Talk:European Union/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Largest Cities section

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

Peter

85.75.165.141 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I accept the Peter's opinion and I have added Athens into the list, using confirmed information of the Athens article of the Wikipedia. In the first column there is the urban population uncluding the population of the 42 municipalities of the Athens Lecanopedion. In the second column, there is the metro area population, including Athens Lecanopedion municipalities and the metro area municipalities of Thriasion Pedion and Mesogaia area. In the last column, there is the city (Athens Lecanopedion) population density. Unfortunately, a day after I added it, I saw it was removed and I don't know why. It is ridiculous to be added relatively small cities like Bucharest, Budapest or Vienna and there is no an Athens entry. If we count in this way, we should add Salonica as well. If I see Athens be removed again, after my second adding, I'd ask the editor why he did it? I'd be glad to discuss his disagreements. It is one of the biggest capitals of the EU and the most important historical city of the union, so it is just ridiculous to don't be included. miv 21.40, 15 February 2007 (UTC+2)

Actually this is the reason why I think the largest city section should be completely deleted (see my arguments furhter down on the page). The division of Athens into seperate municipalities makes the "Athens" city proper smaller than Vienna. As I have argued, these differences in approach to deal with cities within the different states of the EU, makes comparison on size alone useless and irrelevant. Arnoutf 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New intro paragraph

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

The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union of democratic nation-states in Europe. It currently has 27 member states. The EU represents the current phase of European integration: it was established under that name in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty. Predecessor entities, with fewer members and more limited in scope, were formed after the Second World War.^[1] Since then, membership, competences, tasks, and goals have expanded. The process of integration is open-ended: although the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU, eurosceptic fears that it will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty have made the EU (and its future) a major political issue in itself.

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

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

Third Reich and Roman Empire as predecessor

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

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

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

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

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

Harmonisation and acquis

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

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

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

Boundaries and identity

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

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

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

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

Points for attention

These need correction or rewriting:

GDR did not accede to EU

optimumpopulation.org not a reliable source

Washington Times not a reliable source

statistics from secondary sources, use Eurostat preferably

institutions section is mainly about their location

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

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

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

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

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

Treaty image

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

G8 image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Members and candidate countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity and values

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The section is truly unbalanced, the English is not concise, and several issues that are probably true are mixed with much more speculative without any reference. Part of the message seems to be coloured by the POV of an editor from a single EU-state, reflecting things that are probably closer to the national outlook of that country on the EU then a neutral view.

In brief, this section needs considerable work, and it might even be more productive to start over from scratch. Arnoutf 22:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Delisting as Good Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

A good idea, Paul111, on each of these grounds. Perhaps the shock of de-listing will focus minds. Countersubject 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if using the "nuclear option" is really the right solution. You may launch an edit war by resorting to such a radical solution.

Concerning your comments: 1) structure may not be perfectly clear, but somehow you're the only one really annoyed about it;

2) sources for these claims can easily be found, I'm sure, as these claims are quite common (also: the EU did prevent war between member states since it was founded - or can you prove the contrary???);

3)Values, identity, etc. are obviously vague since the EU means different things to different people and member states. The largest cities list is not really necessary, I agree with that, but that's not really a reason to delist this article.

4) I would dispute the argument that "the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance". Can you source that? As I see it, the EU is first of all an economic entity; the political aspects are secondary. Internationally, the EU has a rather low profile, internally, however, it is the major source of legislation for the member states nowadays. The (rather small) history section just lists the major steps of the EU (with a disproportionate emphasis on the Constitution, IMO), in how far has it too much Whig history???

5)Well, haven't you considered that you may be one reason for its instability? Luis rib 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed, Luis, that your fifth point seems to be coming close to the kind of personal abuse that has marred discussion of this article (though it is put in you unfailingly polite manner). When you appear to disagree with fellow editors about the subject of an article, and when that subject is a matter of intense political and constitutional debate, then you need to think carefully before suggesting their edits are destabilising the article. It not only looks like a discourtesy, but will also distract editors from the discussion of Paul's observations and suggestions that you've begun. Now I'm going to go and deal with supper before it burns. That will also give me a chance to think about the substantive points that you've both made. Countersubject 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If my comment above was seen as a personal attack on Paul111, then I apologise. What I meant by my rash and unfortunate wording in point 5 was that the current instability is the consequence of the discussions that we are having here on the talk page. Obviously, as long as some points are hotly debated, the contents in the article concerning these points will change and evolve. Paul111 naturally has the right to propose changes, but Lear21 (to name just one contender) also has the right to challenge these proposals. So while such an issue is discussed, the article will be unstable - yet the instability will be caused by both editors, as they modify the contended wordings to and fro. So blaming the instability of article just on one part of the editors (and this is what I suppose that Paul111 was meaning by his above comment in point 5))is not correct. Furthermore: threatening to challenge the status of Good Article based on the instability of the article - which has been caused by both sides - is IMO unfair as it aims at stopping discussion and imposing the view of just a parts of the editors. Luis rib 20:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The text: "The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control and customs checks for most member states within EU's internal borders, creating, to some extent, a single area of free movement for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest" is still very misleading, as it confuses passport control with customs control, and implies that Schengen is responsible for the freedom to "live, travel, work and invest." The freedoms to live, travel, and work pre-date Schengen by many years; the "freedom to invest," together with the abolition of customs checks, are an aspect of the Single Market. This distinction matters historically, but also on an everyday basis: EU countries not fully in Schengen may still have passport checks, but there are no customs controls, nor other constraints on the movement of people and capital (and if you live in one of these countries, as I do, these are not just academic distinctions!)

Section on languages

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

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

I have summarised information on language families and added information on EU language policy and the official languages. I will come back to elaborate the section and add a few things on foreign language skills.--Michkalas 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. Lear 21 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have finished expanding the section. I believe its size is now OK, taking into account that other parts will be expanded rather than stay as they are now. If this is not the case or you fill this section should be summarised more, please let me know.

If someone intends to add a few things on EU citizens foreign language skills or consult the Languages in the European Union article, please note that the tables provided there are actually incorrect, as someone tried based on his own calculations (!) to "update" the Eurobarometer report to include Bulgaria and Romania as EU member states. I believe it is I believe it is better to have the latest authoritative data stating explicitly when the survey was published, than make "calculations" to "update" a survey on your own. To avoid an edit war, I took the subject to the talk page, but at the time nobody else was paying attention to the article and, so, the "updated" version survived. The version with the original numbers is this. Only the numbers in the tables have been changed. The text remains the same -and inconsistent with the tables above it, of course.--Michkalas 15:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Institutions

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

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

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

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

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

calm down children. :) I was only joking about the images!!! See what I mean about temperatures? Let's concentrate on text first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidea (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that Lear 21 wasn't joking. Unfortunately, he's become proprietorial about the graphics, and simply won't countenance removal of any. So, instead of being prepared to treat your suggestion with the humour you intended, or take it seriously and discuss the matter, he baldly told you that they "will be kept" - end of story.

