Wikipedia

Talk:European Union/Archive 14 and User talk:Hoodedchicken: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Paul111 (talk | contribs)
2,205 edits
 
Caution: Page blanking, removal on Wherry Albion.
 
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{onlinesource2005|section=June 1-10
|title=Sharon Hughes
|org=Accuracy in Media
|date=June 2, 2005
|url=http://www.aim.org/guest_column/3695_0_6_0_C/}}
<!--
MAIN CONTENT
-->
{| class="infobox" width="220px"
|-
!align="left"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
:[[Talk:European Union/Archive01|Archive 1 <small>(pre 2004)]]<small>
:[[Talk:European Union/Archive02|Archive 2 <small>(Jan-Apr 2004)]]<small>
:[[Talk:European Union/Archive03|Archive 3 <small>(Apr-May 2004)]]<small>
:[[Talk:European Union/Archive04|Archive 4 <small>(May-Jun 2004)]]<small>
:[[Talk:European Union/Archive05|Archive 5 <small>(Jun-Dec 2004)]]<small>
:[[Talk:European Union/Archive06|Archive 6 <small>(Dec-2004 - Aug-2006)]]<small>
:[[Talk:European Union/Archive07|Archive 7 <small>(Aug-2006 - Dec-2006)]]<small>
:[[Talk:European Union/Archive08|Archive 8 <small>(Oct-2006 - Jan-2007)]]<small>
|}<!--Template:Talkarchives-->
{{GA|small=yes}}
{{facfailed|small=yes}}
{{formerFA|small=yes}}
{{WPCD|small=yes}}
{{V0.5|class=GA|category=Socsci|small=yes}}
{{mainpage date|May 9|2004|small=yes}}
{{FAOL|Hungarian|hu:Európai Unió|lang2=Norwegian|link2=no:Den europeiske union|lang3=Portuguese|link3=pt:União Europeia|lang4=Serbian|link4=sr:Европска унија|lang5=Slovak|link5=sl:Evropska unija|lang6=Spanish|link6=es:Unión Europea|lang7=Swedish|link7=sv:Europeiska unionen|small=yes}}
{{Spoken Wikipedia request|(unknown)|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia/Requests|Previously requested]]|small=yes}}
 
=== MapJuly change2007 ===
{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to [[:Wherry Albion]]. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If you would like to experiment, please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox]] for test edits. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> [[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]] 09:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Why are some people changing maps all the time? Can't they get along or something?
 
:Well I suspect the recent map change had to do with the two new members of the EU at the turn of the year. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Hi, I was away for just a week and the whole article seams to look a lot better, however am I the only person who thinks the map under "law" (Image:452px-EGKS.png) is awful and pointless? [[User:161.76.99.156|161.76.99.156]] 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== EU vs Turkey ==
 
I see that there are many accusations against the Republic of Turkey in this article, presented as "facts". Those sections need to be revised to keep the article objective. --[[User:129.42.208.182|129.42.208.182]] 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:Please provide a list of sections you are unhappy with.--[[User:Lucy-marie|Lucy-marie]] 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Future enlargement and close relationships ==
 
Probably the part on Turkey needs to be greatly trimmed, just hitting the hightlights, but I don't have the time or expertise for that. I thought I did well just to organize it. :-) [[User:Mdotley|Mdotley]] 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:I agree and cut out the part detailing the Cyprus dispute. People can use the wikilink (also provided within the same section) to the [[Cyprus dispute|main article]] for further reference, so there is no need to repeat the same details here and crowd this page with redundance. I also added a mention of Republic of Cyprus veto based on the Cyprus dispute, as per [[User:Aristovoul0s|Aristovoul0s]]'s pointer to the issue. (The section I removed did not mention the veto) Take care [[User:Xasf|Xasf]] 14:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
::There is a little bit of a revert-struggle going on between me and [[User:Aristovoul0s|Aristovoul0s]] regarding the Turkey section and I'd like to elaborate my point of view once more. As I've mentioned above a couple of days ago, I agree that the section needs to be trimmed. I think the part detailing the Cyprus dispute (that I cut out) is redundant because:
::* it does not reflect the issue in the context of the article and merely recounts the military intervention and the ongoing dispute because of that.
::* the negative effect of the Cyprus dispute on the Turkish accession is already mentioned in the section, and readers can access the [[Cyprus dispute|main article]] for further reference on this specific issue.
::* as Aristovoul0s pointed out, the Cyprus issue brings on the question of a veto by Republic of Cyprus, which is also mentioned in the section (and '''not present''' in the removed text).
 
