Talk:European Union/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Montenegro

Montenegro is a sovereign country. Its official currency is whatever the government of Montenegro chooses it to be. The government of Montenegro has chosen to adopt the Euro as the currency of Montenegro. There is nothing unofficial about that. The EU has actually criticised Montenegro for officially using the Euro because the EU's position is that only the 27 member states of the EU SHOULD be using the Euro as their official currency. They don't deny that Montenegro IS officially using it, because Montenegro clearly is officially using it. In fact their whole objection is that Montenegro is OFFICIALLY using it. The CIA World factbook notes that Montenegro now uses "the euro instead of the Yugoslav dinar as official currency". Yes, their word,"official". Even Wikipedia's own article on the Euro manages to note that Montenegro uses the Euro as its sole currency without feeling the need to claim that it is only "unofficial". This should be totally uncontroversial. Please stop returning to this article the fabrication that Montenegro uses this currency only unofficially. It doesn't. The Euro is the official currency of Montenegro. Thank you. 87.254.80.49 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is unofficial from the perspective of the European Union as there is no formal agreement concerning its use.—Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Even assuming that it was appropriate to adopt the POV of the EU, I've cited sources for its official status. You haven't even cited anyone supporting your claim that the EU says otherwise. 87.254.80.49 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the matter. The Euro is the official coin of the EU. Only EU countries are allowed to coin Euros (with some micro states as treaty agreed exceptions). Some other countries (again mainly microstates) have adopted the Euro after an official agreement with the ECB.

However, I think anon 87.... has a point when he says that any country is free to adopt its own way of payin, being it local currency, gold, seashells or Euro's. Of course such a country cannot claim any influence in any decisions about the value of the Euro and cannot mint them but that something else entirely.

It may also be that for international politicial agreements they are not allowed to mmake it their national currency; but I don't think official use of any currecncy when making no other claims about that currency can be disallowed. (maybe wrong there but would need to see a strong argument on that)

As it stands now the paragraph is however misleading:

The euro, and the monetary policies of those who have adopted it, are under the control of the European Central Bank (ECB).[108] There are twelve other currencies used in the EU.[92

As it implies the Macedonian Montenegro monetary policy is under ECB control. It is not. Arnoutf (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say. I'm not sure whether you meant Montenegro instead of Macedonia or if that bit went out of my depth. 87.254.80.49 (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that we need to say that the currency is official BTW, I don't think it's that important to this article, what I was objecting to was the statement that its use was unofficial - which was misleading at best. 87.254.80.49 (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I think my revision should clear up the problem (sorry for the typo, have been on holiday to Macedonia, so that popped up in my mind when typing) Arnoutf (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Thank you for your time on this. 87.254.80.49 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nato citation non sense.

EU is not linked to Nato formally.Many countries are neutral.Why did you write about Nato in EU presentation?You want to set Nato in a contest where officially isn't shared by all EU states.You set Nato like salt in the kitchen,everywhere. A non sense mix. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.129 (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Berlin Plus agreement--217.112.178.72 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact of Nato has agreement with EU can't be set in the presentation of EU where the whole will is based only on all the states, also the neutral ones.EU has agreements also with Russia ,why don't you write also Russia there? A lot of confusion.Nato isn't relevant in the presentation of EU (and in the treaties is under EU).The Nato sentence because of non sense must be cancelled.Thank YOU.It's ridiculous otherwise!If somebody replies make smile!

I agree with 151.60.116.129.It's time to change the EU presentation about Nato mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This criticism is all quite vague. We mention NATO because otherwise we would be accused of ignoring it and/or pretending than European defence co-operation is solely dealt with under the EU umbrella. We also mention that there are neutral countries. The treaties mention NATO (Article 17.1 TEU), I can't see why er shouldn't.—Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In the presentation of EU the citation of Nato is not good.You should set also all the political beings with main agreements with EU.In the Official presentation of EU website Nato isn't mentioned as a main thing.We have to respect EU will in presentation. I think 151.60.116.129 is TOTALLY RIGHT.Only a partial idea of EU can stop to cancel Nato citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs)

Please don't use capitals unless you mean to shout (which can be considered rather impolite). Also it is considered good practice to sign talk page entries using the four tildes ~~~~ .

As to content. The relation between EU (an economic union without much military structure) and the NATO (military union) is rather special as e.g. can be seen through the Berlin Plus agreement. Also it is rather special that the large majority (21/27) countries of the Union are members of another non-global organisation. This (in my view) allows for mentioning NATO a few times (it is now mentioned 3 times, once in the introduction; twice in the military section). Arnoutf (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Particularly in the light of the Berlin Plus agreement, NATO should be mentioned. NATO is mentioned quite often on the EU Web site, e.g. "EU-NATO relations: MEPs call for strengthened cooperation". European Parliament. 2009-02-19. Retrieved 2009-03-09. The report recognises the important role of NATO in the security architecture of the Europe and takes the view that the future collective defence of the EU should as far as possible be organised in cooperation with NATO. . . . The resolution notes that the "Berlin plus" arrangements, which allow the EU to have recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, need to be improved in order to allow the two organisations to intervene and effectively deliver relief in current crises . {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) --Boson (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

EU in the FIRST PART of its presentation never mention Nato.I suggest everibody to check EU official website to show how low is the level of the EU presentation in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We use the EU website as a source, not as a template. Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This thing isn't sufficient to justify the low level.Latins said "Excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta!"Your sorry is the symbol of your guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What thing? What low level? Arnoutf (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You deny the low level and you don't know neither latin words of law that is at the basis of all occidental international treaties.Low level presentation.Nato must be removed from first part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. YOU ADDED THE LATIN AFTER MY COMMENT. (shouting intentended). That is rude, impolite, and your follow up comment shows bad faith on your part.

Regarding your comment. I deny nothing, I just do not understand what you mean with "low level"; that is because your English is not up to communicating with other editors. You are NOT on Latin Wikipedia, but on English Wikipedia; and even if Latin was remotely relevant here (which it is not) you fail to make clear why the apparently random Latin quote has any meaning to this discussion.

I would strongly advice you to take Kindergarten level English lessons before you start going out insulting other editors again. Also some reading up on basic guidelines of Wikipedia could do no harm Arnoutf (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but in my opinion the presentation of EU is at a low level.I read the MAIN PRESENTATION just now of EU.I never read Nato. Sorry.I suggest all wikipedians to read it.I like to face problems with philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I probably should say this, but: EU 100% please stop editing Wikipedia. You are incapable of expressing yourself in English, and I remain to be convinced your Italian is much better.

This having been said I think I've finally managed to guess/deduct what EU 100% is saying. In the article lead we say that

"Twenty-one EU countries are members of NATO",

in the context of international involvement. It could be argued that the EU's involvement with NATO is considerably less significant than the other organisations mentioned and does not warrant inclusion in the lead.—Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking into consideration Article 17 of the Maastricht treaty (as amended), the St. Malo Declaration, the Berlin Plus agreement, the transfer of WEU capabilities to the EU under the CFSP and and the ESDP, the CJTF, ESDP access to NATO assets, the membership overlap between the organizations (European NATO countries that are in the EU and vice versa), observer status regulations with respect to NATO, WEU and EU etc. etc., I don't think it is reasonable to avoid mention of NATO when talking about defence in the context of the EU. If EU 100% is merely saying that NATO should be mentioned only in the section on defence amd should not be mentioned in the lead (which is meant to summarize the rest of the article), then he or she should say so, and we could discuss that sensibly. --Boson (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's time to cancel Nato citation.Game over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nato in the lede

Ok, I've started this sub-heading to draw a line under EU100%'s rather incoherent ramblings. I think it makes sense to talk about Nato under the defence section for all the reasons Boson just mentioned, but does it make sense to refer to NATO in the lead? Are we really summing up the section on defence? Because it seems like we just mentioning the number of countries which are members of both Nato and the EU. It would make more sense to mention the EU's operations in Chad and Kososo, or something similar.—Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to include statistics on NATO membership in the lede (though I have no real objection to them staying) and agree that it would make sense to mention some of the EU operations. In summarizing defence in the EU, I think it would be appropriate to mention the role of NATO (though I don't know if it is essential) and get across that defence is less established than other policy areas. It's really a matter of how much to include without giving too much weight to defence and foreign policy. --Boson (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree no compelling need for the lede. I think it is relevant for military however. Also please note the word " NATO" appears only 3 times in the whole of the article. Once in the lede, twice in the military section. So hardly undue attention I would say. Arnoutf (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's time to remove Nato citation.Game over.EU 100% (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop trolling, you are lacking arguments and support. Arnoutf (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

When you understand to bewrong about Nato you always mention trolling.You 'd like to mantein the presentatyion as you like without respecting reality.This presentation isn't at all Holy Bible.You present guilty EU in a low level.You are trolling telling your opinion all the times in the EU matters.Wikipedians can check it also now and day by day.It's a shame!EU 100% (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed?

"The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states". Should there not be a reference for this opening sentence? Specifically as to how many member states there currently are? --Stenun (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's referenced further down, and I think this fact is trivial enough that WP:LEAD#Citations doesn't require an extra citation in the lead. —JAO • T • C 08:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that the number is ever growing and that the change in membership is not always reported all over the globe, I am not so sure that this doesn't need (just one) citation. If it was a fixed number or a well known number then I would agree but it is steadily increasing. --Stenun (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I really think given the fact that the information is easily accessed elsewhere on the page, a citation here is unnecessary. --Simonski (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Animation of member states

The current animation showing which states joined when is currently very fast - any way of slowing it down a bit? Hadrian89 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but I'm not sure how.—Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

EU production of primary energy

Sources of uranium delivered to EU utilities in 2007, from the [http://ec.europa.eu/euratom/ar/last.pdf 2007 Annual report

From Uranium mining#Europe "European uranium mining supplied just below 3% of the total EU needs". I don't think this is "EU primary production" since EU imports 97% of it's uranium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.112.178.172 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a convention for nuclear energy and renewable energy that the (tradable) result of the conversion process (rather than uranium or wind, for instance) is treated as primary energy. Since this affects conclusions about energy independence, it might be a good idea to mention it somewhere.--Boson (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That is really weird as Uranium imports (vs those of wind) are not free; i.e. the wind in the EU can be considered a resource to be mined even if orginating elsewhere, we have to pay for Uranium. We need to have a reliable reference stating that this is indeed the case for nuclear power.

In any case the table is misleading as it appear Nuclear power is the most important power source in the EU (top of list). However it is only about 14% (29% of 46%) while oil is about 35% (9% of 46% + 60% of 54%).

Also it is not clear whether petrol (cars!!) is included in the primary energy list, if this is not the case nuclear power would be even smaller). Arnoutf (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it means total energy. The treatment of Nuclear energy numbers seem politically motivated. What kind of definition is that for primary energy? And why only nuclear? WTF? In any case the table needs a change.--217.112.177.195 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely if it's energy produced it'll exclude cars? I read "production of energy" to mean converting wind, oil, etc into electricity. I could possibly accept a high value for nuclear: France's electricity production is 78.1% nuclear, for example. It looks to me like nuclear "benefits from a split vote": 29.3% isn't high, compared to all other forms combined, but it's higher than any one other source of energy. Consider that Germany, say, will largely use coal, Britain will largely use gas, other countries may import oil to generate energy, etc. Regardless, the table needs to be clearer and much less confusing - this discussion is testament to the table being unclear ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not say "electricity" it does say "energy". Cars need energy - which has to come from somewhere. Whether it is included or excluded is unclear (I don't mind either as long as I know which it is).

Also the tables do not state 29.3% is nuclear. It does say that (only) 29.3 of the primary energy fomr the EU is nuclear (which makes up for about 14% of all used primary energy sources). So again, from "this flag once was red"s comment it is obvious the table is unclear. Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the convention seems to be usually stated "between the lines", as here: here

"Primary energy - refers to the basic forms of fuel and energy. These are the commercially traded forms of energy such as coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear energy and hydroelectricity." ("oil" but not "uranium"). You can see what they are doing from the monthly statistics here. Nuclear energy and renewable energy are given as electricity in GWh and heat in terajoule. I think the problem is that, for calculating percentages, the amount of energy is normally quantified as toe (tons of oil equivalent); with gas etc. the amount of energy extracted is known approximately, but with nuclear energy it depends on the process (breeder etc.); I suppose the total energy contained in a kg of nuclear fuel could be defined by E=mc², but that would not be very useful. So for nuclear energy (and wind, solar, etc.) it is not sensible to talk about production until electricity is produced. That means that the statistics have to be treated with some caution. I am still looking for a suitable reference. This discusses some of the problems, but it's not very pithy. One source is http://www.eoearth.org/article/Primary_energy

At least two conventions for measuring non-fossil fuel primary energy have been adopted by the energy forecasting community for renewable energy and nuclear power generation:

1. the output of the conversion technology is assumed to be the primary energy, which implicitly assumes a energy conversion efficiency of 100%, or,

2. an average fossil fuel conversion factor is assumed and used to back calculate an equivalent fossil energy primary equivalent (e.g., kwh or Btu’s). Each method has shortcomings, but the convention does make it convenient to incorporate non-fossil sources into energy system models.

--Boson (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Between the line is a difficult issue that needs at least discussion.... And even in your listing a tradable form of nuclear energy could include reactor grade uranium (or plutonium) and in the future hydrogen (if we ever get fusion going). (BTW if using E=mc2 you would nead to use the weight loss if going from uranium to rest product as the m (not the complete weight of uranium))

By the way this source [1] used in Wikipedias Primary energy explicitly! mentions uranium as a primary energy source. Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

NINETY-SEVEN % of uranium is imported, nuclear should be moved in Net imports. Measuring electricity out put is just a scheme to make comparisons meaningful, Uranium is still primary and electricity secondary, in this universe at least. In this context, saying that because imported Uranium is consumed inside the EU, it makes it somehow a primary EU production is insane. The table is supposed to show external dependence.--217.112.177.170 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

They are not saying it is primary EU production because the uranium is consumed in the EU; they are saying it is primary energy production because the energy (heat) is produced in a reactor in the EU, and they count nuclear energy rather than uranium as primary. Similarly they look at where the windmill is, not where the wind comes from. Whether any conclusions drawn about energy dependence are insane is a different matter.--Boson (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This might be a better source for how the EU quantifies primary energy production:

Primary Energy Production: . . .
Crude oil:
Quantities of fuels extracted or produced within national boundaries, including off-shore production. Production includes only marketable production, and excludes any quantities returned to formation. Production includes all crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), condensates and oil from shale and tar sands, etc. . . .

Nuclear heat: Quantities of heat produced in a reactor. Production is the actual heat produced or the heat calculated on the basis of the gross electricity generated and the thermal efficiency of the nuclear plant.
Hydropower, Wind energy, Solar photovoltaic energy:
Quantities of electricity generated. Production is calculated on the basis of the gross electricity generated and a conversion factor of 3600 kJ/kWh.