There may be some mileage in just ignoring the problem and concentrating on the text, but a similar difficulty is likely to be encountered there, too. At times it's been difficult to make a change or suggestion without Lear 21 responding emotionally and in a POV manner; even, on some occasions, using language that appears to be threatening. Last night he even responded aggressively to an admin's 3-revert warning. This article badly needs to be re-organised and tightened up. That covers text and graphics. However, it's likely to be a very painful process as long as we have to contend with this kind of behaviour. Countersubject 08:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Literary Handball Union

What is to be done with passages such as this, vague and often random material?Paul111 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular activities and lifestyles among the EU peoples are western literature, TV, movie and music, Internet, travel, international cuisine, shopping and global consumer products, and spectator sports such as soccer, icehockey, rugby, handball and motorsports.

It's fundamental re-write time, as you've previously suggested. This passage is a symptom of an underlying problem: loose or absent definition of terms. That's certainly true of the 'Culture' section. Unless the term is defined, we're likely to get generalisations like this. More fundamentally, it's true of the whole article, whose purpose isn't clear. Is it to describe the EU as an institution, or to treat the EU as a country? A lot of the apparently random elements come back to attempts to do the latter, a difficult task, as the Union isn't a country with a well-defined culture and geography. It's a set of political and legal structures imposed (for better or worse) over a diverse range of cultures and places. Countersubject 12:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What appears to be random at the first look, is at least a start. Sentences like the questioned one are not true for China, USA or the UN. The EU has a status between these three. There is no purpose of the article, just a collection of facts reflecting the current situation. More than half of information is dealing with institutional matters. Plus, there is a EU-European heritage/culture and it is mentioned. And for the last times : There is a common room - Geography, which is not only created by Schengen, but simply by the proximity and the relative smallness of area. EU area is much smaller than Australia and is comparable with the size of India. Lear 21 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Countersubject 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And has fewer inhabitants and probably also more cultural similarity compared to India or China as well ;-) Arnoutf 15:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Apples and pears. They're unified states - again, for better or worse; in the context of Wikipedia, I pass no judgement. The EU isn't. Or did I miss something? Countersubject 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are states; the EU is not, not even a federal state, and the difference should be very well acknowledged. However, there may be some European culture at a higher level; perhaps a Roman-Hellenistic past; an individualistic outlook etc. I agree the Icehockey an Rugby is way to specific. Arnoutf 17:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the member states of the EU share some significant cultural heritage, but they're not unique in that. The cultural and geographical entity we know as Europe isn't the same as the EU ... Countersubject 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the problem mentioning spectator sports as popular pastime? Rugby is watched in UK, France and Italy. Icehockey in the eastern and northern sphere. Handball is at least popular in Spain, France, Germany, Poland and Scandinavia. Together they cover all EU countries. Lear 21 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with adding spectatr sports, however rugby, is according to you, popular in 3 countries, which covers about 10% of the EU. If you want to go for cultural items I would not pick any that is part of the heritage. I agree with Soccer, which IMHO is indeed really BIG in the EU, but (Dutch POV) according to me the next most important sports are Hockey, Tennis, Speedskating, Cycling. Without kidding, I think for a sport to be listed as a sport in Europe it should either be HUGE (say about soccer like) in a significant number of countries (I am thinking along the lines of about 10 countries) or played generally in even more (I think about more than 20). According to that definition I think only Soccer and Formula 1 qualify (and perhaps cycling but that was never mentioned). The problem with listing sports is that this is just to diverse (exceptions not mentioned) to be specific examples of European culture. Arnoutf 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to imagine an outside EU view. The 3 questioned team sports together cover probably around 400mil. EU country population. Next to soccer they are second or third most popular in their country, with 2000- 10000 spectators. Anyway, there should be no problem to add Hockey and Basketball. Lear 21 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying to take an outside look I would associate EU sports with Soccer (no disagreement there) and Cycling (tour de France, Giro, Vuelta, Paris-Roubain etc.). At a secondary level I would add Hockey, Rugby, Handball, and perhaps Icehockey (but that seems to be played in north&east and hardly in the Netherlands). As locally important sports I would say Motorsports, Speedskating, Skijumping, Crickett and a few others. The problem with me being Dutch is the same as for other editors, we are inevitably coloured by our own (national) outlook. With an EU of about 400mil in total I am surprised to hear that rugby covers everyone. I think (on all Dutch networks) rugby airing time is about 1 hour each year; while speedskating easily gets a few hundred (ok that IS Dutch POV). Arnoutf 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of inviting further personal abuse on my user discussion page, I'd like to suggest that all this still begs the question of what we're aiming to do in the 'Culture' section. Or to put it another way, what distinctively EU cultural phenomena can we describe? We can certainly include EU cultural and sporting policy, and the ways in which they're implemented; they wouldn't exist as such without the EU. But the sports, literature, music, art, philosophy etc exist independently of the EU, except inasmuch as they are the subject of EU policy, or engage with the EU as an idea or institution. It's therefore not appropriate to put them into this section. Countersubject 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The EU member states are the masters of the treaties, so nothing wrong to describe the cultural traditions as set of influences they have experienced. In a very general way. Its an introduction.... Lear 21 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a way forward is to summarise the cultural influences that have influenced the creation and development of the institution, and the ways in which it has instituted specifically cultural policies. I think this would put the horse back in front of the cart, and help us to avoid random lists and repetition of material that rightly belongs to other articles. Countersubject 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a wise suggestion, I was getting sidetracked myself a bit. Arnoutf 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Education

I see that on the 27th January, someone introduced the following sentence to the 'Education' section, in relation to the Galileo Project:

Several other nations are joining the project co financing the development such as China, Israel, India, Marocco or South Korea.

