate - it's a page for discussion of what we can do to improve a factual article about the EU. One way would be for the article to recognise the corporatist traditions out of which the EU arose, and their impact on its structures of government and administration. Another would be to recognise the influence of liberal politics, and reaction to the dictatorships of 20th century Europe. The tension between these influences lies at the heart of the EU and discussion about it, and it ought to be possible to describe it in a rational manner. What won't help is wild generalisation, or intemperate language. Countersubject 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So this is about british sovereignty and anti-german sentiment? That's interesting, it was the same kind of super-nationalism that started WW2. Very nice. Zazaban 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So it was anti-German sentiment that started WW2, was it? I know that's what the Germans themselves claimed, of course. TharkunColl 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't take TharkunColls Euro-skepticism too seriously. After all, the UK was extremely keen to join the EU since 1961 (see History of the European Union, only to be rebuked several times by Charles de Gaulle. Luis rib 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The British governments of that time sought to join without popular support - and furthermore, the British people were simply told it was a "common market", not an incipient federal state. And as for de Gaulle, that's the thanks we get for saving his country in WW2. TharkunColl 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed: since 1973, when the UK joined the European Community, the UK has been one of the members that shaped it. If it became an incipient federal state (a debatable assumption), the UK government certainly did not prevent it from becoming so. BTW, your comment on de Gaulle is funny: either you want the UK out of the EU - and then you should thank de Gaulle from having preventing the UK from joining for 12 years - or you want the UK inside the EU - and then you can indeed criticise de Gaulle. Luis rib 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

De Gaul's actions were nevertheless dishonourable, whatever their result. TharkunColl 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as one of those debates that should just be ignored. It's clear that this guy refuses to accept any opinion other than his own. By the way, I clearly said that your brand of blind nationalism is what started WW2, not anti-german sentiment, nice of you to hear only what you want. Zazaban 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are people who question the role of the EU always branded as nationalists? The worst type of nationalism is that exhibited by those who support the headlong rush into mindless conformity across the whole of Europe, a Euronationalism. Did you know, for example, that it is now illegal for one Englishman to sell a pound of spuds to another? We are all forced to express it in metric measurements. How can this possibly be beneficial? TharkunColl 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment on the nonsense being spouted by a number of people here, if you all pay attention to the reminder at the top of this page:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Countersubject 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading image of General Leakey

The image is copyright and taken from an EU website. The reason to remove it is that it gives a false impression, violating accuracy and neutrality criteria. The image suggests a proud and independent EU military force with its own commander. However, it is a cropped image, and another photo taken at the same time, [1], shows that Leakey is also sitting in front of the NATO flag. What is more, he is speaking next to his superior officer, US Army Brigadier General Steven Schook. That sums up the geopolitical realities, and the image here conveys a false perspective.Paul111 13:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The image illustrates that there was and is still is an EU initiative called EUFOR, no matter what context the image was taken from. It is adding valuable visual content to the section and can be considered fair use. all the best Lear 21 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

'Fair use' refers to copyright status, which is also in doubt in this case. However, the misleading suggestion is the main reason to remove it. See below on EUFOR and other images.Paul111 13:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is vital in creating a complete image of EU activities and responsibilities. Lear 21 13:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In what sense is it vital? Countersubject 14:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schengen

Schengen is not an EU treaty, and not EU policy, and not adopted by all EU members. Its special status should be accurately described.Paul111 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Schengen is EU law and aquis! Ireland & UK are granted exceptions. Its comparable with Eurozone. Lear 21 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Schengen Agreement article states: The Schengen Agreement was created independently of the European Union in part due to the lack of consensus amongst EU members. However, the Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated the developments brought about by the Schengen agreement into the European Union framework, effectively making the Schengen Agreement part of the EU. -- BIL 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro mentions Schengen already, in an acceptable way, so a duplication under 'policies' is unnecessary anyway.Paul111 13:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy and co-operation