Uranium is not listed as a primary energy source. This makes it clear that, as far as EU energy production statistics are concerned, primary energy in the form of nuclear energy is produced in the reactor, not where the uranium is dug out of the ground.

The Eurostat source used in the article actually clearly defines how energy dependence is calculated, and it is obviously based on the definition of primary energy, as quoted above. So we have to be careful not to draw our own conclusions about energy dependence based on a different definition, unless we can find appropriate sources.--Boson (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but still think it is a weird decision by Eurostat to do it that way as you could also name the heat generated in a coal power plant the primary energy.... This has probably something to do with the pro-nuclear industry argument that nuclear power will make EU less dependent on foreign nations..... But that is speculation; so in the absense of a good source saying otherwise we will have to live with it.

I would like to have a footnote with nuclear power stating something like "Eurostat classifies the location of the nuclear heat source as the primary resource in nuclear power, regardless of the origin of the original fuel" or something like that; if alone to prevent the type of confusion we are having in this discussion among readers.

PS does anybdy know why this thread (and this thread alone) always freezes my Firefox browser (I am typing this in internet explorer). Arnoutf (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(Aside: I don't buy the alleged pro-nuclear industry argument: uranium has to be obtained somehow and the pie-chart above shows Russia, Australia, et al - all outside the EU. I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, but with the industry if that's what it's trying to argue).

Re: a footnote. Agree, definitely. One thing this thread has high-lighted to me is that the table as it currently stands is confusing. Obviously we should be citing reliable sources (like Eurostat), but we should be explaining exactly how those sources arrive at their conclusions.

Re: Firefox: I'm not seeing any problem with this thread (FF 3.0.6, Windows XP SP3), but I have to add that Firefox seems to be acting up slightly for me recently - not nearly enough for me to need to use IE, though.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Reality

Concerning work. Citizens of countries are meant to be able to up sticks and go to any region they choose to find work. In fact the EU framework is designed with this in mind. Fluid movement of people, one market. The reality is that most of the populations of respective countries do not wish to leave to a foreign country and culture to find employment. Family, culture, language and identity amongst many socio-economic factors are too strong a pull for this to happen. Push factors are the cause for immigration into England for the most part. Lack of work in Eastern Europe and the poorer member states. Perceived opportunity in the UK. This is causing discontent amongst the poorer uneducated mainly working class in the UK, who for the most part won't leave their own country (and why should they)to find work. Where will they go? To be displaced and poor in another country doesn't make sense. Most people have not understood and have not been told what the reality of Europe and the implications of an EU supra entity mean in real terms for them. I was quite clearly told these whilst studying at college. How many people actually understand that (as a uk Government minister Peter Mandelson recently pointed out during widespread protests about foreign workers taking UK jobs) they are expected now to find work in all parts of Europe. It didn't go down well and points to the lack of information that the person in the street has been given regarding this political and economic union, and the implications of it. It has meant poor uneducated Eastern Europeans and others arriving on our shores and competing at lower wages with our poor uneducated workers. The middle classes seem less affected as perhaps this class group are more able to adapt or do not have to leave their respective countries. Europe is not understood properly and seems like it is being pushed on people. They can't be blamed for ignorance and therefore not consulted for their opinion when they have not been informed in the first place. Has democracy now been quietly dropped? What other bombshells are we to expect (see Mandelsons above) from our(?) ministers about other things, said as if we were all supposed to know in the first place? To put it bluntly, this stinks of vested interests and politics at it's worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.7.9 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, all well and good...but what point are you trying to make about the Wiki EU article? This is not a forum for general discussion/debate (there are plenty of those on the internet), it is for discussing issues with the EU article. Lwxrm (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

UESR

UESR, "United of European Socialist Republics", redirects here. Ha ha! Should that be changed? I would agree on the parallell to some extent, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.81.210 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add new topics at bottom of page.

Who says UESR stands for "United of European Socialist Republics"?

This should be discussed at the UESR page, not here. Arnoutf (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. In future I guess it might be a good idea to have an occasional look at the redirects.—Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidency Insignia

I'm sorry if this has already been argued over before, but is the "Presidency Insignia" really necessary in the infobox? It is... Super ugly. TastyCakes (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment on whether it's necessary, but the insignia you currently see will be replaced after June: the presidency will be assumed by Sweden at the start of July. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Ugly? I quite like it!

Indeed, is only up for a short period. But need for insignia is not necessarily agreed upon. Arnoutf (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I think most "country" articles have the flags along with coat of arms. It appears the EU doesn't have an official coat of arms (correct me if I'm wrong?) and in place of it they've put the insignia of the presidency. Upon further thought I think this is bad for three reasons: first it is temporary, in contrast to the insignias put in pretty much all other country boxes. Second, it refers to an office of the government, rather than the country itself, which makes it seem out of place as would the presidential seal in the US article or QEII's seal in the UK article. And third it emphasizes one member country over the others, which I believe is not in keeping with the spirit of the union or the idea behind the presidency. TastyCakes (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing, but making a few random points:

• the EU isn't a country, but rather a economic and political union of member states (I'm not sure if that makes any difference, but still...);
• Notwithstanding that point, Scotland's article at least has the Royal Standard beside the flag;

• That's a point, and I'm not sure if I'd agree with the Scotland article using it either. However, in its favour the Scottish royal standard has used as a national symbol by many for many years, unlike the EU presidential insignia. TastyCakes (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Disregarding both of those points, I think personally I'd prefer just the flag - the EU Presidency is rather small in the grand scheme of things (compared with the Parliament or Commission, say).

Not sure that helps or hinders! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) Actually I think it does make a difference (the EU not being a country). Using the presidency insignia along side the EU flag show the dual nature of the EU. We describe it as what it is. Just because we use the country infobox and its coat of arms attribute, doesn't mean that what it is.

Anyway the apparent main reason for removing it stinks! No one objected to the insignia when the French of the Slovenes held the presidency. It's the Czech presidency and they get to decide on the insignia. If you don't like the look of it, wait a few months and we'll get another.—Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never been in favour of the insignia but never bothered to complain either. Actually, I rather like the Czech one, which is much clearer, more modest and more modern compared to the French one with the draped flags File:French European Union presidency 2008.svg. But then again, personal preference should be kept out of this ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around to complain about the French one ;) TastyCakes (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest though, which was the main reason you're referring to? And what is the dual nature mentioned? And why does it matter that the EU is not a country? I'm not sure if "describing it for what it is" necessarily supports it being there. You could have a big picture of a unicorn and define it as such, that doesn't mean it should be there. I'm sorry I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just not convinced yet... TastyCakes (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I perceived the main reason for the insignias removal to be cosmetic.
• The dual nature as in the intergovernmental and supranational dimensions mentioned in the lead.
• When it was removed the edit summary said that the insignia wasn't a coat of arms. I reverted, saying that we never said that but instead described it "for what it is".—Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, I'm sorry I led my argument with "I think it's ugly", I hope my entire case isn't judged on that flippancy. How does the inclusion of an insignia that puts one member above the others display of the supranational dimension? And sorry, I wasn't aware that someone had used it being "mislabeled" as a coat of arms a reason to remove it. TastyCakes (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well (playing Devil's advocate here) it's indicative of the way the EU operates (and I don't mean that facetiously): the EU chooses to have a rotating presidency that temporarily places one member above others. This article's infobox simply reports that process. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent for off-topic and totally subjective comment): The Swedish insignia (assuming that the insignia on the website is what they use) looks very nice. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Resp two back to This Flag. EU presidency not truly places one member above the others, it is more a primus inter pares (first among equals) system. Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, I understand - I merely mean for the purposes of the rotating presidency. The EU decided to have a rotating presidency, so this article should reflect that. It's not Wikipedia deciding to raise the Czech Republic above the rest of the EU, we're merely reporting the current state of affairs. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it the presidency is an institution of the EU, is that correct? If so, is it "the top" institution deserving more attention (in the info box) than the others? I am not particularly familiar with the workings of the EU government, but it would seem to me the European council, European Parliament, European Commission and even the European Central Bank are more critical parts of the EU structure. I don't know if all of these even have their own logos, but even if they don't it seems odd to highlight the presidency, a seemingly lesser and certainly more temporary institution, and not them. Am I under-evaluating the importance of the presidency? TastyCakes (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The presidency is not necessarily an institution, it is rather a function. It is the most visible function, although perhaps not the most influential. Nevertheless I think as the visible function it can have some exposure in the infobox. In many situations the visible spokesperson is not the most critical part of the structure (e.g. in all constitutional monarchies and quite a few republics (e.g. Germany and Israel), the head of state is not a critical function). Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much either way personally. The European Council is the highest political authority so to speak, and the Council itself is the main decision making body. Its emblem is symbolic of the presiding country which I think is a useful emphasis (in reference to the above argument of stressing one country above another) and reveals the intergovernmental side a bit more. However, although it is the closest to it, it is not a coat of arms. Hence, the decision should be based on whether that second slot is for the coat of arms, or any similar relevant symbol. If the former, then we remove it, if it is not about coat of arms, then we keep it.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the Czech logo, as well as the presidency in general, stink. The EU is not a country, and the logo isn't a national coat of arms. But I do think having the logo in the infobox is the best possible solution. The infobox looked strange when the flag was alone in the centre with a lot of blank space on its left and right. - SSJ ☎ 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the insignia being there, and indeed the Czech one is the ugliest to date so don't see this being a problem in future. Would happily have it replaced by simply a Czech flag but think I'd be in the minority there. Seems most people are happy with the status quo. --Simonski (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Country flag would put country above presidency (office). So no to the country flag; and beauty is in the eye of the beholder and should not be an argument anyway. So I would keep it with the insignia. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Arnout's statement. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the insignia staying for the reasons states above Lwxrm (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Drats, foiled again! TastyCakes (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

EU terminolgoy must be respected

The EU has its own terminology for the states with which it is negotiating. That includes the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. Please see the official EU site[2]. My edit was undertaken in that spirit. Politis (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect that. I've reverted edits in the past that have changed the link from Republic of Macedonia to FYROM; however, in this case I thought your edit was reasonable since it maintained both an un-redirected link to the Republic of Macedonia article, and used the exact name used by the EU (In fact, I tweaked your edit slightly to more precisely match the quote).

I occupy a middle-ground between your view and Blue-Haired Lawyer's, and I'd like to hear Blue-Haired Lawyer's opinion before proceeding.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I was/am aware of the EU's usage but reverted the edit as, unlike Red Flag, I didn't see the difference between it and the normal FYROM edits. Not so long ago I was following a discussion on country lists where it was said that Wikipedia didn't adopt "international" names for places such as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as it would violate WP:NPOV: we have to remain neutral on Taiwan/Republic of China even if the WTO aren't. I assumed the same was true for FYROM.

Turns out I was all wrong. Now that I finally read the style guide, it says that:

"In articles about international political organisations ... that use specific Macedonia-related terminology [u]se the terminology adopted by the organisation or event in question (e.g. 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', 'FYR Macedonia' etc)" - WP:FYROM

I'll revert it back to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and put in a pipe-link.—Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideal, thanks! I must admit, I've been reverting to Republic of Macedonia for exactly the same reason - time for me to brush up on policy... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Law suites against computer companies

I think that perhaps a small mention of how the EU is infamous for suing computer companies, especially Microsoft, at the drop of a hat, although, obviously, it would have to be Wikipedia:NPOV. --Sauronjim (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other than Microsoft? It seems it's already in there under "Competition", although I personally would have had second thoughts about its inclusion in an article this broad... TastyCakes (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are others, Apple Inc. included --Sauronjim, I've not had time to log in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.68.123.123 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

When I think of Microsoft, I tend to think of the United States' case against them. Oddly enough, there's no mention of Microsoft at all on the US article. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the US case. I always think of when the EU suied them on behalf of Opera, for bundling IE with Windows. --Sauronjim I've not had time to log in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.3.165 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The joys of youth! See United States v. Microsoft.--Boson (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Which if nothing else highlights the great breadth of difference between the US and the EU.—Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And anyway infamous.... You could also say that they have the courage to act against multinationals with the arrogance to think they are more powerful than the government in one of their main markets (that would highlight Microsoft as the infamour law breaker and the EU as the courageous law enforcer ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I've shown my POV here, in the article, we would have to be NPOV, possibly stating that both of these opinions exist. --Sauronjim I havn't had time to log in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.75.212.239 (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, the most famous time when they filed a law suite against Microsoft was simply for including Internet Explorer with Windows, which I can't see anything wrong with. If they hadn't included it, people wouldn't be able to use the internet, since you need some sort of HTML browser to get to the download page for others, such as Firefox, and if you don't get IE with Windows, there's no way to get to that page. Or at least, there's no way that doesn't involve a high level of technical expertise. --Sauronjim -I havn't had time to log in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.3.165 (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether you see anything wrong with bundling of IE is not really the issue. The Commission obviously think this is an abuse of a dominant position under Article 82 EC. "Simply for including Internet Explorer" is an oversimplification of the problem the Commission perceives. It is established case-law that bundling can be an abuse of a dominant position (see De Poste-La Poste, Digital and the Microsoft WMP case) as can using dominance in one market to choke competition in another related market http://croesy.web.nowhere-else.org/web/Dissertation.pdf <<here for some context of EU competition law (this is a draft (can't find the finished one!) of a dissertation and is obviously original research but it gives some clues as to the issues). The Commission have a prima facie case against MS. Also your analysis of the consequences (preventing internet access) is misplaced. There are several solutions that could be used on Windows OS and it wouldn't be an end to the internet for those who are not technically apt.

