Talk:European multilateral defence procurement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject European Union (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Purpose of this article ?[edit]

This article reads like a contrived excuse to push views about "how well the Europeans (meaning, the EU, also - in a sense) are doing" ... etc...

The article needs to be much more objective with reference to the stated title, and the blurring of "Europe" in the title with a pro-EU slant needs removing. Or else, of course, change the title.

Worthy article in it's aims, perhaps, but it needs basic work before filling out with the details.

Any takers, or objections. I might have a stab sometime if there's no constructive comment either way. Anon.

I have tried to tidy up a little and make it a little more NPOV. Much more work is required. 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've placed citation flags for what seem to be the most questionable assertions. The claim that the F-35 won't be as widely used throughout Europe as the F-16 seems particularly dubious as many European countries are already taking part in the F-35 development program. --Nick Dowling 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, many, but not as many. And there's a lot more skepticism than there was to the F-16 which had no viable European competitor. --Joffeloff 01:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The F-16 allowed some production and maintenence work to go to European companies, so governments were still partly 'buying local'. With the JSF there will be one factury ( in Texus ) and the workshare is largely decided and probably cannot be changed, so buying the JSF means no local jobs. However whether the Typhon nations will allow jobs to be exported in return for sales also seems open to debate. The Saudis did not get work share for example. 10:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Another agreement as to the general ill-health of the article. At the moment it's dreadful, like a year 1 undergraduate essay in progress. And the standard of English is poor, but there's no point correcting this until the purpose and outline of the article is sorted out. Matt Whyndham 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Lacking a focus and/or purpose? Yes. But dreadful? No way. It's not even close to good but I've cleaned up my fair share of dreadful articles and this is nowhere near as bad. Mark83 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that the author points to numerous European projects as examples of success but none of them are truly pan-European in any sense. Typhoon is the nearest but that excludes the French! 10:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Why would European governments suddenly start backing their own defense industry and replace their american stock with self-made gear if not to strengthen their own economy and autonomy? Could you come up with another reason? Joffeloff 11:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I put up a link to the EDA, which does just that. Can I make the suggestion to merge this article with the article on the EDA? It would fit perfectly, and be under a somewhat more encyclopedic heading. Anybody feel like a collaboration? :-) Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 13:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

European defence spending is critised for being more about job creation, independence from the U.S. and prestige than actual capablities. 10:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please clarify why job creating in europe and independence from US defence products is a bad thing? US defence spendings are employement programs too, and the black programs are mostly subsidies for US companies, so why do you critize EU for doing the same? Regarding capabilities, can you please give some insight? For example, Eurofighter Typhoon is worldwide known as one of the most capable fighter planes in the world, at 1/3rd of price of a F-22. --Supersymetrie (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


I moved this article: adding the word Union. The article seems to be concerned with the EU and its member states. If it were a truely European article, then a lot of information about other nations such as Russia deserve inclusion--jrleighton 00:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the new title is an improvement. As the EU doesn't have a military and each EU member has its own defence procurement policy the current title is missleading. IMO, it would be better to expand the article to include Russian defence procurement rather than give it a new title. Alternetly, as defence procurement is handled at the national level there might not be any reason for this article to exist in its current form, and it might be better to create a 'Current European Defence procurement cooperation' article to cover joint projects such as the Eurofighter and move the stuff on national policies to other articles. --Nick Dowling 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Russia is not seeking integration with NATO/EU-Europe, which puts them outside the scope of this article. The purpose of this article is to document the relation between the defence procurement of European nations, with the exceptions of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Russia which are currently the only European countries not integrating within the 'NATO/EU/Brusselsphere' (it doesn't have a name, does it?) When you name it European Union procurement, you abandon countries like Norway, Turkey and Switzerland who are integrated with Europe and buy European equipment (for example, they all have Leo 2s, the 'European tank') but are not EU members. They do have a place in the article. --Joffeloff 16:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a good point being made above. I propose that articles are named with as much precision as possible to save making assumptions [ e.g. Europe = EU is a common assertion ] that don't hold true. Thoughts from others ? --jrleighton 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but I fundermentally don't understand this article. If it is about defense procurement in Europe, then why the European Defense Agency info box? Is it supposed to be about procurement by the European Defense Agency? Procurement by individual member states of the European Union? Weapons procurement by the European Union? I really don't mean to just criticise other peoples work without helping, but maybe it helps to point out just how confusing amd maybe misleading this article appears to an outsider... Best regards 01:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

The whole "Conclusion" section is nothing more than an original research section. 21:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously! Matthieu (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I just removed it. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)