::I hope that we can discuss and address any further concerns here before going on to riddle the article with constant reverts. Take care --[[User:Xasf|Xasf]] 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== CIA World Factbook Section==
[[Image:European flag.svg|100px]]
I propose the renaming of the "CIA World Factbook" section to something like "Treatment as a nation" (please suggest better alternatives). The CIA World Factbook is mearly a reference to the point rather than a direct subsection of the EU. ie Though an important reference source, the CIA World Factbook is not really associated to the EU to be worthy of a subsection of the topic. --[[User:E!|E!]] 09:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:I agree ! It should be merged with the section above "Comparison with other regional blocs".The section name could summarize it : "International perception and comparison with regional blocs". all the best [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 15:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 
=="If Ranked" bias==
If the E.U. wants to be counted as a country why should it be counted only in positive things like GDP even though there is no E.U. treasury and member states cannot touch other member's money? Why not negetive things like external debt, obesty, and unequal wealth between member states? This is just an ego trip for arrogant and anti-american europeans who like to use the "What if" scenario so they can think that they are better than Americans. We all know how europeans think Americans are fat and uneducated but if you were count the E.U. as one country they would be the fattest country in the world, one the most uneducated countries in the western world, and the most in debt country in the world. Why not count NAFTA as a country as well? NAFTA would be the richest in the world "If Ranked". That some bullshit, the E.U. is not a country and nor will it be anytime soon or ever, so I have no idea why it is counted as such. Wow, they have a flag and some countries have a common currency, big fucking deal, that doesn't make it a country.
 
[[User:Daniel]] 18 January 2007
 
:Ummm, I don't think your reasoning really makes sense, as you fail to distinguish between absolute and per capita measures. Measures such as the "fattest country in the world" are measured on a per-capita basis: i.e. the average American tends to be fatter than the average European. It's not as if they calculate the whole weight of the American population and compare that to the EU population :) In that case, there is no reason why the aggregate EU figure for "fatness", if you like, would be any bigger as a whole than the sum of its parts. Same with levels of education: these aren't calculated on a compound basis, but on an average/per-capita basis. And I don't see why the EU would be more uneducated than the USA. If we take the median weighted educational attainment of the EU, it would probably be higher than the US, considering that the US usually fares towards the bottom of the OECD tables in this regard (this is not an insult, just a fact).
 
:As to external debt: perhaps yes, we should calculate the external debt of the EU as a whole. As to unequal wealth between member states: again, I also think it would be interesting to work out a Gini coefficient for the EU as a whole, because even though the individual countries within the EU all have small Gini coefficients, the wealth gap between member states would mean that the overall EU Gini coefficient would be quite high (though I don't think it would be higher than the US one). In any case - can you find any published source which has computed a Gini coefficient for the EU?
 
