Talk:European Union/Archive 21

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

West-European centric sentence regarding First World War.

"19th century Liberalism and (sometimes) negative elements such as the World Wars." This falsely attributes West European feelings for World War I to Central and Eastern European members of EU. The perception of First World War is quite different here since it ended the opressive rule of three foreign empires and brought freedom to several nations that were denied their statehood. A minor note is that some EU nations never had 19th century liberalism movement as they were concerned with wholy different issues. If nobody opposes I will change World Wars to Second World War.--Molobo (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't, we need more of a balance with what happened in the east. But if possible please cite such changes.- J Logan ^t: 09:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with more balance if it is indeed biased to west. The phrase you refer to is a summation of some of the elements in the (history of the) EU; and not conclusive, also the original founders of EU who were more from the west. Also I would seriously hesitate that there can be any but negative feelings about WWI anywhere (including Germany and the countries of former Hungary-Austria) considering the human drama and casualties alone; and the resulting political instability in central Europe that was (according to majority historian pov) the direct cause of WWII. Arnoutf (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Also I would seriously hesitate that there can be any but negative feelings about WWI anywhere " Why should Poles mourn an event that brought them freedom from opression ? WW1 is simply skipped over here, sure we learn about French and German people dying, but the celebration of independence and freedom regained is the most important aspect of this event in our history classes. "and the resulting political instability in central Europe that was" For Westerners perhaps Polish, Czech, Lithuanian freedom from Russia and Germanty is "instability", but I assure that the 20 years of being free and able to develop one's state and culture are seen as one of the best periods of our existance.--Molobo (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what Arnoutf may have meant though Molobo, is that there can really be nothing but negative feelings about the incredible scale of loss in the First World War. Even if for some countries there could be said to have been benefits from WWI, surely the whole point that the article was trying to make was basically "After 50 bloody years of fighting, the continent of Europe was a bit fed up with fighting each other. Instead they wanted to develop a common sports policy... hang on a second...". --Simonski (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was indeed what I meant. While the "short 20th century" - 1914-1990 indeed lead to the collapse of totalitarian monarchist, fascist and communist empires; and a lot of freedom for different states, and a more peaceful approach with regard to European Unity (in my opinion all good things); I nevertheless would not like to say that the actual war(s) triggering these collapses of totalitarian regimes in themselves were a good thing. A necessary evil perhaps; but an evil nonetheless. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

EU GDP / Trade figures etc.

Just wanted to say thanks for keeping the gdp figures as up to date as possible, and the eu article as a whole is really informative, keep it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.76.90 (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for people to stop quoting estimated figures please, not only is it Crystal ball gazing (even if it is cited) but allows others with POV edits to do there own estimating. The last certified/audited figures should always be used.SouthernElectric (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lately for the GDP figures it has been worse than that. People have been using the IMF estimates for 2008 and then listing it as a GDP figure for 2007. That's not only crystal ball editing it's also grossly inaccurate as they are listing the figures as belonging to 2007. There's no excuse for it either as the link to the source displays the 2007 figure right next to the 2008 estimates.Zebulin (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2007 Lear 21 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

updating the source should allow that data to be used.Zebulin (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one use 2007 figures when we are still in 2007, I've never come across any such figurers that have been pre audited, surely the most recent figures that could be used are those from '2006 assuming that they have been audited? SouthernElectric (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get to the bottom of that but the auditing process is not clear. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/index.aspx seems to be the best starting point for shedding some light on the issue.Zebulin (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs co-ordinating with other articles, particularly the United States and Japan. Perhaps this has been discussed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. I was wondering if it would be possible for such information to be kept centrally and fetched for each article using the Infobox. I suppose it could be done with a selective template. Ideally, I would like several figures: last "audited" year and estimates for all subsequent years up to the current year. One problem with using 2006 figures is that the EU now has more members than then. --Boson (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Permanent semi protection

The article has by now a considerable degree of maturity (GA). Throughout every month in the last year anonymous IP- editors keep vandalizing or deleting content. I suggest to ask an administrator to install a permanent semi protection with a discrete tag (pp-semi-protected|small=yes) for more stabilization. Lear 21 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I support that. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In principle so do I, what I'm concerned about is if it will actually stop many of the problems, yes it will stop the 'school boy' vandalism but it will not stop the many POV edits that are made either in good faith or as blatant POV vandalism and it most certainly won't stop the disruption from WP:OWN edits... SouthernElectric (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it won't stop all the vandalism, we'll still have to watch it, but it will cut our workload. This topic attracts vandalism like a minor celebrity attracts chavs, no doubt that would only increase if the article were to get to FA and thus become more prominent. It certainly wouldn't hurt. I support. Just keep in mind we do still have to sort out our own internal problems.- J Logan ^t: 17:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I almost forgot, on registered user's good faith edits: how about an FAQ page for this article? So we don't have to keep repeating the reasons why, for example, there is no criticism section or why the EU symbols DO exist and hence are staying on the page. Might help?- J Logan ^t: 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual IP /anon vandalisms are relatively infrequent and can easily be reverted. The most problematic is differences in opinion between established editors, where this will not help. Therefore in the free spirit of Wiki I would not support this. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look through the logs, and this article isn't actually hit that badly. There were also quite a few helpful IP edits, mostly typo fixes, which would be a shame to lose. For such a high profile article, it actually has surprisingly low levels of vandalism. (But a FAQ seems like a good idea) henrik•talk 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It has periods, but fair enough. I would be inclined to seek protection on certain occasions, for example if this gets on the main page we should defiantly protect it.- J Logan ^t: 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say I have thought that an FAQ page would be quite helpful; I certainly think the one on the United States page is. I haven't got a strong opinion on it though. Rossenglish (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both semi-protection and a FAQ. —Nightstallion 11:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FAQ

Wasn't aware the US had one, I've stolen their style and started the FAQ page here: European Union/Frequently asked questions. I only have two questions down so far as I'm not sure what we should address beyond those two - for example the "political centres" hasn't come up since we agreed on that term, but may do. What do people think? Please edit the page.- J Logan ^t: 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a FAQ page. Lear 21 (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool image in Culture

I prepared this license free image from flickr [2]. It is intended to replace the Sibiu image in Culture on 01.01.2008. Any other high quality free license images are welcome. Lear 21 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we could just use Image:Liverpool 2008 Flag.jpg as it broadly states the capital of culture point, doesn't show off the city but it is closer to the topic. If we want to show off the city, we could also ask the people on the Liverpool page for their suggestions, something they think shows off the city from the perspective of people who know the place.- J Logan ^t: 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, side note: they have a page on it we should link to: Liverpool European Capital of Culture 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLogan (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Failing that, any cleared pictures of the The Beetles?!... Joking aside, I would prefer the flag as Lear's image, whilst being Liverpool though and through, could be mistaken by our international readers as an image of St Paul's Cathedral London - look at both images! SouthernElectric (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreement on structure?

Okay, has died down a bit so can I just ask if anyone really has an objection to the current structure (copied below). If you do, can it be debated before the current structure is changed - especially if you're the only person arguing for it.

• 1 History
• 2 Member states
  • 2.1 Geography
• 3 Governance
  • 3.1 Politics
• 4 Legal system
  • 4.1 Legislation
  • 4.2 Courts
• 5 Justice, freedom and security
  • 5.1 Fundamental rights
• 6 Foreign relations
  • 6.1 Humanitarian aid
  • 6.2 Military and defence
• 7 Economy
  • 7.1 Single market
  • 7.2 Monetary union
  • 7.3 Competition
• 8 Development policy
  • 8.1 Agriculture
  • 8.2 Energy
  • 8.3 Infrastructure
  • 8.4 Regional development
  • 8.5 Environment
• 9 Education and research
• 10 Demographics
  • 10.1 Languages
  • 10.2 Religion
• 11 Culture
  • 11.1 Sport
• 12 See also
• 13 References
• 14 Further reading
• 15 External links

And if there is an objection, I hope it is more than a personal preference -if it likely to be opposed- as we do need to have a compromise here.- J Logan ^t: 17:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Replies

I can live with this, although I think education and reseach and culture (incl sports) are a bit orphaned in this structure, so suggestions to host these 2 I would welcome.Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with the above on two provisions: 1/. That Culture is renamed, I would suggest something like "Culture & Society" (but don't really car as long as it is renamed), because sport is most certainly has nothing what so ever to do with culture, unless we are going to talk about the sports played by the ancient Greeks and Romans! 2/. The second is, that this is not set in stone for ever more, meaning that as content is added there is scope for a review of the structure? SouthernElectric (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Demographics should change position with Education & Research. But for now, I´m fine with it. Lear 21 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport isn't culture? Isn't that a bit classist SE? :p Lear, what do you make of "culture and society"? Any objections. I don't mind Edu&R switching places with Demo.- J Logan ^t: 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, when I read Society, which is also my understanding of the term, I don´t see the content yet justifying a renamed section. Lear 21 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well do you think it would be detrimental, or just not worth it?- J Logan ^t: 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about a level two "Culture & Sport" with the actual sections being level 3 headings thus the above content list becomes;

Further levels above.

• 10 Demographics
  • 10.1 Languages
  • 10.2 Religion
• 11 Culture & Sport
  • 11.1 Culture
  • 11.2 Sport
• 12 See also

Further levels below.

SouthernElectric (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a bti convoluted?- J Logan ^t: 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really but if you find it unacceptable then lets make Lear's day and put Sport back on a level 2 heading again, the fact is sport and culture are not the same. Sorrry. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm thinking there might be another way than just a heading, but I do think sport is cultural - if you could expand upon your argument maybe?- J Logan ^t: 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original structure and I do consider sport a part of culture. —Nightstallion 11:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Best tell that to the UK government (and others, I suspect) then, they seem to be under the impression that sport and culture are to distinct areas - otherwise their government dept. is in effect called the Department for Culture, Media and Culture... (rather then the Department for Culture, Media and Sport)! I'm not saying that they are not bed-fellows, just that sport is not a subsection of culture, what I'm trying to suggest is that the level 2 heading (that both culture and sport should be level 3 heading) needs to use different title. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is simply them trying to be exact, usually when departments are constantly merged and split so people know where things have gone. I don't think we should take it as a definition of if sport is cultural. Personally, it is very much a cultural activity - the huge effect it has on a lot of people, in the lives and identity. When a group of friends go to play football, are they doing it to keep fit? Or go in hordes to a match or gather round the tv for major national events. For many people the victory in 1966 is more important than the one in 1945. Sport is culture just like music, painting and drinking. Though I suppose how you personally see the meaning of the word "culture".- J Logan ^t: 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So why is sport not demographics, if demographics is supposed to be about what people do? Ditto culture. Sandpiper (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I suggest that you best start editing this article as I for one can't see any mention of sport (let alone International Olympic Committee or FIFA) anywhere in the article... SouthernElectric (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture is a large topic. Look, reason I reverted is were discussing the version I just put up and so far on this point -aside from us two- the only other person to comment had said he considerers sport a part of culture. If you jump t he gun you'll only prompt another batch of revert wars. Can we just discuss things as they stand first and let the comments come in?- J Logan ^t: 13:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who made the whole-sale changes a few days ago did that, just because those edits were not contested at the time doesn't mean they were accepted (especially at this time of year wee people have other things they have to get done before the holiday shut downs start). Sorry but this issue is not one I'm going to even compromise on - as I have said, the two are close subjects but they are two distinct subjects, they both would fit below a common level two heading but one can't be a sub heading of the other, it's like trying to put level 3 "Competition" under the level 2 Legal heading rather than the Economics heading, yes they would fit but only on a single level (ie. competition law). SouthernElectric (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport is a part of my culture, and indeed my country's culture, but I still think that when you speak of "culture" properly you aren't referring to Sport. So I would agree with SE here, even though what I just said probably makes no sense. Sport should come under "Social policy". I mean the EU does now deal a bit with social policy, surely we can put the sports section in a new Social policy bit. It would make far more sense to me. Putting sport down as culture, and nothing else being beside it, pretty much highlights for me how the section sticks out like a sore thumb. --Simonski (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport, specifically as spectator event, is in a wider sense entertainment and therefore very close to popculture phenomena. Nothing wrong to keep it in Culture. Lear 21 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very true Lear, sport is very much on the same level as pop(ular) culture, which is why sport can't be allowed to be a sub heading of culture, just as culture can't be a sub heading of sport. They each hold equal weight, that is, they should stand or fail on their own merits... SouthernElectric (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, like the EU, I would prefer a section "Education and culture", containing a sub-section "Sport":

The European Commission is composed of Directorates-General and several departments. Within the Directorate-General Education and Culture, is the Sport Unit, which is responsible for the following main areas . . .

--Boson (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to SE, it doesn't matter who changed it - leaving it be till we've discussed it is not heresy. Its not like the article will explode if it is not kept perfectly in line with x y or z's view of it. Can people just put up with something that is wrong rather than insisting their version stands until it is voted against? Applies to all.

But back on topic, I like your point Boson. But does education coverer research? How about Knowledge and culture? Trying to think of a more technical term, Academia and culture? But that way we can have culture, sports, education and research as subsections of that. If you still object to culture in that title SE, how about Academia and society?- J Logan ^t: 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and also SE, you commented you wouldn't compromise on this. Don't you think that is the very thing everyone was complaining to Lear about? Compromise is essential to Wikipedia, if you state you would ignore all else in refusing a compromise, are you not as bad as Lear over WP:OWN?- J Logan ^t: 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Sorry on this I will not compromise, it's not as though I'm insisting on the addition or deletion of content, we are talking about a frecking section heading FFS, finding a level 2 heading that both "Culture" and "Sport" can sit under as equal level 3 sections, failing that both culture and sport have their own level 2 heading - the article is hardly going to be crippled. SouthernElectric (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see whats wrong with "Social policy" as an idea. Anyway, I think its best to avoid another bout of "There will be a sport section for as long as I have the internet - waaah waaah", SE surely you don't want to stoop to that level man. Granted it does seem to be the only way to get a contested point to go your way around here (and you might even get a barnstar for it! w00t! But still, it would make you an assclown in the long run to position yourself that way) --Simonski (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only a Barnstar but I can then selectively delete items I don't like others seeing on my user/talk pages... As for the rest of what you say, it's not as though I'm not giving a lot of room anyway, all I'm asking for is that we find another level 2 heading (whilst putting the content at level 3 headings) or have each of the effected content on their own level 2 headings - again, sorry to repeat myself, it's not as if I'm insisting that content is either added or removed - I'm just asking for a modification to the heading levels. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the principle, not the content. But regardless, back to the topic. What do people say about the above ideas? - J Logan ^t: 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits while this discussion is not concluded

I would say that pending final agreement on the structure; no changes to the structure of the mainspace article should be made. In other words, please do not demote/promote or rearrange sections untill we achieve consensus here. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps with the end of Christmas, and SE's melodramatic exit, people could comment on this again and see where we get? (this is just a quick note, I'm back properly in the morning)- J Logan ^t: 09:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Woah, I didn't even realise that, bit odd that but fair enough, WP is incredibly frustrating at times so I can sympathise. Anyhow, I'd really say the current (at the time I'm writing this) structure is fine, it seems to cover every angle. I'd like to see the Euro coin (full pic) replace the picture of the notes but apart from that the consensus that the page currently represents seems fair surely. --Simonski (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He did go blank the talk page which, together with his other actions before leaving, is why I have no really sympathy for him right now. Anyhoo, this has been sitting here for ages, seems most of us are happy enough. I don't really care if culture is sitting under demo or on its own so don't mind if it stays like that or is rv back. So, on the last day of the year I'd like to call this closed. Still not the basic work to do but if we can not argue about the structure anymore, this has been going long enough and is now a largely abandoned debate. So, happy new year. Lets see if we can get this to FA before 2009. Don't forget to update the article on the euro when the clock strikes 12 in Cyprus (not before).- J Logan ^t: 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

er, yes, I did have some observations on the page structure, quite a few, but they seem to have been archived. The points made remain, however. I didnt see any real consensus amongst the comments, except perhaps anything for a quiet life. Sandpiper (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

mmm Naming the Demographics section 'Facts and Figures' is in my opinion not a good idea for two reasons. (1) There is little insight from the content on the top of the page what is happening in such a section (admittedly the subsections clarify, but it is still weak). (2) This title is almost synonimous to 'Trivia' which is discouraged. I think we have to come up with a better title. Arnoutf (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Most European countries see rising immigration ?