Where is 'Marocco', and why the fractured English? That we've let this survive without question or correction for a number of days says a lot about the rate of change to this article, and our willingness to pussyfoot around imprecise and even unintelligible edits. We're so phased by the rate of change and worried that we might offend someone (or frankly can't face the hassle of the edit war) that we just let this kind of thing pass. Shame on us all. Countersubject 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The current introduction is speculative, and does not belong in a neutral written head. The written quality is worse than the version before. Both contributers who reinstalled the version know that. Stop these contraproductive tactics. Please, with sugar on the top, accept Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER Lear 21 00:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please will you be specific. Which elements are speculative, and in what ways is the written quality worse than before? And please don't accuse other editors of bad faith. Countersubject 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The new version has to be explained, compared to the neutral version, which is the introduction for months. Lear 21 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You said that the changes are speculative and reduce the quality of the writing. You were asked to identify the speculative elements, and explain the ways in which the quality of the writing was worse than before. Your response has done neither, and it also seems to suggest a lack of neutrality in the edit. Other editors will be more than happy to discuss these matters, and if appropriate make further changes. Articles can't be set in stone, and constructive discussion helps us to improve their quality. However, we must have specific points to address. Unsubstantiated generalisations and accusations of bad faith don't help. Countersubject 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Conlusion so far : no arguments for change. In 12 hours the old version will be reestablished. Lear 21 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very sad. I've asked you to be more specific about the points you've made, but you've refused. Why is that? I also hoped for some recognition that your comments might be interpreted as an accusation of bad faith, but there has been none. Instead, you've just told us that you're going to revert again in 12 hours.

I'm at a loss. I don't know what we can do to encourage rational, polite discussion of specific points. I'd really like to discuss the matter in that way. Countersubject 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be accurate. Ignoring the fact that the EU is a union of nation-states would not be accurate. That, and its controversial relationship with the nation-state and national identity, belongs in the intro as a central aspect of the EU.Paul111 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Paul111 b)Who says there is a controversial relationship between nationsstates and EU in terms of identity ? That is speculation or true for single cases and must be mentioned in politics or culture. The introduction has to present the state of being. In the UK article introduction, I cant read anything about controversials about the queen or the house of lords disputed status....And responding to argument a) the EU is not a Union of classical nation-states anymore like UN maybe. It is enough to mention that they democratic states. Lear 21 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, there might be some truth to that. After all, being a nation-state is not a prerequisite for being a member of the EU; indeed Bosnia - a potential future member state - is not a nation-state. Neither is Cyprus, thinking of it. And Spain has recognized Catalonia as a nation, I believe. Last but not least - the UK is not really a nation state either; after all, a major party of one of its constitutive parts (Scotland) is thinking about organizing a referendum on that region's independence. I would also suggest to delete the reference to nation-states in the first sentence of the introduction. Luis rib 20:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an aspiration and a momentum at the heart of the EU project for greater political integration. The intention of the Schuman Declaration was to make "the first concrete step towards a European federation" (unquote). "Ever closer union" is one of the stated aims of the Treaty of Rome. It's repeated by the Maastricht treaty, which also talks about a new stage in the process of European integration. The phrase was dropped from the proposed constitution, but it does extend majority voting into 26 new policy areas, create an independent and personal EU Presidency, and extend the competencies of the EU and its institutions in a number of ways.

Equally, there's been a continuing tension between 'ever closer' union and member states. This hasn't been limited to the UK and 'new Europe', but has also been an issue for members like France that have traditionally supported greater integration. It's also become an electoral issue at times, with governments sometimes failing to persuade their electorates of the virtues of closer union, or doing their best to avoid the need for popular ratification.

The EU can't be properly understood without an understanding of this tension. It's so fundamental that an introduction which doesn't allude to it is incomplete. That isn't to say we can't discuss the form in which it's described. Also, I'd suggest it's important enough to have its own section. Countersubject 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with that. I just objected to the word "nation-states". Luis rib 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My comments weren't in response to you, Luis. One of our fellow editors apparently took strong exception to another's mention of the recurring tension between centralisation and the independence of the member states (it's difficult to be sure, as the objector wouldn't detail his objections). I thought I'd make the point that this tension is such a fundamental element of the EU's history that it doesn't make sense to leave it out of the intro (tho' that doesn't preclude discussion of how we mention it, and the difficulty with 'nation state' is a case in point). Countersubject 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just replace "nation states" with "states" or "member-states" as indeed the UK and Belgium are not 'classical' nation states; and there is no demand to be a nation state for EU membership. Arnoutf 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial issues no matter what color are part of every social, political, historical process. The EU has achieved a certain status after 50 years of evolution, these facts and nothing else have to be captured in the introduction. All other pros and cons can be part of the sections, but only there. Lear 21 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok let's go to the introduction sandbox to fight this out. Arnoutf 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nation-states

It is not sufficient to use the term member states, which could include empires. That would negate the historical background, the transition to a continent of nation-states. The controversy is not a country-by-country issue, but derives from the inherent contradictions of a union of sovereign states. Additionally, each of those nation-states derives its legitimacy from its status as national homeland of the nation (4 nations in the UK case), whereas the European Union does not correspond to a nation, people, ethnic group, or any similar entity. These issues have played a role in the evolution of the EU, and in its current state of crisis. These points need more emphasis, starting with the intro.Paul111 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Euhm that means the UK is not a single nation state, nor are Belgium (Walloon, Flemings and the German part), nor is Spain (Catalunia). So nation-state just does not apply. State is much more neutral and at least not offensive to anyone. Arnoutf 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Scepticism section??

Shouldn't we think about adding a section about controversies, Euro-sceptics and Euro-fans. I think today this is one of the most dividing and interesting issues among the EU population. Some of this information is already explicitly mentioned in other sections, but I think the importance is argument enough for an explicit/separate section. Also this may balance the overall very enthusiastic tone about the EU in the article to provide a more NPOV. Arnoutf 00:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's better to leave the scepticisms in the relevant sections. Creating an own section would in the end repeat some of the things that are already mentioned in other sections. It would also, IMO, destroy the connections there are to these sections and just result in a bland list of scepticisms taken out of context. Also, the current euro-scepticism is not - in most countries - directed at the EU itself (which I believe most people do approve of, except maybe in very euro-sceptic countries like the UK) but at some policies that are not liked or are misunderstood. Therefore I believe that mentioning the criticisms in the sections where the relevant policies are mentioned may be more accurate.