:Your comparison between NAFTA and the EU isn't entirely accurate, because there are significant differences. Whereas NAFTA is pretty much just a free trade area, the EU is also a political union, with an elected legislative assembly, a single market, free movement of persons, an executive body and binding laws in the form of directives. Integration between EU countries is significantly higher than that between NAFTA countries. Finally, no-one is implying that the EU is a "country". By ranking the EU as an aggregate, however, it can be compared to other countries more precisely, and for the purposes of this article, that is useful. [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Okay first of all in the U.S. all of our are pretty much the same when it comes to wealth because even our poorest states are richer than countries like France or the U.K. so do not compare the unequal wealth between states in the U.S. and member states of the E.U., I mean do poor countries like Poland or Albania compare to California or New York? No, they certainly don't. Also europe would be much fatter because in the U.S.individual states are much thinner than european countries of equal size and population, it is only when you count the whole country does it appear to be fatter. If you were to count all of the E.U. member nations together they would be much fatter than the U.S., especially in countries like the U.K., France, and Germany which are the fattest countries in europ. Also E.U. members like the U.K., Germany, and France which are the only countries that matter economically, politically, and militarily are more in debt than the U.S. if you were to count them together and they are not capable of paying their debts as fast as the U.S. because as I said there is no E.U. treasury and member states pay their own debts. The U.S. on the other hand is the richest country in the world and is a real country with a treasury so that means it can actually pay it's debts very fast. Also according to the CIA world factbook the U.S. over took the E.U. in GDP in 2006 so that makes that "If ranked" garbage needs to be moved back one : ) Also it will stay that way because the U.S. economy has a higher growth rate than the E.U. and our growth rate has been steady for the past twenty years and there are no signs of it getting lower, while the E.U. economic growth rate is lower than the U.S. and is getting getting lower every year, not to mention the declining population which will be over taken by the U.S. by 2030 and a GDP - per capita much lower than the United States. [[Daniel]] 19 January, 2007
 
:I really must say I find your claims dubious. I don't even understand what you're trying to say about the differences between inequalities in U.S States and European Countries, perhaps you could try to explain better what you actually mean. As for the "fattest country" thing, there is absolutely no doubt that America is by far the fattest, all the statistics bear that out. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what the title of "fattest country" means, it means simply the country with the highest proportion of obese people (that is the USA), now remember that doesn't mean what country has the Overall most fat people, it's the amount per capita. It's possible that if measured by total numbers then the EU has overall more fat people than the US, simply because it has a much larger population than the US, but the proportion of fat people to non-fat people is still much higher in America. I'm not sure about the debt issue, the US certainly has the biggest in absolute terms, though I haven't seen any statistics on the EU's collective debt, it could be bigger but I don't know. As for who has the biggest economy, well the US and EU are very close in terms of GDP, it tends to fluctuate who is No.1 and who's No.2, though I believe with the accession Romania and Bulgaria the EU is the biggest again, but of-course it changes from year to year. 'The U.S. will have a bigger population than the E.U. by 2030'? Huh? Where did you get that figure from? Even if the US population continues to grow and the EU's continues to fall, that is absolutely not going to happen. The EU is currently about 500 million people, the US 300 million, according to Encarta, the predicted population for the US by 2025 is 335 million and about 400 million by 2050. The EU's population is predicted to fall by about 5% over the next 50 years, which would make it about 475 million in 2050. But of-course that assumes that the EU will not expand to include any more countries than it already has, which is obviously not true, the EU could easily have 600 or 700 million+ people by 2050. Essentially there is no prospect that the US population will exceed that of Europe at any time in the 21st century. Frankly I just don't even know what you're getting so upset about, at the start of your post here you accused this article of presenting some Arrogant, anti-American, European POV, well it sounds to me as though you are the one here who's acting arrogant, angry that the US is not being presented as the greatest place on Earth and that another rival is bigger than it. Well all I can say is, Face the facts. --[[User:Hibernian|Hibernian]] 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Geography needed! ==
We need a Geography section here. all the best [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Currencies ==
 
"Currencies Euro (EUR or €),
Pound, Lev, Pound, Koruna
Krone, Kroon, Forint, Lats,
Litas, Lira, Złoty, Leu,
Koruna, Krona"
 
This list mentions two pounds and two korunas, and the only way to tell them from each other is to look at the URLs they point at. Not a good way to list the currencies in my opinion. A better solution could be to include the country name ("British pound", "Cypriot pound", "Czech koruna", "Slovak koruna"), or to use the currency codes (GBP, CYP, CZK, SKK). The names "krone", "leu" and "lira" may also cause some confusion, because people might be unaware that Norway, Moldova and Turkey aren't part of the EU (and might not read the appropriate sections in the article text).
 
