Talk:European Union/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Roman Empire Map - History Section

Given the fact that the roman empire basically introduced the idea of European unity and has had an undeniably strong influence on that ideea(european unity) as well as the history of pretty much all members states effectively (even those that weren't part of the empire) and the continent as whole , I strongly suggest re-adding this image(map) in the "history" section (around where the roman empire is mentioned). The image was there before however someone removed it without ever discussing it on the talk page . I tried re-adding it but I was told to take it to the talk page.

Even though it's not a country , it's also worth mentioning that most countries have the maps of their 'predecessors' in their history section. Romdwolf (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems a bit undue for this article. Perhaps History of the European Union could be expanded. CMD (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that the EU, a political and economic union based on mutual consent, is strongly influenced by an ancient empire built by military conquest. Even if reliable sources could be found to support that assertion, I agree that WP:UNDUE applies, although the map could be more apposite at History of the European Union.Tammbeck^talk 13:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

On further thought, the subject is adequately described in History of Europe and European integration. I think it's unlikely there would be a consensus to add a map of the Roman Empire at History of the European Union.Tammbeck^talk 14:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

The first sentence of the article reads: "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are located primarily in Europe." I'd suggest making the last word "Europe" into a link to the article about the continent. 83.245.228.99 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC) 83.245.228.99 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks. CMD (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Map on the 'Social policy and equality' tab should be made smaller

In my opinion, the map on the 'Social policy and equality' tab should be made smaller as it is ruining the alignment of the text on the tab, making it look unprofessional in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Tourism's role in economy

Doesn't tourism deserve a section for it (since it generates approximately 10% of EU's income)? Grandia01 (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but it being a large sector of the economy doesn't mean that this was the responsibility of the EU. Certainly actions like Schengen and common visas will have had an effect, but a lot of tourism is the result of state-level actions as well. CMD (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: @Grandia01:: The way I see it (probably disagreeing with CMD), as long as you use quality sources dealing with the European Union and tourism (instead of doing your own thing cherry-picking information from individual states and, bluntly speaking, doing original research) I see no problem whatsoever. Fortunately there some quality sources around. To name a few:

• Anastasiadou, Constantia (2006). "Tourism and the European Union". In Hall, Derek; Smith, Melanie; Marciszewslka, Barbara (eds.). Tourism in the New Europe: the Challenges and Opportunities of EU Enlargement. CABI. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-84593-117-9.
• Anastasiadou, Constantia (2011). "Promoting sustainability from above: reflections on the influence of the European Union on tourism governance". Policy Quarterly. 7 (4). doi:10.26686/pq.v7i4.4403.
• Santana-Gallego, María; Ledesma-Rodríguez, Francisco; Pérez-Rodríguez, Jorge (2015). "The euro effect: Tourism creation, tourism diversion and tourism potential within the European Union". European Union Politics. doi:10.1177/1465116515600533.
• Mayer, Marius; Zbaraszewski, Wojciech; Pieńkowski, Dariusz; Gach, Gabriel; Gernert, Johanna (2019). "Cross-Border Politics and Development in the European Union with a Focus on Tourism". Cross-Border Tourism in Protected Areas. Springer. pp. 65–84. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05961-3_3.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to quality sources, I was saying that 10% of the EU's economy being tourism doesn't mean the EU is responsible for generating that entire 10%.

Another issue might be that this article is already too long, and simply adding more text exacerbates the issue. There is a very paltry bit on tourism in Economy of the European Union which could use significant improvement. CMD (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Done; also heeded the comments/feedback of CMD and user:Asqueladd. thank you Grandia01 (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You cannot use a 2006 source to back up a statement comprised of a "as of 2019" specific data.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

done. thank you Grandia01 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Grandia, if you have done further research on the topic please consider adding it to the specific Economy of the European Union page. CMD (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Grandia01. Sources are used to directly back up an statement. Insofar they do not directly verify the statement (whether they are published in 2006, 2011 or 2019), you cannot cite them. Therefore I have undone your recent adit. In any case, those sources allow you to give a more enduring view of "tourism and the European Union" rather than a simple amateur statement with an expiration date that provides no understanding of the issue. As long as you do not approach the intended edit in terms of adding content verified by sources, I am afraid the article should stay as it is.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Then would simply citing the initial source suffice? Grandia01 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"European+Union" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect European+Union. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 11#European+Union until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Original research in /background/?

The five sources used in the last sentence of the first paragraph directly deal with the EU, they cannot be in cause here. For instance: Gorp & Renes (A European Cultural Identity? Heritage and shared histories in the European Union): For the last two thousand years, the Christian church has attempted to unify Europe in cultural terms. Christianity did not originate in Europe but, building upon the organisation of the Roman Empire, has tried throughout the Middle Ages to become a Europe-wide organisation. Only the three sources that precede do not directly deal with the EU, but they are here to give a short overview of what those five academic sources are referring to (i.e., the Roman Empire and Christendom). Only the second paragraph (on the historical separation between the Latin/Roman Catholic and Greek/Orthodox Europes) would qualify as original research. I have consequently changed the OR template into an inline tag, hoping that someone'll add better references to the second paragraph. Alcaios (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added reliable sources to the second paragraph. I think the issue can thus be regarded as solved. Alcaios (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

In the section of European Commission, the old President Jean-Claude Juncker is still mentioned in the text while now it is Ursula von der Leyen

replace ne of the 27 is the President of the European Commission (Jean-Claude Juncker for 2014–2019), appointed by the European Council

with ne of the 27 is the President of the European Commission (Ursula von der Leyen for 2019–2024), appointed by the European Council Der-seega (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

Change “Containing in 2020 some 5.8% of the world population,” to “Containing some 5.8% of the world population (as of 2020),” or “With 5.8% of the world population as of 2020,” or at least “Containing, in 2020, some 5.8% of the world population,” Btronn (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Secret Organization

The EU Intelligence and Situation Centre (EU INTCEN) is an intelligence body of the External Action Service (EEAS) of the European Union (EU) under the authority of the EU's High Representative. Agency executive: José Casimiro Morgado, Di... Preceding agency: EU Situation Centre — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASG1266 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitanaras and the Öresundsregion

I think that the Danish-Swedish Øresund- or Öresund- region has been forgotten in the list. It counts 4.034.464 people (2019). Source: https://www.oresundsinstituttet.org/befolkning/ 83.250.83.65 (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Tax hevens

• https://nomoretax.eu/netherlands-tax-haven/

the Netherlands (third position), Ireland (sixth position), Luxembourg (seventh position), and Cyprus (tenth position)

common economy Switzerland (fifth position).