"There is some increase in population expected, primarily due to net immigration, present in most European countries"

Isn't there a clear divide between West and East European members of EU regarding immigration ? In fact I am quite sure that Latvia, Poland, Lithuania had experienced a large exodus of their citizens to England, France and other Western European countries to seek jobs. The sentence should be clear that immigration is the issue in West European countries of EU.--Molobo (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On average, check the ref. I think there is a rise in all though, the East has more coming from the East of the East not the East is in the EU so the East East wants to move to the East as the East wants to move to the West, rather than like how the West does not move to the West West much any more.- J Logan ^t: 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you run that past me again please?! :~) Yes, JL is correct, whilst people from Latvia, Poland and Lithuania (etc.) are moving west those even further east (such as the Ukraine) are also moving west into the countries mentioned, this has been one of the concerns about the border of the Schengen Agreement moving further east into recent accession countries. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue as far as I know, do you have any sources supporting this ? The migration from those areas is not significant. Ukrainians prefer to work in Russia then in Poland for example, due to easier border access and language ability. And of course the migration can't happen in the same scale as within UE due to border. Also illegal immigrants to Poland, Lithuania only use them as transfer countries to rich West.--Molobo (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, I remember reading a BBC article a while back on Ukrainians crossing the border, as SE said the movement of the Schengen border had this debate. Have you looked at the ref provided in the text? It does regardless say "most".- J Logan ^t: 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, thanks for providing the much needed Central/Eastern EU counter balance to our reasoning. If you can provide a good source about these migration numbers please do; that would be interesting to integrate into the article; however without such reference we should be careful not to insert feelings and speculations (that may or may not be true). Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would just interject that historically every less developed country joining the EU has seeen a migration of its population to other countries, only for them to come back home when their own economy has got up to speed. Anyone remember 'auf widersein pet', comedy about UK builders going to germany to find work? Sandpiper (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems indeed the case e.g. the Italian immigrants. Although some migration waves predated accession to the EU as well with Spanish, and Greek, and other mediteranean immigrants of countries that (at that time) were not yet EU members. But anyway, a good point we should take into consideration. Arnoutf (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

European (land mass) population figures in first paragraph

It seems strange that someone should be suggesting that one can compare population figures in the opening paragraph of the article, in fact not to do so is almost a POV stance. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so why are you putting it up there? Pop comparison yes, but why not keep it in demo, the intro is supposed to be an quick summary to the main body.- J Logan ^t: 09:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Because, as I said in an edit summary, it gives a bit of perspective in the introduction, under your logic there shouldn't be anything more in the intro other than "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features." - if people want to know more they should read the whole article - should we remove the rest of the intro?... Also, I was not the first to 'put it up, I'm merely leaving it up (as did you) against someone with a WP:OWN problem who unilaterally decides "It's not needed so 'we' are not having it." but refuses to discuss the issues. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the comparison in population numbers EU-Europe is too much detail for the introduction; and I would argue against its inclusion. This is of course a subjective judgment.

The rest of your (SE) last comment I cannot appreciate. First of all, reversing your argument to JLogan - following your own logic we should also add comparisons like "The EU's population is 7.3% of the world total, yet the EU covers just 3% of the earth's land, amounting to a population density of 114/km² making the EU one of the most densely populated regions of the world." (copied from demographics) to the intro; hey why not add all of the article to the intro.... I hope you agree that is not a good idea.

Secondly, while I agree Lear21 has some problems with among other WP:OWN, that does not mean he is not occasionally right. In this case he made a decent edit summarry with a realistic argument (whether others agree or not is an issue for the talk page, not a revert war). From your above comment it appears as if your revert is at least partially motivated by a personal grudge. That is not ok. Arnoutf (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So we are agreed that all but the briefest information should be given in the introduction paragraph then, fine but as I said it amounts to nothing more than "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features." - who is going to remove the excess detail?... As for Lear's edit summaries giving a realistic argument - "trimmed dispensable extra information" or "not needed" or "intro can´t include data on Europe as a continent" - It was precisely because his edit summaries did not (and he did not start a discussion here) give a rational argument that I reverted and I have as yet still not read any rational argument for the exclusion of valid information, as I've said, if the rational is valid why are the GDP figures given in the intro, why are the population figures (of the "EU") given, why are the bureaucratic/legislative 'offices' mentioned when the reader can (if interested) read the relevant main sections?! SouthernElectric (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 12:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Summarising is difficult, and will always include some subjectivity. However, your suggestion for extreme reduction does not follow WP:LEAD. Regading your first argument - that seems pretty close to WP:POINT.

Secondly Lear gave his personal argument why he though this argument should not be part of the introduction; as I said summarising is somewhat subjective, I think that was sufficient for the initial bold removal of text. However, apparently this was not obvious to all (ie you SE). So I agree subsequent reversions and re-reversions should indeed be discussed first here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, you're going over the top now SE, this is not OWN, please discuss without reverting further. We do not need two people guilty of OWN. I for one am against it being in the intro, so is A and so is Lear. Please do not change it again until after further discussion.- J Logan ^t: 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

The article has too many pictures. Pictures are all and good and make articles pretty, but too many - particularly if they are not telling us anything- just get in the way. There is not room for three pictures in history, and the lisbon treaty is considerably less important than the rome one. There is no room for two pictures of pretty scenery, which are anyway frankly not adding any usefull information, in geography. I like the mountain better, but I really don't care which one goes. Sandpiper (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you sentiment about the two examples (ie that there are too many images there), on the other hand I think the legal system section (very lengthy only a single image; and the demographics section, admittedly 2 tables but no image at all) could use an additional image.Arnoutf (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an argument that they slow down page loading (which I used to find very frustrating on dialup), but I am mostly concerned where the pictures are disrupting formatting of the page. Some websites suffer from advertising spam, maybe we suffer picture spam? There is another difficulty in that the result depends on your own page width setting. I would not agree the legal section was too long to have only one picture, nor do I think that every section should automatically have a picture. Particularly, a picture ought to show something useful to the reader unless an article is completely desperate just to get anything. Sandpiper (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We do have too many, I have said time and time again most are there for decoration. In terms of law needing another image, I think it can only need' and image if the section demands a certain something to illustrate it, rather than a need to fill the space. So I agree with Sandpiper on this, however I hope you have not forgotten about the hand from above that comes to sweep away the changes of man?- J Logan ^t: 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

education and research

E and R is a minor part of the EU budget and does not merit a major section. It comes nicely under the heading of development policy, which is exactly what it is. The EU does not play a major part in education or research in Europe. Sandpiper (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a relatively small part of the budget (I think from the top of my head between 5 and 10%); but the whole foreign relations (including military) will in terms of budget not be much more (that sais nothing about its impact). Hence budget alone is not a relevant criterion.

There are indeed some development policies involved (especially if Energy, and Environment are included there).

I disagree the EU does not play an important part in E&R in Europe. Yes it is mainly a national thing but don't underestimate the amount of academic research grants in FP7. I think most serious universities are competing to get some of it. Don't underestimate the agreements for international exchange and the impacts it has on curricula, ECTS, etc. (this may not be visible to most students who remain in their own country, but universities have to build and maintain large systems to accomodate this). So I disagree that the EU is not important in E&R right now.

Anyway, I can live with its inclusion in Development (but not Economy), although I think the arguments given are oversimplifications. Arnoutf (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in economy. If I summarise correctly, you to agree that it is a minor part of expenditure, but argue it merits a section for other reasons. I'm sure universities will be competing for money, etc, but that still doesn't mean it is an important proportion of their funding, or even if it were, that this alone would merit a section. Personally, I think the foreign relations section is at risk from this same argument, but I see it as a contentious issue (unlike education), and one likely to expand (also unlike education/research)Sandpiper (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with putting it in "development". That section was once called economics, but its renaming removed much of my problems. I think the EU foreign policy is essential; and indeed much more important then E&R. If we only go for part of budget the CAP should have most of the article, I guess nobody wants that ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, under development. Simple, accurate and keeps down the headers. And I see no problem in giving it its own section, certainly more important than some others....- J Logan ^t: 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Beast?

No discussion of The Beast from the Book of Revelations as a symbol of the EU? I know it's far fetched, but certainly worth discussion. 76.186.118.246 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Em, no it isn't. This is the main page for the EU, there's no space for spurious religious conspiracies. Perhaps on a more precise page somewhere.- J Logan ^t: 10:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the beast; why worth the discussion??? I have never heard of any serious link between the beast and the EU. If such a link exists it is probably written by the same kind of people who also say the EU is actually the Third Reich reincarnated. In brief- I agree- should not be discussed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Text sign off

Excluding structure and images, I thought it might be good to check through the text. If you read through, check and correct a section, and it is upto scratch in quality, just name the section below and who you are. So we don't do the same work over and over? - J Logan ^t: 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the Member states and Geography sections' texts, and changed/removed a few bits. Rossenglish (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through History but we might need some more citation in some bits if someone kicks up a fuss.- J Logan ^t: 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ditto Gov't and pol sections - J Logan ^t: 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION political and economic community=confederation

The introduction is partially restating what a confederation is supposed to be,the intro is not the place where you explain what a confederation is,the intro is suposed to be simple with out going to much in detail.Or refrased in an other way, what's more appropriate for the intro, "a political and economic community of sovereign states with supranational and intergovernmental features" or "a confederation".--88.82.32.100 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While I mostly agree on that point, without any authority stating it few others do. In a sense they are right in it being an over simplification, even if it is an intro, but if you manage to convince everyone else then I'd support it.- J Logan ^t: 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

More non-NPOV BS creeping in

"Another way to sum up this spreaded vision of unity is the quote : "Europeans have different cultures but the same approach of culture""

I couldn't seem to log in (problem with this particular PC) until just there so that 79. IP was me removing this line. And I fully intend to keep removing it. It sounds so amateurish, not to mention biased. Many people would argue that there is no such united approach towards culture in Europe (particularly post-enlargement for goodness sake how anybody can claim it is insane), and so therefore such lines must be removed from the article. I would have thought you'd recognised that yourself Solberg. --Simonski (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with you there, it isn't very encyclopaedic.- J Logan ^t: 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive info for Geography section?

"Including the overseas territories of member states, the EU experiences most types of climate from Arctic to tropical, rendering meteorological averages for the EU as a whole meaningless. In practice, the majority of the population lives either in areas with a Mediterranean climate (Southern Europe), a temperate maritime climate (Western Europe), or a warm summer continental or hemiboreal climate (Eastern Europe).[30]"

Surely, this sentence is pretty much admitting itself that its pointless, as far as the article on the EU goes? Given that the article is already a bit too long, this sentence can be deleted without affecting the rest of the Geography section? If somebody needs to read about the climate of Europe they can go to that page, rather than get it here surely? I mean these days the EU pretty much = continental Europe as far as Geography goes. Would there be opposition to the removal of this sentence? --Simonski (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to say something about climate; and this sentence gives the relevant informatio ie that the EU covers all types of climate. It might be condensed in length but I would not favour complete removal. Arnoutf (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to say anything about climate? what impact does this have on the workings of the EU? Sandpiper (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of frost bite, winter depression, storm damage, desertification, or heatwaves. All climate, all of importance for the EU's economy and agriculture and hence the core of the EU. In any case it is very impolite to effect a change that is under discussion (decently introduced by Simonski) and where a clear difference in opinions (ie my response) exists. I reverted it, and hope you have the decency to leave it at that until consensus for change is achieved. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the EU policy on treatment of frostbite, depression, effects of heatwaves, desertification, etc, and do you think any of it is important enough to mention here? No one has yet. Wouldn't all this properly go into the section on Agriculture, or the relevant subsection, if it went anywhere? Which are the most important areas of fundamental EU policy which have been affected by climate? The oil price, the cost of labour in china, the policies of the russian government all affect the economy of EU countries seriously, but we do not mention them. Your argument for including climate seems to be equally an argument for mentioning all of these, or none. Simonski seems to me to have made a good point, which you have not rebutted with any specific examples of the relevance of climate.

As to undue haste, sometimes I find it helps encourage a debate. No one else have any views?Sandpiper (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance of climate? The recent controversy about prohibiting adding sugar to make wine (allowing more alcohol during fermentation). In Southern Europe, this is not necessary and is used to create large volume of low quality wine from the sub-prime grapes; thus reaping more CAP subsidies for wine. In Northern Europe this practice of adding sugar is essential; even to make high quality wines (actually very few cheap wines are produced in that region), and this practice has been applied since ancient times. In this case climate differences between mediteranean countries and northern countries leads to problems which would either result in substantial overuse of a subsidiary budget by countries with warmer climate; or to the ending of a century old culture of wine producing in countries with a more moderate climate.

As to undue haste, that would not have been "undue" (only hasty as you are well aware almost any change on this page is likely to be contested) if the idea had been yours from the start, to implement the change after an objection however is (IMHO) indeed unduly speedy Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying we ought to mention cold climate/sugar added to wine on the page? Unless you are, how does this make the climate relevant? Do you think anyone reading a mention of climate will suddenly think 'ah, of course, very important for the wine policy of the EU'? Climate may be very important for farmers, but how does it affect EU policy? Ah, I see: you mean the policy of banning adding sugar to wine. So again, you consider this important enough to be explained on this page? I would regard it as a detail which no doubt goes into negotiations over subsidies, but not anything worth mentioning here. That is really the point, I don't see how any EU policy would be significantly changed if the whole place was hot/cold/wet/dry/whatever. Sandpiper (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that something should be deleted because it has nothing to do with the workings of the EU. The article is entitled European Union. Not "workings of the EU" or "Politics of the EU" or "Treaties of the EU"--Boson (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf was seeking to argue the importance of climate to the EU, hence the reason for mentioning it here. I am open to persuasion by arguments explaining how climate has changed or influenced or otherwise affected the EU, but they have to establish why climate and any such effects are sufficiently important compared to other stuff here (or more detail about stuff already here) to be worth a mention. Frankly, I don't see this. Sandpiper (talk)

What Geography section, by the way? It seems to have been inadvertently deleted completely. Or did I miss something? --Boson (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

well, quite. What would you say is the reason for having one at all?Sandpiper (talk)

Yes, indeed the Geography has almost disappeared, I cannot recall ever having seen a discussion to that effect here; wierd as the removing edit explicitly mentions such a discussion. Anyway, you asked why climate would be important for the EU; I give an example that there are situations where it is (not meaning it should be on the page); hence I responded to your request on this talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you havn't. I am not arguing climate has no effect on the EU. A sunny day no doubt makes the head of the commission much easier to work with, for example. But even if we found a report from his secretary confirming this, why would we include it here? It is just trivia. To satisfy me that we should discuss climate here (and I would have thought, satisfy yourself), you need an example where the climate has an effect sufficient for the whole thing to be worth mentioning. Better to have a paragraph on fishing policy rather than a discussion of the length of the EU coastline. Come to think of it, not mentioning fishing is something of an omission when we find space to mention sport. Sandpiper (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fisheries, there is an EU involvement (and a reason for Norway not wanting to be a member).