It might also be useful to add CHF to the list because it is used in some German and Italian exclaves. ([[User:58.188.97.134|58.188.97.134]] 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC))
 
Why not just have another page on other currencies used within the EU with details about which currency where, lesser used ones such as CHF mentioned above or unofficial usaged such as American and Russian currencies. It would clear up the info box a bit. [[User:161.76.99.156|161.76.99.156]] 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Maps on national pages ==
Very correctly, all infobox geo-___location maps for individual EU countries have recently been harmonised. Unfortunately though, a few editors on [[Luxembourg]], [[Spain]] and [[United Kingdom]] have resented this for national POV reasons and constantly push them back to inferior versions that do not show the standardised EU look. I would be grateful if other editors could look in on these pages and help with the harmonisation. Thanks! [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:I will simply ask who decided about this harmonization and where the decision was taken. All I've seen so far is a discussion rejecting the use of those maps. By the way, the user who reverted your map changes in the [[Luxembourg]] article is neither a national nor living here, so I can't see how you could accuse him of pushing a ''national POV''.--[[User:Caranorn|Caranorn]] 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussions you refer to rejecting them took place where? [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:Your assertion that harmonisation was 'very correct', and that reversion to other versions is POV, is itself POV - you don't support your preference with a verifiable justification. I don't mind your opinion as such - it's perfectly arguable - but you really shouldn't call the kettle black. [[User:Countersubject|Countersubject]] 09:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
In other words, you can't find such a discussion except on country article pages where the POV is always nationalist. If there hasn't been a harmonisation discussion there needs to be, and this is it! Can we have a discussion based on objective criteria about it? The issue is that (1) the maps re-inserted on a few country article pages are basically the same but remove the EU (2) infoboxes are not only to do with the article you are on at any given time - they also contain information about
related groups of pages and this is common practise in many areas of Wikipedia (3) the maps are harmonised across all EU countries so that any casual browser of EU pages can immediately see how they all relate and be reminded that they are all in the EU, which is the most important international organisation those countries belong to, and this is a very good idea. Other views? [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 10:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:Here is an ongoing vote about those maps. [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#A final solution for the entire maps issue.3F]]. I believe there is more talk about teh subject on that page as well. As it stands I feel it is unreasonable to go and change the maps unilaterally as you've done (and then claim the other articles already use the maps when most indicate recent changes).--[[User:Caranorn|Caranorn]] 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
The vote is fairly inconclusive and anyway votes are indicative not binding. Why is it "unreasonable" to change them? Surely they are better harmonised? For Wikipedia users I mean. Isn't the encyclopedia supposed to be for end-users rather than the POV-pushers on each country page? Maybe not if this is any indication. [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 12:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:Well to me it looks like it is you changing all those maps (I did not check all 27 EU member pages, so I could be wrong) so you can't talk about harmonizing. I'd rather consider it the opposite. There is absolutely no need to change maps at this time.
:And yes, I'm also for harminised appearance of country pages, which is exactly why the old maps should stay until a guideline has been determined for all countries.--[[User:Caranorn|Caranorn]] 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:The problem we have here is that the pros and cons of EU harmonisation ''are'' a POV issue. That's where the discussion needs to begin. That you (MT) apparently don't see this is a problem, though I'm sure it's one we can surmount! [[User:Countersubject|Countersubject]] 15:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Just to be clear (following Carnorn's comments above) it wasn't me who introduced the new maps to all EU pages - I just changed back to those new maps on the few country pages where they were not kept. [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:As a note, the new maps were inserted around January 4 (indeed not by Mark Thomas as I first suspected, sorry), that is at a time where the votes were 10/4/7, that's definitelly a majority against those maps. Currently the vote is 15/7/13, still a clear majority against the maps (but the vote is moving towards new maps, but not the ones that have been inserted since January). Another note, in many cases the new maps were inserted without edit summary, they were then reverted at least once (in those articles I sampled) based on the inconclusive vote.--[[User:Caranorn|Caranorn]] 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Thanks for the helpful summary Caranorn. I'm happy not to do further reverts on them until there's general agreement on Project Countries, but even so, am in favour of the sort of harmonisation of infobox geo-locators it presaged, since it makes travelling around the site from country article to country article much more satisfactory. If people agree to the latter point, wouldn't it be better to promote such harmonisation anyway and go with the flow of the votes on which exact base map should be used as it emerges? Therefore in other words to support the current euro map over a disorganised situation? [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:For now I'd tend to wait and see. So yes, I won't be reverting the maps at this time and wait for the outcome of that vote (note I haven't voted yet myself as I'm still undecided). I'd also prefer one single style map for all country articles, regardless of which map style is finally chosen.--[[User:Caranorn|Caranorn]] 00:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:Harmonisation of the way this information is presented definitely makes sense. Harmonisation for EU members in advance of a general agreement is a different matter entirely. [[User:Countersubject|Countersubject]] 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 
I believe that changing the maps on the European pages (no matter whether with or without the EU shading) could act as a catalyst for similar maps for the other continents also to emerge. For the moment, everyone is discussing and discussing, but still we have the old ugly grey maps. Why not use the new maps for Europe for now? If a better alternative or a consensus emerges, they can still be changed. In the mean time, they will at least be much nicer than the grey ones. [[User:Luis rib|Luis rib]] 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 
There is a very extensive and detailed discussion on it going on at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries]] where the aim is to try to standardise the formats of geo-locator infobox maps for all countries, so after some considerable exposure to this discussion, I now realise we should all participate in that where we have views. Personally I agree Luis though that the new EU set would be better than the current random acts by in-article editors each doing their own thing. [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== New Sections of Religion,Military,Sports,Infrastructure needed! ==
A useful source is the [[Europe]] article. all the best [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:This article should not duplicate content from the [[Europe]] article, the EU is complex enough as it is. And it is inaccurate, since they do not coincide. For this reason, the sport section should be removed. If the EU has no policy on an issue, then it belongs elsewhere.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Beethoven? ==
 