The sections of policies, cooperation, and harmonisation are a mess. They fail to distinguish between central pillars such as the single market, the many other Commission-level policies, intergovernmental cooperation, and the harmonisation which implements the major goals. (Harmonisation is instrumental in the EU, not a goal in itself).Paul111 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryder Cup

What was I supposed to see on the official site? And what official site? --Bjarki 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The official Ryder Cup Site clearly features the Logo with an EU flag. Also statistical tables include the flag and the winning team is waving it. all the best Lear 21 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The European Flag is not an exclusive EU sign, it was originally the flag of the CoE and is meant to represent the whole of European continent. The European part of the Ryder Cup is organized by PGA European Tour, a body that is not related to the EU at all and is funded primarily by private sponsors. PGA European Tour organizes several golf tours throughout the continent, including places like non-EU members Switzerland and Russia. Team Europe at the Ryder Cup has also featured non-EU players through the years, there were Swedish and Spanish players on the team before these countries joined the EU. Please please please remember that Europe ≠ The European Union, one being a continent and the other a international organization. --Bjarki 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You convinced me for now. But! Even the flag was invented for all Europe/CoE , it developed over the decades to a de facto 'European Union' symbol, being adopted officially. Considering these circumstances Team Europe using the flag wouldnt be appropriate ( USA features US players) but thats my advanced POV ;). I already made a complaint to the PGA. And : The EU is not only an Organization but even more the daily home to millions of inhabitants encompassing the full range of civilization, like sports, without a direct connection to EU bodies or directives. Nevertheless I´m going to change the text. all the best Lear 21 01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EUFOR a NATO force?

EUFOR does nothing without the authorisation of NATO, and therefore the US has a veto, so its designation as a European force seems disputable. The Council of Ministers can not independently command the force.Paul111 13:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many images

The article is overloaded with images and graphics. For a start all portraits should be removed, and the two images of towns. They say nothing about the EU. If in doubt, priority for the maps and tables, which do convey information.Paul111 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The images of the article illustrating the current situation and responsiblities. The leading personalities are crucial for the understanding of the issue. The city pictures visualize an EU culture programme initiated more than 20 years ago. Nothing wrong with it. Lear 21 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate headers and sections

The article is apparently using a standard format created for articles on nation-states. Since the EU is not a nation or a nation-state, some are inappropriate, especially Politics and Government. The EU has an executive but not a government. It has a politics, but so do the individual member states. I also suggest moving the candidates section to under the Members section, which would be the most appropriate place for it.Paul111 13:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right considering the Government argument, Politics will do. Other section headers have to be changed like Fundamental policies ... The Three pillars of the European Union have to be the Leitmotiv. Candidate countries are foreign policies and have to remain there. The accession of Turkey for instance is not expected within the next 10 years, if ever ... Lear 21 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The headers are a mess. The politics header belongs more on the Current Issues section, and the 'politics' section is about policies and structure. The article needs restructuring.Paul111 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Largest Cities

A list of largest cities (or highest mountains or deepest lakes) does not belong in an overview article on the European Union. Pictures of three of them certainly don't. There is a separate article on geography of the European Union. If no-one else objects (other than the user who inserted the section) I propose to delete the section, and the pretty pictures.Paul111 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a standard section. View China ,USA ,UK, Russia ! I propose to include the first 5 or 6, to avoid dispute wether city/metro area size matters. A small gallery is best I think. all the best Lear 21 18:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The EU is not a country, and it is complicated enough already without extraneous material.Paul111 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The EU is almost a country-like entity. The shown cities are fundamental parts of its heritage, infrastructure and in this case demographics. Lear 21 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For instance, the EU has cultural programs like "European Capital of the Year", which fully justifies the inclusion of city pictures in this article. Luis rib 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The EU has an agricultural program, but that does not justify images of sheep. see below.Paul111 10:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, in the meantime there are six pictures of biggest cities. That's really too much. See below my general comment to the pictures issue. (BTW given the importance of the agricultural policy - almost 50% of the EU budget goes to it - I think a picture of a sheep would probably be more relevant than some of the pictures that are currently on the page :-)) Luis rib 19:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image overload

Image policy says Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic). The Manual of Style includes these points:

  • When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered left-and-right
  • Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
  • Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment.
  • If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.
  • Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, place the image directly above the heading.