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228129844_The_Netherlands_A_Tax_Haven

Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Obsolete

Some parts of the text are obsolete, eg. "In the 2010 budget of €141.5 billion".Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The source https://web.archive.org/web/20070610133514/http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/index_19_en.htm is obsolete, 2007. It is misquoted here.Xx236 (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

'mobility' ignored here, the word describes here education.Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Official scripts

It seems unusual to me that the EU has "official scripts". Can someone find a legal citation for this? 60.240.73.185 (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a direct result of which the official languages are. There is no separate legal act stating what the official scripts are. Please see this reference. --Glentamara (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Globe map is not correct due to present province of Kosovo and Metohija as an independent country which is not true due to UN1244 resolution source: http://undocs.org/S/RES/1244(1999) Nexyvet (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done, Kosovo deals with the EU. CMD (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In the map with the “green” shaded countries, I wish there were an easy way to see the names of those countries near but outside the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Official Predicting the Realistic Future of The European Union

here's what it's Official Predicting the Realistic Future of The European Union, the Reason Italy, Poland, Romania, Ireland and Greece are Independent because they're too Tired of being part of the European Union, so they'll be Prepared to be their independent Nation just like Ukraine, Moldavia, United King, Switzerland, Russia, Iceland and Norway by Writing a Exit out the European Union Treaty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.183.80 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a map. Its significance is what? If you have a requested change, please tell us what it is and sign your post with 4 x ~ so we know who you are. Britmax (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

is about the Predicting the Realistic Future of The European Union when Malta, Ireland, Italy, poland, Romania and Greece will Become independent Nation to exit the European Union by writing a Treaty. here's a map 71.213.183.80 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)71.213.183.80 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC) 71.213.183.80 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC) 71.213.183.80 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Who made it? What criteria did they use to predict which countries would leave the EU? Why do they think some of the other countries won't join (or rejoin)? What conditions would allow ALL of the Balkan countries to join? (Especially since Kosovo is apparently going to be a separate EU member from Serbia.) --Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the mapmaker also expects Northern Ireland to leave the UK and rejoin Ireland. --Khajidha (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The currencies of the EU

Shagosrodrigues (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Since the Caribbean Netherlands do not form part of the European Union (and instead constitute OCT status of the Union), the “US Dollar (USD; Caribbean Netherlands)” shall be removed from the currency sector and also changed the “10 others” to “9 others”.2001:8A0:7D54:8000:9947:AA52:A080:5226 (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done A S U K I T E   21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

Change numbers in table associated with Section 2.3 Languages, as they are largely incorrect. Particularly glaring is the statistic stating English to be the native language of 1% of the EU population, when it should be 13% according to the cited primary source. However, many of the numbers are wrong and should be fixed. Mplsneuro (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done:Per a recent source (Forbes):
"Most of those speakers were not native. While the U.K. was a member, 13% of EU citizens were native speakers of English. As of the 1 February Brexit Day, this number has dropped to just 1%."
The 13% is referring to the pre-brexit total of native English speakers in the EU, the table is correct in declaring that only 1% are native English speakers. If you have any other sources, feel free to let us know, or you are free to put in another request, submitting a corrected version of the table and somebody can insert it for you if it checks out. Thanks!  A S U K I T E   16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

Any mention of European countries being states should be changed. The member COUNTRIES of the European Union are not states, like in the United States, but their individual countries. Please make this change. 2001:999:1:1C3B:9A1F:D837:ED78:D017 (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done, please see Sovereign state. CMD (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

Add this map : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union.svg which includes Overseas territories, outermost regions and special cases. It is also up to date with Brexit. Pollockito (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pollockito: There doesn't seem to be a good place to insert that. The 'Member states' section already has a large map and a large table, while the 'Geography' section has several photographs, and both sections have relatively short text. Where exactly did you want to add that, and why? LongLivePortugal (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a helpful map, poor contrasts (MOS:ACCESS issue); not important details (the overseas territories et al. can be covered in the articles about the countries themselves - If there are some general special cases, such as the customs union not being in effect with the distant territories or the like, that is best covered as a few short sentences, not a map which loses the forest for the trees). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@LingLivePortugal: I wanted to put it on the right panel. Like in the United States page : the second map is hided, and you only see the continental area, but if you click it shoes the overseas territories. The reason why is that, while the continental area is the main part of the EU and should be visible by default, it is better to be able to click to sea the rest of the EU (like Guyane for example). What do you think about this hided but clickable map like on the US page ? Pollockito (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Pollockito: In that case, I think it is a good idea, and I have done it just now. @RandomCanadian: If you disagree, feel free to undo my edit and discuss here. LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

I noticed that inside the infobox, regarding the official scripts, the link to the Latin alphabet bring to the article about the ancient alphabet instead of the modern Latin script and so it should be changed so that the link is linked to the proper article. 84.222.184.123 (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Change Council of the European Union President from Portugal to Slovenia Nick OlFox (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

This information is marked as missing citation(s) in the right-hand overview table. Please add the following reference "https://slovenian-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/presidency/presidency-of-the-council-of-the-european-union/" I'm fairly new to wikipedia and just discovered the citation hunt (https://citationhunt.toolforge.org/en), which led me here. Thanks in advance. Sir Elpis (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I've added it to the article body instead, as that particular Presidency wasn't already mentioned. CMD (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021 in regards to the section "Council of the European Union"

Which text should be changed

In the section about the Council of the European Union, there are the following two sentences:

"Notwithstanding its different configurations, it is considered to be one single body.^[157] In addition to its legislative functions, the council also exercises executive functions in relations to the Common Foreign and Security Policy.^{[citation needed]}"

How should it be changed

I propose to change these two sentences to become the following text:

"Notwithstanding its different configurations, it is considered to be one single body. In addition to the legislative functions, members of the council also have executive responsibilities, such as the development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy and the coordination of broad economic policies within the Union.^[154]"

Major changes:

• shifting the position of the 154 reference
• attributing executive responsibilities - not powers - to the members of the council - not the council directly
• adding the CFSP and economic coordination as such responsibilities, in accordance with the reference provided

Why should it be changed that way

1. The source 154, linking to https://web.archive.org/web/20070703155822/http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/council/index_en.htm , provides information on both sentences and affirms that the Council of the European Union has non-legislative responsibilities. These are mainly the two responsibilities added to the second sentence: CFSP and economic policy coordination.
2. At the same time, the main article (Council of the European Union) contradicts this claim: "Finally, before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, it formally held the executive power of the EU which it conferred upon the European Commission.[11][12]"
3. Also whether or not economic coordination and the development of the CFSP can be defined as "executive" responsibilities is unclear. This is reflected in the academic debate on the subject, where the role of the individual states and the question of how much de-facto-power EU institutions hold are major points of discussions.
4. As members of the council are members or representatives of the member states, they certainly hold executive responsibilities.