The picture of beethoven with the caption "Ludwig van Beethoven wrote the EU anthem "Ode to Joy"" is not needed.
In my opinion, he himself has nothing to do with the EU, and presence of the picture alludes to the possibility that Ode to Joy was written FOR the EU, which is false. I'm going to remove it... [[User:Kareeser|Kareeser]]|<sup>[[User talk:Kareeser|Talk!]]</sup> 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
EU brands initiatives like Galileo,Erasmus,Socrates using names of European personalities in history.
Beethoven directly is the author of a now used EU symbol - the anthem. Nothing wrong with showing
him in the first place. all the best [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 
I agree, Beethoven didn't actually write Ode to Joy but he composed it. In any case, it is just a bit of a whole piece. EU adopted this bit.--[[User:FeMeMe|Nauki]] 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== A Navigation Box would be good ==
 
Can someone make a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa#Navigation Navigation box]] for the European Union. [[User:Ssolbergj|Ssolbergj]] 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== remove "intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism"? ==
 
I am really glad to see such good work on this article recently, especially in simplifying the structure. However I'd like to suggest that the "intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism" be removed. It's currently under the "law" part, but it doesn't have much to do with law. It's a discussion with, what I think people call, "weasel words" - ''some'' say that intergov. is good, ''some'' debate that and say it's bad, etc - and it's pretty baseless.
 
Here's a part from the [[Law#International law]] page (and the [[EU law]] page) that I've been editing:
 
* '''[[European Union law]]''' is the first and only example of a [[supranationalism|supranational]] legal framework. However, given increasing global economic integration, many regional agreements, especially the [[South American Community of Nations]], are on track to follow the same model. In the EU, sovereign nations have pooled their authority through a system of [[European Court of Justice|courts]] and [[European Parliament|political institutions]]. The EU adopts common trade policies, labour laws, consumer laws and many others, where the goals of such laws are better achieved at a level higher than the [[nation state]]. It constitutes "a new legal order of international law"*ref*{{cite web | title = C-26/62 ''Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlanse Administratie Der Belastingen'' | url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61962J0026:EN:HTML | accessdate = 2007-01-19 }}*/ref* for the mutual social and economic benefit of the member states.
 