Pruning of the image overload would improve this article.Paul111 10:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not wrong with the overall impression. I´m by far not satisfied as well. I´m aiming to add written content to almost all sections in the coming weeks - only written. For now I think, 3 of the major cities have to go, I also remove Beethoven for once (having a comeback when there is space). all the best Lear 21 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in the meantime there are too many pictures. We really don't need all the biggest cities. I would leave Sibiu and Luxembourg, which are the European capitals of culture this year, and maybe Frankfurt (the picture of the ECB); the others can be accessed by clicking on the relevant city anyway. Some of the politicians' photos are not necessary either. Maybe even the euro picture could go - after all we usually don't have photos of banknotes in the country pages. Finally, Airbus should definitely go: it's not an EU project, but a collaborative project of France, Germany, Spain and the UK. Luis rib 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All currently displayed images are crucial for understanding the issue. 5 of the 6 major cities-pics are capitals of the arguably most influential member states. Airbus and Euro visualize the two most prominent economic policies.The president of the Council summit and the president of the commission are the decisive political officials. All other pictures are in context with the section content and add useful information. Lear 21 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
All currently displayed images are crucial for understanding the issue. What issue? In what way is each image crucial for the understanding of it? Please be more precise (also see unanswered question above). Countersubject 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In general: The shown pictures, maps, tables seen collectively present the contemporary situation of the European Union - the issue - this article about EU ! It documents the places, personalities, and activities of the EU as political body as well as the influence of member states - capital cities. Every single image can be argued, for sure. But as an entity they represent most of the involved nations and cultures within EU territory. Hope you support this view ... all the best Lear 21 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article can not include images of everything which is part of the contemporary situation of the European Union.Paul111 14:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A picture is useful if it verifies an assertion in the text. If verification depends on the picture, it is in that sense essential. Otherwise, it may be illustrative or in some way interesting, but that's not the same as crucial. Countersubject 19:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is discussing deleting all the images. But some are clearly unnecessary. The pictures of all the cities is not really relevant; the Airbus picture is completely beside the point (as I said above: if you want to present an example of EU subsidies, put a picture of a sheep); the Eufor general too insignificant for the main EU article. Luis rib 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is NO overload of images. Neither in size nor in number ! Compare Canada, USA, Australia, UK. Image and text are of equal quality when it comes to transport information. Even written text is not yet available (G8-pic) it is still evident, because EU attends since the 70s. You want to remove Airbus ? , I put in Galileo - fine with me. The EUFOR General exemplifies The 2nd pillar AND British involvement, Solana represents the Spanish, Erasmus the Dutch, Copenhagen the Scandinavian influence... and so on. The largest national capitals are also standing for the national governments of the influential member states. The section is standard in USA and China, which are comparable entities. Lear 21 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Galileo would definitely be more relevant than Airbus. The Eufor general, however, is not the current one - that would be Gian Marco Chiarini. All other personalities are the current ones, from Solana to Barroso to Merkel; putting an ancient EUFOR general in therefore awkward. A picture of EU soldiers in ex-Yugoslavia would be more relevant, I think. The G8 summit picture is not really relevant either - maybe a WTO picture might be more relevant since the EU is represented there as a single member (to my knowledge, that's the only international organisation where the EU is member instead of its member states). Erasmus is fine for me. The largest cities are IMO not really relevant here as there are already a lot of city pics on the page; the USA page BTW only has 3 pictures of largest cities. The influence of member states, BTW, is not necessarily represented by the largest cities section - small countries like Luxembourg, for instance, have a huge influence despite their small size, while a country such as Spain is not really known for having rocked the EU boat. Luis rib 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Luxemburg is represented in Culture Capital, Founding members, and Schuman image. Stop picking every single image. In total they represent the dominant forces in the EU. Lear 21 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually my point is exactly that every picture should be relevant by itself, and not just in conjunction with all the rest. There are millions of pictures we could put on this page, we should therefore carefully pick those that are the best for showing and explaining what the EU is. (BTW: Robert Schuman was born in Luxembourg, but his political career was in France; my point about Luxembourg was that the pictures of the biggest cities do not necessarily illustrate very well the power and influence of the various EU members.)Luis rib 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Make proposals or present constructive alternatives. I´m not the discussing type. Lear 21 23:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
That may be at the root of this discussion. The point of Wikipedia is its words, not its pictures, useful or interesting though they may be (in moderation). Countersubject 09:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning, there are words, thats right! At the end, there are information and insight, provided by all kinds of media. Gif/ tables/ images /maps - all are contributing to a modern net-based and quickly accessible encyclopedia. all the best Lear 21 12:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all very fine-sounding, and I'd no more disagree with it than the assertion that motherhood and apple pie are good things. That's the problem - it's not specific enough to resolve the issue under discussion. I'd like us to agree that:
(a) A picture is required if it is needed to verify an assertion in the text.
(b) A picture may be desirable as a supplementary verification of the text.
(c) A picture may also be desirable as an illustration of one or more key ideas or entities in the text.
I would suggest that there won't be many cases of verification by picture, so don't expect many instance of (a) and (b). We should therefore stop talking about particular pictures being 'essential' or 'crucial'. I would also suggest that we need to think very carefully about (c), because it's easy for pictures to be added because someone thinks them nice or cool, rather than because they illustrate a point from the text.
The Manifest Destiny article is a good example of one that makes judicious and effective use of pictures. It has reproductions of two 19th century paintings that exemplify the romantic spirit of westward expansion, and that fall somewhere between (b) and (c). It also has pictures of three key individuals in the development of the article's subject. These are good examples of (c).
If we can begin from these principles, it should be possible to have a reasonable discussion about the graphic content of the EU page. I believe it's important to have that discussion, because there's a tendency for articles like this to loose concision and impact, as a result of everyone adding their thing. Indeed, this article has only recently been pruned, after it had become a sprawling mess. The judicious use of graphics is an important aspect of this issue. Countersubject 12:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