References

tl;dr Justification

This edit would provide more information to the reader by taking full advantage of the good and valid reference. At the same time, it avoids questionable statements about matters that are still discussed by politicians and scholars alike. Larger edits are not justified at this location, as they would belong to the main article.

Sir Elpis (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Sir Elpis: Thank you for the contribution. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Constitunional referendum

This article seems to make no mention of one of the most significant events in the EU's history, the failure of the referendum on the EU constitution. Whilst the FAQ makes it quite clear that this page will not allow any criticism of the EU and that the article should be positive, it seems difficult to reconcile the fact that the only opportunity EU citizens had to express their opinion on the transition from an inter-governmental organisation to a United States of Europe (ever tighter integration) was cancelled because the popular vote was rejecting it.

This failure caused the EU's program to be delayed for several years until the Lisbon treaty glossed over the problem. Even so, there remains a considerable grey area where the EU conflicts with National constitutions.

Can a serious article really ignore this elephant in the room or simply claim that the issues are dealt with by the Euroscepticism page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.115.69 (talk)

If the FAQ does not address your concerns, it's doubtful that anything anyone tells you will either. The FAQ is pretty clear as to why the article is the way it is. If you really want to invest the time and energy required to pursue that sort of major change to the article, you are free to do so, however. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the FAQ is pretty clear, and by and large I agree with it. But does that justify excluding anything that might be negative? The transition from CEE to UE was fundamental in the history of the EU and the flop of the constitution was a major setback that resulted in the compromise that became the Lisbon treaty. This article just has a big hole between 2002 and 2009. A lot went on in those years! I always distrust attempts to bury the truth because it is inconvenient. I understand it when we are talking about little quibbles that were later resolved, but here we are talking about an issue that setback the program several years and is still not fully resolved. Yes I would be prepared to spend the time documenting it, it would require a small paragraph to mention it and there are numerous references available from the contemporary news coverage, not to mention several books. But from what I gather from this page such negative issues should be avoided. That is the issue I am raising here...should the Constitution disaster be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.115.69 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The FAQ does not say to exclude anything negative. I would also suggest it would be more productive to focus on the content instead of suggesting editors are burying the truth. On the content itself, there are bigger issues with the History section here than the missing period here, but I like 331dot would not object to someone finding some high quality wp:reliable sources on the matter (preferably books/journals over news coverage) and suggesting some text. History of the European Union has a paragraph, but it is unsourced. CMD (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

United Kingdom in intro

I deleted info about United Kingdom from the intro. New user LongLivePortugal (Total edits: 343) undone this change twice. The user wrote that United Kingdom's exit from the EU is important information. I don't want to start an edit-war, that's why I started a discussion.

There is a lot of important information that was omitted from this article - for example: the accession of 10 countries to the EU in 2004, yes - ten!!!, not one. This is a huge increase in the EU, this information does not exist as such in the article (not counting the table), is 10 times bigger/important information than the exit of one country from the EU... but this is not mentioned in the intro. The intro of the article is too important. The intro should contain the most important information about the whole EU, there is no place for one-state favoritism. The place to leave the union is in the content of the article, never in intro of the article. It's obvious. I propose to remove this information (about UK tc) from the intro of the article, information about this in the content of the article is sufficient. Anyone have a better idea? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the relevant sentences currently state: "The original member states of what came to be known as the European Communities were the Inner Six: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The communities and their successors have grown in size by the accession of new member states and in power by the addition of policy areas to their remit. The United Kingdom became the first member state to leave the EU on 31 January 2020. Before this, three territories of member states had left the EU or its forerunners."

Now, there is clearly a reference to the progressive enlargement of the EU, and there is specific mention of which states had been its initial founders. It makes perfect sense to say that, since the foundation of the EU, some countries have joined (22) and others (in this case, only one) have (has) left. The article on EFTA follows a similar pattern, informing the readers in the introduction of the seven countries that had founded it and that two more joined and explaining what happened to the other five (which left). It would not be coherent to give information on the accession of member states but not on the withdrawal — especially when Brexit was such a major event, which took years to settle (during which it almost seemed like the only thing that was being handled in countless EU meetings), which weakened the EU's economy substantially (we're talking about 15% of the EU's GDP) and which, politically, was a blow to the European project, as it showed how some countries have substantial Eurosceptic movements which, in this case, had triumphed for the first time. It is not one-state favouritism, but merely the narration of one important event (if more countries had left, we would mention them as well).

Having said that, I also believe that the reference to the three territories is confusing (because no detail is provided) and not very relevant (we're not talking about countries here). Thus, I would agree with removing the sentence: "Before this, three territories of member states had left the EU or its forerunners." I also think we can choose to elaborate on which and how many countries joined the EU at which times if we find it relevant, particularly the 10-country enlargement of 2004, which was unparalleled in the EU's history due to its size. But Brexit also had such a significant political and economic impact that I believe it must be briefly mentioned in the intro, as it is now. LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Presumably the three territories are Algeria, Greenland, and Saint Barthélemy. I'm not sure any is due that much space in the lead. Under the current text, I would lean towards Subtropical-man's view, as "grown in size by the accession of new member states" is a very general and brief summary of enlargement as a whole, and as a whole the EU is larger than the original six mentioned. If there was a revisions stating the number of states joining, it would make sense to state the number of states leaving, but this is not what is in the current text. Regarding the assertions of impact and importance, those are quite WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. The assertion especially that it was "the only thing that was being handled in countless EU meetings" seems almost certainly wrong, the EU established its roadmap by September 2016, following which Brexit became a part of regular meetings. If EU meetings were consistently dominated by anything over the Brexit period, it was migration, as it was before Brexit and as is likely to continue into the future. CMD (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021

45 97.92.69.81 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox: requested change

Can someone change the population link in the infobox from Demographics of Europe to Demographics of the European Union and the area link from Geography of Europe to Geography of the European Union. I tried to do so myself but couldn't see how. Morgengave (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Done, it's the Linking_Name field. CMD (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

Do you mind if Swiss Francs to be added to Currencies of the EU section (within infobox), since it’s legal currency in Italy’s exclave Campione d’Italia and de facto currency in Germany’s territory “Büsingen am Hochrhein”? If it is appropriate, please add it. Reference on Campione d’Italia where CHF is legal tender: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200517-campione-ditalia-an-italian-town-surrounded-by-switzerland ; https://www.miralux.ch/campione_ing.htm