I agree with the European Court of Justice back in 1962, and think the discussion is redundant! Most issues are not consensus based anyway. Are there any objections to me removing the section and putting in something else? [[User:Wikidea|Wikidea]] 05:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
I absolutely agree. The section has no base and adds no essential content. The only reason I havent
removed it yet is, that the topic examplifies the shown images in the section (Airbus and Ryder Cup- which are crucial for the article). all the best [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 06:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
==hang on with the edit warring a bit==
 
Let's try talking to him. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 10:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:I have left the report on [[WP:AIV]] for the time being with a small note about the situation. That serves two purposes - not having another one added, and allows people to see whats happening. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 10:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
He has not responded to your comment and it's been 2 days. I suggest just putting it back up, he has after all no legitimate reason for deletion of the discussion and he certainly has no right to remove other people’s comments. --[[User:Hibernian|Hibernian]] 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Ok I've just put back the section. I just hope there'll be no more trouble with this. --[[User:Hibernian|Hibernian]] 04:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 
==Origin of the European Union==
[[Image:Second world war europe 1941-1942 map en.png|thumb|150px|left]]
[[Image:EU27 Candidates.png|thumb|150px|left]]
 
The two images on the left are remarkably similar. The first one depicts the German attempt to unify Europe during the 1940s, and the second one depicts the union as it stands today. Why does the article make no mention of the German contributions towards the goal of European union in the 1940s? [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 13:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:There is no connection, unless of course you mean how survivors of [[World War II]] tried to do their best to prevent further wars of this type by proposing ''rapprochement'' between the European Nations. The [[Nazi Germany|Nazi German]] project definitelly was something entirely different, their goal also never was unification of Europe.--[[User:Caranorn|Caranorn]] 23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
::Himmler was very keen on the idea of a feudal Europe, with various regions all in a hierarchical status with each other. It is also incorrect to say that there is no connection between 1940s German amibitions and those of today. You will find that the current European central bank is located in the same city as the Nazi central bank, for example. [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Hitler was also a huge fan of Wagner's music, yet this doesn't discredit Wagner himself. Your frivolous explanation to the EU central bank being located in Frankfurt completely misses the point: Frankfurt is the biggest financial center in Europe outside London. Had the UK joined the euro zone from the beginning, it might instead have been located in London. [[User:Luis rib|Luis rib]] 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:And who on earth would actually ''want'' it in London? [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
That's probably because it also happens to be a huge financial centre. any so-called connection is just a coincidence. You'll find that it's the ONLY eu institution in Germany. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 00:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:And yet the German economy runs Europe. What did the British fight and die for in WW2? [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
BTW: just checked on the German wikipedia: the Nazi Central Bank - the Reichsbank - was actually located in Berlin (it was originally the Prussian Central Bank). So obviously you got your facts wrong, TharkunColl [[User:Luis rib|Luis rib]] 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:Their financial economy was run from Frankfurt, whatever the ___location of the corporate headquarters. As for getting my facts wrong, do you deny that the German economy dominates continental Europe? And how is this different from German aims in WW2? [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::It's exactly the same, minus all the killing and stuff. Seriously, what are you trying to achieve here? The Nazi ambitions for a "unified" Europe are already mentioned in the article on the [[history of the European Union]]. --[[User:Biekko|Bjarki]] 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
It's not the Germans fault if the UK fell behind :-) You're just jealous, right, TharkunColl? [[User:Luis rib|Luis rib]] 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
::Jealous of what? The UK fought long and hard to rid the world of the Nazis, and sacrified much. We have nothing to be ashamed of. [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:This is also totally unneeded. --[[User:Biekko|Bjarki]] 00:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