@Countersubject : I very much agree on (c) and on the last paragraph. Finding images which cover more than just one assertion to a certain point of information is very important to me either. The main source of this discussion, though derives from a different point of view on EU. 2 weeks ago the article was about some sort of judicial worked out organization, very poorly written in tabloid standards (and still is). The factual reality of the EU has overhauled this approach the last 2 decades. To display all parts of the very complex and unique structure of EU it requires new measures and representation (see the newly introduced sections). Most of the new images cover not only the section text, but also stand for various dimensions of the EU/European civilization (big word I know) and heritage. Lear 21 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The 6 shots of city centres under 'largest cities' are a case in point. They're not necessary, and they don't add anything to the meaning of the section, or our understanding of it. They're just clutter. I removed them, explaining why in the edit summary, but the removal was reverted by unregistered user 193.161.89.17, without explanation. When I removed them again, they were reinstated again by Lear 21, again without explanation. As these two users have taken action to keep the pictures, but haven't seen fit to explain why, I'll propose here that they be removed again. If they're not the discussing type, then I'll remove the pictures again. Countersubject 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Support removal of this and other visual clutter. There are separate articles on the geography of the EU, on the Euro, on EUFOR, on EU foreign policy, where some of them might be appropriate.Paul111 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1)The European Union generates a larger GDP (nominal) in comparison to the USA, it generates more than China, India and Japan together. It is correctly stated in the introduction. - Why is that?- Are bureaucrats in Brussels creating so much economic impact? Is the common Agriculture Policy responsible? Or rather the the Fishery policy ? To answer it, the article has to deliver results with all sorts of media WP:Manual_of_Style. In fact, economic output in such a large scale is produced by centres of commerce - the largest cities are the example of it. 2)Tell me where are all the 500 million people are living ?- 4 times the population of Japan, more than Southamerica, 3 times the population of Russia! Are they hiding in Luxemburg? Do they concentrate in Frankfurt in the ECB cellar? To answer it, the article has to deliver results. Visually ! In fact, the majority of people in highly developed countries lives in cities - in the Largest cities. 3) The European Union is said to have 27 member states! Where are these states, what are they doing in the EU? Who are they? The national political capitals, home to Blair, Zapatero, Prodi, Merkel are also the largest cities of the European Union- representing almost 2/3 of the entire EU population and the national actions concerning EU. I´m at all time ready for reasoning. But face the FACT :that this article is much shorter than comparable articles - UK,UN,USA! Face the FACT : that the shown pictures are not out of size or number. Face the fact: that all section headers are comparable to similar entities- China, Russia. If you are in doubt wether EU is comparable, read CIA World Factbook 2004, a credible non-European source. There is still much work to do in every section, contribute some with credible sources, if you can. Or leave it. all the best Lear 21 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to say this without the impression of impoliteness, but here goes. You seem to be missing the point in two main ways. Firstly, this isn't a discussion about the importance of the EU in relation to other parts of the world. Much of your response seems to be directed to that quite separate issue, and is therefore irrelevant to the matter under discussion. Secondly, you seem to prefer to emote at length, rather than reason - as you say some way above, you're "not the discussing type" . Unfortunately, that doesn't help us resolve the issue. More fundamentally, it's inappropriate to an encyclopaedia, which is nothing if it's not reasonable. Unless you change this approach, you're likely to be ignored where you're not over-ruled or reverted. That would be a shame. Countersubject 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