Thanks, 78.191.137.235 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

New changes by User:BernardaAlba (new section)

Hello. User:BernardaAlba made some debatable changes. I've undone some of them, however, the user creates an edit-war. Wikipedia's rules are simple. Feel free to changes, if the changes are debatable then consensus should be reached per Wikipedia:CYCLE (new edit + revert = must to be discuss and consensus). I would like to discuss one of its greatest changes: adding an entire section about LGBT etc. The user gave an absurd explanation in the description of changes: "if the problem is not about patriarchalism and homophobia, there is no argument to delate the eqaulity information in the page". Following this lead, let's add an entire section of the protection of LGBT rights to all articles about countries, regions, cities and villages. The European Union is too important an article to create separate sections for niche issues. The European Union has dozens of agencies and institutes, why European Institute for Gender Equality must to be whole section in main article? The main article is the place for the most important data about European Union: history, currency (euro), cooperation, member states, Schengen Area, European Central Bank and other the most important issues for the whole union, European Institute for Gender Equality it is most certainly not one of them. Article has 261,192 bytes, is too large, not compliant with Wikipedia guidelines and... it is not a garbage dump and place for create whole sections for each EU' issue separately. If anyone besides the author has key arguments to insert a whole section into the article, please write. Arguments must be persuasive to reach consensus per Wikipedia:Consensus. Without consensus, Wikipedia:Stable version will be restored. Of course, I invite users to comment who also think that the in the main article of European Union, entire section about European Institute for Gender Equality/LGBT is redundant. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: A case of Wikipedia:Main article fixation and WP:UNDUE if you ask me (and whatever the case, an EU Commission press release and a politico piece hardly look the basis to argue "DUENESS" to begin with). And given the pattern of edit warring and non-engagement (bar some ridiculous straw man fallacies), BernardaAlba's behaviour fits Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently in a topic about social policies, where you can find info about labour, education, health, social security or regional policy you shouldn´t find eqaulity politics because "it is not important". Well, yes, the only way you can think that is from homophobic and misogin attitudes, i am sorry to tell. Those policies are not about just an agency, there has a full legislative core, from the fundamental rights of the EU document, to the trities, to directives, to policies taken by the Commission. There is a topic about all the main policies of the EU in this article appart from equality policies. So yes, there is no other reason appart from heteropatriarchal values to do so. Sad. Also you have said i have added things i shouldn´t that i haven´t, as an argument to say you were delating my work. Funny things, those things are mantained in this version of undone my work, because i didn´t add it. And you have also delated things that are not about equality policies that i also added and you haven´t mentioned about them, just becaue, this undo of my work, is just based in homophobia and sexism. Really sad for wikipedia --BernardaAlba (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Alleged "heteropatriarchal values", "misogin [sic] attitudes", "homophobia" and "sexism" notwithstanding, can you provide a frame outlined by scholar sources and then propose content based on those quality secondary sources abiding to WP:DUE and WP:BALASP (instead of... like... mmm... your opinion on the matter)? To discuss it here. Suggestions: [1][2][3]--Asqueladd (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

To name the legislation and policies, with the references included, about equality and non discrimination in the European Union are my personal opinions? Interesting.BernardaAlba (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Anyway thank you for showing why those policies and legislation are so important and not irrelevant and apparently prohibited to be told that they exist on wikipedia. Sad but not surprised. There is no a single portfolio with its own commissioner that hasn´t its own space in this page apart from... yes, equality, the one that 2 heterosexual men has decided is not important and shouldn´t appear in the page. Nice. But i am the one not being objective.

BernardaAlba, you keep saying the same thing, so you still don't understand my arguments. I made it clear that is no space in the main article to include all the information about the European Union. The main article should contain only the most important data about the European Union as such, pillars of the European Union, issues needed for the functioning of the European Union. Issues of genders and LGBT do not meet these requirements in any category. Gender and LGBT rights are absolutely no meaning to the functioning of the European Union as such, so creating a separate section about this in the main article of European Union is totally absurd.

Also, BernardaAlba: you get an official warning about using personal attacks per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You did not provide any substantive arguments or sources, practically all of your comments show signs of personal attacks and slanders incl. accusing other users of "heteropatriarchal values, homophobia, sexism" and discriminating / determining the orientation of other users (for example "2 heterosexual men". This behavior will no longer be tolerated. This is already a recidivism. Next time, the consequences will be drawn. You have no right to imply / guess / slander anything about other users! Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand perfectly your arguments, and they have no sense. There is a section for sports, cutlure, environement, health, energy, transport, humanitarian aid, education, regional policy, geography, telecom, media, agriculture, religion etc etc etc. If you consider all those things are "important things for the functioning of the european union" but equality is not, i am sorry to tell you but there is no many ways to answer why is so. --BernardaAlba (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Whoah, BernardaAlba you have been handed a rope here, and instead of taking advantage of it your are randomly wild guessing gender and sexual preference of editors. This malicious and abusive behaviour should not be condoned.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I would call malicious and abusive and structural violence to censore a topic in wikipedia just becuase i don´t like the topic. There is no reason why to censore it apart from the personal opinion of the censorer. Non discrimination and equality standars is a basic for the EU, from the fundamental rights charter to the legislation and policies. The EU citizenship would have no sense if that basic standard would not exist. And that is one of the main pillars of the EU itself. There are topics about religion, sports, regional policies or telecomunications, but you decide based in anything else but your personal ideas to not let the article to speak about equality legislation and policies in the EU. That might not be the EU you want, but it is the EU it is, with its equality commisioness, with its legislation and its policies. To guarantee the minim standards that let the EU citizneship to exist. So yes, i think it is abusive and malicious try to control a wikipedia page to censore that information in the net. --BernardaAlba (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, please stop slanders towards other users. Your text of "(...) i don´t like the topic", it's just slander and your own feelings about other users. And stop using terms anymore of "censore" / "censorer". There is no censorship here. Just because others don't think your topic is relevant to the main article doesn't mean it's "homophobia", "don´t like" or "censorship". There are separate articles on this topic.