I'm all in favour of adding criticisms and scepticisms, so don't misunderstand my edit as a POV attempt to keep this article EU-friendly. I just think that scepticism is best understood in the context of the explicit policies or institutions that are disliked. Luis rib 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair points, we have to find a way to give the scepticism POV a place, and your way may be better indeed. And don't get me wrong either, I am not a Eurosceptic (I even campaigned to vote in favour of the constitution) but there is a sceptic undercurrent that is important enough to be acknowledged for a balanced article. Arnoutf 11:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The tension between 'ever closer union' and its opponents is, as Arnoutf says, an issue of such significance that it should have a full treatment. That's best given in its own section, whatever the title. The other advantage of such a section is that it would allay the impression that the article has a tendency to reflect a particular view of the EU's development. Countersubject 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Support for section related controversial views, as suggested by User:Luis rib Lear 21 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with an explicit section for scepticism, the article is about the EU itself rather than political debates. We wouldn't have, for instance, sections on the page about the UK dedicated to anti-monarchy positions, or criticisim of British foreign policy, the criticism should be confined to individual sections. It seems there is a tendency to place a "criticism" section on every page on the EU, we already have them on many of the pages about institutions such as the Commission. These debates can be given a full treatment on individual articles in any case as the democratic deficit in the European Union page does for instance. blankfrackis 15:50, 05 February 2007 (UTC)

The various forms of scepticism and its effects are a serious, recurring issue for the EU. Just look at the ongoing constitutional crisis, triggered by popular rejection of the constitution in France and the Netherlands (and the probability of a similar rejection in the UK). Not to have a section on them looks like trying to pretend they're not there, in the hope they might go away. Also, there's so much in the article about aspects of 'ever closer union', or which assumes the integrationist view that the EU is a country, that the absence of such a section leaves the article seriously imbalanced. Countersubject 16:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

the third largest geopolitical entity by population?

All of this acting as though the EU is a country is very debatable. What counts as a "geopolitical entity?" The EU does not have a unified military nor military policy (look at the conflict in Iraq; some EU countries sent troops, some didn't); it does not have a unified currency (although the Euro is eventually supposed to be it); it does not have a free flow of services; they don't even have a single alphabet; etc. So where does it stop? You could state that the UN is a geopolitical entity, or even ASEAN. In that case, both of those have a larger population than the EU. This EU bumping the USA ranking pettiness ought to stop, especially while the EU is not yet a single nation-state. Chiss Boy 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

True that the EU does not have all those; but then again to what extent is the US a classical nation state (e.g. differences in Deth penalty between state). I think the EU is in the process of finding its own unique structure, and is unlikely to become a single nation state (IMHO), the end results of which may require a new description. Arnoutf 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think 'Chiss Boy' has a point,and to imply that 'nation-state' can only be discussed in ethnic terms is beside it. The US is an ethnically and culturally diverse place, but it undoubtedly has a common legal and political culture, which wouldn't be possible without a cohesive wider culture. We can't say that of the EU, which as the article puts it is an inter-governmental and supra-national body. It has a tendency to acquire the attributes of a national government, but as things are the EU isn't a country in the sense that its members and the US are. It's therefore not appropriate to insist that we follow the standard structure of a country article. Geographical details and comparisons are a case in point. An institution doesn't have a geography, so there's really no point in giving it a Geography section, or comparing it to 'other geopolitical entities'. This is not unlike the issue of the Culture section, which suffered as a result of attempts to treat it as if this were a standard country article. The EU doesn't have a culture in the sense that a country has. All we can discuss in such a section is the interaction between the EU as an institution and the culture of its members. Countersubject 14:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The European Union IS its member states. There is no EU-spaceship coming out of a sudden and created a three pillar system. All decisions were made by democratically elected head of states, not by aliens or other anonymous bureaucrats. There are a lot of indications which lead to the assumption of a "country" - like entity (term used by CIA): Common market, common policies in many fields, election every 5 years, European parliament, EU court of justice, the currency Euro is adopted by 300 mil inhabitants, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate ,-Passport ,-Drivinglicense ,-Anthem , Common room without borders, EU is financing infrastructure, education, social projects and in official pressconferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag. Some of these indications might be not implemented or realized (mentally) by all members or their population. But it does not mean that this view prevails in this article. Lear 21 14:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification as I truly did not understand: Which view do you mean exactly that prevails is the view that prevails (1) EU is not a nation state or (2) EU is not a nation state? Arnoutf 15:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For the other issues. It has been argued elsewhere that the standard country format is a guideline to help some consistency in these type of article. I think we can use quit a bit of that structure here; but where the EU deviates from a normal state, we have to use our own best intuition what to do. Writing a Wiki article on something as complex as the EU is of course more than just a fill-in-the-dots exercise (and what would be the fun of that).Arnoutf 15:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a sensible approach. The standard country format is a good starting point, and part of the fun of this article is working out when to stick with it and when to depart from it. Countersubject 15:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lear 21, let me begin by asking you once again not to shout. Now that's done, I think there are three things about your response that I'd like to discuss. The first is that a decision by some or all member states to cooperate in a number of ways doesn't make the EU a country. As you rightly observe elsewhere, the member states are the 'masters of the treaty'. The second is that you spoil a potentially interesting case by over-statement. While the EU isn't a country, it does have a tendency to attempt to acquire more country-like attributes, and that might or might not eventually lead to its transformation into a country. However, it hasn't done so yet, as the beginning of the article acknowledges by describing the EU as an inter-governmental and supra-national body. The third is that it isn't wise to ascribe widespread failure to see your point of view as some kind of mental failing. That's not only offensive, but also more than a little weak as an argument.

Finally, I must beg whoever has been impersonating Lear 21 on my user discussion page, by leaving abusive messages, not to use this discussion as an excuse to do so again. Lear 21: have you had any luck yet in identifying the imposter? Countersubject 15:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Arnoutf I didnt understand your question either. haha. But my last sentence was unclear as well, you are right. The EU and its member countries as an entity will never be the nation state in a classical 19th century way. Also, most of the populations have already accepted globally spread lifestyles : American pop culture, Japanese Videogames, Australian outdoor holidays etc. To the 2nd edit of yours: correct/ support! The EU must use some country like formats to identify the complexity, but has to create own sections to characterize itself (which is already the case). In general : The country format guidelines are a helpful set to approach and to understand the issue EU... Lear 21 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Some mention of Strasbourg

Shouldn't there be some mention of Strasbourg as a lesser capital in the factbox on the right? Chiss Boy 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I think that would not be necessary. Brussels is the capital Strassbourg 'only' the seat of parlaiment once in a while. Arnoutf 10:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Strasbourg actually the official seat of the Parliament? I thought I heard something like that somewhere... Luis rib 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know both Brussels and Strassbourg are offical seats of the Parliament; but that does not matter for the capital (see the Dutch - Amsterdam (capital) the Hague (seat of parl) issue in Capital of the Netherlands) Arnoutf 11:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, true, if we are discussing the issue of the capital of the EU, then it's quite definetely Brussels. (BTW: just to add a bit of POV fuel to this discussion: if Strasbourg were to be added as "minor capital", so of course should Luxembourg, since it is the seat of the EU Court of Justice and other institutions) Luis rib 11:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of minor capital is weird to start with; so it would be The Principal Town, but minor the another principal town??? Let's not go there at all and leave it at this. Arnoutf 14:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This a another example of the knots we tie ourselves in when we attempt to treat this article like a country article :-). Countersubject 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

