Talk:Euromyth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Sources

This is just a piece of pro EU propaganda, which makes no attempt to be balanced. I am not sure if it can or should be redeemed. The implication that all bad news about the EU is misleading is risible. CalJW 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there is misreporting of EU policy that is motivated by a populist and anti-EU press. There is also no doubt that the pro-EU lobby has coined the term Euromyth and engaged in a parlour game of gain-saying that is equally partisan. I think that there is an article here but the reader would be served by an introduction that puts the content in an NPOV context. I might have a go some time but others should feel free. BTW - Wikipedia is very pro-EU. We need articles on the van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL cases to get some balance. Cutler 09:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've editted the intro to make it more balanced, and also to add that most of these views are just peoples' opinions, not objective fact. Praetonia 10:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Euromyth: "All ambulances throughout Europe must be painted yellow".
  • Fact: An independent European standards body published a report recommending (but not requiring) that a common colour would make ambulances more recognisable.
  • Euromyth: "The EU is proposing a ban on glass returnable milk bottles".
  • Fact: The EU has not made such a proposal.
  • Euromyth: "There will be a ban on PVC".
  • Fact: The EU was actually proposing a ban on the dangerous cadmium and lead-based stabilisers in PVC and not on PVC itself.

Most of the above have now been addressed. There are, in fact, sourced examples of Euromyths now in the article and, if needs be, countless more could be added. Hope that clears things up a little! regards Marcus22 21:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sources again

Unfortunately, the examples added were all taken verbatim from the EU web portal. This isn't really satisfactory as the EU is not impartial in this debate. Independent sources should really be used where possible. Also, where whole chunks of text are copied from another source it needs to be clearly marked as such or it is a copyright violation. I've removed the examples below because the evidence isn't supporting the claims being made:

  • No more sea salt: The source given doesn't claim sea salt was to be banned by the EU, only that there were rumours the Latvian government would do so.
  • Brandy/spreadable fat: An exemption was given, but this was after the article had already been published.
  • Hard hats for tight-rope walkers: The Times quote only says "a tightrope walker says that his career has been placed in jeopardy". This is reporting of an opinion, and doesn't claim to be fact. The line "Circus performer must walk tightrope in hard hat, says Brussels" looks like a headline, and headlines shouldn't be taken out of context and used as quotation. I saw an article in a British newspaper yesterday with the headline "Judge wants to ban newspapers". Of course, the judge didn't want to ban newspapers, he wanted to restrict press access to family court hearings. This was made clear in the article, which is why headlines should not be quoted out of context, they are not intended to be a definitive statement. Also, the rebuttal only says that tight-rope walkers are not mentioned in the directive, not that they are exempted from it. JW 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well in part you are incorrect regarding the EU. It is not necessary for a source to be impartial, only reliable, but yes, it is necessary to provide both sides of the debate if a source is not impartial. Feel free to add sources which demonstrate that, for example, hard hats have to be worn by tightrope walkers.

Hence I have reinstated some - but not all - of those you have removed. (You are correct in that the Brandy Butter was indeed improperly sourced, so I have left that out).

However, I have also removed one of your sources (a blog?? hardly reliable), tidied things up a bit and trimmed your excessive use of words such as 'allegedly' and suchlike. After all, this is not a court case and the few references that remain to 'allegedly' etc.. are quite sufficient for any adult reader I think?

Finally your ASDA source; removed for now. But happy to reinstate if you can prove that it did indeed refer to the Euromyth in question and not just to EU regulations on Fruit and Veg in general. (I'll explain: the court case could, I dont know, have been over ASDA having failed to label source of goods. This is not to be confused with things like straight rhubarb etc..).

regards Marcus22 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I've tweaked the opening as I think "a phrase in common usage" suggests that everyone is using it, therefore it's a real phenomenon. I think we need to be careful as the phrase is itself a propaganda tool. It mainly seems to be used by the EU or its defenders, its not something you hear in everyday conversation or are likely to see in the Daily Mail or The Sun.