After that aside, back to the real issue. This case/s of competition law are no more deserving of being in the EU article than any other cases of competition law. If you want to include them, they would be more suited in an EU Competition law article. I would oppose a section dedicated to them and including anything about Microsoft is likely to draw out the vandals (who have been relatively quiet of late. Lwxrm (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for this, all I really wanted was to know whether or not this was worth including, I wasn't looking for a huge argument... so thank you for the answer --Sauronjim (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The Internet != the WWW. Prior to wide-spread use of the Web, people used FTP clients and similar Internet applications to access the Internet. No reason why they couldn't have downloaded Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator using FTP. Alternatively, they could have obtained a web browser either from a shop (the same way I obtained my most recent version of Microsoft Office) or from a CD from a magazine (the same way I obtained most games back in the early 1990s). All of this is moot, however: the US Department of Justice took a different line and in a settlement with Microsoft required them to share some Windows APIs with third parties. My understanding of the EU case against Microsoft was that it was broadly similar to the US case, and came after it - its purpose was, I believe, to ensure that the advantages that US companies gained from the US DoJ case were also gained by EU companies. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I did mention a method that 'doesn't involve a high level of technical expertise', which using FTP would do. And buying a web browser from a store!? I didn't know that was even possible! --Sauronjim (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not arguing, and I note your comment below, I just wanted to provide more detail. Remember, this was all taking place around 15 years ago. Back then FTP wasn't regarded as highly technical for the typical PC user - Windows 95 wasn't out yet, many PC users would still be using some variant of DOS - PC users tended to be more technical than they are today. We've been spoiled over the last decade and a half by rich GUIs ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: Not to be included --Sauronjim (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing either :) Also a range of browsers could come packaged with the PC and the user "chooses" one during installation. There are many, many options that involve no technical knowledge above the average user. The EU case Red refers to is the "first" Microsoft case: a case on interoperability of Windows Work Group Server Operating Systems with the PC Windows Operating System and the bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows Operating System. The case that Sauron is talking about is a current investigation into the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows OS being undertaken by the European Commission. I feel I am drifting off-topic, so that is all. Lwxrm (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we collectively drifted off-topic some time ago ;-) I'd be up for continuing this discussion on my talk page, if anyone's up for it? I must admit, I thought the first EU case involved the bundling of IE as well as WMP? (In fact, I hadn't realised WMP was involved - but it's been a long time, and I paid more attention to the DoJ case). Does Wikipedia have articles on the two EU cases? Reading the US case (linked above) I realised I knew only a fraction of the details, and I followed it quite closely at the time. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, we are drifting of topic. I think we should not include it. (BTW I thought the issue was not as much the bundling (which the EU did not like) but the full integration of these systems into the Windows OS (making it impossible to de-install WMF and IE and still maintain a working Windows version). Arnoutf (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gini

We should change the Gini to 27 EU States not 25. Since there are 27 States in the EU now as of 2007Pryde 01 (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As soon as we find a publication reporting EU27v Gini we will. Arnoutf (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GDP in 2009 ?

How can there be a published figure for 2009 in the introduction? This seems premature data. The List of countries by GDP (nominal) has even only published the 2007 official figures. This should be the figure also used here. KJohansson (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The cited source was published in 2008, so only 2007 figures should be given in the text, not forecasts for later years. --Boson (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

GDP referring to the whole EU or only to the Eurozone?

I'm Western European, and to me, the GDP given in the article seems to be too high, even in PPP. At least it seems to be WAY too high if it refers to the WHOLE Union. There are still 11 especially (but not only) Eastern European countries that do not join the Euro, mostly because they do not meet the economic criteria. Some of these countries are VERY poor. The extremely rich countries in the EU, such aus Luxemburg, are mostly very small (in terms of inhabitants).

The nominal GDP (per capita) given in this article is above the US-American GDP, and in PPP it comes very close to it. This rather seems to be true for the Eurozone, since these countries are mostly relatively wealthy, and the few poorer countries like Greece or Portugal have a rather small population. If you consider that most bigger countries in the Eurozone can be compared to the US (or score a bit lower than the US, such as Spain or Italy) - and that there are also some bigger countries in the EU (but outside the Eurozone) which are very poor but have a quite big population (such as Poland): If you consider all that, the GDP number given CANNOT refer to the whole European Union (including many poor Eastern European states), but it can only refer to the Eurozone. Of course, this is mere speculation up to this point, but it seems necessary to look these data up (and eventually to correct or specify the expressions).

90.186.69.77 (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I could not find a proper source for the figures given. They seem obviously incorrect. I have replaced the GDP per capita PPP by the figure from the CIA factbook (est. 2008). I have removed the obviously incorrect nominal figure but could not find a reliable source to replace it.

I have also replaced the 2009 IMF projections with the 2007 IMF estimates since the source was only published in 2008. This seems to be the rule for the country infobox.--Boson (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We have three given figures, now. Total and per capita in PPP, and total nominal GDP (no per capita data given here). Theoretically, one could simply divide the total PPP figure by the per capita PPP figure. The result is the number of inhabitants. Then one could divide the total nominal figure by this number of inhabitants, and one would get the missing nominal per capita figure as a result. The problem in this case, though, is that the total PPP figure and the per capita figure refer to different years (2007 and 2008: and the total population number is not absoulutely static, though approximately the same). If you could get these two CIA factbook figures (total PPP and per capita PPP) for the same year (either 2007 or 2008), you could calculate the nominal per capita GDP by making the calculations explained above.

Btw, the GDP must have risen quite a lot within only one year: If you divide the total PPP figure of 2007 by the per capita PPP figure of 2008 (which of course does not work due to different years), you get a (theoretical) result of about 442 million inhabitants, which is much too low. The EU has NOT gotten any new member states in 2008, and the actual population number is about 500 million (and should have been about the same in the recent years). This means a PPP growth of about 13% in only one year (from 2007 to 2008). Explanation: The relation of the real population figure (about 500 million) divided by the "wrong" population figure (442 million, resulting from mixing up the data of two different years) is the growth factor from one year to another year. In this case, the growth factor is about 1,13 % (meaning 13% growth):

Calculation: 500,000,000 / (14,754,000,000,000 $ / 33,400 $) = 1,1319.

In words: Real inhabitant number divided by (total PPP 2007 divided by per capita PPP 2008).

Or (transformed calculation): 500,000,000 x 33,400 / 14,754,000,000,000 = 1,1319.

Transformation in words: Real (approximate) inhabitant number multiplied with per capita PPP 2008 => The result is the total PPP figure of 2008. This result, then divided by the total PPP figure of 2007, is the growth factor from 2007 to 2008 (referring to PPP, not nominal figures).

You cannot calculate the exact number unless you have the exact population figures of each year. So this is only an estimation (which is nevertheless quite concrete, and 13% growth during one year still seem to be incredibly much. But of course, this could also be correct). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.92.156 (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

90.187.92.156 (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think policy allows us to use these calculations, which can hardly be called routine. --Boson (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

G8 and UN representation

I don't think the sentence

"It has developed a role in foreign policy, representing its members in the World Trade Organisation, at G8 summits, and at the United Nations."

in the opening paragraph is accurate, alternatively it is misleading. Reading it makes it seem that the member states have no representation of their own at the G8 and at the UN, which is wrong. The EU has representation at the G8 and at the UN in addition to the representation of (some in the case of the G8) its member states. Could this be looked at and changed? David (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

- Not sure I remember it being worded like that so don't know if this has been a recent tweak by someone in the last few months - certainly it is misleading and should be tweaked back. Maybe we could say something like "with EU member states on occasion acting together under an EU banner". It does definitely need amended either way, at the moment this is far too a simplistic and misleading summary of the EU's role in foreign policy. --Simonski (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Would "It has developed a limited role in foreign policy, having representation at the World Trade Organisation, G8 summits, and at the United Nations." be better? David (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly! I just added in "on occasion" to the current text - if you prefer the version you proposed I'd have no problem with you editing it in. Either version does the job I'd say. --Simonski (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

European Union's map

Someone should create and put a complete map of EU, with Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores and France's overseas departments.--Pascar (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's File:EUFA.png (via Eurosphere), although it shows other blocs as well. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I mean a map with Europe and squares of French Guiana and the islands... like this map, or similar: http://www.ac-nancy-metz.fr/enseign/anglais/Henry/eu2.gif --Pascar (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one similar to that, but I'm personally not sure how useful it would be - it's difficult to see where the overseas territories are relative to the rest of the world. You could always request one be created, though. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Appointment of Commissioners

Section: Governance - Institutions I suggest changing "Appointment of the Commission President, and also the Commission in its entirety, have to be confirmed by Parliament." to "The proposed 27 Commissioners as a single body, which includes the proposed President, has to be approved by a vote of the Parliament before they can take office.". This change aims to: avoid the possible misunderstanding that the EP can reject the President alone; clarify that although "Commission" is currently is correctly used, it refers to only one of the possible definitions of the term, ie the College of Commissioners; avoid "confirmation" as this could be mistaken for the impotent "shall be approved by" role that the EP has to undergo with the President alone at the beginning of the process. This aligns with the wording of Art214(2) of the Treaty "subject...to a vote of approval". I would be grateful for confirmation that this would be useful before I make this change... Ajem (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FYROM in blue

This is really insubstantial but is there a reason that FYROM appears in blue letters while all the other countries appear in black? Or is it just a flaw of the map? Alfadog777 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good observation! However, it should not be black like the other EU member states but grey like the other non-EU member states. I will try to fix it... Tomeasy _{T C} 09:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I have just fixed the map without really understanding what was wrong. Now the template page displays the map as desired, but on our article it appears still with this little flaw. Apparently, I do not understand enough of this. Perhaps someone else can fix it. However, I would be interested in understanding the error and the solution, once the problem is solved. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's fixed now. I deleted the map and just re-inserted it again. Without doing so, apparently, the updated version of the template is not used immediately. If someone knows more about it, please share. Also, I did not understand my own fix on the template page. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect a caching problem: your change to the remplate forced the displayed image on the template page to update; without any change to this page the article still used the old GIF. Your change to this page forced the displayed image to update here. Just a guess, though - caching is a good scape-goat for all kinds of problems ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Not directly related, and i'm not even 100% sure it is the same map, but it seems that the map in Member States section has Algeria as one of the founding members of the EU :o) Ajem (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, French Algeria was part of the EU from its founding until 1962. —JAO • T • C 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't realise that. I guess I'm a bit confused as the map is of continental territories of member states.Ajem (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Decisions in legal system section

"Decisions offer an alternative to the two above mode of legislation. They are legal acts which only apply to specified individuals or companies." 1) I do not think it is accurate to say it is an "alternative". It has its own specific scope of application. Secondly they do not only apply to specified individuals or companies. They can also be addressed to Member States (as the majority are I believe). Also (would need to check) I think the whole scheme of Comitology was kicked off using a Decision. Have I missed something here? Or can this be changed? Lwxrm (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Another change here that did not entirely have my support - what happened here was that the section used to give equal weight to the importance of Regulations, Directives and Decisions. Then one individual, it may even have been Blue Haired actually, came along and started claiming Decisions were not as important and shouldn't be mentioned as a "main" mode of legislating. The section originally laid down that Decisions were used most commonly in State Aid and Competition matters and were aimed at companies for example because in my view thats their most common usage, Competition/State Aid matters I mean.

Of course they can be issued against Member States as well and I would agree with you Lwxrm that the section should be rebalanced to reflect the importance of Decisions which the last editor of the section was unwilling to accept. I think they have mistakenly tried to equate the proportionately lower coverage that Decisions are given in foundation level studies of EU law with their actual importance in the EU legislative process in practice. --Simonski (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to see I had not overlooked something. Also, are state-aid decisions not addressed primarily to Member States? Also, although the decisions against individuals/companies are the most visible, the majority of decisions are addressed to the Member States. This should be reflected in the section Lwxrm (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, then again thats fair enough, lets amend it. I think State Aid decisions are issued generally though both to the Member State who granted the aid and to the Company who was granted the aid if its to be repaid so there can still be some company involvement there. Ie. Alitalia/Italy. --Simonski (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There're "alternative" because decisions aren't legislative acts, there legal instruments. Generally speaking decisions only affect the specific people ther're addressed to. Whereas directives and regulations can affect the entire population of the European Union. Which is also why I happen to think there more important. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Map in Religion

One map in the section seems sufficient. Personally I see both as valuable, but it should be only one presented here. Lear 21 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that one map should suffice. My preference would be to remove the Christian one; this also because many northern countries report a minority believers (see other map) and Orthodox Christianity maybe fewer than Islam (if you add all muslims in the whole of the EU). Arnoutf (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Additional maps should be in the sub-article Religion in the European Union. --Boson (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The link for the map loads a page error at Europa. I came to this page after reading that 51% of French self-identify as Catholic. Then this map tells me that only 30% believe in a deity? This map should go unless there's other support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stillwaterguitars (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the link to the source that confirms the figure. I have also changed "deity" to the actual words used in the survey, since it is not certain that respondents will interpret the two terms in the same way, particularly in view of the actual alternatives offered. What is the source for the 51%? This may refer to people who are officially members of the Catholic Church (and thus self identify as Catholics) but do not believe in God.--Boson (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchlists

Just a general note to all EU editors. With the upcoming elections, more people will be logging onto these pages, which means loads more vandalism. We can't, and shouldn't, lock everything so can as many of you as possible make sure as many major EU pages are on your watchlist as possible, and keep scanning them for vandalism so legitimate readers don't have to read abusive messages when they want to know about Europe. As a minimum, I'd recommend the following;

• European Union
• European Parliament
• European Council
• Council of the European Union
• European Commission
• Elections in the European Union
• European Parliament election, 2009
• Political groups of the European Parliament
• Member of the European Parliament
• History of the European Union

Feel free to add to this list if you think something else will be at a major risk. Thanks.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Added European Council. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Energy dataset

A new dataset has been recently introduced to the section. The outcome suggests that only 0,34% of the primary energy produced in EU countries derives from nuclear energy. This is misleading and false. Although uranium is imported, the facilities / reactors producing nuclear energy are installed IN the EU. This rationale is supported by Eurostat and was the base of the former table. The initial table needs to be kept therefore, the new one should be rejected. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I think this is completely weird as the powerplants converting Oil and Gas to electricity are also IN the EU, yet that output is listed as imported energy.

Nevertheless I have to agree with Lear21 that for some obscure reason (likely nuclear power lobbyism) it has become the norm to list the Nuclear power plants as primary production, regardless of the origin of the Uranium. In other words, while the argument to list this energy as primary is probably based a logical fallacy and as such untrue; it is a political reality as can be found from reliable sources. WP:TRUTH sometimes works against our better judgement, but we still have to accept it (even if we don't like it :(

In brief, I have to support Lear21 here. Arnoutf (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian uranium association(Australia is one of the bigest producers in the world): from [3]

“ Primary energy is energy in the form of natural resources, such as wood, coal, oil, natural gas, natural uranium, wind, hydro power, and sunlight.

Secondary energy is the more useable forms to which primary energy may be converted, such as electricity and petrol.

”

If you insist, do you mind to go and correct Primary energy article, it doesn't say it but it gives you the wrong impression that Uranium is primary energy.

And look what nonsense children have to learn. [4] --217.112.178.155 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia of earth[5] that is used as source for the primary energy article.

“ Examples of primary energy resources include coal, crude oil, sunlight, wind, running rivers, vegetation, and uranium. ”

The caption of the table has been amended to avoid major misinterpretations. Lear 21 (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the caption now makes no sense at all. The new caption "Energy production" (primary taken out) simply MUST include electricity production. Electricity is one of the main types of energy used in the EU. None of it is primary, but as that word was deleted from the caption, suddenly electricity becomes an essential entry in the table. (so is car grade petrol and kerosene by the way)

I am sure that has never been your intention, but it is the consequence of the rewording. Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please come up with a new solution, the table has become out of proportion. The explanation about, how to deal with the information is already mentioned in the 1. para of the section. The footnotes, if ever, belong to the reference list. Right now they blow up the table in an unnecessary way. Lear 21 (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I moved footnote to refs, and replaced "consumption" with "use" to shrink table width. Better? Arnoutf (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Lear 21 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

HDI of EU

Hi, I've read the discussion about common EU HDI in the archive. I see that it isn't used. There were some negotiations how it should be calculated.