I think we have a sligthly differnt outlook on this article. While I think the policies are of primary importance, some background information on the context in which the citizens of the EU live is in my opinion worth mentioning; if alone to understand there are differences and/or similarities. The climate is definitely such a background context; as is Geography; where for example the coastal area's and seafishing industries of e.g. Netherlands and Portugal have more in common than those of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Althoug I would not argue to build up these relations to the policy level (as that would increase the size of this article manyfolds) some brief and basic listing of such context is in my opinion valid. We should be careful about which type of context is relevant though and which not; but in the end there will always be a grey area (where sports is located for instance...) Arnoutf (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a Geography section is for some editors here, necessary for the article. Me personally, I'd happily see it gone, though I'm not getting into that dispute. All I was highlighting was this particular sentence, which itself seemed to me to be saying "This sentence is pointless". Given the fact that the area covered by the EU is now essentially continental Europe, and therefore has no common climate, it just seems like such an unnecessary sentence for an already excessively long article. I really don't see the harm that would be caused by removing it, leaving room for more relevant information to be placed. The EU these days is all about four things really - Competition, Consumer Protection, EU Citizenship and Climate Change. I think by focusing on things such as the many different types of climate the EU now covers belongs on this page, rather instead it belongs on a page about Europe, the focus of this page is misplaced. I'm surprised Arnoutf you want to keep it, I'd have thought man you'd agree it was a bit unnecessary. Come to think of, perhaps there should be a section on EU citizenship, it is an increasingly important concept. In order to make room for it though stuff like the above sentence has to go surely! Particularly since many of things you listed above Arnoutf really aren't important as far as the EU goes... you'd be really stretching it here to say they are. Are you for budging here you think man? Anybody else? --Simonski (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison EU - US (Role of Geography)

(previous title did not reflect my point) Tang Wenlong (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I do not understand why you are so much opposed to properly covering issues like geography in the EU. The US article has a proper geography section. Why not the EU? Surely, lengthy elaboration can be put into country articles, but a basic overview, e.g. major mountain ranges, coastlines, climatic areas, temperatures, and so on would be fair.

This discussion leaves me with the impression that the EU is all about policy. Do you think people in the US spend their day only thinking about the administration? I am sure that culture, art, leisure, climate, and social life is more important for most of us. Tang Wenlong (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Tang its also important that you don't come away from this article thinking that the EU is a country. Its not a federation precisely either. So comparisons to the US are not 100% helpful. Much of how the EU works is just about policy. Where the EU acts, it acts because the Member State countries have decided that it is better to have a common EU policy on a certain matter. Much of this is carried out through directives - which leave the implementation to the countries involved, allowing for some national discretion. The EU, as it stands today, is one big bowl of policy making. Its an international organisation with some federal features. If somebody comes away from the wikipedia article confused about this, they can go and do some further reading. The fact that they're resorting to Wikipedia for information on the EU is not a good start I might add. Any article on a contentious issue at Wikipedia should always be taken with a grain of salt. --Simonski (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tang, I worry sometimes that even though I complain about certain things in this article, people coming from the USA may understand the words used in the article completely differently to myself (and hence not get the impression intended). Specifically, when I write 'state', I mean a sovereign country. I suspect anyone from the USA understands something like an administrative region. I do not aim to write an article here talking about all aspects of a country, because the EU is absolutely not a country. What it really is has been deliberately fudged by all concerned (especially by the EU itself), in the hope of not offending anyone, so it is arguably difficult to report. People perceive it differently. It might be better to think about the relationship between countries and the EU as between parents and their child. Lots of arguing about who is boss and what baby is allowed to do. If this article leaves anyone reading it with the impression that the EU really is a country, then it has seriously failed. Bear in mind that the EU as an institution, compared to a national scale, has essentially no revenue, no tax raising powers, no police, no army, no citizens, no land, no border control, three conflicting means of government, seriously limited powers to make rules. I think the article should leave you with the impression the EU is all about policy. As an EU citizen I have never thought of the EU as having anything to do with my experience of 'culture, art, leisure, climate, and social life'. If I go to Europe then I expect to experience the culture etc, of the country I am visiting. That's how it is. Sandpiper (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I write too much. Tang, I see you come from America, so I value your impressions of this article which is generally edited by Europeans. Would it change your impression of exactly what the USA is, if every 6 months there was a meeting of the governors of every state, who by agreement amongst themselves had absolute power to amend in any way the constitution? That is how the EU works. It is hard to say what makes something a country. One aspect is that the people inside it accept it as a country. The other is the legal structure. I think the EU fails on both grounds. Sandpiper (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Sandpiper hit the nail on the head. And its not for us to present this article through one viewpoint on the EU or the other, but to provide a balanced view. I'd say the current article is a fair compromise between the two views. --Simonski (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sandpiper, you write a lot, but that's fine ;-)

Clarification:

a) I lived myself in the European Union for a while. I exactly know what the EU is, what it is not, and how it works.

b) For many foreigners, including Europeans, the US might seem just as a simple country, ruled by the administration. But that's mainly foreign policy, exactly what concerns other countries most. Internally, there are big differences between states - laws, infrastructure, taxes, and ... you name it - differ substantially, more than a foreigner might expect!

c) It is undisputed, that European countries - although having given up parts of their sovereignty - are far more independent and influential (let's say relevant) than the states here in the US. (I don't think anyone ever said something different)

I am sure we all agree on this "policy side", how the EU "works" etc.. Tang Wenlong (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I tried to make clear in my comments. The EU is primarily a political organisation; hence that deserves most attention (in my opinion it gets it). But it is not limited to a political organisation alone; and there should be some other background information. My first point here would be to get an agreement that the following is indeed the consensus:

• EU = political entity; so that requires significant attention.
• The EU is more then just a political entity; some more background is needed to contextualise that larger role.

Once we agree about that (or agree this is not a way forward) we can discuss what this background should exist of (I think demographics, geography and even culture deserve a place, but am willing to discuss). Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Given my comment above about the "policy side", I think we can shift our focus to the question of 'culture, geography, social life, etc.'

a) I like Sandpiper's example of travelling in Europe, visiting other countries, strolling Champs-Élysées, drinking an espresso in Milano, skiing in Tirol, etc. - it works the same way in the US. You go on spring break to the beaches of Florida, to the casinos of Oklahoma, skiing in Colorado. The US are far bigger than Western Europe. Texas and Massachusetts couldn't be more different! Still, they all have the same Wal-Mart, McDo, and (many) speak the same language, but the cultural contrast between Northern and Southern California is arguably bigger than between Northern and Southern Germany. Think about that.

c) You might argue, that a geography section on the EU is not necessary, because you will find that info in the 'Europe' article. The same holds for North America! But a Chinese guy travelling to the US or EU wants to find the info on that page, and not resort to the articles on the continents.

d) As pointed out earlier, I am not saying that I wish to include aspects which are relevant on a country level, but rather those which correspond in the hierarchy to the EU. No need to talk about the Vosges or Cologne Carnival. There is no word about Virginia's mountains in the US Geography section either. Tang Wenlong (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That being said Tang, I'm sure you'd agree there is far more diversity within Europe/the EU than there is within the states of the US. Going by your Wal-Mart/McDonalds example... isn't it the case now in a globalised world that you find these companies everywhere? There is no common language, common culture among other things in Europe as there perhaps is in the US, so its completely different. I have to disagree that I think a person travelling to the EU would not look to an article on the international organisation that is the EU, rather they would be sensible enough to look at the article on Continental Europe. I'm afraid this point has been made before - wikipedia is not here to cater to what the reader might want to read about but to present the facts as they are about what the EU is. I have to confess Tang to not understanding what it is you'd like to see included in the article that isn't already there. As it is the article reflects largely everything that the EU is involved in. If there is not more on social life/cheese/whatever in the article, its because the EU has no/limited involvement in that area. --Simonski (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, it wasn't a call for substantial expansion of geography coverage, rather I wrote my original post (now located under this section title) as a response to Sandpipers challenge "Why is it necessary to say anything about climate?", which took me aback (prev section). Therefore I wanted to remind policy-focussed editors that there is more than just legal mechanisms to the EU. (This is not a legal handbook. Compare also comments by Boson). Tang Wenlong (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Righto, I was a bit confused here you see. --Simonski (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That being said, Arnoutf I agree with your brief point above but I would really question whether a geography section is what is needed in this respect. Things such as a section on EU Citizenship, which are far more important, deserve particular focus but there isn't room whilst we have pointless sentences on things like the bajillion climate types that the EU covers. --Simonski (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone who has made arguments about why certain content is relevant is talking sense. I don't disagree that any of these points have a relevance and could and should be discussed somewhere. Most of the debate I have read about this article is not whether content is wrong, but more subtly what is the most important to include. I don't think we are too fussed about it, but this article is quite long, and it is true that it is difficult to read through. It is supposed to be an introduction to the subject, leading to other articles. Although I would probably be inclined to scrap geography entirely, I recognise the notion that having a few lines, even if they say there is nothing which can be said quickly, allows a link to a longer article somewhere. I think though, that such a link should be directing people to articles titled to be about Europe, not about the EU. Foreign relations for EU countries are very largely the concern of each country. The removal of many internal borders does mean that people can enter one country and simply travel around, but essentially their right to visit/stay etc is to the specific country they are in. Although the EU is seeking to centralise its foreign relations, it has not done so yet. If I was planning to visit any EU country, I would never expect to find information about their food, countryside,culture,etc, in an article titled 'EU something'. I don't believe people set out to visit the EU, they visit France, then Italy, Greece, whatever. So I continue to believe it is pointless for us to be discussing this here in premium EU space. Perhaps we should specifically have a note advising anyone interested in such things to check country articles. Thereby making it clear we do not expect to cover such things here.

Tang, I think you also overemphasise the differences between US states, and the similarities of European ones. Europe has a history of 2000 years of one country attacking the next. The USA has had one major civil war, but there were only two sides and one issue. Yes, I know that many of the states were founded by people with a particular mindset, different to others. But they have shared a single language, and constant immigration of dispirate races, which have spread through all the states. The ideological divide between some EU countries which made it difficult to visit, never mind trade or exchange ideas, only stopped within the last 20 years, bringing the most recent wave of new members. My former landlady was a refugee from Hitler's Europe, who ended up as a secretary at the Nuremberg war trials. Her husband was a post war escapee from somewhere, possibly czechoslovakia. They remained fearful of the rise of German imperialism, following reunification of germany. Another neighbour, raised in India, reminisces over the tail end of the raj and despises the EU. Ok, they are old people now, but they are not gone yet. The reason for the existence of the EU was an attempt to make it impossible for everyone to go to war again. The people who plotted that political course are gone now, with a result that the direction of the EU has wavered somewhat, but the whole idea was to enable utterly different people to somehow live together and get along. It was absolutely not about a stick of attacking and smoothing out their national characteristics, but a carrot of economic benefit. Thus the EU is not about culture (etc), but profit.

Let me restate my position. I think the EU is a fantastic invention, from the point of view of furthering my personal well being, my national well being, and arguably world well being. But I do not regard it as a country. It is a set of agreements between countries. I like the cudos and romance of having a pasport I can wave about which entitles me to travel in any EU country. I see the institution as giving me rights in foreign countries. I do not see it as making me a European rather than british. Ok, that is purely my view, but I think it is a pretty typical pro-EU view, never mind anti-Eu views. This is the reason peopler like me do not think this article ought to be discussing general cultural issues.

I think it would be considerably more usefull for readers if we had a section talking about what citizens think about the EU, rather than discussing whatever sport or culture they enjoy, or mountain they live on, which just isn't relevant. Here I am inclined to listen to people requesting a 'criticisms' section, but it absolutely could not be simply 'criticisms'. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we could easily create such a section, which would be an magnet for fanatics on either side.

Tang, re my addendum question again, if the US state governors had the power to override the president, senate, etc, would the USA be a different sort of beast? If 1/3 the EU members suddenly decided they had an irreconcileable difference with the other 2/3, can you seriously believe the 2/3 would go to war to force them to stay members? They would just walk away and form their own union, which would no doubt make yet more trade treaties with the rump of the current EU. Sandpiper (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I believe your latter question is not the issue of this discussion. I feel you are trying to ridicule my comparison of EU and US, neglecting the context. I aimed for instance at the question, why to include geographical info on the unions' level, and not on the continental or state (US) / country (EU) -level. I exemplified (Virginia/Vosges) how the US and EU compare in this respect. I didn't make any claim whatsoever that the political situation is the same, even though I found it worth mentioning that states in the US have significance, too. Tang Wenlong (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the EU is a different thing to the US. Articles about different things are likely to be structured differently, because what is important to discuss about one kind of thing is not important to discuss about another. The important thing to discuss about the EU is what it is, and what it does. The kind of ground it sits on, and other things which happen to occur in that same place are not sufficiently important to be covered in this particular article. Generally, articles about countries do not start with a long explanation of what a country is, but that is exactly what we have to do for the EU, because it is something other than a country. I am nonetheless interested in how Americans view the EU in comparison with the US, and indeed whether Americans (or anyone) see any merit in the distinction between a group which works together under central control, or one which operates by debate amongst equals. Sandpiper (talk)

Sure, every country is very different from any other. Tang Wenlong (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf, I think on balance I am not convinced the EU is more than a political organisation. Certainly, it aspires to be more, and it may yet become de-facto more. But it hasn't got there yet. Ask me again when there is an EU olympic team. Sandpiper (talk)

I never said it was a country, and why would sports being an image of something else then a political entity? But mention one strictly political entity that has all of these: own currency, education and research program, environmental regulations, no border controls, a similar passport cove, representation in G8, and so on, and so on. The EU is without doubt in transition between a treaty organisation (like nato) and a federational country (like the US). Whether it well ever arrive at the latter is not decided, but it already moved away from the first. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think there is considerable doubt whether the EU is in transition from one thing to another. It has expanded in scope, but every expansion has an alternative justification other than creating a new country. Some people see this as the aim, others utterly reject it. Historically, I think states cease to exist and combine when their people see advantage in it. But at present it is merely what it is (transitioning or not), and we should therefore describe it as a complex adjudication system for a series of international treaties. Sandpiper (talk)

Ok transition may not be the best word; nevertheless it is somewhere in between your minimalist "international treaty organisation" and a "federation". (B.t.w. the example of Czechoslovakia shows that countries can be dissolved peacefully). For now I think it would be best to agree we disagree and not spend time trying to convince each other (as I sincerely doubt that will do anything but creating frustration). Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not frustration. This is an interesting debate. People here are well informed and worth debating with. No idea if we are representative of views, mind. It does help to understand to what extent people believe things, and try to find out why. Our discussion now is rather like the argument over the flag and anthem. Whether they are formally written into the treaties or not, they will continue to exist. Our real difficulty is probably that whether and to what extent the EU is more than a 'treaty organisation' is simply a matter of public perception. If that is so, then strictly wiki should not report it as such unless there is source material discussing it. Writing this article in the style of a country article immediately introduces a bias that it is a country. This has to be justified. Sandpiper (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For follow-up see section below]]

Tang I wouldn't say Sandpiper has ridiculed your comparison of the EU-US, he's just trying to make the point that for many of us living under the EU banner, the US-EU comparison is flawed in many respects and whenever done so has to be taken with a grain of salt (using that phrase too often, apologies!). Either way I don't think its worth going down this route any further, since it doesn't really relate that much to the current question, which is whether the sentence on climates is maybe removable. I mean I'm not going to be devastated if it stays its just that when I read it it just seems so pointless. On a side note, man I thought this page was bad for the debates, its amazing how annoying some of the debates are you can come across on other pages! Compared to other pages the EU page is actually relatively peaceful I'd say! --Simonski (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking all this in mind... Is Switzerland a country? I believe that the concept of what a country is or isn't lives to strong in Sandpiper and Simonskis minds. As a Swede I see Sweden as my home country not the EU. But than again the concept of what a country are is to strong for me. If EU is not a country by the definitions above then Switzerland hardly qualify either.