I still have to explain the same. In the article there are data of: "The treaties declare that the European Union itself is "founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities ... in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail" and more about human rights. So, there is general information about human rights and different minorities (which include LGBT / gender among others). Your idea is to create a whole new section on the topic of LGBT/gender, in this case is redundant and no make sense. In addition, your idea breaking the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Why should we create separate section favoring gender/LGBT, whereas we not create separate section about other minority groups? Therefore, it is important to write about human rights in general in the main article, and not to favoritism by creating separate sections for a particular group of people. In Wikipedia, we will not tolerate violations of Wikipedia rules, we will not accept user's actions who clearly behave like gender/LGBT' activists, who attack other users with a different opinion, using standard words for activists like "homophobia, sexism, censore". I repeat again: in the main article of the European Union there are general informations on human and minority rights. We cannot create separate sections for a specific group of people (in this case LGBT/gender), for several reasons incl. Wikipedia:NPOV, standardization of articles, article size guidelines. So there's no censorship here, there are separate articles about your topic, in main article of the European Unio there are general informations about this topic. You have no arguments, you don't even have a reason/scratch to require a separate section about LGBT/gender in main article of European Union. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a minimum core of legislation about equality in the EU and there are specific policies about the social situation. at first in the article it talks about institutions and the main "constitutional" core of legislation, but then it extends the info in the different types of "pillars". In the economical pillar it talks about the internal market, competition, financial markets, transport, energy, industry, agriculture. In the foreign affairs pillar it talks about humanitarian aid, trade, development, defende. Then there is a social pillar, which talks about health, education, regional policy, BUT it mixed labour and social rights issues with equality issues. I just did put all the issues about labour and social security and social rights together, and the equality ones together in other, just as it is organized with all the other issues in the page. Exactly the same. The same that appears all the other issues i have mentioned and in the same way of organitation. But, with no reason, it is decided it shouldn´t be in that way. It is completelly unreasonable. Also because it has been delated everything i changed, even things are not related with equality. With which arguments? Everything is completelly unreasonable. --BernardaAlba (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Your new section describes the niche problem in too much detail. In 2007 was made X, another year it was made Y, The Directive2000/43/EC regulates X, The Directive 2000/78/EC regulates Y etc, it doesn't fit the main article on the European Union. About human and minority rights we have a whole section in the article, you create other section with an emphasis on gender / LGBT. This is unacceptable. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear polish friend. My section talks about the competences the commissioner of equality holds. Gender, lgbt, racial and ethnical discrimination and discrimination based on disabilities. It might be your opinion it is not important enough to have its own commissioner, as there is one of education, health or labour. But it is the EU opinion, and that is what matters, and not your personal opinon. That is what is completelly unaceptable. And also, you keep not mentioning about all the other issues i have talked about in my changes. --BernardaAlba (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Now, the European Union has 28 or more commissioners. So, my friend, I will quote your own text: "My section talks about the competences the commissioner of equality holds". Did you now understand that the competences of one of the 28 commissioners are not very important to the main article of the European Union? I'm not going to argue with you anymore because it's a waste of time. Your complete absence of a neutral point of view creates a totally absurdity, that main article of the European Union must have a whole separate section about competences of one of the 28 commissioners and describes the niche problem in too much detail like "In 2007 was made X, another year it was made Y, The Directive2000/43/EC regulates X, The Directive 2000/78/EC regulates Y etc".... although there is a separate section of human and minority rights. Because this is the most important for the whole European Union because it is LGBT/gender case, it must to be, if not - it's "homophobia" or "censorship". You're wasting my time. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

All the competences of the commissioners are already explained in the article, appart from equality. Internal market, health, transport, energy, humanitarian aid, etc. ALL but one. Guess which one. Your complete absence of neutrality is obvious. But darling, the EU will not become another Poland, no matter how much you try to censor info in the net. women, lgbt people, disable people, ethnic minorities and migrants are up to 70% of population. Too big to be the little "niche problem" you say it is from your priviliged and partial point of view. No matter how much effort you put in your ultra-conservative counter-reformation, you will loose this. Maybe today you are allowed to censor wikipedia, but this is a battle you have lost. You are in the wrong side of history and the world will not become the shithole place people like you are making Poland to be. --BernardaAlba (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Lie is your new method? You wrote: "All the competences of the commissioners are already explained in the article" - where? Please provide specific quotes from the article for 27 commissioners. Please prove your lies. Second: I will quote your text from your section: "Since 2019 there has been a European commissioner for equality" - that is, as you can see, the European Union has functioned throughout its history without commissioner for equality, so this is a niche thing. Without "your" commissioner, the European Union functioned all the time. This is the second time when your comment has proven that this is a niche case. I will remind the previous one again, you wrote: "My section talks about the competences the commissioner of equality holds" and facts: "Now, the European Union has 28 or more commissioners" and my question "did you now understand that the competences of one of the 28 commissioners are not very important to the main article of the European Union?". I'll skip the rest of your comment, these more personal attacks. Next time - if you keep writing nonsense about me and referring to my nationality, your account will be reported to block. This is last warning! Summary of the discussion: there is already a section about human and minority rights and... as you already proved twice, new commissioner for equality is an unimportant and redundant issue, as well as other redundant information like "In 2007 was made X, another year it was made Y, The Directive2000/43/EC regulates X, The Directive 2000/78/EC regulates Y etc". Create a next (second) section with similar topics makes no sense at all, and instead you giving serious arguments, you only proved that competences the commissioner of equality are irrelevant to the functioning of the European Union. I think that the topic is already exhausted and the discussion can be closed because with each new comment you discredit your idea. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"You are in the wrong side of history and the world will not become the shithole place people like you are making Poland to be." Stop with the xenophobia, BernardaAlba! You need to persuade the rest of users of your proposal for new content in the current article. For example bringing holistic secondary sources anchoring the subtopic within the main topic and underpinning the purposed content about "equality" (the specific content about "equality" that would be justified in the article as per WP:BALASP and WP:DUE, both in type and length rather than "any content about equality").--Asqueladd (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

As you can see, User:BernardaAlba doesn't have any arguments anymore, so far there have been mostly normal personal attacks, now even xenophobia or similar. For me, the discussion is to closed. Summary of the discussion: there is already a section about human and minority rights and... as User:BernardaAlba already proved (unconsciously) twice, new commissioner for equality (the main theme of his new section) is an unimportant and redundant issue, as well as other redundant information in new section like "In 2007 was made X, another year it was made Y, The Directive2000/43/EC regulates X, The Directive 2000/78/EC regulates Y etc". Create a next (second) section with similar topics makes no sense at all, there is no any reasons to write about it in the main article of the European Union . User:BernardaAlba - under discussion - worsened his situation even more, showing arguments against his own idea. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

As you can see, our dear polish friend is not talking about the many arguments i have used because he doesn´t care about them, he just want to censor because of his personal beliefs the info he doesn´t want to appear in this page. He hasn´t argue about my argument a single time in his interventions. A clear abuse of power --BernardaAlba (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

New changes by User:BernardaAlba (violating copyrights)

Hello. User:BernardaAlba uploaded to Commons poor quality File:Minimim income by country european union.jpg who violating copyrights: this is a poor quality photo of a table/chart created by someone else. This is photographing someone else's work and showing it as yours under your own license: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license"[4].