I have made some calculations based on 2006 HDI data of UN released on 2008. You will find HDI data here: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf

You can find those calculations here: http://perlhosting.net/download7/bc2871132.html

The EU HDI is calculated while using weighted HDI for all of the EU member states. The algorithm of the calculation would be like that:

1. Calculate the state's population ratio of the total EU population; 2. Multiply that ratio from the HDI index of that state; // Subsections 1 and 2 gives a weighted HDI of that EU member state; 4. Repeat subsection 1 and 2 for all of the EU member states; 5. Sum all of the weighted HDIs; 6. We have a EU's HDI.

The result I've got is 0,929 for the EU27* and 0,935 for the EU25.

While calculating the HDI of EU27* for every EU member state there were used population stats from Wikipedia's page of that country AND Eurostat data of 2006 from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1 (or go to the Eurostat page and select Total population). Of course, population data is different because the Wikipedia's one varies in date. But I have got the same result and that is good. I RECOMMEND USING THE CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE EUROSTAT DATA.

• We know that there was no EU27 in the 2006. Bulgaria and Romania have joined EU on the 1st of January, 2007. So I have made an EU25 calculations also, but still I suggest to use those of the present EU27 (simply using 2006 stats) with the Eurostat data.

The only question I see here is what is called an original research. But both the HDI and the population data is given by 3rd part and is reliable. No new data is collected simply the one that is already given is used. So I'm not sure if this fits the rules or not. I hope it does and if so maybe we could use this info.

{{--Giedrius S. (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)|Giedrius S.}}

It would be OR in my opinion for 2 reasons

1) It is synthesis of existing information WP:SYNTHESIS.

2) Your algorithm only works if all involved metrics are normally distributed. If there are logarithmic scales involved, simple averaging will not result in a correct estimate. Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So it isn't OR, we could wait until the HDI publications include the EU, so it isn't OR or SYN. Deavenger (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It IS original research as defined by Wikipedia; as synthesis is a form of OR according to that definition. (BTW after some further consideration, the algoritm itself is also original research, either synthesis; or otherwise (as there are no sources used how to combine HDI scores). Arnoutf (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I was saying that until the UN starts to publish HDI facts specifically for the EU, like them saying EU has HDI of ______, we can't post HDI. Deavenger (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree, we need to wait for a source to publish HDI figures of the EU. (I was a bit confused by your opening 2 posts ago "So it isn't OR"....). Arnoutf (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia vs. FYROM

Just a heads up: in the past, policy was to refer to the Republic of Macedonia as "FYROM" (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in this and other EU articles, because the EU referred to Macedonia as "FYROM" in accession documents.

This policy has now changed, and we can use "Macedonia" when we are unambiguously referring to the country.

There's a short discussion on my talk page for anyone wanting more background.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Globe map

• 
  Blue
• 
  Green

On the blue one French Guyana seems alot more visible. Worth changing it?--SelfQ (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard to see on both. (BTW we may need to add Bonaire etc in the EU colours soon too). Arnoutf (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My preference is for blue - slightly easier to see. Maybe have a (part) circle around French Guyana, though that's arguably more appropriate for island groups? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If we start geographically remote areas, we probably should also find a way to show French Polynesia. Mmmmm, that would mess up things big time, as they are on the other side of the globe. Maybe we should just accept that remote areas are remote and that it is just too bad that they are hard to see. Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

French Polynesia is not part of the EU, so it should not be on the map. to the best of my knowledge, the visible hemisphere of the current globe view covers the entire EU. This article might be able to falsify my statement though. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I hate to be a contrarian but I think I'm partial to the green. That is the colour used on the maps for practically all the country articles, for the sake of consistency alone I think it's the better choice. I also don't think changing the colour makes it much easier to make out French Guiana. TastyCakes (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with blue. It is the color you connect with the EU, if any. Also, French Guyana is more contrasted and thus it is slightly clearer that it is part of the EU. At last, there is no standard for coloring. About half the EU countries are colored orange on locator maps of their articles. The Turkish editors chose red, probably because its some sort of national color to them. Many other countries take red for less obvious (perhaps no) reasons. However, if it remains green, I am fine too. i think it is in deed the most common color. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Green is the de facto standard (although the word 'standard' is of course dangerous on Wikipedia). If the articles of all countries were to follow this logic, China would be red etc. But that hasn't happaned, and I don't see why the case of the EU would allow for special decorative creativity in colours. Not encyclopedic IMO. - SSJ ☎ 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I really like the blue. Better than the green. Europe is blue in the Risk board game, and if thats not a good enough reason then I dont know what is :) Seriously though, the blue looks better in my opinion. --Simonski (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio of Risk/Hasbro is probably a reason not to use blue then...... But I would not stick to much to green either as the EU is not a country. Arnoutf (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer blue to green, however in terms of what we actually use (i.e. ignoring my personal preference!) I'd want to stick with green because (a) it's the closest we have to a standard, and (b) it's iconic of "land", as opposed to blue ("ocean"). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Simonski: Sure, blue isn't a bad colour. But my concern is the uniformity vis-à-vis other articles. Traditional encyclopedias would certainly not play with colours like this. - SSJ ☎ 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Related to this point, I've recently been involved with standardising maps across continents and the maps used use green for land outside the polar regions, and blue (albeit a lighter blue) for land within the polar regions (see e.g. Antartica's new map). I realise that the EU isn't a continent, and we shouldn't necessarily be bound by usage elsewhere, but uniformity is useful. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've seen this discussion, this is to register my preference for the green map for aforementioned reasons. Orthographic maps, by design, distort peripheral territories, so a substantive solution would be to use a map with a different projection. (I'm not advocating for that.) And seeing how there's no apparent consensus to changing it yet, I've restored the green map. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't really argue with most of those points, no problem with sticking with green actually! --Simonski (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

New map

I've recently changed the map of the EU to this one but apparently some editors don't like. Could you please explain your reasons here? Personnally, I prefer the new map for the following reasons:

1. it focuses on the EU countries and so it makes each of them visible even as a thumbnail.
2. It shows the country borders.
3. The French Guyana appears more clearly on it (while it was almost invisible on the previous map)

Laurent (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You might like to browse through the archives, where there have been various discussions of the map, including

• Talk:European Union/Archive 22#Mercator projection
• Talk:European Union/Archive 22#The Orthographic projections

--Boson (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The focus of your map is not acceptable. Why would you obviously make a cut so to include French Guyana while you obviously leave Reunion out? Tomeasy _{T C} 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers - after having read the discussions I'm fine with the current map. How about adding the country borders to it though? Is there any reason why they don't appear on the map? Laurent (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that the decision whether or not to include the borders of the member states is a POV - so or so. The arguments pro and contra the borders are probably also clear, but you might open the jar if you like. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The boarders inside the EU are irrelevant. Fireleaf (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the prior, long-standing orthographic map for aforementioned reasons. In fact, I'm unsure why the EU was changed to blue from green, since most locator maps in use in Wikipedia are green. As such, I've restored this map.

Yet, I am tempted to devise a version exhibiting EU internal borders, since member states retain their individual statehood and this is not unimportant -- alternatively, the EU is not yet a state, and the map should not usurp its member states while it exhibits non-EU countries without qualification. Basically, the map without internal borders gives the impression that the EU is a state on par with others. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Member states' borders are of course not irrelevant, but IMO the infobox map's purpose is to locate the EU in the world. We have a detailed member states' map a quick roll down on the page. Here's a previous discussion on this issue. - SSJ ☎ 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm: then, perhaps the EU map can/should be rendered like the one currently at Europe, without any political borders. Otherwise, it gives a false impression: that, regardless of the map's function, the EU is on par with sovereign states. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's nescessary to analyse the map so tendentiously. The EU is a political body, so I don't see why external political borders are any problem. - SSJ ☎ 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not tendentious: the EU is a political union of member/sovereign states, sine qua non. As does the CIA World Factbook entry for the EU, I believe the locator map herein should also exhibit constituent borders. I'll work on an alternate map. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sovereign states, but here we go again; the EU also has supranational elements (so it's not quite like the 100% intergovernmental NATO). - SSJ ☎ 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting tendentious: these things are not in dispute per se (even though Encyclopaedia Britannica merely refers to the EU as an "international organization"), but the map may be. In essence, there's no reason why the map cannot exhibit the EU's internal borders and still convey its supranational character, just as the CIA World Factbook, etc. does. Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The current map is OK, it's purpose is to show where the European Union is in the world. The detaled map can be seen below. Fireleaf (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that to say the locator map would not be 'OK' with internal borders? I am really not understanding the resistance to including internal borders for EU member states on the locator map, just as it does for adjacent sovereign states and as it does in other compendiums. The fact that internal borders are on maps underneath doesn't obviate their necessity in the locator map; it strengthens the reason why -- consistency. If the mere colour of the territory is sufficient to identify the entity, the map needn't any borders on it. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

New map (after a fashion), w/borders

So, per above, I've refreshed the current EU locator map through the addition of the member state borders; otherwise, it is unchanged:

• 
  SVG map of EU, w/o internal borders
• 
  SVG map of EU, w/ internal borders

So, what's the beef? Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I think I like it more with the internal borders because it is portraying more information. By the same logic I would probably vote to include state and province boundaries in the US and Canadian maps as well, which is clearly not the consensus, so perhaps my opinion should be viewed with that in mind. Although the EU is kind of an odd duck without much to compare it with, perhaps it's worth noting that the African Union's map has internal borders? TastyCakes (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the one with borders, it gives a better sense of the number of countries within the EU and their relative sizes. Laurent (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the country borders included, so that the EU doesn't look like a country. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Piling on) I prefer the borders-included map, though to be honest I think the projection is so cool that either map looks good to me ;-) My rationale for the borders-included map is that it makes it clear that the EU is supra-national (I know there's a more detailed map lower down, but still...) I think for continents we could dispense with countries' borders, but for regional blocs internal borders are helpful and useful. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Enlarged preview to show the map at about infobox-size: --Cybercobra (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the professional quality work that went into these maps, but if you're going to show borders, you'll need to indicate disputed borders separately (e.g. as dotted), or you can count on the maps being shot down over "NPOV". Check out Kosovo, Western Sahara, Israel and Kashmir on google maps (which incidentially isn't bound by NPOV, and unlike Wikipedia would be perfectly free to just show the US-recognized borders). --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes: the Online Map Creator apparently renders maps with a particular set of borders. But, actually, if you didn't notice already, I did include the disputed border for Kosovo in the map (the only one of direct relevance to this map of Europe, essentially, but didn't announce that), and -- sensitive to such issues -- endeavoured to also do so for the retrofit of the Asia orthographic locator map. Nonetheless, the map has since been updated again to reflect the various disputed borders. Still, if this was truly an issue (at least in this instance), it would've been used a while back to shoot down the prior EU orthographic map. So, thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya, the existing map uses the same (disputed) borders outside of the EU, so I don't see its relevance to the current conversation (other than "it'd be better to fix everything at once"). TastyCakes (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the preponderance of opinion in favour of the EU locator map w/ internal borders (arguably a consensus, if one simply 'counts' supporting and dissenting editors in this discussion, and none of the latter since the map w/ borders was presented for review), I've boldly updated the locator map in the article. Thanks all. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not make out that the Kosovo border was indicated in any way differently from other borders. But since this map is for thumbnail use, this question is moot anyway, because there is no way this border shows up at all at thumbnail size. --dab (𒁳) 20:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely moot. One of the advantages of SVG is that it's scalable; it your browser supports SVGs try clicking on the map, then following the link from the description page to the "map-proper" (or just click this link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Locator_European_Union.svg). In my browser (Firefox) images can be zoomed by clicking Control and "+" - normally that's fairly crude, but with SVG the image scales beautifully. If you zoom right in you can see that the Kosovo border is dashed, rather than solid. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Italian more Native speakers than French?

Being the population of Italy smaller than that of France and even if we include the Italian speaking part of Swziterland (Ticino) that cannot match France, Wallonia and the French speaking part of Swtizerland (Geneva) It is evident tha French is more spoken by native speakers than Italian.

And overall, the Italian language is not just spoken less than the French but even less than Spanish also as much more people in Europe stud Spanish than Italian, for obvious reasons as there are 20 nations, with a population of almost 400 million people, where Spanish is the official language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.240.145 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason can be the high number of residents in France speaking a different mother-tongue: Arabic, Occitan, Alsatian, Basque, Breton, Catalan, Corsican, Flemish, Franco-Provençal, Lorraine Franconian, other African languages... but also Italian. In Europe there are 2,166,655 Italian citizens out of Italy (almost all in E.U, and 334,180 are in France). Anyway I remember you Switzerland isn't in the European Union. About Spanish, in the E.U. it is spoken only by Spanish people or Latino-American immigrants (most part in Spain). And in Spain Spanish is spoken maybe by 60% people as mother-tongue only, because there are other languages: Catalan-Valencian (8-9 million), Basque, Galician, Arabic... So if we consider only the mother-tongues in the European Union...--Pascar (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but minority languages also exist in Italy e.g. Sardinian, Sicilian, Venetian etc. True, this is heavily prone to a "but what constitutes a language vs. dialect?" discussion, but I just felt like responding to Pascar's noting of, let's just call them, 'alternative' languages used as mother tongue in various regions of Spain. Although, on the other hand, this use of alternative languages also applies to France and to basically every country within the EU...so it still doesn't add to the discussion of "Italian more Native Speakers than French. LightPhoenix (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Although interesting, the above is speculation and probably original research WP:OR; it is about a good source (which this seems to be rahter than the unverified truth WP:TRUTH. Arnoutf (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with Arnoutf. Let's just find a source use that!—Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

French native speakers represents 68.5 million people (roughly, without Switzerland) - English native speakers are 65 million and Italian native speakers are 60 million. So how is it possible in % we came to "13% English native speakers, 12% French native speakers and 12% Italian native speakers" ? This should be 14% for French, 13% for English and 12% for Italian. I am afraid the data here is corrupted, it definitely needs to be changed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.152.13 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Demonym"

The infobox says that an inhabitant of the EU is known as a "European." And how, pray tell, are we to distinguish an EU denizen from an inhabitant of say, Switzerland or Serbia? The OED is cited as justification--but are we sure it's for the right word? Dawud (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm another sticky situation based on the EU's unique circumstances... I would say it is accurate as a demonym, just as "American" is valid for citizens of the US despite it also being used by other countries (in Latin America, mostly). I'm no expert on the matter, however. Has this been brought up before? TastyCakes (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we do often hear talk of the "European" this or that, when they mean just the EU. On the other hand, the immigration signs at the airports say "EU citizens."Dawud (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

EU citizens are Europeans, so it's an accurate, albeit imprecise, description. Airport immigration can't afford to be imprecise, or we'd be swamped by no-good Swiss citizens, wanting to breeze through our orderly immigration queues into our clean airport terminals. ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is valid. In my 2001 edition of the New Oxford Dictionary of English, sense 2 of European is (p. 634): "of or relating to the European Union: [e.g.] a single European currency". Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact that's even worse--the Eurozone being smaller than the EU. They shouldn't even call it the "euro," they should call it the semi-euro or something!Dawud (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that, since Robert Schuman has so many things named after him, and Jean Monnet comparatively few, that the ECU should have been called the "Monnet" instead of the "Euro". Of course, that's largely because I thought it would be quite amusing to have shop-keepers asking if customers had any "Monnet" ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

As well, speaking of definitions, I find it very unusual that the lead definition of the EU is unsourced; though it is a unique entity and IMO something to behold and aspire to, I have mild issue with its representation and implication of statehood and stature for reasons similar and related to those of the locator map. As such, I have massaged the lead, incorporating sourced dialogue of it being an "international organization" etc. while generally retaining other notions. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding these edits,

• (1) I take exception to describing the EU as a sui generis (i.e., unique) entity without adding a relevant source (not done) in favour of a clutch of sourced definitions; in and of itself (in the infobox), it is an insufficient description of the type of government, particularly when a number of sources do describe it as something more comprehensible (e.g., international organization (which is otherwise not even noted in this article), union, partnership, association of states, confederation, what have you).
• (2) As well, in promulgating a certain viewpoint, I am curious why said editors insinuated an arguably misplaced link for "union": this somewhat defeats the purpose of recent referenced edits, though undoubtedly there are other sources to draw upon; relatedly, there is already a bona fide link for 'union' (the failure to link to by said editors is also curious), and an international organization is not necessarily a synonym.
  