HDI GDP numbers

Actually I think this is one of the issues where the EU-integration has not yet been complete enough to add to the template. For example the GDP of Denmark is about 5 times that of Romania. There is a huge difference in HDI as well within the EU. That this is an issue can also be gathered from the relatively weird wording now used to justify the template. In other words, I would suggest jsut leaving these numbers out of the infobox and discuss it in some more detail under economics. Arnoutf 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

GDP(total) is verifiable and an accumulated number, it has to be kept. HDI is an avarage and not verifiable for the whole EU, it is dispensable. Lear 21 18:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable the GDP may be, but is it relevant? Arnoutf 19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt! Its not only a standard figure, but estimating the size and status of the EU-entity it is indispensable in the the infobox. Lear 21 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reversion without discussion

Lear 21 doesn't like the changes to the introduction made by Paul111, so he reverted them, initially without discussion, subsequently explaining that he felt the changes were "speculative", and that they'd had an adverse effect on the "written quality" of the article (see "Introduction", above). I believe Paul111's edits included some valuable contributions, though felt they would benefit from amendment, so I asked Lear 21 what in particular he believed was speculative, and in what manner the written quality of the article had been affected. Frustratingly, he refused to explain, and said that unless given a good reason, he would would remove Paul111's edits again. Users Paul111, Luis rib and Arnoutf struck up a discussion about the use of the term 'nation states' in Paul111's edits, and they were amended accordingly. Subsequently, Lear 21 reverted the edits anyway, so I put them back in again.

What do we do next? If an editor - and especially a regular one - has a problem with the article, then this is the place to discuss it in detail. Unfortunately, Lear 21 doesn't seem to wish to do so. Perhaps the problem is that he and I seem to have offended each other, and I have to say that Paul111 and I have suffered abuse from him (e.g. see my discussion page). Nonetheless, it's the article that matters, so if anyone out there would care to engage Lear 21, and persuade him to detail his particular problems with the original edits, then we might be able to find a way forward that improves the article. I'd be very grateful. Countersubject 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lear21, please talk on this page below this comment and explain what you don't like about the changes to the introduction. Thanks. MarkThomas 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial issues no matter what color are part of every social, political, historical process. The EU has achieved a certain status after 50 years of evolution, these facts and nothing else have to be captured in the introduction. All other pros and cons can be part of the sections, but only there. Lear 21 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the last two revisions. I reverted the revision by Paul111 because this was a revert to some time back and I have no idea whereto, I cannot find a spot to compare to without red/green/yellow fields. Please make sure other editors can easily find the version a revert reverts to; otherwise the revert summary can just too easily be abused to cover for original edits.... To Leat21, I agree the longer introduction is not perfect, but neither is the brief one. I think the longer raises a few points that should be raised, some editing is needed. Arnoutf 19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found it difficult to distinguish in the maze of diffs what the "previous" and "current" versions are exactly that appear to be the bone of contention. However, as a general comment I think the key page for a massive subject like the EU deserves a robust and thorough introduction, so I tend to disagree with Lear21's point above. I have also seen the need to issue a civility warning on his talk page for his conduct towards Countersubject. My take on this after careful reading of the discussions and edits is that we have a committed group of editors on this page trying (and succeeding) to do a very good job of creating an extensive, high quality WP article, so my advice to you Lear21 would be to calm down, reflect a bit, read the article carefully and if you want to make a change, suggest it first to these editors here on the talk page, and then listen to what they say - they have a good deal of experience. MarkThomas 19:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lear 21: many thanks for responding (though I would have appreciated it even more if you hadn't also made an another aggressive posting to my user page). I hope we can sort this out in a civil manner, and that the end result will be a better article. It will help if you can detail precisely which of Paul111's changes you would like to see moved out of the introduction on these grounds. Also, what parts of the edit in particular do you feel have an adverse effect on the quality of the writing? Countersubject 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction 2.: a)"It currently has 27 member states. The EU represents the current" - double "current" - bad style. b) "Predecessor entities, with fewer members and more limited in scope, were formed after the Second World War." - unprecise, old version more specific. c)"The EU represents the current phase of European integration" - blank sentence d) "although the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU, eurosceptic fears that it will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty have made the EU (and its future) a major political issue in itself" - highly speculative generalisation - not needed. Parts which can be kept: e)" "The process of integration is open-ended" - or remains open. Lear 21 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this properly Lear21. I agree with point (a) and have changed it slightly - please check over. Point (b) I think needs more explanation Lear21, can you say how you think it should read? Point (c) I don't understand - the sentence seems good to me. Can you elucidate further please? Point (d) - Euroscepticism - is such a big issue across Europe that I think most editors would think it worth mentioning in the introduction. Point (e) - I agree. Thanks. MarkThomas 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good listing very constructive. (a) Indeed bad style; change that pleace. I think intro 2 has the benefit that the mentioning of current implies this is not the final stage. Ie it may increase in the future. That is the bit I like about that version (b) I agree this is unintelligable as it is in intro 2. I would say something like: The EU is the continuation of the European Economic Union established in 1951 with fewer members, and focussing on economic cooperation only Or something similar. (c) Ican't really see the point here. I think we all agree the EU is in a process of change. (d) I agree the sentence is POV. I would like to keep scepticism in though perhaps not linked to giving up sovereinigty. Perhaps something like The growing influence of the EU over the internal actions of its member states is not without critisism. Among the population of several countries there is a certain level of [[euroscepticism]. Or something like. (e) useless addition, does not add anything I agree, take it out. Arnoutf 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose a,b,c and e are easily solved. Again to d): Everything in politics is discussed optimistic and pessimistic in variyng degrees from country to country, all the time. But the introduction has to present the status quo and nothing else. Sections like politics refer to all pros and cons. With the same right it could be claimed, that eurooptimists are hoping that EU could be a model for cooperation on other continents, but it is speculative wishful thinking. Lear 21 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's go for a,b,c, and e first. And discuss d in some more detail. That will take a lot of the sting out of it. My Personal Point of View is that at least the distinction is worhtwhile to be made; as it is right now a major issue and deserves mention in the introduction. I would not object to something like While many states and large parts of the EU population are very optimistic about the opportunities offered by a strong EU, there is also a strong euroscepticism or something of that nature. Arnoutf 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Arnoutf That could be a direction. More moderately : Supporters of the EU believe ...., while critics doubt .... - that would be acceptable, plus, mentioned after all the factual basics. I´m off for a drink. Viva Europa! Lear 21 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just come back from feeding the family. I'll have my say, then go for drink, too. And btw, Lear 21 - please don't confuse the EU with Europe :-).