Also, user added this to article of the European Union [5]. Maybe, perhaps the user acted with good intentions, however, these editions violate Wikipedia rules and also the quality of the graphics is not appropriate for the main article on the European Union. I am asking for the opinion of administrators and other users who know about copyright. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to tell whether the graph is actually original work by the user. Regardless I do not think it is a copyright violation because the method of illustration is too simple to be subject to copyright (Copyright rules for Scientific or technical diagrams). Nevertheless, I agree the quality is much too low to be included in the article and if the data were to be included it should be with the chart template (Template:Graph:Chart). Auguel (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Corruption and scandals

There is no place on Wikipedia or anywhere online really where corruption and scandals of the EU are presented in a easy to understand way. Finding even a single event of corruption is difficult. So I suggest there should either be a part of this page on the topic or a new page should be made or (preferably) both.

Here is an example event that could be featured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_cash_for_influence_scandal

Here is a "body mandated by the European Union" to fight fraud and corruption in EU that could be mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Anti-Fraud_Office

Here is an article about EU parliament voting not to be investigated by an independent transparency organisation: https://euobserver.com/institutional/150832

Here is a page on "moonlighting" aka having a second job as a MEP and how it can lead to conflict of interest: https://transparency.eu/mep-income/

Here is an article on why corruption matters: https://www.transparency.org/en/news/why-corruption-matters-in-the-eu-elections

Corruption is not subjective. Several MEPs being bribed and put in jail is not subjective. Corruption, whether wide spread or not, is a fact and should not be left out of the page.

I would love to create this section myself and use all the sources I provided above to get it started but apparently I'm not trusted enough to do so.

Beepsnap (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If European Anti-Fraud Office already exists, why not add to that page? CMD (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Flagicon EU Ministers

Recently User:PJ Geest added flagicons to EU ministers, this was then reverted by users Asqueladd and Auguel. I believe there is an encyclopedic value in showing which nations these ministers came from and/or built their careers in. I've created this talk entry to understand what damage is done to include these flags in the topic box. Alssa1 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It is haphazard. You think nationality should be emphasized, other users may think European political party should be emphasized, others perhaps national political party, others perhaps gender, others perhaps religious beliefs. All of them add a "nugget of information", but there is no encyclopedic reason to insert either of them in the infobox. If you are curious about biodata, just click on the link. In addition it is misleading information, because they don't represent an EU member state as officeholders. The quintessential flagcruft/flagfixation.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing "haphazard" about its inclusion at all, usage of flags are acceptable on almost every other related infobox (particularly on other supra-national organisations like Nordic Council) and its inclusion is well within the guidance. The suggestion that it is about 'emphasis' is not accurate, this is about whether there is an enclyopedic value in having it; and I as well as the original editor believe that there is. Finally, it is a complete 'red herring' to suggest that because we include a flag in the infobox we will therefore have to explicitly declare political parties, gender, religious beliefs (etc); this is a discussion on the inclusion of flags next to the minister's name, nothing more. Alssa1 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

They are most certainly not used on almost every supra-national organisation infobox: Council of Europe, European Free Trade Association, United Nations, African Union, NATO, International Monetary Fund, Arab League, ASEAN. Auguel (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

because we include a flag in the infobox we will therefore have to explicitly declare political parties Haha. You have misunderstood me. There is a case to be made (depending on whom you ask) that the political party may come 'before' the inclusion of the flag, not 'after'. this is a discussion on the inclusion of flags next to the minister's name Well, yes, an answer to that discussion is that there is no reason whatsoever to emphasize a nationality when there is no organic need for it (just like any other qualifier).--Asqueladd (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It was a good faith edit from myself. I can understand both arguments. There is clearly no consensus to add the flags, so maybe we just leave it without the flags --PJ Geest (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cchigoche.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Euler diagram needs updating

The Euler diagram under foreign relations still shows Russia as part of the Council of Europe, but recently on March 10 it was announced that Russia will no longer participate in the Council of Europe. Lettuce Spice (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia's membership got suspended, but they are still a member. --Glentamara (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Confusing number in budget section

In the first image in the budget section, the budget for 2014–2020 is said to be "€1.087 billion". According to the manual of style, this should be interpreted as roughly 1 short-scale billion, or 10⁹ euros. But from context, it must be 10¹² euros, that is, the period is not used as a decimal point but as a thousands separator, which is common in many languages but hardly in English. (Ironically, many of the languages using the period in this way also use long-scale billions, so there the same number would be interpreted as 10¹⁵ euros instead.) Could this be clarified? For the record, I don't think just switching the period to a comma, while technically correct, would be the clearest solution. 94.255.173.184 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a bit of decimal point confusion. Charts are really meant to be templates or SVGs anyway.— Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

On Russian gas and collapse of the EU

Article should talk more about how the EU is completely at the mercy of Russian oil and how the EU will collapse soon with Brexit and the Ukraine war brewing. Many journalists have pointed out how weak the EU and NATO are when Russia can easily cut off gas supply to the west and Europe. Reliable news sources believe the EU is really fragile and will easily break apart as all USA forces are driven out of the continent, which is the wish of many Europeans who have been abused by American soldiers. Neri Lynn (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No, please see WP:CRYSTAL. --Nablicus (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

27 member states are located primarily in Europe

This is not accurate. All 27 member states are located in Europe. The fact that France and Spain have territories outside of Europe doesn’t change the fact that France and Spain are in Europe. Are we going to start saying the the US is primarily located in North America?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmaestro (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You could say that if you wanted to. I'm unclear from your statement why "primarily" is inaccurate, as you have described why it is accurate. CMD (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I like accuracy; it's why we have an encyclopedia. If the 27 member states are only "primarily" in Europe, then say so! Altanner1991 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

Internationalism in this article links to a Disambiguation page. I think it's better to change the link to Multilateralism in this article. 84.196.39.52 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have changed it to Internationalism (politics). Others are free to revert if they disagree. I'm leaving the request as unanswered. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing the request while waiting for further input, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Bug

Page has major issue probably due to codding, can someone fix it? RoyaleKingdom78 (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Page restored to last working version. CMD (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

I request you to allow me to edit this place because Ukraine gets its EU membership. Shivam Kumar 766 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Ukraine is a candidate, not a member. CMD (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh,Thanks for replying. Shivam Kumar 766 (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Incongruous subtitles with the audio clip

The sound snippet for the anthem shows the English translation of Schiller's poem An die Freunde which is indeed sung in the choral final of Beethoven's 9th symphony. However, the Anthem of Europe does not have any words. Besides, the version heard here is played by a marching band and not by a symphonic orchestra, which would render a choral quite odd indeed.