It's interesting though, because in the maps debate, TharkunColl has systematically denied that he is motivated by an anti-EU POV, but equating the EU with the Nazi project above he makes his views plain for all to see. Not that there's anything wrong with having a POV, but at least we all now know what that is! [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 00:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:The Nazis sought conformity, as do those who support the EU. This is ''your'' POV. [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Equating the EU with the Nazis is deeply insulting, and a perversion of the historical background of the EU. It was founded by people like French resistance hero [[Pierre Mendès-France]] who was tortured by the Nazis, democratic states and peaceful treaties. It has a liberal constitution and advocates human rights and equality before the law. There may be undemocratic structures within it that need revision but it is ''nothing'' like the Nazi project. Your views are pathetic, wrong and stupid. [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:And yet it ''is'' run by undemocratic, unelected Eurocrats, and ''is'' dominated by the German economy. This is exactly how the Nazis ran it. It may be better today, but no one can deny that the modern European unification project was begun by the Nazis. [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Well, the House of Lords is not very democratic either... Anyway, there is a simple reason why the German economy is the biggest in the EU - it is simply the country with the biggest population. BTW: your ridiculous argument could be taken further: wasn't Napoleon the one that first tried to create a pan-European Empire? [[User:Luis rib|Luis rib]] 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
::The House of Lords could be abolished at any time by the sovereign will of the House of Commons (because fortunately, we don't have a written constitution). They keep it because it's convenient. You are right about Napoloan of course, and William the Conqueror, and Charlemagne, and Julius Caesar (just to name the most famous - there are many others). ''All'' threats to British sovereignty have come from Europe. [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:I think it was the Romans Luis. [[User:MarkThomas|MarkThomas]] 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Time to cool down. No serious historian seriously equates the Nazi and EU projects. Nor is this the place for pro and anti EU debate - it's a page for discussion of what we can do to improve a factual article about the EU. One way would be for the article to recognise the corporatist traditions out of which the EU arose, and their impact on its structures of government and administration. Another would be to recognise the influence of liberal politics, and reaction to the dictatorships of 20th century Europe. The tension between these influences lies at the heart of the EU and discussion about it, and it ought to be possible to describe it in a rational manner. What won't help is wild generalisation, or intemperate language. [[User:Countersubject|Countersubject]] 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
So this is about british sovereignty and anti-german sentiment? That's interesting, it was the same kind of super-nationalism that started WW2. Very nice. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:So it was anti-German sentiment that started WW2, was it? I know that's what the Germans themselves claimed, of course. [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
We shouldn't take TharkunColls Euro-skepticism too seriously. After all, the UK was extremely keen to join the EU since 1961 (see [[History of the European Union]], only to be rebuked several times by Charles de Gaulle. [[User:Luis rib|Luis rib]] 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:The British governments of that time sought to join without popular support - and furthermore, the British people were simply told it was a "common market", not an incipient federal state. And as for de Gaulle, that's the thanks we get for saving his country in WW2. [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Your argument is flawed: since 1973, when the UK joined the European Community, the UK has been one of the members that shaped it. If it became an incipient federal state (a debatable assumption), the UK government certainly did not prevent it from becoming so. BTW, your comment on de Gaulle is funny: either you want the UK out of the EU - and then you should thank de Gaulle from having preventing the UK from joining for 12 years - or you want the UK inside the EU - and then you can indeed criticise de Gaulle. [[User:Luis rib|Luis rib]] 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:De Gaul's actions were nevertheless dishonourable, whatever their result. [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 
This strikes me as one of those debates that should just be ignored. It's clear that this guy refuses to accept any opinion other than his own. By the way, I clearly said that your brand of blind nationalism is what started WW2, not anti-german sentiment, nice of you to hear only what you want. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:Why are people who question the role of the EU always branded as nationalists? The worst type of nationalism is that exhibited by those who support the headlong rush into mindless conformity across the whole of Europe, a Euronationalism. Did you know, for example, that it is now illegal for one Englishman to sell a pound of spuds to another? We are all forced to express it in metric measurements. How can this possibly be beneficial? [[User:TharkunColl|TharkunColl]] 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 
I won't comment on the nonsense being spouted by a number of people here, if you all pay attention to the reminder at the top of this page:
 