For what it's worth, here's my take on the current graphics and their retention or removal:

(a) Flag: keep. Informative.

keep, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep obviously Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(b) World map, with EU coloured in: keep. Informative.

keep, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(c) Robert Schuman: keep. Historically significant figure.

keep, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keep - the founder of the EU. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(d) The founding nations signing the Treaty of Rome in 1957: keep. Historically significant event.

keep, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(e) The Białowieża virgin Forest in Northern European Lowlands (Poland): remove. Why single this out as the only photo under 'Geography'? It's a bit random.

strongly suggest to delete at once, no particular relevance to the geography of the whole EU, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete Paul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
when did that appear on the page? Delete
delete, no relevance to the EU as an institution --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Displayed vegetation represents 40% of EU territory / Last virgin forest in EU - this is Europe 200-5000 years ago/ standard picture in standard section/ no convincing alternative? it stays
not sure - while it is a bit random, what could replace it? If there's a better alternative, than delete. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why worry about replacing it? Graphics and text must be justified on the grounds on relevance and utility. If they can't be, then don't feel guilty about removing them. Countersubject 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(f) Map of Europe and Near East, with member and candidate nations coloured in: keep. Informative.

keep, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(g) Flags of member states: keep. Informative.

keep, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(h) The Airbus A380, 'a product by the pan-European aerospace concern Airbus S.A.S.'. Remove. Why single out this particular cross-border economic initiative, particularly as its manufacturer is essentially a Franco-German company, not 'pan-European'?

delete Paul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete - no really a EU project Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete not an EU project. --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Best example of intergov coop / 4 major nations involved / keep yourself better informed than with tabloid agitation / no alternative? it stays
keep - not really an EU project, but it is one of the most significant economic products of the EU. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(i) Euro banknotes: keep. Informative.

keep, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(j) EUFOR former Commander General David Leakey: remove. It doesn't add anything to the text; he's an ex-commander; and the position isn't of such significance as to warrant the photo.

delete, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete Paul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) You all know that Eufor is part of CFSP?! - see section heading! / no alternative? it stays
delete Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(k) "Family photo" of EU leaders at the signing of the constitutional treaty in Rome 2004: remove. And pass the sick-bag.