If you're going to make such edits, please have the courtesy to buttress them with references and explain as I have. My goal is to develop an equitable and sourced description of what the EU is in the lead, given the various sources indicating this and that. So, I'm open to suggestions. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And, regarding this edit by Lear21, please have the decency to use the talk page to prove your points. I'm fairly easy regarding content, but your lack of discussion while reverting smacks of POV-pushing and your blanking of references is arguably vandalism, which won't be tolerated. Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The longstanding lead sentence claiming a "economic and political union" reflects the current state of the EU. A newly introduced term "international organization" describes the status quo not in a sufficient way. The former lead was approved by several highly credible editors and is the result of monthlong discussions. The former version has been stable for more than a year now. Any altering of the introduction must therefore be discussed at the talk page first. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How many things are wrong with this comment? Arguably, the prior introduction did not equitably reflect the EU's current status, since other reputable publications (and fairly obvious ones) have been presented to describe it as something else. Curiously, nowhere else in the article is the EU described as an international organisation, which I believe says something. Despite reported input from 'highly credible editors' (which is irrelevant), the prior lead is also unsourced: I guess the editors missed a step or two. Moreover, your blanking of references simply because you don't like the content doesn't fly and smacks of POV-pushing. And, note that I initiated discussion, which you saw fit to ignore through your initial revert. So, no, the burden of proof is on you and supporters to justify why the prior lead should remain unchanged given the above. Or, we can add a nice big neutrality tag atop the article until this settles. Take your pick. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition of the United States in the intro also seems to be currently unsourced.--Boson (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My recollection of previous discussions is that, although "international organization" was regarded as one valid definition of the EU (one point of view), there was no consensus to regard this as a neutral point of view, because it did not, for instance, adequately represent the supranational, rather than international, elements. That the EU is a supranational organization is a view represented, for instance, by the CIA factbook:

The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 27 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history. [. . .] Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations [. . . ]

Perhaps one could cite the CIA Factbook as well as the EU source ("unique economic and political partnership between 27 democratic European countries") and restore the version that reflected the previous consensus arrived at after numerous and lengthy discussions. I think sui generis adequately reflects "unique" and "unprecedented phenomenon".

--Boson (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Boson. First, one thing at a time: I can't speak to the point about the United States; that article is not at issue, but perhaps should be. Notably, it isn't a featured article, perhaps partially for that reason.

As well, the fact that the EU is supranational is not in dispute and is iterated in the 3rd paragraph of introduction -- in fact, this seems a flourish of 'international organization' (which is not noted anywhere else in this article despite citation). (The article 'supranational union', where 'supranational organization' redirects, seems rather lacking too.) Ditto for it being a sui generis entity (which I acknowledged upfront): while this is perhaps apt in the lead (though I would prefer the layman "unique", per Europa), I believe it to be unnecessary upfront (as it's obvious), and can be noted below (e.g., at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph); as well, in the infobox, it is insufficient to describe the type of government this way given other options. Lastly, consensus isn't static, and I do not believe a mere restoration of the prior lead is sufficient at this point and justifies unreferenced minimalism, since other reputable sources very clearly indicate other things to describe the EU: e.g., the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries respectively describe the EU as an 'economic and political association of ... countries' and as an 'economic, scientific, and political organization' -- this predicated my edits and inclusion of the 'integration' link.

I would welcome integrating the various sources into a more equitable introduction. Apropos, how about this:

• The European Union (EU) is a supranational organisation of 27 member states primarily in Europe that is committed to regional economic and political unification....

I changed 'integration' to 'unification', mindful of the prior notation of 'union' in the lead, but believe the link is apt to describe one of the EU's main goals. And, the 3rd paragraph would begin as:

• A unique partnership without parallel in modern history,[CIA link][Europa link] the EU operates through a hybrid system of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism....

Or similar. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should leave the old version until we can achieve a new consensus with a much larger number of participants. I appreciate your efforts, and I personally, would probably support some of your suggestions. However, as I remember it, the previous version was the result of lengthy and sometimes heated debate that resulted in a version that everybody could more or less live with, even though most people found some of their own views (each supported by some sources) not adequately represented. Without checking in detail (I don't know if I can bear to go through all the debates again), it is my impression that the suggested changes are reiterating positions already discussed interminably before. There really is a reason for referring to the frequently asked questions at the top of the talk page, though it should perhaps read "frequently repeated edit wars ". --Boson (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not concur. I challenge the prior lead largely because it is unsourced and, per above, seems inequitable on valid policy grounds. (I would think that editors would've previously referenced the lead to preclude a recurrence of whatever issues.) The current lead may be imperfect, admittedly, but less so than its predecessor. If major English publications define something as X (and the current lead does hark of them), why should Wikipedia opt to describe it, perhaps, as Y? I read the FAQ section, and it does not justify vagaries or inaction: besides, there appears little specific talk in support of the prior lead (i.e., only limited mention of it being a union as described, despite the obvious). I just emerged from an unnecessarily drawn out discussion on this very talk page regarding the locator map for what I deem to be related reasons: undue emphasis on the EU's unique nature, while deprecating other valid notions. I also appreciate your engagement; so, let's move on and discuss, and others can weigh in if they choose to. Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, how about this:

• The European Union (EU) is a supranational polity of 27 member states primarily in Europe that is committed to regional economic and political unification....

As for 'supranational polity' (with the latter term 'polity' referring to any political organization or group, used particularly in political science) to describe the EU, there are numerous references online.[6][7][8][9] This version has the advantage of being equitable (given the meaning of polity, which is applicable to organisations and countries), but being slightly more esoteric (which is remedied through an appropriate link). Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the old version was much better. The EU is not an international organization. Not anymore. Nowadays it has more features comparable to an integrated state. The version from Bosonic dressing sounds weak in my eyes. I also don´t think that the so called purpose "committed to regional...." belongs in the lead. KJohansson (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sources clearly disagree with your assessment about the EU not being an international (also supranational) organization (provided above), which is not to deny it may also be other things. Perhaps it will move beyond its current status once the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all members. And as for the purpose of the EU in the lead, compare with the lead for the United Nations, though suggestions are invited. The current lead is no 'weaker' than the unsourced, arguably subjective introduction which has prevailed for some time. This is precisely the point I'm trying to highlight. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• The European Union (EU) is a monetary, economic and political union...

Don't you think this is the best way to describe the EU? And you don't need sources to prove it, everyone knows it. The European Union is a UNION!!! Fireleaf (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the EU more like a country. It's definitely not an "organisation". Fireleaf (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No: I don't think the prior long-standing lead is the best way to describe the EU, hence this discussion. What you or I see the EU as is not relevant per se: it's what reliable and reputable publications equitably indicate that matter. I think I've addressed your points above: notably, why link 'union' when an article entitled 'union' already exists? And, if it isn't an 'organisation' (despite the fact that some reliable references say precisely that), why link to an article about that topic? Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The now well established term "economic and political union" was the outcome of an in depth arguing over the status of the European Union. Several longterm EU-Wiki-editors from many countries have agreed or accepted that. The outcome reflects the current status of the EU being something different than an "international organization". To be more precisely, the high degree of European integration sets the EU apart from any other so called "organization". In fact, the EU has many state-like characteristics like a parliament, general elections, a currency, a seat at G8 summits etc. The term "organization" therefore can not describe the situation sufficiently. Please stick to the discussion at the talk page first in order to avoid a destabilized articles´appearance. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeating the same rhetoric will not get us anywhere. Your continued POV-pushing and blanking of references in support of an unsourced, arguably inequitable introduction will not be tolerated. As well, you obviously haven't kept track of the discussions above, which are dealing with all the aforementioned issues; your reversions, well, don't at all but seek to sweep the issue aside. This isn't going away. If you don't want a 'destabilised article's appearance', which you decided to adopt when you reverted initially without discussion and blanked references, edit more constructively. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here? It seems that none has supported the Bosonic dressing changes yet. I count four editors against. The third paragraph sounds now like an advertisement but not like an encyclopedia. I also don´t see the necessity in the lead to emphasize the supranational element. This part is explained in the third paragraph. BTW, the EU is not only supranational. I´m still convinced that the EU is more like a state and not anymore a simple organization. Can somebody stop this nonsense? KJohansson (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what is going on here? This is not a gang-up, or a rule by majority, or a promo piece. What you or other editors are 'convinced' of is not necessarily relevant, since you and other editors have provided NO sources to support the prior lead and have been generally unconvincing. Why do you insist on treating the EU falsely like the United States of America or the United States of Europe? It is not a state, though it does have some of those elements which is not in dispute. Your argument about its stature has been refuted, yet you persist in pushing it onto the rest of us? We can yet return to describing the EU in the lead, as sourced, as an 'international organization' or something comparable, but the prior lead is insufficient as it was for aforementioned reasons. I'm trying to work towards a more equitable and sourced lead and see little reason to refrain from editing boldly, and your biased armchair criticism is almost bordering on insulting. Yes, let's stop the nonsense: get off your high horse, make germane commentary, and compel. And if you can't or won't, withdraw. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please consult the FAQ section first before making further amendments: [10] The text of the FAQ was written by several editors others than myself. Right now there seems to be no reason to reopen discussions concerning the introduction. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Per above. Your continued blanking of references, including your edit warring (both recent and not [11]) and the apparent intransigence of some commentators, signifies precisely why this is currently an issue -- I have reopened it, and it will not go away. If you continue to push your POV and vandalise the article, you will be reverted without further comments; if you do not start editing constructively, this matter will escalate. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Consensus can change after all... --Cybercobra (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I´m sorry BD, as it stands you have neither convinced the majority nor myself. The lead should help to describe the auctual nature of the EU. To call the EU an organization is not enough. The third paragraph sounds like original research and is marketing speech. I also think that your approach is not supported by Wikipedia Netiquette itself. One thing to think about for you; it should be no surprise that an article of this importance has already undergone thouroughly discussions. As I understand it, your arguments are nothing new to the audience here. Probably it is this circumstance that make some others here more stoic and ignorant. KJohansson (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can indeed change, but I have not yet seen any evidence to that effect. One editor does not a consensus make. In my opinion, the old version should be retained until a new consensus can be demonstrated. In other words, the discussion should be conducted here, not by edits to the artcle page of this very widely read article. One of the main problems is that there are conflicting attempted classifications of the EU; this is to be expected with sui generis entities. Other publications can use any one of these because they are not bound by WP:NPOV. In my opinion, the old version is supported by the sources, though that version apparently avoided the exact wording of certain sources to avoid adopting one of the conflicting points of view. I would suggest retaining/restoring the old version but, possibly, retaining/adding the references, which in fact do not contradict the old version, bearing in mind WP:NPOV. The text should, in my opinion, not prejudge (for instance) the differing views of EU governance as supranational rather than international, or of the EU as an organization rather than a geo-political entity with geographical extent and external borders. It should also not imply that the EU is a sovereign state; nor should it imply that the EU does not have elements of statehood. --Boson (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, to kJ, a number of references clearly support the content -- you simply don't like the content, given your explicitly stated opinion above about the stature of the EU. I don't need to convince you, since references do that; I don't think I can convince you. And, you have so not convinced me. As well, an article of this importance (not a featured one, I might add) must have references to buttress content. If my approach is not supported by Wikiquette, which is doubtful given that I've been referencing my edits and discussing them, your fairweather commentary and blanking of references definitely is not. Your vandalism won't be tolerated, and has been corrected.

As well, to Boson and perhaps others, consensus (which is debatable and, in this case, perhaps groupthink) cannot trump verification and neutrality issues per policy. What seems more at work is a consensus to not reference claims in accordance with policy: it is contingent on those wishing to retain content to justify it. I yet see no reason why a definition/description was arrived at and left unreferenced for amity and stability, and recent editorial behavior is disconcerting. Despite its name, a union implies a degree of stature which is misleading given the unreferenced context: even the Europa website describes the EU as a partnership. So, either the current lead must be referenced, the lead must be changed equitably and referenced, or (through the actions of a few POV warriors) the lead is and has been partial and neutrality is trying to be swept under the rug. Given the clear intransigence of a couple of the assembled editors, I believe discussion with them would be futile. Thus, I've restored the references and changed lead with one minor change. If the blanking of references persists, I may yet add neutrality tags to the article which will require action and response ... and these won't be removed until this is settled. It may also be prudent to widely advertise the neutrality issues regarding content (i.e., seeking added input), with the intent of developing something more equitable. So, there you go. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• The European Union (EU) is a sui generis economic and political partnership of 27 member states...