The French article fr:Hymne européen is specific as to the "wordlessness" :

   L'Hymne utilisé par les organisations européennes repose sur la seule mélodie, sans référence au texte de Schiller utilisé et remanié par Beethoven pour la composition de sa symphonie.

The associated audio clip there is without subtitles. Noliscient (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: flags and emblems

*Under the 'Government' section in the infobox, the various Presidents of the institutions (Parliament, Commission, Council) have the flag of their respective home state next to their name. They are not in office to represent a single member state, but instead the whole union. Thus, my view is that these flags should not be used.

*Personally I also think that it would fit more with general Wikipedia infobox aesthetics if the state that holds the Presidency of the EU Council (right now Czechia) has an emblem instead of a flag next to their name.

Visual example:  Czechia /  France /  Portugal instead of Czechia / France / Portugal. TorreAzzurro (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Although Great Britain left the EU, Northern Ireland stayed in the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Europe_and_the_European_Union.svg LeicesterToNottingham123 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No it didn't. Great Britain can't leave the EU as it wasn't a member, the United Kingdom was. When the UK left, Northern Ireland (as part of the UK) also left. And the map you point to very clearly shows that it left. Canterbury Tail talk 20:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Controversies and disputed changes made by User:Micga

User:Micga makes extremally new changes to the article (about 200 in week!!!!!!!!). I believe that the user should make some changes and wait for the reaction of other users. At the moment, it's hard to see what and when was changed in the article. I already omit the issue of removing most of the article's intro and moving the content to the section - which is an extremely controversial and debatable action

Earlier, some of the users noticed the problem: User_talk:Micga#Copying_within_Wikipedia_requires_attribution_(second_request) Later, also I noticed the another problem: User_talk:Micga#European_Union. Unreformable user. There is no contact with him.

As for my opinion - that all changes by User:Micga to the article should be undone. It's changes are i.e. some content redundant, hehave changed section names, he have changed the layout of the article, . I believe the article was better without your changes, inserting unnecessary adjuncts, which are not applicable to Wikipedia articles ant other.

Requests to pause edits so that other users can see the changes - without result.

• changes the layout of the article
• renames sections
• introduces a lot of content that would make up the main article
• uses redundant adjectives, questionable phrases, unnecessary words
• uses reminders, overzealous expressions, etc.
• removes the intro of the article and moves it to another section
• does not use discussion and does not wait for cosensus
• overuses the edition (200 changes in week) only in this one article

So far, I've inserted templates into the article. As for my opinion - that all new changes by User:Micga to the article should be undone. Do other users also think that the previous version of the article was better? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 04:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Any examples, please??The article was a mess - e.g. the section on institutions included only part of them, while the remainder was elsewhere; the economy section was scattered between other ones (foreign relations, politics etc.), education elsewhere than culture, and so on. So please justify your charges, because these are only your general and unsubstantiated opinions.Micga (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In general, there is no such thing as "overusing an article" and one shouldn't refer to active, hardworking editors as "unreformable" regardless of how one feels about their edits. I think the way forward here is to assume good faith and identity specific issues with the edits. So far, you have been specific about the moving of material from the lead. Furius (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC) ... But the lead is not meant to exceed three paragraphs and it currently seems to give a good introduction to the topic. Furius (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Furius, why do you use the term of "overusing an article" in quotation marks? This is a quote? I wrote that somewhere? Where? Second: please don't take the words out of context. I used the word "unreformable" because the user Micga neither responded nor complied with the requests of the two users on his user talk page. If other users point out to you that you did something wrong and you ignore it (no reaction or response) and keep on doing exactly the same, it's just "unreformable". Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been "overuses the edition" , which is also fine. A lot of people edit by making very many small edits. Furius (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There are guidelines that say we should try to make a lot of small changes in one edition. Your term of "overuses the edition" it's correct, and the user Micga artificially scoops the edit count and works against Wikipedia' guidelines. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

the lead is completely unstructured: a bit of geography, then description of administrative framework, then a piece of economy and suddenly the history, then again geography and economy, again a touch of history, and finally, we end up going back to administration. A true nightmare, not to mention errors like confusing the monetary union with the eurozone.Micga (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If you think that there should be some corrections in the intro of the article (like change the order so that the categories are consistent) - no problem. Correct the order but do not delete content or transfer content to other sections. The intro of this article was modeled on hundreds of other articles. This is standard. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I have read the intro several times and I don't see the problems that you supposedly see here. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

And in regard to User:Subtropical-man, he speaks in his message a lot about his impressions and what he likes, but nothing about any facts. It is no wonder - his quote I believe that the user should make some changes and wait for the reaction of other users. At the moment, it's hard to see what and when was changed in the article. indicates clearly that he considers himself the sole owner of the article. In cases where the aforementioned user is not able to keep up with the work pace of another user, he arrogantly expects this user to wait for his/her proof and approval. His whole campaign of inserting three enormous templates in order to incite other users against me can be summarized quite concisely: a lot of noise, but absolutely no substance. Unless, of course, voices like “I don’t like it” and “I am not able to keep up with the number and pace of edits” count as legitimate arguments. Micga (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The tags say that there are concerns with neutrality, synthesis, and factual accuracy, but the comments by User:Subtropical-man above mention none of these things. If he does not explain what he thinks is not neutral, what he thinks is synthesis, and what he thinks is factually inaccurate, I will remove the tags. Furius (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

As for the changes, I tend to agree that the new arrangement has not been an improvement.

• In general, the new arrangement means that many important aspects are no longer visible in the table of contents (e.g. healthcare) and that the template of the page now differs very markedly from that of other country pages, neither of which are good things.
• I disagree with the merging of "Geography" and "Demographics" - it is standard in country articles for these to be separate sections.
• Similarly, many other section titles are now non-standard, e.g. "Law and Governance" instead of "Politics" or "Government"

• "Law and Governance" is now much longer and much more difficult to navigate.