  • On the hard hats section, I think you are missing the point. It's not necessary to provide a source that proves the EU was going to force tightrope walkers to wear hard hats, no one here is claiming this. What is necessary is to show that The Times claimed this, not that it reported someone else saying it, and that the claim was incorrect. We can't assume an EU site is presenting these examples accurately without any kind of spin. The site claims that people have "misinterpretated" the legislation, but this doesn't really disprove the story. If the regulations could be interpreted in that way then the article would be correct, regardless of whether the EU had intended this.
  • The blog wasn't being used as a source for factual information, only to illustrate that an opinion existed and was often expressed, no claim was made that the opinion was correct.
  • I agree we don't need to keep saying "allegedly", but it is important not to use a heading like "Examples of Euromyths" without qualification, as this appears to be taking sides. I've rephrased to "alleged examples" as I don't think this is excessive.
  • Also, as I said before, the examples given are copied from the EU web portal. It is necessary to present these as quotation, a) because we are directly quoting a biased source without explaining this, and b) because without an explanation that this is quotation this is a copyvio, and would have to be removed.
  • As for the Asda case, it is referred to in the BBC article as well as the Consumer Law one, eg "EU regulations on the curves of cucumbers and bends of bananas are unenforceable in England and Wales". I think its important not to focus entirely on rhubarb as the straight bananas/cucumbers claim is probably the most-quoted of all these stories, and they are all linked to the same regulations. The straight bananas claim (or it might have been cucumbers) was even used by Tony Blair as an example of a Euromyth.
  • I've removed the Baltic salt example as it doesn't appear to be a Euromyth at all:

"Rumors of pending government measures to ban the sale of non-iodized salt recently set off another wave of panic buying"

The article doesn't claim the EU is going to ban sea salt, only that there were rumours the government would do so.

JW 12:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Nope. I disagree with most of that. And you are merely trying to remove the FACT from this article that deliberate misreporting of EU legislation in order to scaremonger happens in the UK press. I am happy to agree and allow it to be portrayed in the article that some EU legislation is not misreported in this manner and is indeed quite cranky. If you want to provide evidence of such and include it that would be a more positive contribution than merely tipping the article completely on it's head.

To be more positive I do however feel that you can include the ASDA source as you have mentioned. And I would approve of a better wording of the opener. I have also put scarequotes around the word "Euromyth" where I have removed the 'Alleged' bit. They are not alleged examples; they are actual examples. Marcus22 13:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not really enough to say you disagree when you haven't answered any of my points. The source given for the sea salt story, for example, makes no claim that this is EU policy. And cranky examples of EU regulation aren't really relevant, that's not what the article is about. The fact is all but one of your examples are copied directly from the EU web portal and present the opinions and interpretations given on that site as fact. I thought you would understand that this needs to be presented as quotation for NPOV reasons and for copyright reasons.
Although I am reasonably happy with the Examples heading as it now stands, I stand by my statements above about the examples which were removed, and you seem unable to answer any of the objections. JW 14:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Have added more sources (other than EU and including BBC which you are happy with). Have put back your opener. Have not started to slide in personal abuse; unlike you. (Stop). Have answered almost every one of your points. It is more balanced now, thanks to your work and prompting me to rejig the article. Have removed sea salt example, too. Grant you that the old examples were bordering on the copyvio. Perhaps I still need to remove the Hard Hats one? I think not really. But if it upsets you that it's there then I will. If only a: the Red Top press in the UK would stop inventing all this rot and b: the EU more regularly bent rules a little as one must in the real world then there would, of course, be no need for this article. Until those things happen, Euromyths will go on being propagated. Ho hum. Marcus22 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you have accused me of a "slide in personal abuse" (sic). This is not true at all, I hope you will apologise. JW 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JW, as you've taken the time and trouble to type that, I will reply. I find this "you seem unable to answer any of the objections" to be bordering on the personal and abusive in the context of what we have both written beforehand. Hence my comment and, as you can see herein, my lack of any apology. (FYI I am perfectly capable of answering any objections and have done so where I feel it was worth doing so; but I have no interest whatsoever in going around in circles or entering into a debate with someone who, perhaps, holds very different views to mine). However, I'd like to add this - as I have no wish to be one-sided and negative towards you - I gladly reiterate that I believe you're involvement with this article has substantially improved it and made it much more NPOV. Well done! I suspect we may perhaps edit-bicker from here on in over one or two minor points - but you strike me as a fair chap and I think we have both demonstrated a willingness to compromise. Which is as it should be. Now, as regards this particular debate, I have nothing more to add. Regards and all the best for the future! Marcus22 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)



[edit] More General Myths

In addition to specific newspaper stories some more general positions could be labelled as Euromyths.