Conclusion and Outlook

Right, this seems to be an interesting debate, and we reached a point where we know that we agree on our disagreements. Clearly that sentence on climate is not the issue anymore (and I guess no one minds much about keeping or deleting it (at least I don't)).

Now, people from the island have always tended to keep a more distanced stance than those from Western Europe. Surely Britons do things more differently than those on the continent - think pound, monarchy, traffic directionality, ties with the US, etc. What I am saying is, we must not forget, that everybody of us naturally has a different view on the Union.

By the way, Sandpiper, I found some of your pictures not really enlightening, especially the one with the goverors. But now, where you aware that you have exactly that in Germany? Ever heard of the Bundesrat? The Laender (provinces/states) in Germanyu do have power in the federal government.

Countries can be very different. Some have just have a ruler/dictator. Many have the three branches (ex, leg, jur) but still then, what makes up a country? A football team? A president? A minister president? Elected? Recently I read that Switzerland doesn't have a president at all. (Which is obviously wrong, but I found it an interesting idea: No president, no prime minister :) ) And the UK obviously don't have a football team. (But several)

As I can see User:JLogan spent some time reflecting on this issue, with regard to the EU, just like many others did.

Typical (not necessary) characteristics of a country (sovereign state) include:

• Constitution
• Government with three branches
• Foreign policy, diplomatic service, citizenship
• Some sort of guard/defense forces
• Some sort of budget, fed either by taxes or contributions from sub-entities
• Currency, and a central bank for managing the currency
• No internal mobility restriction on people/tariffs on goods
• etc.

(And there are a few points which are certainly NOT necessary, but merely optional: - president - direct taxes - police force - health, edu, etc. services - and many more (the latter three can be assigned to lower-level authorities (state/province/district/municipality))

Now, if you look at the above criteria, and carefully feed it with the data from the EU - the justified, verified, proven, hard facts - then you will see where the Union stands between the two extreme poles of loose treaty-based confederation and a federal republic (sovereign state).

I am convinced that it is possible to make such an evaluation purely based on facts. Maybe with some graphic illustration. And that could even include history, in order to visualise transitions over time.

If there is one lesson to be learned from our discussion, then I would say it is that we (editors) might understand the Union's mechanisms very well, but we might still be unsure how it compares to the classical concept of a country. (Hence resorting to call it supranational, "sui generis" or whatever, terms not really enlightening anybody.)

Maybe a better example for comparison than the United States is Switzerland, which - existing for centuries- has four official languages, and substantial power is with its provinces, which are also somewhat involved with the management of the armed forces.

You are all invited to present the facts. Tang Wenlong (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't underestimate the new view on the EU brought to the table by the Central/Eastern countries though (on the whole the impression appears to be in countries like Bulgaria/Romania/Poland, at least that I get, is that they are reserving judgment, not being 100% enthusiastic.). Interesting stuff anyway Tang. I think as far as the Article goes though we shouldn't try to deal with it as its just too contentious and far too difficult to prove. Given that there is nothing else like the EU in the world at the moment, and that the 27 countries themselves probably couldn't actually agree as to what the EU currently is, I don't think we, in all our wisdom, should try to deal with it. I'd say putting stuff like this into the article would be troublesome for the same reason as a criticism section would be. (though I'm not sure Tang if thats what you were actually proposing!)

Either way, since you were lucky enough to miss the Sports section debate, I can assure you that editors working on this page are all wary of the different views on the EU. From Sandpiper to myself to Arnoutf to Logan to Lear an already incredibly diverse number of views are covered, and several others fit inbetween those. As far as I understood as well we also have a wide range of nationalities editing here as well, which has probably benefitted the article greatly. --Simonski (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonably good summary. I would ask all not to see the "treaty" vs "country" issue as a "black" vs "white" thing but rather as "shades of grey". Agreed, that will make defining the EU harder (as there is no longer an absolute "TRUTH"), but will do more justice to the real thing. Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologise for my absence from this debate, I have not had the internet of late and will loose it again now for an unforeseeable amount of time. Nice to see a new user involved though, welcome, and that we have been having a good discussion. However I'm not sure how fruitful it is for the article (as much as I like debating it, as my page you linked to shows) considering we'll never actually agree on it aside from it is unique, and that doesn't help us on terms of inclusion of geography. I for one think we might as well keep it (cut down as suggested) as it is common data (is similar to country but would not compare to sport - very uncommon and far from vital where as geography is universal and a major factor). Besides, it is one of those things that, if we remove, someone else will come along and add a poor uncited section every 5 mins because they think it is needed (granted that does not make it something that should be included, just an extra pragmatic point). Anyway, have to go again, pitty I'm missing such a good discussion.- J Logan ^t: 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tang, difficult to give an ordered response which does not become ridiculously long covering point by point. I just checked the article on germany, which says, Amendments to the Grundgesetz [constitution] require a two-thirds majority of both chambers of parliament; the articles guaranteeing fundamental rights, a democratic state, and the right to resist attempts to overthrow the constitution are valid in perpetuity and cannot be amended.. I take this to mean that the German state is capable of changing its own constitution by agreement of its various parts, and no external organisation can do so. The institution of the german state itself has a veto on any change to its organisation. This is not true of the EU. If all member state governments agree, change the rules so that the president is required to sit in a tree and eat bananas, they can do that and he can do absolutely nothing to stop them. That is the distinction, the EU has no power to control its own destiny. The article doesn't say whether individual states of germany have the right to cecede from the country without the consent of the others (anyone?).

The swiss article does not seem to explain how the government can alter the constitution. By inference I presume that it can. The article explains at more length that a sufficiently large group of citizens can require an amendment to any law or the constitution. (An excellent measure, in my view.) I don't know whether cantons are entitled to cecede. It is clearly difficult to compare some of these examples, while Swittzerland veers a lot more towards being like the EU than does Germany, the canton governments still cannot unilaterally change the constitution by themselves, and the central government can do so (at least with the support of a plain majority of voters in a referendum). The point I am arguing is where the final authority rests, and in our instance it does not rest with the EU.

As to the list of characteristics of countries, I can think of a number of countries which internally restrict movement of goods, people etc. Just about all countries have a security force, which I contend the Eu simply does not have (there is no force the president/etc can call upon directly). The EU certainly has a constitution, but as I said, has no way of amending it and is rigorously constrained by it in what it can do. It has no powers to demand additional funding. If the signatory states agree to give it more, it will get it, but it has no powers whatsoever to raise money of its own accord. It has no powers to grant or deny citizenship, nor permit or refuse anyone to travel through its border. It has no foreign policy to speak of, nor forces with which to carry one out, a limited 'aid' budget, primarily intended to foster accession countries. Its government does not follow the three part model. It only has competence to create legislation subject to the treaty instructions of the external executive governments of the signatory states. Indeed, its main legislative element is ex-officio the governments of those members, and their directly appointed representatives (the commission). Similarly, it only has judicial functions to make decisions regarding that delegated authority. Its own executive is limited to carrying out the instructions of those member states.

So after all this I conclude that the two elements essential to being a country are

• the ability to make laws independent of external control
• the consent of the population concerned that the country exists and that they belong to it.

Which is indeed an enormous aside for the specific issue of geography trivia, but at the same time essential when considering how to write about the EU. I think the USA is a country, because its governing institutions do have authority to control its laws, and because the people consent to it. The EU is not, because it does not have that authority, and its people all claim they belong to some different country. The EU should be treated as what it is, the arbiter of a set of treaties. Sandpiper (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets try to keep this reasonably brief:

• Nobody ever said the EU is a country.
• However, as an international treaty organisation the EU shows properties of a country (parliament, elections, currency, some foreign policy, education and research, shared border control (e.g. passport covers), etc. etc.). It does so at a much more extensive scale than any other international treaty (unless somebody can counterargue this).
• Hence it would undervalue the cooperation level of the EU, by insisting to treat it as merely another international treaty organisation.
• Therefore, we should treat it as a unique organisation; which is somewhere between a federal state and an international treaty organisation

(PS The three way division of power appears mainly an anglosaxon/dmocratic thing; e.g. Hitler controlled all these powers in Nazi Germany, and nobody doubted that was a country).Arnoutf (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The UK basically enjoys a combined executive and legislature embodied in the person of the prime minister. I am tempted to suggest the 3-way system is a rather American thing. Actually, Tang started this by implying the EU is a country, arguing that a similar institution, the USA, is written up differently. I have no interest in arguing whether there is any more complex treaty organisation than the EU. I don't think that matters. I am just not convinced that added complexity means a change in substance. I am also not sure how that issue matters to wikipedians. We ough to be reporting what it objectively is, as defined by what references say it is. I have seen lots if refs explaining what treaties say about its powers, but precious few claiming it has a relevance to all these other things which some people want to write about. Produce refs arguing it is more than this, and why we ought to discuss its geography and favourite sports, and I'm happy. The argument for including these things has been repeatedly that it ought to be written up like a country, because that is how wikipedia writes up countries. Why? prove it is a country and we shall treat it as one. Sandpiper (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be not this Black-White. Nobody says the EU is a country. The other way around I could argue the reverse, that many entities considered countries are not so following the most strict definition of country. In the most strict sence a country should be completely sovereign. That means that each and any entity who has committed itself to international treaty organisations (thereby giving)up some sovereignty - which applies even in signing something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights); should no longer be considered country. I hope you agree that is absurd Black-White reasoning. I would argue treating the EU on similar grounds as just another international treaty organisation is equally absurd. Arnoutf (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I pitched my stall. My definition is not whether a country has absolute autonomy from outside influences, but whether it has the right to make its own choices. Britain chooses to belong to the declaration of human rights. It chooses to have an army and a police force. It chooses how much tax to raise. The EU does not choose to confine its legislative powers to economic harmonisation. It does not choose whether to have an army. It does not choose how much tax to raise. It does not choose who enters its nominal borders. These things are decided for it. Sandpiper (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I think the core of this debate is one of the frequently asked questions. I tried to expand that one, trying to summarise this discussion. Feel free to edit, but make sure that it does not become too long and it reflects both sides fairly (ie try not to put in your own POV, I tried to keep mine out, but may have failed). Arnoutf (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

good point. But I am still concerned by the claim that it is a sui generis entity. Sandpiper (talk)

Not my wording, I am not at all attached to the phrase, but some other editor maybe.Arnoutf (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I strongly believe that there should be a section in this article addressing criticisms directed towards the EU. In order to truly understand the politics of an entity, ideology or figure, accurate criticisms need to be aired, with reasons as to why these are considered areas to be criticised by people.

Whilst, I am sure that many will argue that this is a topic simply for facts and not opinions, it can be argued that criticisms are just as factual and relevant as anything else. Indeed, is not everything opinion in some way, shape or form.

I therefore propose that, on this page, issues such as problems with the Commission, the size of the EU, committment to the environment, Africa etc. be addressed. 81.152.129.23 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Steven

See European_Union/Frequently_asked_questions why there is no such section. Arnoutf (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the top of this talk page needs a prominent link to the FAQ page, like the one on Talk:United States:–

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

What does everyone think? Rossenglish (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Support ! Lear 21 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might also be useful to put it at the bottom of the page as well. To be honest I can't see it stopping people from asking though! --Simonski (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing. I was a little shocked that there was no Criticisms section, which I usually come to expect on Wikipedia articles. I, being the average, ignorant North American, would really appreciate a criticism page as I don't know enough about the EU or the social climate of Europe to make many conclusions on my own about it. I definitly support this. PimpyMicPimp (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See European_Union/Frequently_asked_questions as to why it is agreed not to have a criticism section. I think you may have misunderstood what was said above – what the supports above are for is not a criticism section but a link to the FAQ page (am I right Lear?); this was not a vote on whether to have a criticism section. Rossenglish (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, that must have been the case. If people want to read about criticism of the EU, or support, Wikipedia is not the place to look. A brief summary can be provided here: Its basically a debate in Europe of to what extent we should have an integrated Europe. Some are very much for it (ie Germany, Netherlands, Greece), some are very much against it (ie. UK, Denmark, Poland). Much of the criticism of the EU surrounds the flawed decision making process, the existence of a serious democratic deficit, the fact that the European Court of Justice has been excessively judicially inventive, that it costs too much through having for example a pointless second parliament building in Strasbourg, that the Commission has excessively curbed national sovereignty in its policy making etc. These are just some of the many. Of course its not perfect, but its difficult to construct a perfect organisation when you have such diversity between 27 (soon to be more no doubt) countries trying to reach an agreement. Try getting Poland and the Netherlands to agree on things for example - nightmare. Truth be told there is scope for a new article Criticism of the EU, to be established, but to try and fit all of them on the EU main page is ill advised, as it could not be done effectively. --Simonski (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I support a FAQ template at the top of the discussion page ! Not a single Criticism section in the article. Lear 21 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the FAQ box looks good there - you can't fail to see it. Rossenglish (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

demographics and culture

Lear lodged an objection in an edit comment that culture is not demographics. Once again, I don't follow this argument. As I understand demographics (or at least how it is being used here), it is information about people and how they live. I do not see why this does not include what their favourite sport is, or whether they like going to the opera or the pub. If people really think demographics is too specific a term, then as has been suggested before perhaps we can think of a better title for a section about society in the EU? This stuff belongs together. Sandpiper (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one do not mind much, you could stretch it to demographics but I wouldn't normally put the two together. A compromise title might be good, either way please do it without an edit war. - J Logan ^t: 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Member state agreement table

Anonymous IP user:84.78.189.58 recently added an elaborate table under the membership section.
I think this table is not wanted because:

1. The article is long enough as it is, this table does not give core information and should not be in this article
2. The table includes non-EU members such as Vatican City, further increasing size, and decreasing relevance for the EU core article
3. The table layout and size do not fit in well as it takes up too much space to be elegantly shown in many browsers.
4. There is no argument why the chosen treaty types are selected (EU, Common Market (EEA), Customs Union, Schengen, EMU (Euro), Military); and anyway why any of them except "EU" are relevant for the EU core article
5. There is a complete and utter lack of any reference to the table; in the text, so it is hanging in thin air.