I believe there are strengths and weaknesses in both versions. Firstly, I'd like to address Paul111's introduction of material concerning integration over time. This material is, directly or indirectly, the subject of points b, c, d and e. The chief problem with the original version is that it focuses on the EU as a set of current structures, and doesn't mention the EU as an ongoing process of 'ever closer union'. This is at the heart of the project, from the Schuman Declaration to the proposed constitution, which has been stalled by popular rejection in two founder countries, and which is now the subject of negotiation by the German presidency. As an issue, it's therefore very much part of the status quo, and therefore deserving of mention in the intro. On the other hand, the revised version treats it at too great a length for an introduction, and invites the perception of POV on what's clearly a very sensitive subject. I think this is in part because the main article lacks direct recognition of the issue. One way forward would be to change the introduction so that this aspect of the EU is mentioned more concisely, and develop a more detailed account in the body of the article. We could also add relevant external references.

Apart from that, I agree with observation a, and believe that the unexplained reference to the "three pillars of the European Union" needs to be removed. It's not prefaced by an explanation of what the pillars are, or accompanied by any direct mention of its two fellows. This concept belongs in the detail.

Also, the Schengen paragraph gets a little head of the status quo when it says that the "Agreement abolished passport control and customs checks for most member states." As I understand it, of the 30 countries that have signed it (3 of which aren't in the EU), only 15 have implemented it so far. It would be good to find a form of words that avoids overstatement.

Finally, "within EU's internal borders" should read: "within the EU's internal borders". Countersubject 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed edits

I removed the Galileo system from Demographics, it has nothing to do with population. Section on largest cities was already moved to Geography of the European Union. I rewrote the culture intro section, which was in fact on identity and history, and gave it a better title, and removed the pointless listing of sports. Intro paragraph restored.Paul111 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting content from this article. This has an end now! Lear 21 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Delisted as good article

The article simply does not meet the criteria for a Good Article, and stability alone would be enough to delist it, as this talk page evidences. Editing disputes do indeed make an article unstable. However, there is absolutely no obligation on editors to refrain from editing, simply to preserve Good Article status.Paul111 18:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Paul111, Don´t abuse this article for personal attitudes! Stop it ! The suggestions of your changes are not answered or supported. Lear 21 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lear 21, this really isn't a good idea. Something has clearly angered you on a number of occasions. Inasmuch as it relates to the article, we'd like to get to the bottom of it, in order to see that matter resolved, and the article improved. You may find it more helpful to take a deep breath, then discuss the issues in detail, in a calm manner - for example, in the section above, where you have been invited to do so. Countersubject 19:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Countersubject: I´m happy as always. Stop your psychological assessments. Stick to the content. By the way, have you supported delisting? Lear 21 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing psychological about my assessment. Your entries on our user pages are very angry. You're also in the habit of SHOUTING. And my suggestion was a genuine one; the more you engage, the more likely you are to have your views taken into account. The converse is also true.

As to de-listing, on reflection I still think it's a good idea, unless the article is tightened up. A lot of the current structure and content is irrelevant, or POV, or both. As an editor, I'm embarrassed to think that it might be presented as a good example of what Wikipedia can do. If that's so, then roll on Brittania. I trust that the current discussions are just a beginning, and that we can all work towards something deserving of the title of Good Article. Countersubject 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

'Culture' section

Since simple editing is apparently not possible, the culture section must approached in terms of an accuracy dispute. The following points need some evidence:

cultural traditions of member states are influenced by relationships in the dominant language groups. Odd, suggests something like linguistic block voting (as in the Eurovision Song Contest).

cultural traditions of member states are influenced by climate. Long-disputed theory.

European historical narrative originates in Greek mythology and drama and/or Roman engineering. For a few classicists maybe.

European historical narrative originates in judeo-Christian heritage. Vehemently disputed.

European historical narrative originates in modernism. Meant to be modernity?

European historical narrative originates in globalisation. (That confuses historical narrative with present issues of global status).

An argument is the formation of a strong block in the international society to be able to enter into equal partnership/rivalry with the USA and Russia, and increasingly the emerging China. Was not an argument for existence of EU and its predecessors, and is not a part of EU culture, issue belongs in International relations section.

Popular pastimes of the EU peoples include (western) literature. Statistics? And why the term peoples (ethnic groups)?

Spectator sports both watching and participating. By definition incorrect.

Fieldhockey widely watched and played in the EU countries. Statistics?

Several sports are unique to one or a few countries. Then how are they part of EU culture?

There is a common ground, but there is also a distinctly local identity. What is the common ground if the sports are different? Is it sport as such? And is that European?Paul111 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A resounding silence, Paul111. What a surprise. Countersubject 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I rewrote the section, as I thought there was something to it, and in an effort to salvage what there was of value instead of bluntly deleting. I did it hastily so please do not assume too much deliberation on specific word choice, after all, I am no native English speaker, so some of the subtleties maybe lost to me, especially when writing fast.

Response to Paul111s points

All European languages are part of the same language family (Indo-European), albeit with several subgroupings. As there are theories that the language shapes thought (with which I not agree a priori btw) a similarity in language may lead to a similarity in thought.
Climate: I never heard about this theory before.
Well perhaps narrative is not the best word, but the influence on culture is undeniable:

The history of Europe is heavily influenced by Greek-Roman. Many roads follow the old roman highways, the whole empirical scientific approach (as opposed to the eastern holistic outlook) is based in Roman-Greek philosophy, our law system is based on Roman law (where the state prosecutes instead of the harmed party being allowed to take revenge), the architecture especially in the renaissance is based on Greek and Roman architecture. Everybody knows or at least has heard about the Homerian stories about the Trojan Horse, the Cyclops, or the legend of Hercules (albeit the Disney version). So I think the Greek-Roman heritage is a bit more influential compared to just the classicists.
There is undeniable evidence the of the influence of Judeo-Christianity. The monotheistic belief system (pretty rare except Christianity, Judais, and Islam), the seven days weeks with a ‘divine’ resting day (Sunday). Religious holidays (Christmas, Easter). Church towers dominating many of the European landscapes.
Nope truly modernism is meant. This is the early 20th century Bauhaus, and Stijl movements, Mies van der Rohe, Rietveld, Le Corbusier. The utopian idea that by providing a modern environment a happy and modern society could be created; by the states. Undeniably influential, we are still suffering heavily (Bijlmer, Parisian suburbs etc)

