Talk:European Union

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

Template:Maintained

FYROM in blue

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

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

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

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

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

 Done

Montenegro

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

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

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

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

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

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

As it stands now the paragraph is however misleading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nato citation non sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nato in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation needed?

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

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

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

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

Animation of member states

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

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

EU production of primary energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reality

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

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

UESR

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

Please add new topics at bottom of page.

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

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

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

Italian more Native speakers than French?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidency Insignia

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

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

PS. Ugly? I quite like it!

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

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

Not necessarily disagreeing, but making a few random points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EU terminolgoy must be respected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law suites against computer companies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gini

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

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

GDP in 2009 ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G8 and UN representation

I don't think the sentence

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

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

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

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

Decisions in legal system section

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

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

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

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