I think each of these five reasons alone would be enough to delete the table, and the combination even more so therefore I deleted the table. Arnoutf (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, its on the member states page, we don't need that detail here.- J Logan ^t: 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was ambivalent about this when I saw it. I considered the mention of Vatican city, san marino, etc, quite interesting and it told me something relevant to the EU which I did not know. From my perspective, the EU is a network of treaties. Even the core states have not acceded to them all, so it is extremely doubtfull to argue we should dismiss any state from the article because it has only accepted just one. I find it highly relevant that this article should explain about affiliated states. The argument about lack of references is absurd, if it bothers you, then find some. All these treaties and who signed them must be readily on record with the EU websites. Now, I do agree the table is way big and doesn't fit into the article. But the details of what countries have agreed to what -all of them who have agreed to anything- is absolutely core information, way more important than some of the stuff we have been arguing about (ahem). Does this table come from another page, or could it be put on one so we could refer to it? Sandpiper (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the table is necessary though, as far as I'm concerned it really doesn't serve any useful purpose when all the information in it is basically found within the EU article/sub-articles. I'm not against a table of some sort like they have on the French version of this page for example (I think, or maybe its another version I'm thinking of) but the one proposed doesn't seem to me to serve any valuable purpose. Maybe the guy who's adding it will come here and try and convince us otherwise, I'd be happy to hear him out. In the meantime though I can't see any good reason for keeping it. Sandpiper I think what Arnoutf meant was that there was no actual reference to the table, not that the table did not contain references, as it just appears from out of nowhere, in quite an awkward manner I'd say. Every member state signed the EC/EU treaties, thats the important one as far as this article is concerned. --Simonski (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Simonski, I clarified my intent; above. Although the lack of sourcing is also worrying; as we emphasise the referencing issue on this page (@Sandpiper: it is the task of the person adding information to find the references; not the one asking for them). Arnoutf (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are being picky, I think it is only permissable to delete information on the grounds it has no source if it is unsourceable, not if it is merely unsourced. We all know this information is sourceable. A good faith measure would be to provide what is lacking in an article, eg add the refs, not delete something on a technicality. But I misunderstood Arnoutf. I don't know what to do about the table. It has some merit but is also a nuisance. On the whole I think it is too big to stay here as it is. Sandpiper (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I'm the one who built and added the "so-wide-and-too-detailed-table". I completely agree with the formal matters you said, and I must confess that I was already concerned about that when I did it. Maybe this is not exactly the right place to put it, and maybe it is quite wide, and for sure the work is not finished and it lacks from a reference in the text. But these are just formal details -to be solved- but not relevant ones to delete it, from my point of view, of course. As stated by Sandpiper, the EU is not a monolitic entity, but it is a conjunction of treaties. Not all the members have signed/implemented them all. And, many other countries have signed some of them without being EU nations. This is relevant information that I couldn't find summarised when I looked for it. Of course that, as said by Simonski, the information is already disseminated through dozens of articles and sub-articles relative to the EU, but you wouldn't have the big picture in that way. In my opinion, is really interesting to know the different levels of involvement of the European countries in the EU construction from its main agreements. Thus, I may answer that:

1. Being the article too long is not a reason to remove important information. The membership in the different EU core agrements -such the common market, the Economic and Monetary Union, the removal of borders, or the seed for a EU army- is core information.
2. Many non EU nations are already included in this article, just above the table, for example. Hence, Norway is not a EU country but it is a Schengen country, whereas UK and Ireland are not; San Marino, Monaco and Montenegro adopted the euro, whereas Sweden or Denmark didn't; Denmark has an opt-out in order not to participate in the common security policy, whereas Norway and Turkey -non-Eu contries- have joined common EU military units.
3. The size and layout should be refined, I completely agree with that.
4. I do not manage to understand why Schengen, Euro or Common Market agrements are not relevant in a EU article.
5. I support the motion to include a reference in the text, at his final location, in case it has one...

Danrowe 20:40, 14 January 2008

I think the table could have a relevant place in one of the articles, with a small pointer in this one. Howeve I think the level of detail, and the mentioning of this many states is in my opinion beyond the scope of this article, which, in the end, cannot be more than an overview of all that is going on. Arnoutf (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for coming here Dan and putting your point across. The info in the table is indeed interesting, and as other (including some of the FA status versions) language versions of the EU page do contain some tables that some here might consider to be awkward or unnecessary, I guess the idea can't be dismissed immediately. Of course the fact that the article is already too long would not be a reason for ruling out the table by itself, I think people were just adding it in as an extra together with their other points.. certainly whilst the dreaded sports section remains, arguing against the inclusion of possibly more relevant information on this basis isn't really convincing, I'll grant you that. To be honest though, I still think the article could survive without it, I would need to be convinced a bit more... I dunno, what do others think? --Simonski (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove any of the states (40) from the table since they are either EU states (27), or signatory of any of the agrements settled under the EU umbrella (in addition to be official candidates now (3), past candidates (1) or potential candidates in near future, and be in the EU geografic area). Thus, for instance, Schengen (22) has 4 non EU signatory states (2 of them have already implemented it), three of these are also members of the EEA (30); most of the microstates (5) have open borders, and have euro-adoption agrements while mint their own euros (3) or use it unilateraly (1), as some other non-EU included states (2); 27 out of 40 are creating the EU forces (including 2 non EU states); etc

So, in case that the table is finally added somewhere,

1. in which article can be placed? (general enough to cover EU, and Schengen, EMU, EEA, 'WEU', etc)
2. which states might be removed from it?
3. which details are perceived as superfluous? Danrowe (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Simonski. My point is that some sort of summarised information -like this table- is needed to have at a glance an idea of 'soft' EU membership, which, in my opinion, includes integrated economy, currency, borders, army, etc.. Danrowe (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer the "where" question. I think your argument about soft-membership with the table might find a place in the European_Union_member_state article. If you find such a place, I would suggest to take in the table as a whole and not delete anything. Subarticles are in my opinion a good place to store "encyclopedic" detail; which is then made accesible from the core article. That way you have both, the detail if you really want it, and a reasonable length/information content for the less involved reader on the main topic.

Note that the current member state section where you suggest to add the table already acknowledges that as one of the "main articles". A two line reference to that table could then be added in this article. Something like "Although official EU membership is reserved to 27 states, not all of them have signed all treaties (e.g. the UK has not adopted the Euro as currency). On the other hand, several European states that are not officially a member of the EU have signed treaties that were developed within the EU (e.g. Vatican City has adopted the Euro)."

Or something similar. That way you include the key idea in this article, while the details can easily be found elsewhere. Does that sound as direction to take this further?Arnoutf (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a brilliant proposal Arnoutf. The table would fit perfectly in the Member States article, and I'm assuming it would keep everybody happy. --Simonski (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the European_Union_member_state article as the place for such a table. That article is strictly devoted to complete membership --thereby, detailing issues as the number of MP's, for example. Further, there is no reference at all in its text to the Common Market, Schengen Agreement, Economic and Monetary Union, etc --contrary to the EU main article-- and hence the information contained the table loses its relevance.

Nevertheless, I agree with both of you about placing the table in a subarticle, and placing it as it is. What about Third_country_relationships_with_the_European_Union? Danrowe (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That maybe a candidate, isn't there some kind of "treaties of the EU" article. It might fit there as well (sorry no time to look for it right now). Arnoutf (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean Treaties of the European Union? Maybe, but I think we are talking about wider integration than the EU, how about including it as expansion of European integration?- J Logan ^t: 12:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very good. Arnoutf (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That should be the right place for it. Unfortunately, it nearly looks like a stub. Hard work has to be done before that article includes all the necesary topics ---and corresponding sections--- related to European integration, such as economy (EEA, Eurozone, Custom Union), politics or 'geography' (Schengen Zone), military, etc. Danrowe (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be an idea to form some kind of collaborative effort to improve it. After all getting Wiki quality up is hard work. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be good but WP:EU collaborations are rather meaningless right now - unless we seriously built on our co-operation here to bring common work alive again. Exactly who would be interested in continuing our work beyond this article?- J Logan ^t: 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor addition to the earlier US/EU debate

Just wanted to share with everybody something which I thought was quite interesting - I had the honour of having a conversation the other day with former UK judge of the ECJ, Judge Edwards, haha you won't believe the topic - Sport! Though only in the sense of Bosman, and the effect the Reform Treaty would have here. Just thought it might be interesting given the debate above about the US/EU comparison, that he also seemed to suggest to me that the EU was going through a period now where Member States were trying to limit the intrusion of EU law (which he seemed to be, predictably being a former member of the ECJ, against). From what I understood, he was suggesting the majority of the Member States are now going through a period of trying to reassert themselves over the EU Institutions *cough* the Commission and the ECJ *cough*.

Just really interesting anyway. Certainly, reflective of the conclusion that most reached above, which is that the EU really is in limbo at the moment. Whilst on the one hand its going one way with EU citizenship etc, its going the other with things like derogations on foreign workers getting into the public sector (like loads of countries using language requirements as valid barriers to the public sector). --Simonski (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 'limbo' might be bit strong. It suggests there is an uncertainty which has never existed in the past. I'm not convinced by that: rather I would suggest that some of the initial aims have been quite well achieved, but now that the EU is hunting around looking for other areas to colonise, those people who never signed up for anything more are making themselves heard. It will be interesting to see how the new treaty is received, and whether people, eg in the UK, really feel they have been railroaded into something they did not agree to, or the issue just fades away.Sandpiper (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think after 2009 the issue will fade away in the UK, similarly to Maastrict and pretty much every other treaty since the UK joined. Every new treaty is marked by Murdoch press with 'this is the end of an independent UK', and myths about what the treaty does, but soon after they come into force, those obsessed members of the 'better off out' club are soon silenced, and those who are in favour of EU participation wonder what the fuss was about. I know that this is supposed to be a talk about improving the article, but hey, we might need to address similar topics somewhere in a related article! Rossenglish (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I just hear correctly on the news that the French are amending their constitution so as to avoid the necessity of holding another referendum, which one must presume they think they would lose? Sandpiper (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of word "Law"

The article is sometimes speaking of "EU laws". I am very hesitant here as this may either refer to "regulations" (which IMHO is close to law) but also to "directive", or "direction"; which do not refer to specific "laws". I would be very hesitant to use the word Law in this article and refer to one of the terms (regulation, directive, direction) whenever possible. Arnoutf (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, I think its perfectly normal to speak of "EU laws". The EU is a unique legal order, and there is "EU law"... Directives, Regulations and Decisions are EU laws. If you were to go into more specific detail as to what circumstances directives/regulations/decisions are used in, this article would be neverending. The fact is generally there will always be the option of using any of the 3, so I don't see how using the specific term is 1) possible, or 2) necessary. I'm guessing in particular you have a problem with the Freedom, Justice and Security section mentioning EU laws in the general way it does, but thats about the only part of the article where I could see any real issue arising. --Simonski (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side note though, was just flicking through the recent edit history and I see what you mean, regarding the EEA countries. I think here "regulations" or "rules" certainly reads better for that particular sentence. Also, a bit concerned again that more Non-NPOV crap is coming through again. Solberg man I know you want Norway to join the EU but please don't start to let any bias creep into the content of the page. --Simonski (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It were indeed the recent edits that made me feel uncomfortable with the word law, I had no problems before. Arnoutf (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

History

Sorry for recent absence from this page, haven't been on the net long enough to reengage properly. But anyway, I'm not sure about these new subsections in history. The section is rather small for them don't you think? Especially three. I don't think it does any favours to the layout (doesn't help better understanding and it should have an into to the three sections at the top) and the headers seem odd choices.- J Logan ^t: 09:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The names could of course be improved, and the periods altered, but I really think we should have subsections. The history section of this article is of course not very long compared to e.g. that of the USA, (which has subsections) but IMO the EU history section should be a bit longer. (The Treaty of Paris is for example not mentioned, and no word of Robert Schuman or Jean Monnet) I think dividing it into:

• Post-war ECSC
• The period after the Treaty of Rome with the three communities
• Establishment of the modern EU & the segnificant eastward enlargement

...makes sense. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think in principle there's anything wrong with the idea of subsections for history, though here as always comparisons with the USA page should be taken with a signficant pinch of salt (arguably more a full salt shaker's worth) and thus there seems little reason for the History section to increase in length on the main page. Expansion of it would have to be considered very carefully so as to stop any non-NPOV views coming in (ie. The Libson Treaty paves the way for further EU integration or the Lisbon Treaty represents the fact that the integration of Europe is reaching a saturation point). --Simonski (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

While I do not object to subsections for history per se; I think in this case JLogan has a good point (BTW not so absent as your comment was within 10 hours after the subdivision first was introduced, so quick catch;-). The section is not very long, and the subsections do not appear to add much to readability. Subsectioning is ok, if it ever grows overly long, but IMHO that is not (yet) the case here. (I also agree with the choice of subheader names, but that is of secondary importance compared to the issue use subheading or not). Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think it adds to the readability. It's hard to debate the aesthetics about how long a history section should be, but right now on my 1024x768 screen, I think the three images, the three sub-headings and the 710 words, fit quite nicely together. If more text is preferred, I believe the subsections 'inspire' to additional writing, as opposed to having one massive bunch of text. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that ("If more text is preferred") is the main issue for discussion. There has been recent arguments against text with reference to the overall length of the article. Although I disagree with such an a-priori approach, I would advice caution in further expanding the article unless necessary. In that light I think it is not at all desirable to expand the history section from its current version for 2 reasons:

1) The history section already refers to the main History of the European Union aticle; so the information is available on Wiki, and can easily be found.

2) In my opinion the focus of this article is to describe the current EU, any historical section should be very brief, and only providing that information essential to understanding (I think the current text suffices).

If this line of argument is adopted, changes in structure of the history section inviting expansion of that text (as you state the subheading does) should be avoided. Only if we actually wish to expand history, subheading is a good thing in my opinion.

Readability improvements are not my primary concern; although very short sections do break the flow of the article and are disouraged somewhere in WP:MOS. However, even if subheading does improve readability, the heading titles need to be understandable, brief and to the point for the target audience. As this is basically the entry article for the EU, the target publc should include people who know nothing of the EU, or indeed Europe. IMHO the first two subheading (Pax Europea, The three Communities) are not easty to understand for people without any knowledge of the EU. The last (Reform and eastward enlargement) is not as to the point as it looks as it suggest (a) Reform happened first (which is ongoing), before Eastward enlargement (while e.g. Malta, Sweden are not really East). Also it suggests that this is about expansion and reform, while e.g. the Euro (not really reform IMHO) is also mentioned in this section. The alternative proposed by you are more to the point, but seriously lack briefness; so these are in my opinion also not good enough. Again, I think this is a minor issue, as the issue whether subdividing is a good idea, before going into the actual title, has to be solved first. Arnoutf (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You've convinced me anyway Arnoutf. My stance would be it should just go back to the way it was without the subsections then. I have to admit even I was a bit confused with the Pax Europea one! It does make sense to say the intended work here really belongs in the History of the EU page, maybe better to concentrate your efforts there rather than the main page. I honestly didn't think the previous history section read badly, and going by recent months, I'm guessing others didn't/don't either. Would be interesting to get more views here anyway. --Simonski (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I'd like to point out that the USA history is so long because they have more history than the EU. If you took any 50 years worth of US history on that page you'll find it would be much smaller than our section. If our history section becomes longer (which I think would be too much at this point), then subsections would be warranted, but not simply to encourage expansion. Perhaps we should concentrate on improving the EU history pages first? - J Logan ^t: 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And indeed compare to PRC#History which is about the same length without divisions and still has a slightly longer history than the EU.- J Logan ^t: 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguably even more relevant would be the length of history sections on the pages for other international organisations. The UN for example, with its incredible history behind it, has a similarly short section on its main page, with no sub sections. Same goes for almost all the other IOs, ie. the African Union, ASEAN (which has a longer section yet no subsections), NAFTA etc. Only the WTO page seems to have a longer, subsectioned history part. I don't think the EU page merits any different treatment here though from the majority of other pages we're talking about. --Simonski (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2008 (UC

Considering the current content size, I can´t support additional subsections. Though I´m not taking a hardcore stance on it. By the way, the Rome treaty is not explicitely mentioned in the fluent text.... all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stable so maybe...