I agree with globalization, that should be phrased completely different. Perhaps mention that close connections between EU countries links in/is symptomatic of increasing globalization. Or leave out, or move to other section.
I completely agree, this should go to the International relations section
Popular pastimes, I just took up the list previously entered; but I agree statistics should be provided, see another of my comments in your subheading sports. The word peoples is one of these hasty could not find a better word issues, please change. The same with the wording of the sports. I think soccer is THE European sports, which unites us (and divides according to team colours). Maybe Cycling as second. Lear21 wanted to list several other sports, that IMHO were less generally played. So I decided to state that besides the EU sports there were also many more regional sports. Indeed to be true to the EU motto United in our love for Sports in Variety of local sports. I think such argument would be nice for a sports sections but maybe over the top for the culture section. And of course I agree we need references, but I am sure some one can dig out some of those….Arnoutf 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Arnoutf Your approach to the culture intro leads in the right direction. Judeo-Christianity and globalization have to be mentioned. Now it seems that regions are the determining forces of traditions. Thats not sufficient. Globalized attitudes and habits are widely spread. plus : I wonder why climate influence on culture is questioned. Remember how Christmas is celebrated in Australia? Correct! on the beach! Thats climate. Lear 21 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha, That's what you mean with climate influence; I think myself and the other misunderstood. But I beg to differ with you there. The moderate climates on the Southern Hemisphere may be counted as similar to those in the Northern. That winter is the other half of year has nothing to do with climate. What I thought was mentioned was that in Moderate climates, life is more centered on indoor activities, less out in the streets (as compared to middle east). But also that the level of activity during winter is at another level compared to that at the arctic climates; and that that was the influence of climate. And I agree that IS a theory that is contested. Arnoutf 14:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Indoor - Outdoor activities/ habits is an interesting point. The Spanish 'siesta' is cultivated, because of hot temperatures in summer, and the last meal is taken after 21.00 h because during daytime its to hot. 2. : The cafe outdoor culture in the mediteranean regions are also influenced by milder temperatures compared to Scandinavia. Lear 21 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and the North-West of Europe became most powerful colonialists because that climate was best for a productive life (not too warm (needing siesta) neither too cold). But that actually used to be the theory; however it is heavily debated. Actually I don't know of anyone still supporting it. So it has to go. Arnoutf 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What theory are you talking about? The connection of 'productive life' and climate seems very shaky. The fact of different indoor / outdoor culture caused by temperatures is reason enough and basically obvious. Lear 21 10:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the 'productive life theory' is one I read about once (don't know where). The other one seems more reasonable, but without a source in the scientific domain (perhaps look in antropology sources) it is just wild speculation or original research; and we should therefore not add it (unless such a source is provided). Arnoutf 11:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved sports list

I moved the list from the Culture intro to the Sport section, and it now reads:Paul111 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sport, including spectator sports, is popular in the EU-countries: most popular is football. Cycling, tennis, and fieldhockey are also sports widely watched and played in the EU countries. Other sports are favourites in fewer countries, such as icehockey, rugby, handball, and motorsports; and several sports are unique to one or a few countries (e.g. cricket-UK, korfball-Netherlands and Belgium).

Sound like a relevant move. Mind you the classification of sports is done without references (although I am pretty sure of Soccer, Korfball and Crickett). However it may well be that some of the fewer countries sports should be widely played sports and/or vice versa. If anyone has some numbers there from some kind of sports magazine, that would be a great help in getting it right, and above discussion. Arnoutf 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Largest Cities section: vote

I propose permanent removal to Geography of the European Union. Please indicate below if you support or oppose.Paul111 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Ssolbergj 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Largest Cities is OK. LUCPOL 11:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I can see what your point is Paul111, but if the basis of this page is comparison with a country, which would have largest cities, then it should stand - also, there is already a spinoff from that segment to another, more detailed page, Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits so I think yet more abstraction would be limiting for the typical user. MarkThomas 12:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes to removal of the Largest Cities section. Previous discussion concluded that we should use the standard country-article template as a starting point, but not be afraid to depart from it where sensible. I think this is one of those cases. The EU is a "supranational and intergovernmental" body that isn't (yet) a country, and nor is it the same as Europe, of which it is but a significant feature. It therefore makes sense to have minimal entries on things that aren't particular to the EU, and point readers to European and member-country articles for further details.

There's a second element to Paul111's proposal, which is to move it to Geography of the European Union. The rationale of that page is that the EU doesn't have a geography as such; it's therefore largely a list of links to member country and European geography articles. The insertion of this material would be incongruous. Much better to merge it into the Geography of Europe article.

BTW: I'd like to suggest that explanation of our votes will bring us closer to consensus, or at least an understanding of each others' views, than a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Countersubject 13:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No: Lear 21 13:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC) PLUS WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY PLUS : The Largest City section is : standard section / standard pictures / nothing wrong/ change the standard first and we start discussing / political- commercial- demographical- cultural centres of influential EU member states

I'm not sure what this means. Please will you put it into one or more complete sentences. Countersubject 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't shout. Countersubject 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Countersubjects last line - explanation of our votes - is spot on and acknowledges that wiki is not a democracy, this is just a good way to poll opinions, see overlaps in reasoning, and spot the differences so that we can take the sting out of the following argument, and only discuss those bits which need discussing, and not those we agree upon (much as we are doing with the introduction part)Arnoutf 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to one of the Geography articles (but make sure it is well embedded). I think size of the cities makes sense in a country article, where such a size is an indicator of importance, and often also of being the capital city. However, there is such a wide variety in how city concentrations are dealt with in different countries (compare London and Paris, where Paris is much smaller as a city but has a comparable metropolitan area); variety in national GDP, HDI, (Bucharest rating over (national pride ;-) Amsterdam); and just plainly number of inhabitants (a large country such as Germany is by chance alone already more likely to provide several cities in a top-10 - and it does Berlin and Hamburg). Therefore I think the addition of this list only has a kind of curiosa value, which IMHO suits a Geography article much better, compared to the EU article. Secondary reason, the EU article is long as it is, so I would suggest pruning on this type of (relatively) trivial information.Arnoutf 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Another issue is that the Paris urban area is larger than that of London, imho this is partially because of differing definitions/administrative boundaries in the city proper between England and France. In this light, I think (again) that ranking the cities has only illustrative and no real informative value, and should therefore not be part of the main body of the article. Arnoutf 15:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to follow on from Arnoutf's comment, and my own earlier note, to suggest that we have a problem with this discussion: that a number of votes have been cast without explanation. As Arnoutf and Lear 21 rightly point out, Wiki isn't a democracy - the point of the vote is to encourage focussed discussion. When an editor casts a vote but doesn't explain it (or does so in an unintelligible, aggressive manner), then there is no discussion, just a face-off, and the likelihood of further edit wars. If you're one of the editors whose votes fall into this category, I strongly encourage you to add an explanation. If you haven't yet contributed and feel you have something to say, please add your vote and reasons. Thanks, Countersubject 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No - keep the section, it presents relevant and important information in a clear and accessible manner, and links to relevant sub-pages where appropriate. DJR (T) 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I tried to explain above that due to differences in the EU nations the information is actually neither relevant nor important. A bit more explanation why you think it is both relevant and important would help the discussion more than just plainly stating it as a fact. Arnoutf 11:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No - Expand instead. Frigo 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Commentfive new cities were added which included a third German city, a second Spanish and a second Italian city. Hence the now top 15 is even more dominated by countries with a large population, regardless of the actual importance of the city: this expansion is only further evidence for my statement that chance effects will favour cities of countries with many inhabitants. The list of 15 now only includes cities from 11 out of the 27 countries. (For information, the next 6 cities will be from UK, Germany, Italy, Italy, France and Spain with the next country only entering the list at spot 22) Arnoutf 14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a largest city in the infobox