delete as per sick-bag.Paul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) You find 1957 important? This is higher relevance/ decicive historic moment - 1.priority in section / a matter of course
delete - we should replace it with a photo of the Constitution document. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(l) The President of the European Commission: keep? He's an unelected official, not the EU's head of state, but his quasi-political status perhaps warrants retention.

keep. Also, he's a Portuguese :-) Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 1. official / a must
keep Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(m) Angela Merkel, in the context of the Presidency of the European Council: remove. The Presidency is exercised by national Governments in turn, not by individuals. She's not the 'President' of the European Council.

delete, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
deletePaul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep, as Chancellor of Germany, Merkel will be the face of the Council Presidency for the next few months. She's in the news all the times and can control the political agenda of the union until June. Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep, the head of state/government in the country holding the presidency is a very relevant figure while the term lasts. --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Highest official of no.1-(de facto)-EU institution / view section heading
keep Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(n) The offices of the European Central Bank: remove. It doesn't add anything to the text.

keep, a picture is justified, as the ECB is one of the most important institutions of the EU. MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete, but map of the Eurozone is informative.Paul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep - it's become one of the defining institutions of the EU (at least for the eurozone members. Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Second most important fiscal authority after Fed (on the globe)
keep - not only is it a beautiful photo, but it is an important EU institution. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(o) The inside of the EU Parliament building: remove. Ditto.

delete, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
deletePaul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
tentative keep; a picture from the outside would be more relevant though. Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Represents 100% of EU-voters/ the article is about EU! a matter of course
keep, once again, a very important (some would say the most important) EU institution, and also a nice photo. If there is one photo that should stay in this section, this is definitely it. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(p) Founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community: remove. It's entirely unrelated to the section in which it's placed, which doesn't even mention it. Come on now - think before you place or keep a graphic.

keep, but place that picture at another place in the article. MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete since it adds no info not already contained in the 1952-2007 enlargement animation map. Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) no alternative? it stays
delete - the map is nice, but is not particularly relevant, particularly in this section. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(q) "The EU standard is for passports to be Burgundy": remove. Yawn. Also see (p), above.

delete, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
deletePaul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete; it will be tough though to find a law-related picture... Maybe the European Court of Justice? Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Best image to examplify EU-citizenship and Law section / no alternative? it stays
keep as per Lear 21: "European citizenship" is one of the most important parts of EU membership, and I think this photo illustrates it well (it's a good example of European integration, particularly in the Law section). Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(r) Javier Solana: keep. An unelected official, but has diplomatic significance.

keep, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(s) EU leaders at a G8 summit: remove. It doesn't add anything to the text.

deletePaul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete - no relevance for this article Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC) EU has economic/trade/fiscal superpower status ( view europa website- own statement) / no better picture would proof that. no alternative? it stays
delete - Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(t) EU enlargement 1952–2007: keep. A good way of getting the information across.

strongly keep, very good illustration. MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
strong keep - Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(u) GDP (PPP) per capita 2006: remove. A table would be clearer, and would allow for more detail.

keep, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep, even though the colour scheme is ugly Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
delete and replace with the old table. If we are to keep a GDP per capita image, then replace it with the more-updated and more-informative Image:EU-GDP-PPP-pc-map.png. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(v) Holiday snaps of largest cities: remove. Useless clutter.

I'm just a little on the keep-side. It's a nice addition to the table. MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete, move section to Geography of the European UnionPaul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
agree with moving section; pictures could be deleted Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete, no relevance to the EU as an institution --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) standard section / standard pictures / nothing wrong/ change the standard first and we start discussing / political- commercial- demographical- cultural centres of EU /
strong keep, Bucharest is in there :) On a more serious note, the images provide a nice addition to the table, as per Mike Z, and offer a good general illustration of the EU's major cities (we have photographs of national capitals on country pages). Bjarki - this article is not only about the EU as a (political) institution, in the same way that the article on France isn't about the French state, but also about culture, demographics, etc. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(w) Erasmus: remove. Admirable bloke, but he didn't found the programme, and his picture doesn't add anything useful to the text.