I have changed the lead sentence and also added the source/reference to it. It's actually from the European Union's official website so I think it's a very reliable source. Fireleaf (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, didn't I add the Europa reference?  ;) Anyhow, I applaud you for trying to work with what's there, rather than reverting and blanking references because you didn't like it. I've made some tweaks, and have added other sourced notions below (which are simply some of the references which were already added). The Europa link notes "unique", and it does seem obvious to describe it as that upfront since many scholars believe it simply to be a unique IGO. Therefore, I am moving this down to the beginning of the third paragraph; per this reference:

• In practical terms, the EU is perhaps still best characterised as a ‘supranational organisation sui generis’: this term has proved relatively uncontroversial in respect of national constitutional sensitivities, being at the same time capable of embracing new facets of integration.

There. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some links to previous discussions (though many discussions were conducted via edit summaries:

Talk:European Union/Archive 1#sui generis
Talk:European Union/Archive 2#Country?
Talk:European Union/Archive 5#Confederation?
Talk:European Union/Archive 6#Sui generis
Talk:European Union/Archive 6#EU sui generis????
Talk:European Union/Archive 9#remove "intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism"?
Talk:European Union/Archive 10#New intro paragraph
Talk:European Union/Archive 10#Introduction
Talk:European Union/Archive 11#Intro reverts by Lear 21
Talk:European Union/Archive 11#Rewrote intro
Talk:European Union/Archive 11#Support for Introduction
Talk:European Union/Archive 12#Is the European Union a supranational body?
Talk:European Union/Archive 13#Sui generis
Talk:European Union/Archive 15#Lede
Talk:European Union/Archive 15#Sui generis
Talk:European Union/Archive 16#Requesting mediation
Talk:European Union/Archive 16#Get over it
Talk:European Union/Archive 17#community of states
Talk:European Union/Archive 18#INTRODUCTION political and economic community=confederation
Talk:European Union/Archive 18#proposal for intro : loose confederation
Talk:European Union/Archive 18#editorial proposal for intro :use of the term "loose confederation" or "very loose confederation" or "extremly loose" or "very very loose" or ....
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#The EU is an NGO
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#Editorial proposal: "loose confederation"
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#Introduction
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#sui generis supernationalism
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#Intro (again)
Talk:European Union/Archive 20#A de facto federation?
Talk:European Union/Archive 21#Propose change for the lead
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#Intergouvermentalism of the EU council
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#Supranationalism and intergovermentalism in "the EU"
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#intro again Supranational union
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#"Economic and political union" – a mistake?
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#EU first economical-political being in the world

Some of this discussion reflects debate in the ´wider world, as reflected in the sources.--Boson (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

break

The longestablished leading sentence was restored. A reference from user Bosonic dressing was added. Other newly introduced parts were put to the 3. para, where the nature and the purpose of the EU is explained. All new refs have been kept. @Bosonic dressing: Please trim the new references in number and in quality. Right now, they are not complying the standard format. Otherwise they will be removed again. One comment regarding the sui generis term: in the past, this was a much discussed issue. Future conflicts about this are very likely. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And your edits will be cancelled somewhat. The Europa reference doesn't support the prior lead verbatim. Also curious is the lack of a link to 'union' in the lead. The references are both clear and authoritative; you are not. I have no intention of trimming references to satisfy your desire to retain an imperfect introduction. Your recent edits have made the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph nonsensical. Lastly, at least three editors have recently made changes or have commented regarded the prior lead; of assembled commentators, that translates to a lack of consensus for the prior lead. In fact, a perusal of links above doesn't really demonstrate a clear consensus regarding the lead at all. Lastly, you have a clear pattern of edit warring and article ownership issues, and you will be reported if you persist. Be more collaborative. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How about introducing this authoritative ref... ? Barroso: European Union is 'empire'  :) all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Boson, for providing references to support the prior lead. They are no more or less valid than others recently added in support of other notions about the stature of the EU. Apropos, enough sources do not describe it as such that notable alternates also w/multiple, non-tertiary sources must also be included in introduction, which is simply a rejigging of references and text recently added. This should settle the matter ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell, I missed a fair bit here. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the original lead text of the Article reflected a long drawn out, well compromised agreement between numerous editors of varying views, as Lear pointed out. I do not agree with the majority of Bosonic's comments (and of course, as tradition must have it, some of Lear's either). The EU remains an organisation built upon a mixture of supranational and intergovernmental governance (I have to say I find it difficult to consider the Council, the major player that it is, a supranational institution given the politicking and maneuvering at the national level that goes on within it - completely different from the pan-European approach that the Commission takes) and it certainly is not controversial to label it "sui generis", as the majority of respected commentators do. I would oppose any changes to the lead as I think the way it was was absolutely fine and am not convinced by any of the arguments raised. --Simonski (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I should note though that clearly people are not going to put it back to what it was, certainly at the time of reading the lead now, whoever made the last edit made it slightly acceptable, bar the combined GDP/Population sentence which I tweaked. So to save more pointless discussion, I'll say I can live with its current state (last edit being by TFOWR at 14:37 at the time of writing) Again, I'm sure we've had this problem before that it is written to suggest that the EU is always taken together as far as calculating GDP and population goes, which it is not. I understand my tweaking of this sentence may not be perfect but you will get the point of what I was trying to fix I hope. --Simonski (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My ears are burning ;-) Lest I be accused of improving the article, I should point out that my edit was simply reverting vandalism. I'm too much of an ignoramus to have a view on the lede. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, well it was probably still more productive than half the recent edits to the page have been anyway. I should say one last thing though - this sentence "committed to regional integration" sticks out like a sore thumb and should be changed. What is it supposed to mean - "European Integration" could mean so many things - it could mean commitment to the free market, something more, commitment to a federal European state (which as the German supreme court has assured us all, it is not)... it has to be changed or clarified as its too open ended/POV. --Simonski (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The prior introduction may have been an agreeable compromise but it was unsourced and arguably partial ... given the preponderance of sources that describe the EU as something else, it still is not ideal but it is acceptable with collateral edits for current purposes. It is interesting to point out that the most vocal opponents as of late to changing the introduction are avowed supporters of the EU (per their user pages). But I digress ...

As for 'regional integration', it is no more or less 'POV' than asserting the EU is a 'union' vis-à-vis other things. One of the EU's goals is to effect further economic and political integration throughout Europe (but 'economic and political' would be odd to iterate after being mentioned in the 1st sentence) -- the linked article sufficiently elaborates. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, perhaps. I'm afraid I would have to respectfully disagree, strongly. It is just too open ended a term, and leaving the reader to go and pick up a copy of Craig and DeBurca to figure out what sort of regional integration you are talking about is ill advised I would say. The lead should be able to provide a far better snapshot of what the EU is than this particular statement does. The African Union also aims at regional integration, but an altogether different sort - again I would argue against this sentence you have chosen to include.

As a sidepoint, I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not, but actually the previous lead was constructed by a number of editors of varying views from on one side the very pro-EU such as Lear and Solberg, to those in the middle such as Arnoutf, Logan and co, to the more sceptical such as myself and Sandpiper. A lack of references can be addressed pretty easily without a need for a huge overhaul. --Simonski (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can agree to disagree. A visitor does not need to consult a volume to figure out what is meant -- that is partially why it is linked, and the rest of the introduction expands on this. It is interesting you note the AU, the introduction for which notes it as an 'intergovernmental organisation'.

And, yes, in my opinion. The introduction, and the article frankly, could stand from additional scrutiny. I guess referencing important content escaped the hordes when they conceived and agreed upon this introduction? Given the recurrence of this, it is debatable that the lead arrived at is satisfactory and consensual. Anyhow ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically under the rules of Wikipedia I could make a big stink about this and we'd have to come to a consensus on the "regional integration" sentence but I'm happy enough to wait until the next incoming editor raises a problem with the lead, which inevitably will happen - then the tweaks that have been made can be re-addressed.

My referencing the AU was not with regards to the Wikipedia page, which I did not even check before making my point - it was a simple point, that the AU also aims at regional integration (this is fact, which you do not need to go to the Wikipedia page for, you may be surprised to hear) - yet it is a very different type/form of regional integration from the EU. Again, my argument was that "regional integration" is too open-ended a phrase to be used in the lead.

A final point as well - let us not forget that it was really only yourself Bosonic who had any problem with the lead that had been used for probably half a year now in a page that is heavily edited/visited by Wikipedia users. You can see yourself as the saviour of the lead if you wish but don't kid yourself that anybody really had an issue with it until you popped up and tried to give it a major overhaul. --Simonski (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a work in progress. Second, the phrase is appropriate in the lead to succinctly communicate one of the major goals of the EU, which is also a work in progress. Comparison with the AU can be skinned any number of ways.

Lastly, if my experience is any indication, given the skewed content, POV-pushing, and apparent self-aggrandizing of some of the editors involved, it's clear that most editors have avoided the unpleasantness of even touching this article or the lead to begin with. Proposed edits have been relatively insignificant in the grand scheme, with the hope of arriving at something more balanced through discussion, and reactions have been and are generally inflamed. (A major overhaul? Please...) I suppose there's a reason why this article is not a featured article, and I can thankfully take no credit for that. So, on that note, I'm ending this rather fruitless discussion. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point that I keep making; that a number of editors with varying views regarding the EU have been active in editing this page/the lead. How then, the edits/arguments can be said to be POV, is beyond me. And I think you'll find that any edit/change to the lead is by default "significant", it being arguably one of if not the most important part of any Wikipedia article. If you can point out what "skewed"/POV content you are actually referring to, then that would be fantastic. Otherwise, perhaps it is indeed best to end your fruitless discussion, having seemingly read an entirely different article from the majority of us.

Quite handy also I should add that your supporters are the "silent majority"... a cynic might just conclude instead that you actually had no supporters (something another editor noted early on in the discussion). Sadly due to the consensus model of Wikipedia editing you had to be entertained. --Simonski (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your diatribe has been read. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite fitting. Your reply is about as useful as your recent edits have been. --Simonski (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Iceland's parliament voted to join EU

On July 16th, the Icelandic parliament voted to join the European Union, in part of the country's severe economic crisis last year and the adaptation of the Euro as the country's single official currency to repair the damages caused by bankruptcy. Here's the resource on Yahoo News for July 16 2009. [url/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_eu] + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead, first paragraph

I don't know whether its following all the recent tweaks but I feel that we should still mantain a balanced lead that does not lean towards one specific view regarding the EU (ie. Pro/anti). I raised concern earlier about the sentence "The EU encompasses a population of 500 million and generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product.".. I have been adding to the sentence "Together the EU encompasses", something Lear obviously disagrees with. I could be wrong but I think this issue was discussed ages ago and a compromise was reached so I don't know what has happened since, whether somebody edited the lead to change the tone or what.

I understand that as far as Wikipedia goes, despite not being a country, the EU's GDP is listed amongst countries. However, when the EU is included in such lists as population or GDP there is always specific attention drawn to the fact that it is not a country, instead comprised of 27 countries itself. Basically, without similar emphasis in the lead as to the fact that the figures reached are taken from when all EU countries are counted together I am not happy with the tone of the first paragraph of the lead. Considering how well constructed a compromise has been reached elsewhere, I would have hoped that simply adding "Together" would have ended the issue. This is considering the fact that now I remember it, the compromise was including the figures in the first place!!!

And to save the effort of the same source being cited, can we leave the CIA factbook out of this one. I couldn't care less what it says. If the GDP/Population figures are to remain in the intro then they should be subject to the same sort of compromise that was originally reached to retain them --Simonski (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The longstanding version was: With almost 500 million citizens, the EU combined generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product. Because in economic terms the EU is seen as highly coherent, SINGLE entity, there seems no need to emphasize a "togetherness". all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the longstanding version is definitely the most sensible solution. I have no problem with the version you just restored it to Lear. Problem solved. --Simonski (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Benelux

The Benelux Customs Union from 1944 and its forerunner, the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union from 1921 were at least direct precursors to the European Coal and Steel Community from 1951. Similarly, the Benelux Parliament from 1955 foreshadowed the European Parliament from 1979. I find the omission of any mention of Benelux in this article to be glaring. Somebody, please explain its absence. :)--Thecurran (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it? If so I have not heard of it in that explicit terms. To put it in we need a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Benelux Customs Union is covered in another article (in fact, Benelux Customs Union redirects to European integration). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Benelux is specifically mentioned in the intro to European Coal and Steel Community. I believe it was treated as such in the 2001 CIA World Factbook appendix on international entities, too. :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In the coal steel community article, it is only mentioned in the passing, to identify Netherlands Belgium and Luxembourg. No further claims about Benelux are made; so I am not sure what the relevance of that single mentioning is to this article. furthermore, Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources.

I cannot find relevant mention to Benelux in the CIA factbook, but please provide a relevant direct link to discuss whether that contains information relevant to this article. Arnoutf (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

n/a infobox

Do the infobox need to have the n/a, when the list of countries have EU listed? Jørgen88 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to use an archival bot for this talkpage

I propose that we get a bot to archive this talkpage automatically. Using the following config:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(2m)
|archive = Talk:European Union/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 24
|maxarchivesize = 175K
}}

— Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To proposal. Yes please

194etc. Why oppose? These scripts only archive threads that have been inactive for a while; moving inactive discussion to an archive is generally accepted, and necessary to keep a talk page operational. Arnoutf (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support--Boson (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I added the bot a couple of weeks ago. I used a 90-day waiting period, so the effect hasn't been drastic.

—WWoods (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

90 days puts us in early May. The last manual archiving was more recent, so the bot should not have yet kicked in ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has ... 65k worth. page history: /Archive 23 —WWoods (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Aargh stupid me. Of course with the bot in place there should not be stuff older than 90 days........since that is what the bot archives. At least I didn't notice the bot as something bad (if at all ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now I see. The oldest stuff on the page is from May. Given that the page is still rather large what about trying a 45 day period instead of a 90 day one? If the archiving is going to work properly it needs to keep the page at a more managable size. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A shorter period makes sense to me. I put it at 90 initially 'cause I figured that was so long as to be uncontroversial.

What does 194x... think about reducing it to 60 or 45 days?