You know, this has been rather stable of late. No one seems to have major complaints against anything so I reckon we have a good compromise. Maybe try for FA? Anyone object or want to bring up something else? Might not be perfect but we can see where it gets us - how it is judged externally that is.- J Logan ^t: 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We can always try. I don't see much changes (ie it is stable). With a Good Article review done, this seems the logical next step. If it is rejected the FA process will at least give us direction to take it further from here. Arnoutf (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think we should try. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 21:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'sports' issue

Were the sports content sits, under what level 2 heading, needs to be sorted first, to achieve (or even ask for) an FA status with sport masquerading as culture will make the FA status and WP as a whole a travesty. Sport is simple not the same as culture, if it was (baring in mind that almost the whole world plays football) the whole world would be of one culture... SouthernElectric (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me state that I am not completely unsympathetic to your idea, but I disagree with you reasoning in your edit summarues because:

By making sports a subheading (i.e. a subset) of culture we imply that sports is one of many elements of culture, but that culture includes many, many elements (e.g. theatre, painting, music, etc etc) that are not part of sports. The way you put it in your edit summary follows this logically flawed argument: A penguin (cf. sports) is a bird (cf. culture); which implies every bird (all culture) is necessarily a penguin (sports).

In any case; all of this is a very minor issue considering the whole size and content of the article. If critisism comes up in FA I am confident we can deal with it there and then. Complaining about this minor issue in this unrelated topic comes across as irrelevant and spiteful. Arnoutf (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They might be equals (under some other heading) but neither are - or should be considered - a subset of the other, I think we might be getting confused between culture, sport and popular culture (which is really more to do with current social values), the latter is most certainly a subset of both culture and sport. SouthernElectric (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're over rating the importance of the sport section here, I doubt may people coming here would immediately see the sports section and go "this is a travesty!". Further more, I think we could do with some new ideas on the matter, if we put it for FA then we can see if the other FA reviews feel the same way about it, if they do they then would likely give suggestions and ideas on how to resolve it - rather than have us go round in circles again.

But really SE, do not engage another childish edit war again. It does your argument no justice.- J Logan ^t: 10:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest the following compromise;

• Lifestyle
  • Culture
  • Sport

I'm not looking for 'another edit war' (what ever you mean by that accusation), it's just that I can not accept placing sport under a culture heading (I have no problem with sport being on an equal level heading with culture), by doing so it is at least suggesting that sport = culture at best, at worst people may well regard that sport is culture - if that was the case most of the world would share the same 'culture' due to the fact that most people in the world play football at some level or another, not only that but sports such as football would be mentioned along side of the Age of Enlightenment, the Renaissance and Ancient Rome etc... SouthernElectric (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(restart indent) Your structure may work.

Let's try to summarise.

• Sports is not equal to Culture (i.e. it is not mutually exchangable in all situations).
• Sports and Culture may share an equal importance, they have an equal level of integration (but not equal content)
• Sports is not a subset of culture, as there are things in sport that are not culture (culture is not a subset of sports either).
• Both share things in popular culture, but both have things beyond popular culture. So popular culture is neither a relevant sub, not a relevant superset for both
• Both are part of lifestyle (SE suggestion). The issue is, do Sport and Culture have things beyond lifestyle? If this is the case (to some large extent) the solution will not be working; if we can't find these things, the structure might work. Arnoutf (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

SE, edit war as in there have already been several changes back and fourth in a short space of time.

But regardless, lifestyle is fine for me. Though I do think Sport is a subset of Culture, it may have other aspects apart from culture but so do most things. Painting can be therapeutic, economical, decorative, industrial, scientific and so on. That is how I see and you have the way you see it, these things are not absolute truths so please don't talk in zero sum terms.- J Logan ^t: 12:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree going into set theory may be a bit Black and White on this issue, I did this in an effort to make the different opinions and their implications clear. Once we have an overall agreement we can back to the fuzzy borders. Arnoutf (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just briefly to add, for what its worth, I really don't think a main section titled "Lifestyle" would fit well at all. I just can't imagine it ever being a heading in an encyclopedic article. As much as the sports section is pointless in my opinion (per the discussion all those months ago), if it is to stay in its current form I don't see there being a problem with it being under "Culture". Of course it could be debated whether sport is a matter of culture or not, but in my opinion its like six and half a dozen, it doesn't really make that much difference either way. --Simonski (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... From WP lifestyle, "In sociology, a lifestyle is the way a person lives. A lifestyle is a characteristic bundle of behaviors that makes sense to both others and oneself in a given time and place, including social relations, consumption, entertainment, and dress. The behaviors and practices within lifestyles are a mixture of habits, conventional ways of doing things, and reasoned actions. A lifestyle typically also reflects an individual's attitudes, values or worldview. Therefore, a lifestyle is a means of forging a sense of self and to create cultural symbols that resonate with personal identity. For example, "green lifestyle" means holding beliefs and engaging in activities that consume fewer resources and produce less harmful waste (i.e. a smaller carbon footprint), and deriving a sense of self from holding these beliefs and engaging in these activities." SouthernElectric (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean with your remark SE. That lifestyle would cover both sport and culture; or that it should have a place in an encyclopedic article. I think the last of these two was the doubt of Simonksi, while I think your response focusses on the first. I might be wrong, but that is what I understand from your texts. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting Lifestyle as a level two heading that both Culture and Sport (as level three headings) can happly sit under and co-exist. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But the point raised was whether that word was suitable as a heading in an encyclopaedia. Do you have a response to that? Or is that to be taken as a de facto opinion that it is not of sufficient relevance given the nature of the previous discussions and the likely outcome of the present line of thought if we were to add such further restrictions upon suggestions that are intended to break the impasse we face on this issue? If that is the case I am inclined to agree, even though it may not be ideally professional of us.- J Logan ^t: 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with the comment above re the meaning of sport and culture. Culture is definitely not part of sport, but I'm afraid sport is part of culture. The example above about football is apt if erroneous. i have no interest in football, so in a sense stand aside from the football culture, which has a lot more to do with going out and watching it, or talking about it, or rioting, than playing it. Yes, all those very different countries do share a common piece of culture in that the play and are fanatical about football. Culture is a wider issue than simply sport. Neither one of them should be a top level heading here, for the various other well rehearsed reasons we have gone into before. I have said before that I think the sections listed separately as religion, demographics and languages all belong in the same section with culture and sport. They are all social issues. I don't mind the use of culture and sport as headings on the same level in such a general section, but they don't belong on the top level because they are simply not sufficiently important to this article. Sandpiper (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If sport is a part of culture then we do not need the level three sport heading and the very existence of the sport content is un-questionable! Put it this way, most family practise doctors (at least in the UK) run their practises as businesses, would anyone dream of discussing medical issues under a Economics heading? - what I'm getting at is, whilst many subjects share aspects with another that alone doesn't make them bed-fellows. "Lifestyle" might not be the perfect level two heading (not top level, that's the article title!) but it's a far better heading than the current lie. Again, I'll repeat my suggestion that some people seem to be getting confused between culture and popular-culture, the two are not the same... SouthernElectric (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To Sandpiper. I disagree with your definition of "social issues". If you define it as broadly as you do, economics, law, etc are also social issues which would basically mean 90% of the article fits under that term. I think you agree that is not a good solution.

To SouthernElectric. Even if sports is part of culture it can benefit (and I argue it does benefit) from a level 3 heading. Just like "military and defence" having a (relevant) subheader under foreign relations.

Also SouthernElectric, the difference you suggest between culture (with which you seem to imply only high culture) compared to popular culture is not as widely accepted as you might think. Please consider that culture can (also) be defined as a supercategory that includes popular culture. Arnoutf (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Popular-culture", "(High) Culture" and "Sport" all fit under what can be summed up as how people live, what they do with their lives, (ie. "Lifestyle") and yes the economics of the working week vs. leisure time or laws that prevent or permit certain types of leisure activity could be discussed in such a section - it just demonstrates how just about every subject interweaves with each other subject. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would further add, perhaps I am talking about high culture but that is the subject being discussed under the level two "Culture" heading, to which sport has been 'tacked on' because some people do not consider it can be placed elsewhere. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision song contest would be an addition to popular culture and not sports. But no, lets not go there that is a European thing, not an EU thing ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Eurovision song contest can't be but what about the EU instigated "TWF" (Television without Frontiers) initiative and other media related regulations etc. could, but it's not really "Culture" per se - hence my wish to move way from having a "Culture" level two heading, there are many things that are not culture but share similar aspects. SouthernElectric (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets say that I'm prepared to accept the keeping of the level two culture heading, what do people think about the layout as found in the test that I have put on my sandbox. Basically the overview remains but mention of what could be classed as high culture has been placed under a level three "Cultural History" section, this then allows the "Sport" heading (and other subject headings) to follow on from the intro as another aspect of the broader subject that is Culture rather than being a day-facto 'subset' of all aspect of Culture - if you see what I'm getting at? SouthernElectric (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; if I am correct you mean there should be at least one other subsection to show sports is only one of many possible subsets of culture.

I have two issues; both pragmatic. First, this approach will lengthen the overall article even more. Can we live with that? Second, I am not sure 'cultural history' is the best alternative. Pop-culture referring to modern music, or art maybe an alternative; or something more looking at specific examples such as western classical music (Bach, Beethoven etc) although we are getting dangerously close to the EU=Europe confusion. In any case the history section comes across as a bit small, it needs some work. If we can come to an agreement how to agree on these (as I said practical) issues I am happy to go with your suggestion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling that this debate is going to end up with the culture section getting extended, which I don't think is necessary/wise. SE surely the current state of the page layout isn't that problematic - I really don't see people coming to the page and gasping with shock at the fact that Sport comes under a main category of Culture. I think surely we have to be careful here not to open a can of worms, which by making some sort of distinction between types of culture in the EU, we may end up doing. --Simonski (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, you seem to be suggesting that you want this article locked, as you seem to be saying that there should be nothing more added?... SouthernElectric (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord, no more culture rubbish in here, the issue is the placing of sport under culture, this is a very small issue and we do not need to expand the whole fecking section just so we can agree on definitions. Can we leave the content there as is and just find a new title to cover both as equal level two headings. If people could just say their preferences, we straw poll it and go with whatever gets broad support. Any objections?- J Logan ^t: 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that was my first suggestion to sort this (hence the suggestion of "Lifestyle", I'm open to other suggestions though), someone objected, then I suggested that we add (in effect two lines, one with a level three heading and another that would be a blank 'carriage return' line (see my sandbox), except someone objected... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If I was to be blunt, I would say the main reason for having a culture section is to immediately dismiss its importance to any main article about the EU. It is ridiculous to have a tiny section about agriculture (an incredibly important issue for the EU) and spend as many words on culture. That is hopelessly skewed. Perhaps we ought to have some figures here about how the budget is shared out? In fact, now I check, we spend a lot of space talking about economic issues but never mention the budget, its scale and how it is spent. Surely this is central information we are enirely missing?

No, I do not think we should have a subsection talking essentially about European history. Someone pass the garlic and holy water! And while I'm at it, and since my attention is drawn to it, is it really justified to be claiming European values are assumed to be grounded in this shared heritage, with a ref from the president of the european union. Hardly an unbiased source. This isn't so bad as the last paragraph of a fairly general section, but as a section by itself is just inviting people to explain better, add the counter position and on and on.Sandpiper (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we should just ditch the whole culture section complete with the contained sports section as the EU does even less in regards to sport than it does for (high) culture... Anyway, this article is never going to be, and I doubt anyone really thinks it should be, a means to cover all aspects of the institution that is the the European Union in depth, yes many sections could have their word count doubled or trebled in the blink of an eye but those who want greater detail of information can go on to read the sections subjects dedicated article - and if such an article doesn't exist then it should be created rather than expand this article. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my point SE, that I was trying to warn that by opening the Culture box that you might be encouraging a certain number of editors to start trying to expand the Culture section by adding stuff similar to the Sports section. The Culture section is there just now, as far as I understood, only because of the compromise that was reached with Lear/SSJ/whoever else. I see the Culture section (particularly the sports section) as it currently is as being like a fragile leaky submarine which has been shored up. I think opening the culture debate here would be like removing one of the shores! That was my point.

The fact is that as Sandpiper pointed out, the section as it currently is pretty much just says "Some people say there is a European culture/EU approach to Sport... however the EU has little to do with Culture/Sport", and is pretty pointless in my opinion. But obviously its there as a compromise with the editors here who would argue for example that there is a common culture in Europe (probably the same people who like diverse coffee houses to be knocked down and replaced with Starbucks). I just don't get how "Lifestyle" is any better than "Culture". I honestly can't think of a better title for it than Culture. What is Sport under for other pages with Sport sections? --Simonski (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For me, both may go, but we all know the history. As we all agree they are a small issue for EU compared to countries, these sections are short in this article and cannot be stand alone; even if they are elsewhere. (let's not be nasty, knocking down coffee houses in the States and replacing them with Starbucks has been a service to humanity, whether we want real Italian Espresso bars to be stocked with Cinnamon-Ginger Large Lattes is another issue entirely  ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, from a glance at a few pages, Sport comes under the heading "culture" (for example, see France and Germany). As a totally new idea, perhaps we should use that?- J Logan ^t: 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but look at what else is under the said "Culture" headings and in the case of France how the section has been laid out, there is no introduction as such. This is the point I'm making, yes Culture is used as a level two heading in other country articles but it's also plainly clear that many independent subjects make up culture - this is simple not the case when there is only one sub section. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

edit comfort break

Goodness, unanimity to delete sport and culture? I think the France section on culture demonstrates exactly why it doesn't make sense to say anything much here. A whole page of info on each of French culture...German culture...Danish culture...how could any of that diverse stuff usefully be summarised here? I see the article on World doesn't have a culture section. Sandpiper (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The one for World would be Culture I'd think. Just as the politics of the world is International relations or Politics. That is because there is nothing to compare against, perhaps one should look instead at Africa#Culture (which also has a sports heading under it)?- J Logan ^t: 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about this?- J Logan ^t: 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can live with that, it does all that I feel is needed, it is also stable should additions / deletions occur. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems with that idea here. Arnoutf (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also say its a splendid idea. Again though it does highlight that the sports section really is unnecessary, but I digress! --Simonski (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put it in, if anyone objects please revert. If no one else is complaining though I think this is sorted then yes?- J Logan ^t: 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, there is a problem. The original varsion started with one sentence saying that the EU had little to do with culture. Next it went on to say it had become an EU competence... This gave the impression it was basiccaly nothing to do with the EU. The new version start with the same sentence, but then has some guff and the bit about becoming a competence has become the start of a new section. This entirely changes the meaning and rather implies the EU has become a very important factor in culture in Eu countries. This is surely nonsense, just from considering the figure given that there were 233 projects in one year. Tiny considering the number of countries and scope. There are probably more cultural institutions of one sort or anothe just in London. Why do you want to create subsections anyway? there isn't much text here to divide up. Sandpiper (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Subsections were (as far as I know) added to give Sports less of an exceptional place within culture. Note that 4 editors agreed before JLogan made the edit.

Placing the whole thing under demographics was not agreed on here. If that would be acceptable I would add sports as a level 3, not a level 4 heading. I is also consensus to keep education and research as a separate header. Why did you suddenly without discussing move them to a level 3 within development? I thought we were getting somewhere here by talking first-doing later. For that reason alone I reverted to JLogans version, please discuss before deciding on your own. Arnoutf (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Arnotf. Logan specifically writes above that any objector should revert his change. My own reading of the discussion was that the consensus expressed just above here, which I commented on above, was that culture and sport should be deleted, not amended. The other changes have been discussed before,and it is not my recollection that the consensus was as you describe. My recollection was that either support or no objection dominated for my changes. Sandpiper (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missed this above but, Sandpiper, what are you complaining about in J Logan's suggestion, the way the intro and culture sections are written or the concept of the level two and three headings? If the former all we need to do is a slight rewrite, if the latter we are make to square one :~( SouthernElectric (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I had two objections. one, that the text length doesn't need extra subsections, and creating a short one immediately invites people to expand on something which does not need expanding. Two, that the rearrangement somewhat changes the meaning. The revised version seemms to imply that although Culture previously had little to do with the EU, now it does. The previous arrangement implied that the EU has a minimal effect upon culture, which I believe is correct.