delete, belongs at relevant article.Paul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
tempted by keep - the EU has a tradition of naming everything after historical figures. Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete, he had been dead for over 400 year when the EU was founded. --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
delete Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(x) (bu--er, I'm running out of letters!) Holiday snaps from two cities of culture: remove. So what?

delete, MikeZ 10:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
move to relevant article.Paul111 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as these cities exemplify the European policy on culture. The European Capital of culture is in a way a rotating system like the Council Presidency to present each year one city (in this case 2) as the standard bearer of European culture to the eyes of the world. Also, it at least a fair way to present European culture; if they are removed, you can be sure that they will be replaced by pictures of Athens, Rome, Paris or any other of the usual suspects by users wishing to have a picture of a cultural city. Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
delete --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) official annual EU culture programme / implemented for over 20 years/ a matter of course
keep as per Luis rib. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(y) Offshore wind farm near Copenhagen: remove, unless a direct, verifiable connection can be made between this wind farm and the EU, as opposed to Denmark.

delete; would be a good picture in the Denmark page though, since Denmark is the leading country in wind farming technology. Luis rib 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
keep, since an energy policy is the next big thing in the EU, I think the picture does have some relevance. --Bjarki 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
keepLear 21 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Best visual for EU climate policy / no alternative? it stays
keep as per Bjarki. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(z) err - that's all.

And the last thing I want to hear in response is that the article for such and such a country has more graphics than the EU's article. Countersubject 03:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

@Countersubject I talked enough, you are right. Because I´m the editing type, watch my contributions. I´m not sure about yours. I gave reasons in multiple ways for all actions that have been done. Now the two users give ME reasons, why they want to delete content that has extended quality, lenght, and complexity. Or they explain what they want contribute instead of deleting and saying Njet. Up now, if ever, I respond only individually, to avoid misunderstanding. Lear 21 03:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

@Paul111 your notorious behaviour (userpage discussions) speaks for itself. You´ll be already watched, you know that. Decide for yourself if there is a future in the Wikipedia for you. Lear 21 03:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above looks slightly menacing to me. Countersubject 11:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

@ Both. Sometimes people realize that commitment to a subject (the article) should be driven by interest and insight. all the best for both of you Lear 21 03:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, and maybe Ladies?, this discussion is getting out of hand. Let's vote on the above list of pictures individually (a)-(z) and let's see if we can agree democratically. MikeZ 09:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone else wants to pitch in, I'll begin by removing those items where there seems to be unanimity. Countersubject 21:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with deleting any of those images, they all seem perfectly functionally justifiable and aesthetically pleasing to me. Deleting these images would not improve the article in any way, I mean what do you want, vast areas of nothing but text, what's the point of that? I'm sure many better pictures could be used, but until those better pics are found, there's no reason to remove the ones we have. So no you don't really have unanimity. --Hibernian 01:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
OK - I'll change that to a clear preference. As to the issue itself: sometimes less is more. That applies to pictures as much as text. If a sentence or a picture doesn't substantially improve our understanding of the subject, then it shouldn't be in the article. Anything else is self-indulgence. Now I'm off for a drink :-) Countersubject 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that has become evident from this discussion is a confusion between the EU and its member countries, and the EU and Europe. Individuals have argued for the retention of some graphics because they represent or illustrate something that is or happens within the boundaries of the EU's member states. The problem with this is that the EU isn't itself a country: it's a political and legal institution (that some aspire for it to become a country is neither here nor there). It's better to concentrate on text and graphics that recount or illustrate aspects of the institution, its development and impact. Detailed material about member countries should only be included if there's a verifiable connection with the EU. Countersubject 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, all that doesn't mean that there can't be a picture here or there, does it? According to the vote above, as it now stands, there is a clear majority for most pictures on whether to keep them or to delete them - we should simply define a limit to close the vote and then act accordingly. Also, the discussion has already lead to some improvements - such as the inclusion of the Galileo picture and the European Court of Justice picture, for instance, which replaced pictures with less value for this article. Luis rib 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny - I don't remember suggesting the removal of all graphics. Perhaps you or I had a brainstorm somewhere above! How about mid-day, 29th January (UTC) as the cut-off point? I suspect we'll be left with a number of items that don't add any value, or are irrelevant to the subject of the article, but hey - there isn't a necessary connection between democracy and clarity of thought :-) Countersubject 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your collective effort. A reasonable deadline has passed, so I've deleted (e), (h), (j), (k), (q) and (s). Someone had already replaced (w) with a picture of the Galileo satellite (tho' had forgotten to mention that it's a joint project with ESA, a non-EU body). I don't think what we have is perfect, but it's more focussed than what was. A heartfelt plea: before anyone adds another graphic, please consider its purpose and usefulness. That the editor thinks it looks good and maybe even gives a nice warm feeling isn't sufficient. Come to think of it, that applies to the text, too. Countersubject 13:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Largest cities