—WWoods (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

45 days sounds good to me. 1 1/2 month inactivity on a talk page as active as this one should be a sign of a dead topic. Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Good, I've set the interval to 45 days. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

EU superpower

EU has the status of superpower that you should add in the presentation.If EU hasn't the status of superpower (check datas) Usa is neither a power.This should be written in the EU presentation and in the articles of Wikipedia "Emerging superpower" and "Superpower"(The same Wikipedia warns about the low level of the articles).These articles are so ridiculous to set Wikipedia in a very low level.Nobody today (except US citizens trust these articles).Now and for the next years the majority of scientists and writers consider EU the main superpower.The problem is that EU people is quiet,while US people set in Wikipedia a lot of PROPAGANDA.Anyway liars have short legs!151.60.118.143 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously support the EU 100%. --Boson (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm objective.And you? In this crisis EU (also after the Yes to Lisbon Trarty in Ireland in Fall)is the only superpower .Check datas and everithig suggests that or EU is the main superpower or EU is a simple superpower and Usa aren't anymore a superpower.I travel and studied a lot.The US PROPAGANDA has legs shorter and shorter ,the theatre is fallen.151.60.117.188 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

evidence (in the form of reliable sources) please. Arnoutf (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It only needs to see the datas in Wikipedia.In the majority of the lists you can see that EU is superior vs Usa.It's so clear that only a guy that isn't able to read can't understand.It's very evident.151.60.118.176 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to a reliable source describing the EU as a superpower? I can read just fine, but if I, as an editor of Wikipedia, describe the EU as a superpower it would be original research - we need a reliable third-party to describe the EU as a superpower, so we can cite them. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And even that may not necessarily suffice. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia presents mainstream accepted scientific view. If there is a debate in the academic world whether the EU is a superpower we cannot say more than that there is disagreement whether to label EU superpower or not (and that statement alone does require a scientific source for both positions). Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

there are a lot of writings on EU as superpower.One of them is "The United States of Europe:the new superpower and the end of american supremacy" written by T.R. Ried J.J. Myers ,December 2004 This is an example .The guys like you if they look for reality and not for other things should look for bringing up to date the data of EU vs the world.The EU is without doubt superior to Usa if you check all datas.Only the presentations in Wikipedia ("Superpower" and "Emerging Superpower") are stedy in the past.Propaganda is now made only by Usa presentations.That's sure!Nobody fight US PROPAGANDA and this isn't honest.If you need more books for set EU as superpower i can suggest you much more.I've seen that usa are considered superpower with only 1-2 references in "emerging superpower" of Wikipedia.151.60.116.96 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Our role here isn't to "fight US propaganda" (living in the UK I tend to focus more on fighting British propaganda - like "our elected representatives deserve swimming pools paid for by the tax-payer"), but rather to report verifiable claims. If the mainstream view is that the EU is a super-power, we'll cite those sources that make that claim. If you can provide references from the mainstream media that would be great. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

EU is considered as superpower also in US media such as CNN.Many writers and the majority of scientists consider EU the main superpower today.I can suggest you also more books as references:i don't like propaganda for EU and i also dislike Us propaganda.I want only to set the things as well (not to me ,as other people do in Wikipedia very easily).I'm not able to set directly here the references,anyway i'll set them if you need as soon as possible with the help of my friends.Anyway you can ask me at the moment also more books about EU as superpower.151.60.116.96 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a two claims above: 1) CNN considers EU a superpower. Please link to the article by CNN with that exact quote. 2) The majority of scientists consider EU the superpower today. There are several million scientists in the world. Please provide a reliable majority vote of these (And to be fair, I'll let you off the hook and only ask for a majority vote of all political scientists (still probably over 100,000)). Without such references your remarks are only dogmatic ranting. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll set the references as soon as possible .Also you could look for them to set in Wikipedia a real situation.I wrote that i'll set the references.Instead of criticizing like a disruptive NOMAN (you say your "no" before and this is not good for your ojectivity) help in the work otherwise you're unuseful.Be aware to be not offensive or sarcastic. Anyway you must wait as i wrote for references ,are you blind? Can you show me the references and the criterias that allow Usa(THAT EU OVERTAKES IN THE MAJORITY OF WORLD RANKINGS) to be a superpower at the same time?I want to read a joke!At the end with some criterias only Us people will read Wikipedia in english.Anyway my main aim is to make clear a situation not very clear at all in some Wikipedia presentations.151.60.119.253 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to read sources on the point and come to a view on whether it should be included then. I think that summarises the position of most editors here. If you want to make claims such as these you should come equipped with the evidence to prove it BEFORE you expect people to go along with it. Also, your talk of US propaganda/lies and whether the US is a superpower are irrelevant here and undermine the strength of your argument. This is not a place to dispel what YOU perceive to be US propaganda. You also make sweeping generalisations such as "Nobody today (except US citizens trust these articles)", which make me doubt your unverified assertions elsewhere. I am not a US citizen, and I have no reason to distrust these articles.

Being rude to people who are simply asking you to prove what you assert is unpleasant and is unlikely to improve your argument. Lwxrm (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My dear the same Wikipedia warns you about these 2 articles about superpower.I heard novels when i was a child. In Wikipedia there are a lot of things presented without objectivity ,above all when we talk about presentation linked to today policy.People aren't stupid to understand it.Anyaway i'll set here the references about EU as superpower.Which are the criterias to write that Usa is a superpower? In the majority of ranking lists EU is ALWAYS superior vs Usa.The rest it's only lost time to speak.Buy $ for next years,and you'll have a lot of paper in your pockets!No idea.My aim is to set these references.151.60.118.161 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No evidence. No point Arnoutf (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, this is not US wikipedia article. Nor is it the superpower wikipedia article. Nor is it a forum for rantings about currency. It is the discussion page for the EU article. You have raised a point and been asked to verify it. Until you add some new argument or produce the references to it I will not respond further here. Lwxrm (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So how can you define if EU is a superpower or not? How can Usa be declared a superpower?Which are the criterias? If we talk about EU we must know also if it is a superpower as lot of people say or write.The same must be checked in the articles.I wait my friends to set the right references.Now wait please.151.60.117.72 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop feeding this troll? TastyCakes (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You want to stop me in setting references.You are without doubts a Us citizen. I wrote to wait.What do you want ?151.60.118.82 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Time to archive? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. TastyCakes (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to me and the most of part of EU people that aren't Us propaganda man like you.151.60.119.119 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

100% EU people that aren't "Us propaganda man" are all one indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer, with a penchant for trolling, particularly making uncited claims, then promising supporting references that never quite seem to materialise. Blaming US propaganda on their inability to get anyone to agree with them is another aspect of this strange character's nature. The sock puppet investigation referenced above ("Time to archive?") gives more details on this recurring pest. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an old way (not very clever in the long time) to stop uncomfortable people by continuous and disruptive sentences.You're talking about something or somebody that i don' know .I prefer to talk about article "EU" instead of losing time with you.151.60.117.41 (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually have anything you'd like to discuss about improving the article? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No because i've seen your partial position in the other edit about EU spuperpower.It means that also many other people think similar to me .It's a defeat for you and official Wikipedia partial ideas ( at the source controlled by US citizens).Your nation doesn't matter and you can't prove the real nationality of everibody.That's all.151.60.117.41 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's pointless. If you have nothing to say then say nothing (i.e. don't post). Incidentally, you do realise that the vast majority of regular posters here are EU citizens? I'm not; I'm a New Zealand citizen. Sorry to rain on your conspiracy-parade. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Considering the negative nature of the EU and all the criticism that exists regarding it one has to ask if the whitewash that it receives in this article is appropriate and if it shouldn't at least have a criticism section?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See: Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions Arnoutf (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• SupportSTRONG!!! SUPPORT Adding a criticism section to the article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• strongly oppose critisism section per the arguments somewhere in the archives, and summarised in the FAQ section. I.e. my vote is to maintain long standing consensus not to add a critisism section. Arnoutf (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Criticism sections can sometimes be OK if they are focused, but if criticism is of a general nature, over a range of different issues, it is best to parcel the critical coverage out to the different sections. I am also questioning whether the request here is being made in good faith in light of the diffs [12] and [13]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think there should be a criticism section (just as there is no "criticism" section of Canada despite many Quebecers wanting to separate) but I think there are important elements that fall out of the criticism that may warrant mention. I'm thinking specifically about countries not ratifying the constitution in popular votes and such. TastyCakes (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: is it wrong to consider supporting this proposal purely because of this? (looks innocent, slinks away). Seriously, though - don't agree with a criticisms section (per WP:UNDUE), do agree with incorporating notable "flak", per TastyCakes. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose critisism section. It is very probable that it would become a troll magnet. The issue has been discussed at length. See the result of the discussions in th FAQ.--Boson (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This "it's been discussed throw a FAQ at em" attitude is most disturbing. Just because the section wasn't agreed upon at some earlier time doesn't mean that we can't agree to create it now. As for these troll magnet predictions they are not really appropriate. I realize that the editing of this article is dominated by proEU people but I do not really think that the existence of the EU is justifiable and I know that there are many people out there that feel the same way as I do, should our voices simply be silenced because of political correctness and corruption? How would that be in any way fair?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the FAQ is that regular contributors get fed up with going over things again and again and again. Please read the archives and the Wikipedia page on criticism sections. I won't repeat all the arguments here, because they are already there if you can be bothered to read them. --Boson (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict Boson) Comment - recomment. It is not that the section was not agreed upon earlier - it was actively decided that critisism should be topic wise and not a stand alone section.

All your following comments show that you are out there to give an anti EU view; how is that neutral?? To maintain neutrality of view is exactly why there is no critisism section. Following the same outlook "do not really think that the existence of XXX is justifiable" a critisism section towards the USA or Israel (or any non muslim country for that matter) from Taliban/Al Qaeda point of view could be suggested.

This issue has been discussed in depth. It has even been deemed important enough to preserve the outcome as FAQ to give new editors like you an overview rather than an even less satisfactory "Find it somewhere in 1 megabyte of archive". It is not the task of established editors to repeat a discussion, it is the task of a new editor to familiarise oneself with the history of the page (i.e. read talk page archives).

In short, just accept there will not be a separate critisism section. Arnoutf (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to compare those who oppose the EU to Al Qaeda members or members of other terrorist organizations and I hope that this is not the general opinion of the EU supporters that edit this article. You do however make some valid points but I nor anyone else is obliged to accept that there will not be a criticism section, this matter is now under discussion and we'll see how consensus evolves.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information. Standing consensus is that there is no critisism section. You will need to organise consensus (and consensus is preferrably anonimousunanimous) there should be such a section. As it stands now 4 editors explicitly are against critisim section; a fifth prefers parcelling critisism out per topic; but has not explicitly stated being against (nor in favour) of a critisism section (as it is currently done, and discussed as such in FAQ) and only 1 (194x..) in favour. To achieve true consensus the supporter will need to convince all of us. That is very unlikely, so I would suggest to close now. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous consensus you say? Well in that case on behalf of my anonymous friends I hereby vouch for their support regarding including a criticism section into the article and seeing as their numbers are greater than 4 the consensus now leans in favour of including the criticism section.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem! You're forgetting my anonymous friends (all opposed). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer consensus to be unanimous, but there's often one who disagrees with everbody else.--Boson (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the article should contain criticism, not a criticism section. A criticism section is normally just a good sign of a bad article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blue-Haired Lawyer puts his finger on it precisely. --Red King (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ditto above - Blue-Haired Lawyer - practice is no criticism section as magnate for loonies, disperse into relevant sections (that way, also kept relevant to article, rather than irrelevant twaddle by IPs).- _J.Logan`^t: 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ditto above. This is just a redundant slippery slope. There is no "support" section either. - SSJ ☎ 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per same reason as editors above. A section about criticism would be biased, we don't have section about support of the EU. Not having sections about criticism and support is more NPOV! Ijanderson (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets wrap this up. 9 opinions against adding a critisism section 1 in favour. Seems clear standing consensus (that there should not be such a section) is not changed. Arnoutf (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual error?

According to Intergovernmental organization, they have a legal personality. But the EU doesn't have a legal personality, so the EU is not a intergovernmental organization. Right?--217.112.177.214 (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the EU is a legal person in relation to its treaties. Arnoutf (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the EU per se is not a legal person until Lisbon enters into force. Today, only the European Community (one of the EU's pillars) has a legal personality. Therefore, the EU isn't formally a WTO member, but the European Community is. I personally think "a mix of a supranational system and an intergovernmental system" is a vague and not particularly good description of the EU, but it's certainly a catchy and convenient label. - SSJ ☎ 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, without Lisbon, the EU (in contrast to EC) treaties are pretty scarce ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the Lead

It should be trimmed a lot, way too much for an intro. Because its a complex isue, generalise the language to fit the general idea in some sentences. No need to mention the commission, court ect... Don't metion too much detail, its just an endless source of conflict. So everybody can read what he whants.

a first draft:

The European Union (EU) is an association of 27 sovereign member states, that by treaty have delegated certain of there competences to common institutions, in order to coordinate there policies in a number of areas, without however constituing a new state on top of the member states. Under international law, the EU respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituing treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement.

then a little list, in prose, of important competences, fisheries, agriculture, common market... A lot can be recycled here.

--217.112.177.214 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the intro is too long. For an article of this size, I think we need 4 full paragraphs; it could perhaps even be slightly longer.

As for the first paragraph, I agree that it should perhaps be improved if we want to get back to FA status, but I prefer what is there now over what was proposed, though the multiple references should be consolidated or pruned and "primarily", though necessary, should perhaps be put in parentheses (or in a footnote).

I think the remaining paragraphs do a reasonable job of summarizing the article, but improvement is, no doubt, possible.

I think the major institutions and the four freedoms are significant, so I would not like to remove those bits.

I think the two sentences about intergovernmentalism etc. (An international organisation sui generis,the EU operates through a hybrid system of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. In certain areas, it depends upon agreement between the member states; in others, supranational bodies are able to make decisions without unanimity. ) should be moved to the article body (e.g. the Governance section).