I think one of the reasons above for creating a new subsection was to make the sports one sit more happily. In fact, I think the rearrangement did the opposite. As the sole subsection it demonstrates that sport is a sub category of Culture and indeed the content is rather apart from the rest of the section. Whereas, having one section policy and one sport implies that 'sport' and 'policy' are topics of equal standing and both subsections of culture. In fact, if one insisted on having a subsection 'policy', I think it would be more accurate to have a sub sub section, 'sport' coming from it, as the main relevance of a sport section is as one example of EU cultural policy. Sandpiper (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

I can't help noticing that the USA article contains an etymology section about the origin of the word 'America', the naming history of the country and who are called 'Americans'. The name 'European Union' is just as related to the word 'Europe', as 'United States of America' is to 'America'. Why shouldn't this article have the same thing? We could use Europa (mythology), the numerous names of the EU predecessor, as well as the denonym issue. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the denonym issue highly controversial though? I never really voiced my opinion at the time when Sandpiper brought it up but I personally wouldn't even have had a denonym = European in the infobox at the start, simply because I don't think when somebody speaks of Europeans they necessarily mean the EU (though I can live with it on the page and its not an issue worth causing an edit war over). I think an Etymology section would be unwise to include as it could prove to be highly contentious, and more generally, I just don't see it being necessary for the article. I don't think it belongs on the main page is what I mean. Some of these ideas are great for sub-pages, and could really improve project WP:EU but as far as the main page goes I think the info should be limited to what is useful and necessary. Again the comparisons with the USA page are not entirely helpful, in my opinion. --Simonski (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ssolbergj but I disagree, I don't think this is a good idea at all, for 2 reasons.

1) In common speech in many languages you say America, meaning the USA specifically. As far as I know the use if Europe for EU is far less common; therefore your comparison does not hold.

2) I think that specific etymology section on the USA page is not a very good feature of that page. It's style and sourcing is pretty weak. So I see no reason to copy that. Also the status of the USA article is GA, just like the EU article, so the current versions are of comparable quality (that does not mean we cannot profit from features on the other, but it does mean we should judge each of them separately on its merits).Arnoutf (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but although I support denonym (and might have even supported keeping "euro" in there - had most of the non-sport uses I found not been porn) I think etymology might be too far. While I do find in my experience European is increasingly being used for the EU, we haven't got that far generally speaking - it just isn't relevant yet. If there is more nationhood one day then maybe, for now - best keep it on the Europe page and link to it. But as Simonski says - rejected ideas here should be pursued on sub-pages rather than abandoned. For a start, maybe European symbols could do with a section on Europa and the bull (given the amount of statues of it that go up outside EU buildings).- J Logan ^t: 10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I just though I'd throw out ideas. Of course, I know the US page is not perfect. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New ideas always welcome; if we don't allow those the article would become stagnant. Thanks for putting it up on talk before starting to implement it. Nothing personal meant by the (perhaps harsh) citicism; it's always easier to critisise (harshly) then to come up with good new ideas. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

proposal for intro : loose confederation

It would replace "political and economic community" and "with supranational and intergovernmental features", this kind of detail would be transfered to the "Governance" section.The intro should keep it self simple and not try to explain the horrendous complexity of the inner workings.The term explain in just two words the EU,while the current wording lets readers confused.Alternatively "very loose confederation", but i think this last wording is an understatement.Every one agrees that the EU is complicated thingy,for pedagogical reasons/editorial the intro must keep it self simple and short.--88.82.47.6 (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe we can simplify the definition of the EU any further. IMO the actual description in the lead is not only factually correct, but also parsimonious and exhaustive at the same time. On the other hand, other encyclopedias have chosen simpler wording. Columbia Encyclopedia characterizes the EU as "an economic and political confederation of European nations", while Britannica describes it as an "international organization comprising 27 European countries and governing common economic, social, and security policies". I think Wikipedia's definition is the most precise one, though it really does not read well. Wouldn't we lose too much by adopting your proposal? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead is not supposed to be exhaustive,it supposed to give a quick and simple explanation,so that the reader not interested by the details ,can get what he wants without getting bored.The reader that wants more (what does he mean by loose confederation) can jump to the relevant section (governance i suppose),to get punished for his curiosity.So we don't lose anything,both types of reader are served.Plus in general,it's anti-pedagogical to give all the subtleties of a subject write away,you start simple and escalate gradually.The "professional encyclopedias" know what they are doing.--88.82.47.6 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

according to wikipedia article on confederation,from Oxford English Dictionary.It seems to me that the EU fit well in there.A confederation is a group of empowered states or communities, usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution. Confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues, such as defense, foreign affairs, foreign trade, and a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members. A confederation, in modern political terms, is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states --88.82.47.6 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:OR it does not matter much whether we believe the EU meets the criteria listed in the article confederation. Only reliable secondary sources do matter. I am not sure if there is consensus in the academic literature that the EU is actually a confederation. In most of the literature I know, the EU is described very much as it is in Wikipedia: as a partially supranational and partially intergovernmental organization, the only one of its kind. Maybe someone else here knows a significant body of literature arguing that the EU is a confederation? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, we should stick with the current one. I for one see it as a confederation but that is not the majority view, academically, publicly and so on - and hence we can not stick that in the introduction where it will probably be one of the few things people will remember from this article.- J Logan ^t: 09:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any change to the opening sentence for the reasons given by Andrzej above. In my opinion its fine as it is. --Simonski (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not perfect, but acceptable and accurate; I do not see that the proposals are an improvement, and would therefore stick with the current version. In any case I am very reluctant to use the word confederation (even it fits within the broader definition) because of the nation like connotations on the word. Arnoutf (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have always thought the introduction is terrible. Mainly because it uses big words which I did not understand when I first met them on this page (and I got a degree mate, and top marks at english language). Wikipedia articles are supposed to explain things, not give readers riddles which they then have to go and look up further. A summary sentence which contains words people will not understand without further research is frankly useless. The EU does not seem to fit the definition given above for confederation, it has no central governement to speak of. It is false arguing to claim that our article should use technical words because other sources do. That is exactly the same reasoning as saying that if a source is written in greek, we should write this article in greek. We should not. we should translate into comprehensible english.

I would go with the Britannica definition, but I note both the other encyclopedias use unambiguous words meaning independent sovereign nations, rather than the 'states' used here, which is sometimes interpreted ambiguously as a non-sovereign part of a larger whole. This is not precise writing. I would suggest replacing 'states' with nations or countries. Supranational and intergovernmental need to be explained. Sandpiper (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agee the first line is very hard to read (although I am happy we lost the really technical sui-generis there):

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features, located primarily in Europe.

Perhaps it would improve if we split it into two

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. The European Union has both supranational features being able to make directive which are binding to its members, as well as intergovernmental features, as it depends on agreement between the different members.

I kind of like the first line; but am not at all happy about my suggested second. But as a direction perhaps?

I would not use "nations" as that can be interpreted in a way implying the Scots, or the Catalan as its own nation (I think they are); while state would make it clear we are talking about the legal entity. A similar argument goes for countries where England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are countries in the state called United Kingdom. Formal, perhaps but we need to prevent problems there. Arnoutf (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, No, I would never say E W I and S are countries in the state called the UK. It would sound wrong and be wrong. It is possible to describe them individually as countries, but if a sentence is comparing them to the Uk as a whole, it has to make it clear that are in a sense subordinate parts. This is not my undrtsanding of the EU. It would appear the two encyclopedias mentioned agree with me, as do some of the references produced in the past here, that the EU, strictly, is subordinate to the member countries, not the other way about. Thus the importance of mentioning sovereignty or something similar, just a touch, as those other encyclopedias do. I would be happy with the third alternative, countries, replacing states. I used to consider the word 'state' as synonymous with 'country', but apparently it isn't.

Yes, I like your two sentence structure much better. I am happy mentioning supranational and intergovernmental if their meaning is immediately provided. (in fact I rather like it, I don't object to educating people, just to making life hard for them). Perhaps the re-statement of 'The Europen Union' would read better simply as 'it'.Sandpiper (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the country/state situation. In the case of the Netherlands the Netherlands Antilles are a "land" (lit county); part of the staat (lit. state) Kingdom of the Netherlands. Perhaps the legal stuff in the Dutch situation has coloured my perception of the whole. Anyway, I think the choice "country" / "state" will prove a detail once other people pitch in.

I think the second line of my suggestion is still a bit convoluted (to put in a difficult word ;-) and needs some work. As I made it up while I was writing I am happy if people change it fairly radically as a way to improvement. Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Economy vs Economic policy

I have mentioned this before. The section in the article often titled 'economy' is not about the economy of the EU, but about 'economic policy' made by the EU. The article tagged as 'main article:economy of the EU' has virtually no content which is mentioned in this section. In fact, that article is also something of a misnomer. It mainly concerns itself with comparing the economies of each of the member states. This all rather demonstrates my position, that there is no such thing as the economy of the EU.

I have changed the section title to 'economic policy' because that is what the section is about. It never mentions the actual economy of the EU, whether real or imagined. Those of you out there interested in FAing please note that one of the GA reviewers complaints was that 'main article' tags were being used when the article mentioned really wasn't. I don't mean to be petty about this, but I'm not overly concerned about FA or GA or page ratings, yet I seem to know the (sometimes themselves somewhat petty) rules better than those who are interested in this. Sandpiper (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah the nitpicking has started; why do we need a FAC if we can make our own lives much more difficult than any FA reviewer will ever be able to. Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

well, 1) using titles which do not express what is in a section is bad page structuring, it just is. 2) People here who want FA etc need to understand better wht they are trying to achievce, and this is a good example of why they won't get it unless they try a bit harder. Sandpiper (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

At 1). No it is n't bad structuring (implying the whole thing needs overhaul) it is just bad naming (which is far easier to solve). 2) I think most people are trying hard, but blunt (rather then bold) editing of many editors makes trying to maintain current level already very hard. If everybody was a bit more polite, respectful and patient on this page we might actually get somewhere. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So why have you changed 'economic policy' back to 'economy'? I am pleased you get my point, which was not that the section needs changing, just its title. I would also point out that the relatively stable structure of this article over the last month or so is not because everyone agrees it is just fine, but because they have politely refrained from changing things. However, we now seem to be entering a phase when people will resume editing to try to improve things. Sandpiper (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

After carefully re-checking it. I agree with you renaming. I meant to leave it your way (as may be seen in my edit summary), but made a mistake there. Although I should have been more careful, that is the risk you take by tinkering at more then one point of something as sensitive as the headings in one go. I restored it to economic policy and the see tag. Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, were falling over each other editing. I note the difficulty with making more than one change at once, but it is equally difficult to revert parts of a long chain of edits done one by one. Thanks for changing it back. Sandpiper (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way you were correct with the education under development as well. I put that back. I cannot find agreement of putting Culture (including sports) under Demographics though. It has been discussed but I cannot find agreement on that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much which was it goes but I really don't see why you're nitpicking on this. It could be economy or policy, the single market and euro are both - so is most things. The fact the UK economy is mainly services is a fact of the economy and it is also a policy of an 80s lady I don't like much. (and leave a break before you reply, I've been trying to post this for ages!)- J Logan ^t: 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Should have taken a diner break anyway, may have been less grumpy... :-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that if the title is economy, I would expect it to describe the economy. How many steel miils, the impotance of daisy growing, trade with the USA, balance of payments deficit, trade tariffs, gross national income, inflation rate, bank rate...etc.... It does not mention any of those things. Instead what it talks about is rules which the EU has made about how trade will be conducted. The section describes rules about trade, not the nature of that trade. I think this is once again a throwback to the structure used by country articles, where the section titled economy really does talk about the economy. This section does not, because the EU has no economy in that sense. But even for those people who argue it does, it simply isn't discussed in this section. It isn't nitpicking, it is a mistake which people here have naturally fallen into from trying to make the standard country section fit the EU. Sandpiper (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Read [3] to approach this century´s perspective on European Union´s Economy. The term Economy covers the single market, the monetary union, plus (essentially) covers the demanded content in its introduction para. No need to rephrase the section. Lear 21 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But that article seems to be mistaking the EU for a country, the "EU" (the institution) is not a country (yet...), it's like saying that "The economy of the UN is doing well" or "The world Bank is heading for recession"! Multinational-intergovernmental organisations do not have an economy - the member states do even those the multinational-intergovernmental organisation might make policy that it;s members follow (or not...). SouthernElectric (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that observation, any area, small or big, has its economy, the world has one, a town district has one, so why not the EU, which is not only an institution but also a territory? --Pgreenfinch (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not (yet) a territory, for example the EU is only an observer at the G8 or UN unlike the countries that make up the membership of the EU, what I'm saying is that whilst all the countries that belong to the UN or NATO have economies no one would start talking about the "Economy of the UN (or NATO)", at beast all we can say is "The EU area economy" - not exactly what section heading are made out of! As for people talking about the world, do people talk about the world economy (what do they compare it to...), they might well talk about world economic trends and the such but that is not the same surely? SouthernElectric (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU is a geographical area (no need to say "EU area", nobody uses that phrase as evybody understand that it is an area, not just a club, with a population, economic infrastructures and economic activities that can be described and measured. Everybody understand what is the EU economy, it is a very common appelation, no need to invent another by adding "area" unless you want to prove something. BTW, the world economy is also a common appelation. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add further statements here made later then the subheader break below as that will confuse the flow of the argument. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Arnoutf but I need to reply to the comment by Pgreenfinch. Nonsense! You say that "everybody understands", if so why are they reading the article?! The fact is, many people do not know, many people do honestly believe that the EU is a Federal entity (in fact some editors seem to think that, or at least have done), the purpose of this article (and WP) is to inform those who don't know. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on, federal or not federal has nothing to do with using or not the expression "EU economy". That expression is not only the most current one but also the right one, to censor it for far-fetched theorizations would be a POV attempt to mislead those who "don't know", by denying that the EU is an economic area (which is how it started by the way, under the name "European Common Market, and later "European Economic Community"). --Pgreenfinch (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the section in this article does not talk about the subject normally uderstood when someone talks about 'the EU economy'. It is departing from the normal understood meaning of the term to use it as the title here. Sandpiper (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Economic policy, Break for editing and recap

Let's step back in this discussion, and consider the following questions.

1. Is there such a thing as the Economy of the European Union. My personal opinion. Yes there is such a thing, it is about unemployment, GDP's, steel mills, etcetera. Actually all of the stuff provided in the article Economy of the European Union.
2. Does the economical section of this article deal with such economics, or is it more about economic policy? My answer would be. The current section (ie as it is written now), deals with economical policy rather than economy.
3. A section dealing with economical policy can be labelled economy to fit with country structure. I disagree, if it is about the policy, we should label it as such.
4. The section should be rewritten to fit the label "economy" rahter then relabelling the section to "Economic policy" (ie the content rather than the title is wrong). Personally I disagree. Have a look at the Economy of the European Union and see how heterogenuous the economy of the EU is. That is still no more than the sum of the economies of the member states. The economic policies however is in my opinion where the EU is a single entity.