Maybe this question was already asked before, but why are the largest cities classified by population within the city limit? After all, London is not much bigger than Paris; Paris's agglomeration just happens to be split among different territorial entities while London's mostly falls into a single one. Idem for Berlin: the city of Berlin is identical to the Bundesland Berlin - which again disfavours Paris. Luis rib 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree about this; the delimitation is pretty silly. On the other hand, it does make Berlin look like the second biggest city. And if you came from Berlin, maybe you'd want that! Wikidea 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Metro area has been added to clarify the size. Look! This is a commonly used section based on facts. In the end, the most significant cities are presented with image. Lear 21 04:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] structural change

I would like to make these changes to the contents layout:

  • "candidate countries" be put with "members", rather than international relations
  • the "foreign perceptions" part to be deleted (although I must stress that I do care what foreigners think - just that the CIA factbook doesn't say anything that isn't said by the ECJ, and, well, the emerging superpower business can be put somewhere else)
  • three pillars and politics be separated, with their own headers
  • the status part be split, so that the Constitution explanation be merged with the explanation in the history part; the slightly woolly stuff at the top of that part should be merged with the part in the law section
  • "infrastructure" be put in with the "politics" header

Hopefully this would make the overall layout more coherent, and a little more sensible. Also, I'd like to suggest that "demographics" is a word which really means general statistics about a population and the stuff in that section is dealing far too much with general discussion of what life is like - the religion section probably could go in with the culture part. Thoughts? Wikidea 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The candidates certainly belong with the members and the expansion, that is the logical place for them. And as it is, the 'Foreign perceptions' refer solely to the status of the EU as a potential superpower. They apparently are copy-pasted from the article on that issue, and one of them is just an 'unofficial Chinese paper'. Attitudes to the EU as an entity can go in the International relations section.Paul111 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed status section (good point)/ Candidate future speculative -remain in IR / view city or country articles for structure, before new proposals! Lear 21 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and do these things. Wikidea 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Which change did you object to? Did you need to change the whole lot back!! Wikidea 03:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ich bin kein "Deletionist"Wikidea 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see, Lear 21, you think I deleted those photos! I didn't you know, I only did the things I said in the summaries. I'm not so bothered about the photos, I think they're fine. Will you put back the improvements I made, please? And if you object to something specific, can you leave the changes you don't object to? Wikidea 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts by Lear 21

Please do not revert copy-edits or other material which you do not dispute.Paul111 12:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

I added the point that the EU is formed by the territory of its member states, that it expands with the accession of new members and that it is not in itself a geographical unit. All three are relevant: the EU does not have a geography in the sense that a country has, largely because its area changes with accessions. All geographical averages, such as population density, also change with accession. The issue of the boundaries is a political issue, and should be mentionned as such.Paul111 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/r/Talk%7EEuropean_Union_Archive09_285a.html"