Should we use the (optional) property largest city in the country userbox. I think not, for much the reasons I outlined above.

London is not known as a typical European city, Brussels, Strassbourg and Luxembourg are. In countries where the largest city is not the capital (examples: Brasilia, Sao Paulo; Washington DC, New York; Ottawa, Toronto) there is truly no need to name the country as these largest cities are indeed stereotypical of that country. However this is clearly not the case in Europe. Furhtermore, for above reasons the size of cities is truly not a valid measure for importance in Europe.
Actually the European idea is based on an equal importance of all members, listing the largest city can do nothing but give a POV a countries with large numbers of inhabitants (e.g. the number of people living in Luxembourg=465.000; its capital has 75.000 people (about 16% of all), the UK has 60 million inhabitant London only 7 million (about 12%) hence London is relatively to population a smaller city than Luxembourg, so corrected for country POV, Luxembourg is larger than London). For these two reasons the mention of London is neither relevant nor informative; and should in my opinion be removed from the infobox; after all these infoboxes were designed for countries not for supranational entities. If you disagree, please provide reasonable counterarguments rather than a plain unargumented no. Arnoutf 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say the above strikes me as being a separate table. It is quite interesting to see a table of the largest cities in the EU by population. However, the existing table is not really as informative as it should be - it should be based on metropolitan areas. On that basis, Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester should all be on the top 10 table with London. Also, what do you base your assertion that London is not a typical European city on? Do you mean it doesn't have Hanseatic-style overhanging houses? It used to - they were all bombed flat by the Germans! Or is it the international financial success and powerhouse media/fashion capital that is different? That would be correct as Paris and Milan are both in decline to London and Frankfurt is virtually giving up and handing over to London as financial centre. MarkThomas 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I meant a EU city, London most definitely is a European city. Why London in my opinion is not a EU city, has mainly to do with the UK taking a very isolated spot in the EU (no Euro, fairly Eurosceptic); note that the EU cities I mentioned (Strassbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels) are much much smaller then many others, but IMHO are among the few cities with a EU rather than a national image alone. Arnoutf 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I think the framework you're viewing it from Arnoutf (EU = EU countries who love the EU beyond measure and uncritically) is fairly POVist - I would prefer a much more factual approach as I think that's what the typical reader would prefer - which is that all countries officially in the EU are in the EU and that's what the page needs to be about. Tables in particular are about statistical facts and not opinions. If you look at the facts, the largest metropolitan cities in Europe, in order, are London, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, Birmingham, Milan, Madrid, Manchester, Rome, Naples. The East European ones are very small in comparison as they are not on the whole bloated conurbations. That's fine for the table called "Largest cities in the European Union". The table you are talking about could be called "Largest cities in EU Euro Monetary Area countries with a tendancy Not to Challenge Brussels". MarkThomas 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear, these arguments were directed at the inclusion of a largest city of the EU (singular) in the article infobox template (right top of article), these arguments do not apply to the same magnitude to the large cities section; of which I have a more moderate view and I think that list has some truly interesting content (although I think that section would be better suited for a Geography, or living in the EU separate article). Arnoutf 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:MarkThomas Please see Largest European metropolitan areas and Largest urban areas of the European Union to adjust knowledge of city size. @User:Arnoutf The London entry is a standard feature, but also dispensable. a) largest cities are already covered in own section and are put in perspective with others extensively. b) infobox constantly overlaps with history section / space could be saved. c) in this case, the very official(institutional) facts in infobox are outweighing and London is not in line. I´m not hardcore about this, but it can be removed. Lear 21 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We've had all this before. Largest European metropolitan areas is supposed to be about the whole of Europe, not just the EU, and therefore includes Russia and also uses different years and different definitions of cities for different countries. Russian statistics on Moscow are also untrustworthy, ignoring severe depopulations as people flee to the West for example. Largest urban areas of the European Union is also flawed as it defines the Paris urban area differently to that of London. On the same basis used for the Paris calculation, London should be more like 14 million. There is a good deal of sloppy, error-ridden and confused data being displayed on WP pages in this field. MarkThomas 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, further to the above, we should use this data from Eurostat, which is by far the best from a scientifically worked out point of view. Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in the European Union. MarkThomas 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

EU anthem

I just found two recordings, public domain, from http://www.navyband.navy.mil/anthems/all_countries.htm. If yall want them, let me know please. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerging superpower

The claim that superpower status is acknowledged by the CIA is spurious, I removed it. The cited source, the CIA Factbook, simply does not say this. The Washington Times is not a reliable source in general, and the online news cited does not say what the original source is, the 'Chineese report' which sees the EU as a superpower. It is not verifiable. China does support EU expansion, but this is not enough for a reliable statement of its views.Paul111 10:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't know the Washington Times, but your claim that it is in general not reliable needs some more backing then just stating it. How do you know? How can you say? Arnoutf 11:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue can be resolved by citing the original source, the "official paper" from Beijing. As it stands it is untraceable, and therefore not verifiable. There should in any case be no problem in finding an official Chinese view of the EU from the Foreign Ministry website. Further discussion of the The Washington Times is then unnecessary.Paul111 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Location of EU bodies

I moved this issue to a new article Location of European Union institutions, at an overview article the Institutions section should focus on the institutions themsleves, and not on the location controversies. I reverted re-insertion, others may comment here.Paul111 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

^ "Panorama of the European Union", Europa. Accessed January 24, 2007

[panorama-1] "Panorama of the European Union", Europa. Accessed January 24, 2007

[1]