--Boson (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally concur with Boson. Per B.'s last point, though, I do not concur since those two sentences more specifically identify what the EU is and its basic operation, and those are important enough for the introduction. It's also a counterbalance to the minimalism of the lead sentence. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is not too long, it is about right for an article of this size isn't it? (according to WP guidelines)- _J.Logan`^t: 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'd agree with the points Boson makes - the issue of the lead isn't going to go away - as we saw very recently every now and then somebody is going to want to tweak it. Shortening it would certainly have the positive influence of removing the amount of material up for constant debate. It may actually be a sensible move to remove the Supranational/Intergovernmental discussion from the lead and allow the reader to find out the information in more detail elsewhere. On a side note, I'm still unhappy with the open ended "regional integration" phrase in the lead and will be trying to address that in the near future. --Simonski (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Timezone

Why does the timezone list UTC 0 to +2? What about the overseas departments that are integral to the EU? They should be included no as they are just as part of the EU as the mainland.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I think it would get quite messy adding all the overseas departments. Would adding a footnote be enough? TastyCakes (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, its just accuracy you know.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for entering this discussion on a different note, but I was just thinking, do we even need a timezone entry for the EU infobox? Is it really that relevant? I mean there are so many timezones found across all the EU countries that to me it seems like another instance of this article being used to make it seem as if the EU countries have another thing in common when clearly here they dont? Can somebody convince me here that we need the timezone entry? --Simonski (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Passposrt Picture

I noticed that the picture in the single market section uses a Lithuanian passport as an example of the the "standard passport design", as this encyclopedia is in english wouldn't it make sense to have a picture of a British passport so that people looking at the page can read it? 124.187.132.77 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say "no" because it doesn't really matter about what it says but now that I think of it... it is the English speaking page and it would mean that English speaking readers would see and be able to understand more clearly what the standard member state passport in the EU looks like. I suppose we take forgranted that people outside of Europe might not really get it if they can't understand it. Certainly very few visitors will speak Lithuanian. Not such a bad idea from the anon IP actually. --Simonski (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, a British, Irish or Maltesse passport would in my opinion be more suitable due to the details being in English. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 13:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was also tending to say no, as an English language passport might indicate English as the offical EU language. But then I looked at the passport and could not figure out what was European about it. To be honest, I think it might be interesting to show 2 passports to show that colours, position of texts and coat of arms is the same, but actual texts and coats of arms are not. If that is too complex, an English language passport would probably be best. Arnoutf (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd scan my British passport but with all the wear and tear, most of the 'gold' on the coat of arms has rubbed off rendering it useless. What might be interesting is the cover next to the third page, where 'European Union' is written in all of the different languages of the EU. That would show the diversity of the union. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In my Dutch passport this is on the back of the hard plastic identity card and in rather fine print, but yes if you can scan that legibly that might be an idea. Arnoutf (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture of a Gibraltar Passport on commons that is used in the passport article. I don't think it's a great picture though, the gold is kind of reflecting funny. TastyCakes (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, there are many passports shown on the European passport page, including British, Cyprus and Irish ones with English text (among other languages). The Maltese one does not have English on it. TastyCakes (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I've scanned pages 2 and 3 together in a very high resolution (warning: file is 25Mb). I've Photoshopped it to remove my passport number for obvious reasons. I have never uploaded an image before, so if anyone wants to email me via my userpage I can send it to you. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we have a picture of an Irish or Maltese Passport as they are also in English and because wikipedia is meant to be be representative of all English speaking people not just Americans and British people. Can I change it to either Maltese or Irish then please? IJA (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well my only arguments against this would be that the British passport is the only one with just English (the Maltese one doesn't have English on it at all in the version I've seen). Also, the UK's passport is used by over 10 times as many people as the Irish one (many times more than Cyprus, apparently the only other EU passport with English on it). So it seems to me that the UK passport is a better representative of an EU passport than these two, and the best representative if we require the example to be in English for this page. TastyCakes (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

British is logical, no point in putting up Maltese just to be representative for a small number of people. Lets not be too PC.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish? IJA (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? I mean, I know I am talking from a British perspective but what is the reason? Surely "being representative" is to either pick all or the one representing the largest number of people. If we were on the French wiki, would be be saying, hey, lets use a Belgian passport rather than a French one! No. Well, the French can be like that anyway but my point is I think people are arguing for Irish/Maltese passports because they don't think the UK is representative on the political side. Granted, but lets think logically.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Arnoutf suggested two side by side: we could put both the British and Irish passports, thus portraying the two countries that use English, showing that the passport cover varies by nation and favouring neither. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, Malta is also in the EU and has English as an official language ;) So, "thus portraying the two countries that use English" would not be correct. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why do we need to avoid favouring either? Surely the practical solution would be just one. If we are putting two up, then the other ought to be from another, non-English speaking, country. Otherwise we are being biased towards English speaking nations no?- _J.Logan`^t: 21:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But again, English doesn't appear to be used on the Maltese passport cover. TastyCakes (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Île flottant: I meant "use English on the front of their passports" not the two that "use English as an official language". In general, personally I am not that bothered if we use a British Passport, Irish passport or both, though I admit that the previous choice of Lithuanian stuck me as somewhat odd on en-Wikipedia. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If we have two, I suggest one English (Irish because it has two languages) and one non-English at totally random selection. Well, as random as we can be. So... (I'm throwing blue tack at a map) the Czechs. How about that? Irish and Czech? They both follow the same kind of format as well (not like the adventurous Portuguese of Swedes).- _J.Logan`^t: 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Euro page

Hi, can someone who knows something on the monetary agreement situation lend a hand here please?- _J.Logan`^t: 13:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nato Membership

User Lear21 reinserted a this text Twenty-one EU countries are members of Nato in the introduction reinstalled longterm standard content in introduction / please discuss major changes at the talk page first with the edit summary "reinstalled longterm standard content in introduction / please discuss major changes at the talk page first"

I argue here that this text is not standard in the context of the EU; and should therefore be omitted.

1. It is indeed standard that countries list all important international treaty organisations they are member of in the lead.
2. I agree we should list all important international treaty organisations the EU is members of, even if it is not a country
3. In fact we do list all the important international treaty organisations the EU as an entity is member of, or has representation with: having representation at the WTO, G8 summits, and at the UN. It enacts legislation in justice and home affairs, including the abolition of passport controls between many member states which form part of the Schengen Area
4. In all these organisations the EU as an entity has a role e.g. an observer seat labelled as EU. The EU as an entity has no role whatsoever in NATO (even if many of its member states are full members).
5. Hence there is no official relation between EU and NATO
6. As there is no official relation between EU and NATO, there can never be standard content for a Wikipedia article related to such a relation
7. Hence the line is NOT standard content and should be deleted.

I am pretty sure Lear21 disgrees with this reasoning, if you comment, please be specific where you disagree. Arnoutf (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is important from a geopolitical point of view, but considering the connection is weak and the EU is not party (in fact, relations between the two are rather troubled) then it does seam more trivia than important. I'd say it is work keeping if a better point can be made of it, for example an official document stating that NATO is responsible for the defence of Europe and hence this is not covered by the ESDP.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your argument has some merit, but does not warant inclusion in the lead section; and only emphasises that this information is far from standard, wich seems Lear21's most important argument for inclusion in the lead.

From the point of view of the countries who are member of NATO, their membership is important. From the point of view of the EU, the fact that many countries are member, but not all, and that EU-NATO relations are troubles is of some interest. But in my view, not to the level that it requires inclusion in the lead (and certainly not following the argument it should be because it is standard information to list membership of international organisations; as EU is not member).

Europe is not the EU, and it is unlikely that the NATO has a mandate to defend Europe anyway (Moscow is in Europe!). As far as I know the NATO is only responsible for the defense of its European members, including (non EU members like Norway and Iceland); but that it has no mandate regarding the defense of non-members (like Sweden and Finland).

In summary, this is all interesting and worthy of some discussion but is in no way standard information, and should be listed in the foreign affairs or military section, not the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well through implication and practical reality when you say defence of Europe you do mean the EU, even with Austria outside you can hardly say that Austria could be invaded by Russia without NATO coming into play. Regardless though, I agree it is not standard for the lead and hence it could be lost.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful in distinguishing between Europe and the EU here. For example Ukrain and Georgia (parts of) are in Europe, and so is the European part of Russia. In any case, I think this is a very complex issue. Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Two member states at least (Sweden and Ireland) are very sensitive about their neutrality and have gone to great lengths to put clear blue water between the EU and NATO, in terms of clauses in the treaties. The fact that some members happen to be members of both has to be regarded as coincidental. I strongly oppose inclusion of this factoid. --Red King (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pending agreement on this, I have moved it to the end of the Defence section. If it has to be mentioned at all (and I admit that it is not entirely irrelevant), it should be at the end of the section and not in the lede. --Red King (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence already makes it clear: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states". Because the vast majority of members and almost up to 90% of the respective EU population is involved in NATO security alliances it is a matter of relevance to mention this fact in the lede. Lear 21 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the relation EU - Nato is of some significance. In my view this is however not sufficient for ede as the EU itself has only limited relations to the NATO. I am willing to discuss whether is should be in the lede and accept if a consensus develops for placement in the lede.

The argument that this is standard information remains irrelevant as the EU as a legal entity is not member of the NATO, so please do not use that to try convince me. Arnoutf (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think 90% correspondence cuts it. In comparison all EU member states are members of the Council of Europa and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, but these aren't mentioned. In order to be included in the lead an organisation should have a specific EU element, such as a delegation from the European Commission as in the WTO and the G8. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note of interest: [14]- _J.Logan`^t: 11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting indeed.

Anyway, playing the devil's advocate; the somewhat schizophrenic situation of the EU in relation to the NATO (some EU and NATO members, some EU members strongly claiming neutralaty) is of some interest. It may even be sufficiently interesting for the lede, but the issue of individual countries being member is not really a topic (note that >10% (UK, Malta, Cyprus) of EU members are also member of the commonwealth of nations, so why not mention that). Arnoutf (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, though the Commonwealth - regardless of how many members are in it, is an irrelevance. A better example might be the likes of the OECD or similar? NATO is important, just not in the lead. As a fact on its own it shouldn't be there, but in the interests of compromise, anyone okay with something like this?;

"The EU has developed a limited role in foreign policy, having representation at the WTO, G8 summits, and at the UN. Though, although it has an increasing military role, defence is still the preserve of members and NATO (which most EU members are a part of)."

That way the fact is included, but as a side note to a more relevant fact.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The longtime established sentence is accurate and relevant. It focuses the fact that the "member states" are part of NATO. Nothing wrong with it. For the first time reader this knowledge is important to assess the security situation in the EU as a union of several partly souvereign countries. Lear 21 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Lear I don't think you've actually addressed the points people have been raising and there appears to be a consensus against its inclusion right now so I've reverted your last edit.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JLogan here. To repeat my point:

This is, and has never been about whether the information is accurate, or even whether the topic is relevant as part for the larger article. (I agree)

The discussion is about whether the relation EU-NATO is sufficiently essential for understanding of the EU as a single, united, functional entity (i.e. not the separate countries but the EU as a whole) to justifie inclusion in the lede (which is a summary of the main points of the larger article).

I think it is not important enough for inclusion in the lede; in other words I challenge your (so far unsupported) statement that this fact is sufficiently relevant for inclusion in the lede. Please provide convincing reasons why it should be added to the lede and I might reconsider my take on this. Arnoutf (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The article focuses on both the EU as a supranational institution / organisation and as a territory where 27 states ruling intergovernmentally. The strategic, geopolitical NATO membership for most of the member states is a relevant fact and important to understand the security situation in the region called EU. Lear 21 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are the only one who believes that this fact is critical enough to appear in the lede. You sould not have reinserted it given the clear consensus that it does not belong there. I have reverted; please do not reinsert it until you have persuaded a clear majority to your point of view. --Red King (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides agreeing with Red King that your statement is a minority opinion, it is even more problematic. Your argument does not lead to your own conclusion. If we are talking about 27 states intergovernmentally; subsets are by that definition excluded (however many states participate); your definition even excludes any organisation all EU members are member; but the EU as an intergovernmental organisation of countries has no relations with. Arnoutf (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lear, the information is still in the article, just not on the lead. We just don't think it is of the same importance. This is one line in the lead, not even the removal of the fact, is this really worth you starting another one-man fight about?- _J.Logan`^t: 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to the debate, but would support the consensus for its removal from the lead and placement elsewhere Lwxrm (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DISCUSSION OF FAQ

How is classification as a country difficult?

UK uses different currency. Remove country from difficult to classify as list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesklyne (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence should probably be reformulated, but you seem to be agreeing with the basic idea that the EU cannot simply be classified as a country, because it does not have all (and only) the attributes normally associated with a country (as opposed to those of an international organization, for instance). I think the message is supposed to be that the EU has some characteristics of all of the classes listed but may not have all the characteristics necessary to put it in any one class to the exclusion of the others. --Boson (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Major changes?

Not really sure how civil it is to make a change to the page without discussing it first that demands that other users first discuss changes to the page before making them. Sounds sort of like hypocrisy or a case of ownership.

Not wanting to engage in any sort of edit war or anything of the sort I am hereby informing the readers of this page regarding a change that I intend to make to the FAQ and it goes as follows :

The page seeks to provide answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the European Union article. If you have a question, please check this page before asking on the talk page. The explanations provided in this FAQ are the products of previous discussion regarding the article that have lead to the establishment of a consensus regarding the topics mentioned, while a previous consensus regarding those topics does in fact exist at this time it is perfectly acceptable to take these matters under discussion again. Thank you for your time.

Feel free to discuss this as you want. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All consensus can be changed that need no mentioning. The discussion of these topics is of course acceptable, so no real information in that statement either. Only don't expect editors to repeat all arguments from previous discussions. So I really don't see any added value (except for confusion) to your change. Please do not re-add it. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that opinion and think that it's more in the spirit of Wikipedia to have that text there than it is to leave the FAQ without it. I am open to suggestions regarding alternative wording and such but the explanation stays.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No intention to be uncivil. You attempted to improve the page. So did I.

Since you had presumably not seen the link to this page, and it was probably not on your watchlist, I had to change the text to point you and others here, so that the appropriate discussion could take place here, rather than being conducted on the FAQ page itself, mixed up with the FAQ answers.

Needless to say, I prefer my version; otherwise I wouldn't have made the change. I edited your text to make it conform more with the normal procedure for pages based on longer-term consensus, such as policies, guidelines and FAQs.

--Boson (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So I propose leaving the page as it now stands, indicating that major changes should first be discussed here. --Boson (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NAHHH Making a change without discussing it which basicly only states a demand that others discuss all changes to the page before making them is simply messed up.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I support Bosons minor clarification; but I do oppose your addition of irrelevant and confusing content.

You were bold in adding it; but nobody blames you for that. But since it has been reverted; in the spirit of Wikipedia it is now your turn to discuss your idea and achieve consensus per WP:BRD.

Actually your adition has been reverted by 3 different editors now (that there were 3 independent reverts should tell you that (a) User 194x... is wrong in suggestion this ...or... (b) Everyone else is wrong and the world is out there to get user 194x.... Arnoutf (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets go for B this Daywalker guy has been hounding me for a while, I don't care really, he can hound me till I love him it's all good. As for the edit made by Boson it is not appropriate per BOLD while mine most certainly is per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CCC#Consensus_can_change and considering the discussion hindering nature of the FAQ it is absolutely necessary.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Boson's edit was minor, and was therefore not bold. End of discussion to that edit.

Yes your edit was bold. And as I said nobody stated that your (first) edit was bad faith. However after it had been reverted (by 3 editors) setting it back is no longer bold but stubborn.

You have now to argue why it is important to add it and convince us BEFORE re-adding it.

My view is that the FAQ does not claim to present unchangable consensus. It only records outcomes of previous repeated discussion, to provide new editors with a brief overview of arguments; before restarting the discussion on the main EU talk page. If, after reading, you think important arguments have not been mentioned before, or if you think the arguments were misinterpreted you can start a discussion on EU talk. If the consensus there changes the FAQ page will be updated accordingly. This should all be obvious to Wikipedia editors without adding all kind of confusing arguments about changing consensus. And indeed, you have initiated such a discussion on EU talk, where it is clear that consensus will not change, and nobody has told you there that it is impossible to change consensus (only everybody has stated there they think in this specific case consensus should not be changed). So no your text should not be added as it only confuses the issue. Arnoutf (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)