• I disagree with the transformation of "member states" as a separate section into "membership" as a subsection of politics. This delays that crucial information longer than is necessary and makes it harder to navigate to.
• I disagree with "Area of freedom, security and justice" as a section heading - that is very non-standard.
• "Police and judicial co-operation" is a very short section and should be folded into one on justice and law generally.
• The decision to make "industry", "Infrastructure and transport" etc subcategories of "Single market" causes them all to disappear from the table of contents, which is not good. The previous arrangement of the "economy" section makes more sense to me.

• I disagree with the placement of healthcare as a sub-section of "Economy"

• It is also wrong to place "Budget" under "economy" - it is a political institution.
• The set of "Examples of European Union identity, travel & traffic documents" totally screw up the formatting of the page and it is not obvious why they appear where they do.

On reflection, then, a rollback might be the best course of action. Furius (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of goodwill, I deleted templates who I have inserted before. Though I'd like to keep the {disputed changes} template. However, I still think that many of the new changes are controversial. Yes, user Furius, I also noticed these problems, that's why I asked to stop new changes by user Micga pending discussion and consensus. "rollback might be the best course of action" - I think so too. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022

change the both types of gdp from billion to trillion Generic roleplay gaem (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

well...i don't think the EU has that much money Somecoolguy12345 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

More recent regional development map exists

This page is using the regional development map from 2014. We already have a map from 2021, and it's used on the Italian language version of this page. Can we update the graphic here as well? 2620:10D:C092:500:0:0:7:E094 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, here's a non-Italian version of the same image that uses the same color scheme as the older maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_regional_policy_2021.svg The80srobot (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of templates for number of EU members and number of Eurozone members

There is a Template:EUnum that contains the current number of EU members (27 as of this writing). There also exists Template:EZnum that contains the current number of Eurozone EU members (20 as of this writing). The idea is to be able to update the many articles that display thus number and also to allow use of "what links here" with the templates to see if any other changes are needed (such as the addition of Croatia to the Eurozone on 1 January 2023). Another editor argues that this allows changes to the articles without showing in the history and with possibly unsourced changes. However, any incorrect change to the template numbers would be quickly noticed and updated, as with other templates or articles. Additionally, if sources are needed for the number of states (most uses do not have a reference for these numbers), again the template mechanism allows these to be found. As an example, the reverted changes here now indicate there are 19 (instead of the correct 20) EU members in the Eurozone in one instance in this article. Finding all instances of 27 and 20 in context across all English Wikipedia articles is unlikely to be 100% thorough and timely. Thoughts? Facts707 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

My view is that any changes to the article should be explicit - described, sourced, and send an event to those with the article on their watchlist. Transclusions make it too easy to evade scrutiny and will inevitably lead to multiple articles being rendered incorrect each time a rumour or proposal triggers an editor to erroneously change the template content. See also H:TRANSDRAWBACKS. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. If people are worried about unauthorised changes to the template, the template can be protected against editing to some degree. Furius (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Protecting a template makes it awkward for legitimate edits to be made and does not prevent its transclusion being removed anywhere to allow it to be by-passed. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This is why we have a range of levels of protection (e.g. only for autopatrolled users, etc). Removing transclusion in an individual location is equivalent to just changing a number in running text, i.e. it's the same problem that exists regardless of whether there's a template. Furius (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Templates can be useful for numbers which change frequently, such as national populations. The number of EU and Eurozone countries is not liable to change very often. CMD (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware of this discussion when I nominated Template:EZnum for deletion, after coming across it this morning. The numbers in these templates will change so seldom that there's far more work involved in maintaining the templates, protecting them, etc., than there would be in just updating the numbers in the normal course of editing. Are editors really supposed to remember there's a Template:EUnum when, say, Scotland eventually leaves the UK several years from now and rejoins the EU? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to nominate Template:EUnum for deletion too, but I'll hold off until this discussion has concluded. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

Croatia did not join the European Union on July 1st 2013 SolarBear12 (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo found

In the chapter: Initial years and the Paris Treaty (1948‍–‍1957)

The text says: "an institutional framework for its military dominatin in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe." where I believe the writer meant to put domination. 2001:1C01:411E:B400:F4EB:B783:F78:F1B6 (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Typo fixed. Thanks for catching it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrong order

The page about eu the database fact sheet should have the position in goverment named european commission is placed above the european council.2404:8000:1027:85F6:890E:6B64:A0D4:BDA2 (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

Change "that are located primarily in europe" to "that are located exclusively in europe" as there aren't any states part of the EU that are outside of Europe. MPolo1 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is comment on that word: Please do not remove this. The EU is also a community of values. Parts of Spain, Portugal and France are outside Europe, and the geographical location of Cyprus is not clear. This word has been extensively discussed. HudecEmil (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"Europe (country)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Europe (country) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 8 § Europe (country) until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

“Mixed” Government

Descriptions of the EU as a ‘mixed’ form of government within the infobox represent a relatively niche point of view - and the term is not well defined. The page for mixed government itself refers to the EU and the USA as mixed governments as being ‘from a points of view’. The term mixed government as well is potentially politically encumbered as it implies a democratic deficit which may or may not be present depending on your political view. Is it best to remove that part of the description? 2A00:23C6:3104:D301:ED09:D246:7B55:CF48 (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Caption of Maps in Infobox May be Incorrect

The caption of maps in infobox always show: "Location of the European Union (dark green) in Europe (dark grey)".

However, if clicking Show special territories or Show special territories and their exclusive economic zones, the caption is misleading, the second and the third map illustrate regions within the EU in blue and territories under the sovereignty of an EU member state in green. Benjamin Ceci (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Picture with temperature increase has wrong text

There is written 'Increase of average yearly temperature in selected cities in Europe (1900–2017)', but it is (original source:) 'how much the temperature increased since last century'. I was very confused about this first, because like now it says the increase is for example 1.7 C° per year on average and would be 20-30 C° from 1990-2017. This should be changed in 'increase since last century'. 2A02:8388:19C3:80:8011:EE07:DD0:F325 (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Spelling error in text

The chapter about "Treaty of Lisbon, and Brexit (2004‍–‍present)" has a gramtical error on the second to last paragraph starting it with "n 24 February 2022..." instead of "On 24 February 2022..."

Since this is a protected article I can't simply fix this and would ask someone who can to do so. Being-Brin (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. @Being-Brin: Thanks for spotting this! I also fixed a few other typos in that section as well. For future reference, you may want to formally request an edit request for protected pages by using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Fork99 (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This will draw more attention to the request as well. Fork99 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I was not aware of the request feature, I'll definetly read about it :) Being-Brin (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)