Considering all this, I would suggest to leave the content of the section as it is now; and keep it relabeled as "economic policy" (with a further reading tag to the economy article). Arnoutf (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is one area the EU can be labeled a unified entity or at least achieved a high degree of coherence, than its the ECONOMY ! There is no need start listing Hundreds of arguments to support this thesis. The main section´s first paragraph alone justifies the term Economy. The single market and the monetary union are as well core elements of the ECONOMY as a whole. Certainly the subsection Competition does not fit very well in this context. It is merely one out of many policy areas arbitrarily chosen and can be considered as too specific. It should be removed. Lear 21 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the single market and monetary union only created the single trading area and the Euro zone area, it did not combine member states into a single economic area - that will only come when/if the EU becomes the USoE and thus, the (institution of the) EU can only make policy (that then has to be enacted by each member state). SouthernElectric (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the endless list of references[4] and understand why the term is justified. Lear 21 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please deal in fact rather than journalists POV's. If you are correct you will have no problem citing the relevant EU document that created the 'single economic area. SouthernElectric (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just on if the EU has an economy or not, of course it does. There is a single market with accompanying regulations, currency, bank, fre transfers, free movement and governance. To say it is just the collection of the member states - well everything is, you could say the UK is the sum of the economies of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (although granted some people do not consider there to be an economy beyond London). The World Bank and UN isn't an economy because the economies they are composed of are not integrated nor notable as group to say ("the World Bank is...."). Anyway though, the whole section is not all policy though, the main para lists data on trade balance and GDP etc, that can't be called policy. - J Logan ^t: 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are correct it means that the EU is a Federal entity! Try this, the WTO creates economic policy, it has no 'economy' of it's own, it's members do though and when we talk about economics within a WTO context we are talking about what has happened to it's member states and not that of a office block in Geneva - that same is true of the EU. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3. and the last time [5]  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lear 21 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lear, as you'll hopefully have learnt with the whole CIA article/Sports debate, just posting the same source over and over and not trying to win the other side over in any other way is not particularly helpful. For what its worth though, I don't think here again the wording is particularly troublesome or anything.. as somebody pointed out above, you hear economists/people speak of "the global economy" do you not? To an extent I see what you're saying SE though. I could be convinced either way here I think. --Simonski (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually although I stated otherwise in my recap above, I am also not completely sure about economy/policy. If the case is made convincingly (where exclamation marks and 4 reversions within 24 hours are negative arguments); I might be persuaded, although if we adopt "economy" as title I would suggest swapping the first two lines:

Economic policy framing (current): The EU operates a single economic market[94] across the territory of all its members and uses a single currency between the 15 members[95] of the eurozone. Considered as a single economy, the EU has a nominal gross domestic product of (US$16.6 trillion) [2] (in 2007) amounting to 31% of the world's total economic output[2] It is also the largest exporter,[96] the second largest importer[97] and the biggest trading partner to many countries including very large markets such as India[98] and is one of the top trade partners for many others such as China.[99]

Economy framing (altenative) Considered as a single economy, the EU has a nominal gross domestic product of (US$16.6 trillion) [2] (in 2007) amounting to 31% of the world's total economic output[2] It is also the largest exporter,[96] the second largest importer[97] and the biggest trading partner to many countries including very large markets such as India[98] and is one of the top trade partners for many others such as China.[99]. The EU operates a single economic market[94] across the territory of all its members and uses a single currency between the 15 members[95] of the eurozone.

Does this make sense? Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

@Simonski: I learnt that certain editors are incapable of dealing with facts, arguments and references. That´s why I have provided not ONE source, but rather a list containing Hundreds of references. Lear 21 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your list is that it only shows that the phrase is used (that is the fact your list proves), but it does not provide an argument that there is officially a thing EU-economy captured within the accepted definitions of economy (that may perhaps be derived from the observation that the term is used in all these articels; but that derivation is original research and is therefore an invalid source). Indeed this is an argument made many times before; and it is you (Lear21) who has trouble distinguishing between these interpretations of the sources. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We do it vice versa now: If there are not at least 3 editors who clearly take a stance for a rephrasing including an extended rationale, there won´t be even a start of a discussion. The stupidity and nonsense theorizing has already gone to far. The term Economy is a standard expression covering exactly the mentioned content in this article. Lear 21 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right, such attempts at intellectualism are killing wikipedia, an encyclopedia which normally should be made for normal readers. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To Lear, obviously one thing you didn't learn is the difference between opinion and fact. Arnoutf made a good point about the usefulness (or lack of) of the link you kept providing. Either way, if SE feels that strongly about it, and if he has at least one other person supporting him here, he's in much of the same position as you were all that time ago regarding the sports section. Disregarding his arguments as 'stupidity and nonsense' isn't going to help anything, for the love of Gawd how can you not realise that? SE you will have to convince me though here, why if you can speak of 'the global economy' can't you speak of the EU economy? Just because the section is headed 'Economy', I don't think it necessarily infers that the EU is fully integrated economically (though there has been significant economic integration in the EU obviously). --Simonski (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

@Lear21, you are simply not in a position to make demands like "We do it vice versa now: If there are not at least 3 editors who clearly take a stance for a rephrasing including an extended rationale, there won´t be even a start of a discussion.". That statement goes against the core idea of Wiki; and basically means the article should be fixed in the current state forever and would be an extension of WP:OWN to talk pages.

@Pgreenfinch: The 'attempts' at intellectualism at this talk page are essential because, and that is core Wiki policy, the text in articles should be based on a sound argumentation. That does not mean the scientific reasoning needs to show on the article, only that it is done in the background. If we leave that guideline we could as well skip the whole verifiability thing at all and write a nice article about how elves and magicians rule the wonderful lands of the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the gnomes of zurich are not members, being in switzerland. Lear, firstly your references are not endless as you say, google only found 2020 of them. Looking at them I see they are indeed talking about the correct and general meaning of the word 'economy', exactly as it is used in the article France#Economy, or Germany#Economy, or Spain#Economy, to mention just the first three countries I chose from the list in economy of the EU. None of these sections talks about 'economic policy'. they all talk about statistics relating to trade in the country concerned. That is why they have the title 'economy', in the sense in which it is normally used and used by the goggle references. In this article, the section in question talks about rules governing trade, economic policy. If you must, we could create a new subsection 'economy' and place in it the general statistics about the economy which are simply in the economic policy introductory paragraph at present. I am still wondering where we should place the information about the EU budget, currently missing from this article. Sandpiper (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last point, under "Governance", as that is exactly what a budget is, finance that allows the "EU" (or any national state government) to function. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

World economy, Bavarian economy, EU economy, Antarctic economy... it's all good to refer to economies on other levels then nationally. Remember that the word economy originally referred to the management of a single household. In that sense, most of us are running our own personal micro-economies. This discussion is so bloody pointless, this subject seems to draw a lot of those. --Bjarki (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So just how many angels can sit on the head of a pin? The discussion is not pointless. In reality, it is a re-hash of the ongoing argument of whether the EU is a country or an international organisation. International organisations do not have economies. It is not acceptable in an encyclopedia to mis-describe something as what it is not. If this section had been about the economy, even as an abstract discussion of the area concerned (as you say, it is possible to talk about the economy of any arbitrary region), then I would not be complaining. But it talks about rules, not figures, so it is not the topic discussed in country articles and described as 'economy'. Since you mention it, I would suggest you read World economy article. It talks about money and trade balances, growth rates, statistics. If you look at Economy of the European Union, you will see it also talks about statistics, and in particular compares the statistics for each of the member countries. It hardly discusses them as an integrated whole at all.

At the same time though man, surely the fact that there is an 'Economy of the EU' page and you're not disputing its name, pretty much begs the question why its not alright to have the simple 'Economy' heading for the main page as well? --Simonski (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal System

Evidently I missed a couple of minor edits to the section which are debatable. Firstly, somebody has edited the supremacy point slightly, so that it now reads "National courts are required to enforce the EU treaties and the laws enacted under them, as provided for in national legislation when each country joins the EU". That is only true for Dualist systems, like the UK's. In Monist systems, like the Netherlands, no national legislation is required as international law = domestic law by default. This sentence therefore needs changing/removing.

Secondly, somebody has changed the bit on legislating, so that it now reads "A common feature of the EU's legislative procedures, however, is that almost all legislation must be proposed by the Commission, rather than member states or European parliamentarians". What it fails to clarify however is that the Commission can propose all it wants, but at the end of the day, and I'm quoting from the source referenced for the above statement, "but it is the Council and Parliament that pass the laws. Other institutions and bodies also have roles to play." I would say that whoever has edited the above statement in italics has done so in a way to make it seem like the Commission has more power than it does, and the Member States/Council less in this respect. Which is wrong, in this respect. If nobody has anything to add here I'll fix them both later. --Simonski (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right it should be fixed. I recall these changes starting when some confusion about the different types of EU regulation were discussed. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you think is wrong with the first statement. I presume the Netherlands passed some law when they joined the EU which made the EU law part of NL law? Isn't that what the sentence says? Surely NL courts then make rulings if anyone has a complaint under these laws?

As to the second point, I'm not quite sure what the procedures are, but it looks as though it might need an extra final sentence in that para saying something like "In either case legislation must be agreed by the council ? Sandpiper (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On the first point, nope, thats what I was trying to point out ages ago when we had the Supremacy discussion. Monist systems, such as the Netherlands do not need implementing national legislation. Whatever international treaties are signed up to in the Netherlands have direct effect immediately, in the sense that international law is normatively placed higher than national law provisions. Its why Supremacy wasn't such a foreign concept to them and a couple of other Member States. Have a look here for further explanation (though to be honest the article on Monism/Dualism needs serious work - for example the claim there that the USA is a monist system is laughable) - Monism and dualism in international law. Get what I mean? The UK is an example of a dualist system, as is Germany, where international treaties are implemented via national law. --Simonski (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

editorial proposal for intro :use of the term "loose confederation" or "very loose confederation" or "extremly loose" or "very very loose" or ....

This is not OR.This is an editorial decision, everyone agrees that the inner workings of the EU are very convolueted, a result of endless compromises.An intro must be simple,this is editorial etiquet,in quantum physics we have"In physics, quantum mechanics is the study of the relationship between energy quanta (radiation) and matter,in particular that between valence shell electrons and photons.",this is quite hem according to my standards on the issue, but i understand that theirs no point about talking about hilbert spaces,eigenvalues,operators,partial differential equations,particul-wave duality in the introduction.The intro is,oversimplifying for editorial reasons.For the same reason,it's bad etiquet not to simplify the description.The other "professional" encyclopedias know this very whell,that's why they put theirs simplified explanation in ther intros,they know what they are doing,it's not out of incompetence.The intro manages to be inferior by trying to be fuller.

Some reminders for however answers.This is an editorial decision,not OR,in the same way that Q.P. intro is an editorial decision,not OR,strictly speaking QP intro is shit.Example "european economy" or "european economic policy".I remind you,that in a confederation the states are considered independent,it's a special case of a international organization,in the EU ther is a common foreign affairs and common security policy...... the decisions just have to be taken by unanimity(that's why you rarely hear of them but they exist).The EU has no "army",yes,but each country has it's won "militia",to use familiar terminologies with some editors.If i'm not mistaken,if the EU "decides" to take a military action (by unanimity :)),the whay i understand it is that afterwards it's binding on the members.The european council is the upper house of the european legislature ,not a forum of european ministers,a feature directly copied from the german federal system(=bundesrat),yes in germany,the peopol governing the landers and the peopol voting in the federal upper house are ....... the same.I'm saying this because many consider that because mister brown or merkel or sarkozy,in real term vote in the european council,that it doen't qualify as a federal structure,but as an international organization,in that sence the bundesrat is a "international organizations" travesty inside the federal system of Germany.At my knowledge this is unique in the hol word.--88.82.47.38 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed here after you (or someone using your IP address) raised the same issue two days ago. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't discussed,don't attempt to scare people away,i was absent and now it's too beried to atrack peopol in the debate.And it's not the same.--88.82.47.38 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea was discussed (and has been discussed several times) by a large number of editors and most completely disagreed with your suggestion. The chances of achieving consensus on your proposal is incredibly unlikely, and the current status of the introductory sentence reflects a long-drawn out compromise. Read above for the reasons why your idea is not a good one. Writing 'loose confederation'/'confederation' would instantly lead this page to be tagged as possibly non-NPOV, as its clearly a personal point of view, and not one shared by all. --Simonski (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in the table of content and it was discussed, you or somneone using your IP address made numourous replies - see here. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not true.I ansered only two times,two times in a row,that realy counts as one.It wasn't discussed i left too almost right away and then it was beried.Lets discuss it one more time ,it's not set in stone.This is not POV,read all my arguments.I strogly doute that the argument was set in this way.--88.82.47.38 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If this was discussing the introduction, yes I agree it is terrible and Arnoutf and I are still discussing above how to improve it. If no objections are lodged, I suspect we will implement it in the near future. We seem to agree that a slight amendment explaining supranational and intergovernmental as we go along would help. As to whether it is a federal state, my own conclusion was basically that if the members say it is not, then it is not. But also, strictly, the countries have the final say in everything and the central organisation has no authority to change anything. That seems to be the difference. Sandpiper (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you peopol do it in purposse.Why do you argue if it's a federal state or not,clearly it's not.The question is not what it is but what to put in the intro,it's clearly different things.In a confederation by definition,it's the states that have the final say,so you didn't argue any thing,please read all my arguments at the top of the section,they are quite different then the last time.--88.82.47.38 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to show that "loose confederation" it's not a bad simplification.After you read the article of Bundesrat of Germany,do you classify the council as an intergovernmental body,or a federal one?the bundesrat is the almost exact duplicate of the council,is the bundesrat a intergovernmental body?--88.82.47.38 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a sidepoint, because I'm (sadly) doing EU Citizenship at the moment, I'm reading articles/journals which actually describe the EU in a way similar to the start of this article. I've never once read 'loose confederation' used. It might be, because its not an accurate term to use for the current state of the EU. Just a thought. I'm starting to wonder if this is a wind-up actually (ie. the spelling, wtf). Your claims are by default POV as they're your opinion, however you dress it up. You'll need to find sources calling the EU a loose confederation for a start (and then have to convince us that those sources are more convincing/useful than the others that disagree).

Also, The Bundesrat an almost exact duplicate of the European Council? Is that what you're seriously saying? The European Council is made up of 27 Independent nation states... so in effect you're saying its a loose confederation of independent nation states. Isn't that paradoxical? I don't think you're going to sway anybody's opinion here unfortunately. I still actually prefer the current introduction. Wow, so it might confuse people, but its legally accurate. If they want to make Wikipedia for Dummies, we can change it there, but for as long as this is an encyclopedia, the current intro is surely fine. --Simonski (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, how the hell are we going to deal with this issue. Its too contentious. I really think that the current intro satisfies all sides of the argument. We are (though I can't speak for everybody) not in a position to accurately define what the EU is when there is not even consensus within the EU about what it is (hell even in academia - one academic will come out with the statement 'the EU is to a large degree a state', whilst another will come out and say 'the Member States remain completely sovereign and independent over the majority of key issues'. If they can't agree, how can a bunch of Wikipedia editors) Anybody have any ideas? I really thought the intro as it is was fine in that it didn't really attempt to address the issue fully. Loose confederation, with all due respect, is not a good suggestion for a replacement however. I have to say now I would oppose strongly this idea. --Simonski (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For the bundesrat=council, i ment to show that the concil is federal in nature,not how strong the central goverment is.Imagine that instead of the senat,every governor of all american states had one vote in the senat.Does this mean that the USA is less of a federation?It would still be a federetion.I whant too show that loose confederation ,or extremly loose confederation,or very very loose confederation,or whatever you whant to say it, is a good aproximation for the introduction.The issue is to have a good aproximation for editorial/pedagogical reason, so i'm saying that sources are not needed,this is not content,it's just the wording of the introduction,that by good etiquet should be simple,and push the explanation in a relevent section,for example the intro of quantum physics is laghable,but should not be changed."legally accurate",all lowers i asked told me (after some thought) that the EU really was a confederation. --88.82.47.38 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)