[edit] Commission Legislation

It is often implied that the Commission can legislate without consulting the governments of member states. In reality, all EU legislation passes through a legislative process involving both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (composed of national ministers). If legislation is to be adopted it must be accepted by the parliament in most cases and by the Council in all cases. This means that for the vast majority of EU legislation the corresponding national government has usually voted in favour in the Council. To give an example, up to September 2006, of the 86 pieces of legislation adopted in that year the government of the United Kingdom had voted in favour of the legislation 84 times, abstained from voting twice and never voted against. [1]

[edit] Inclusion of examples

The inclusion examples on this page serves no purpose. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. They do not enhance the article in any way. the examples section is essentially a trivia section without any obvious reason or purpose for the inclusion of the examples listed. Caveat lector 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. May I also remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper. Plus, for people who find the concept of a Euromyth difficult to understand, it can be argued that the examples are illustrative. Perhaps, if unhappy, you could incorporate them more tidily into the article, pointing out that they are real but illustrative examples? That would be constructive. A total deletion is not. Marcus22 16:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be just what you think. You're just copying information from other sites. How can that be considered constructive? Caveat lector 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • er.. well, no. It would not be. Naturally I can't say whether or not someone has or will find the examples illustrative, but I can say that someone might. And to say as much would not be to express an opinion, but merely to adopt the same sort of reasoning as that which underlies the existence of any facutal book. (Or even Wikipedia itself). As to the rest of your comment, I really have no idea what you are talking about. But by all means, constructively integrate the examples into the text. Don't just delete them. regards Marcus22 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to resort to policy too much but if not being paper was all that mattered, why have a notability or indiscriminate collection of information policies at all? The links on this page, one of which you managed to delete, already provide more than enough examples. The purpose of this article is to describe what a "euromyth" is, not provide a reandom list of what they might be, copied from other websites. Caveat lector 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're just ignoring what I am saying. So I'll be blunt. Option 1; We can agree a compromise. (I suggest you reduce the number of examples and factor some of them into the article). Option 2; An edit war. You can choose. I think the compromise would be best. But if you choose not to take that route, I will revert your edits (ie. complete deletion of the examples) endlessly until you DO agree to compromise. No further debate required. Over and out. Marcus22 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about the examples have been raised over and over again by different contributors. I have removed them because they obviously bias the article in a particular way, and they are not properly sourced. Lifting passages from an EU PR site and repeating them verbatim is not really constructive, it's not the role of an enclyclopedia to be a mouthpiece for the EU. We can't just accept the version given by an EU site (which doesn't even have any offical standing) and present it as fact, this is dishonest. Many of these examples are still debated between Eurosceptics and Europhiles. Lots of these things are a matter of interpretation. We certainly can't be giving legal advice and saying things like "Any newspapers, employers or insurers who are interpreting the legislation in such a manner are acting mistakenly". I will try and work one of the better known examples into the text, and hopefully this will satisfy both sides as well as avoiding both POV and copvio issues. Eurosceptics also like to now use the term "Euromyth", so if we were to be NPOV we would need examples from the opposite side too. JW 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also removed new propagandist opening and restored original text. Also added section on non-EU institutions as euromyths can sometimes be true, but not related to the EU. JW 10:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have removed your propagandist opening paragraph and as you have NOT made any attempt to rewrite the text I have put the examples back. (FYI they are not copied verbatim from any source. Please look up the sources before echoing this tired comment). However, if you are unhappy with them and want to contribute positively to the article, rewrite the examples or structure them into the text. Merely deleting material that you find politically unsettling is tantamount to burning books. Wikipedia is not the place for such an approach. Marcus22 19:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge

EU condom regulation story is a euromyth, can be included in here. Already a small section in relation to it. - J Logan t: 09:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

seems fair enough to me, they should be merged. Marcus22 09:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)