:'''<i>This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article.</i>'''
 
:'''<i>This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.</i>'''
 
[[User:Countersubject|Countersubject]] 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Misleading image of General Leakey ==
 
The image is copyright and taken from an EU website. The reason to remove it is that it gives a false impression, violating accuracy and neutrality criteria. The image suggests a proud and independent EU military force with its own commander. However, it is a cropped image, and another photo taken at the same time, [http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/document/setimes/features/2004/11/24/feature-02], shows that Leakey is also sitting in front of the NATO flag. What is more, he is speaking next to his superior officer, US Army Brigadier General Steven Schook. That sums up the geopolitical realities, and the image here conveys a false perspective.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 13:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:The image illustrates that there was and is still is an EU initiative called EUFOR, no matter what context the image was taken from. It is adding valuable visual content to the section and can be considered fair use. all the best [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
'Fair use' refers to copyright status, which is also in doubt in this case. However, the misleading suggestion is the main reason to remove it. See below on EUFOR and other images.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 13:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:The image is vital in creating a complete image of EU activities and responsibilities. [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 13:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
::In what sense is it vital? [[User:Countersubject|Countersubject]] 14:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Schengen ==
 
Schengen is not an EU treaty, and not EU policy, and not adopted by all EU members. Its special status should be accurately described.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Schengen is EU law and aquis! Ireland & UK are granted exceptions. Its comparable with Eurozone. [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:The [[Schengen Agreement]] article states: The Schengen Agreement was created independently of the European Union in part due to the lack of consensus amongst EU members. However, the [[Treaty of Amsterdam]] incorporated the developments brought about by the Schengen agreement into the European Union framework, effectively making the Schengen Agreement part of the EU. -- [[User:BIL|BIL]] 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
The intro mentions Schengen already, in an acceptable way, so a duplication under 'policies' is unnecessary anyway.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 13:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Policy and co-operation ==
 
The sections of policies, cooperation, and harmonisation are a mess. They fail to distinguish between central pillars such as the single market, the many other Commission-level policies, intergovernmental cooperation, and the harmonisation which implements the major goals. (Harmonisation is instrumental in the EU, not a goal in itself).[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Ryder Cup ==
 
What was I supposed to see on the official site? And what official site? --[[User:Biekko|Bjarki]] 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
The official Ryder Cup Site clearly features the Logo with an EU flag. Also statistical
tables include the flag and the winning team is waving it. all the best [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:The [[European Flag]] is not an exclusive EU sign, it was originally the flag of the [[Council of Europe|CoE]] and is meant to represent the whole of European continent. The European part of the Ryder Cup is organized by [[PGA European Tour]], a body that is not related to the EU at all and is funded primarily by private sponsors. PGA European Tour organizes several golf tours throughout the continent, including places like non-EU members Switzerland and Russia. Team Europe at the Ryder Cup has also featured non-EU players through the years, there were Swedish and Spanish players on the team before these countries joined the EU. Please please please remember that Europe ≠ The European Union, one being a continent and the other a international organization. --[[User:Biekko|Bjarki]] 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 
You convinced me for now. But! Even the flag was invented for all Europe/[[Council of Europe|CoE]] , it developed over the decades to a de facto 'European Union' symbol, being adopted officially.
Considering these circumstances Team Europe using the flag wouldnt be appropriate ( USA features US players) but thats my advanced POV ;). I already made a complaint to the PGA. And : The EU is not only an Organization but even more the daily home to millions of inhabitants encompassing the full range of civilization, like sports, without a direct connection to EU bodies or directives. Nevertheless I´m going to change the text. all the best [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== EUFOR a NATO force? ==
 
EUFOR does nothing without the authorisation of NATO, and therefore the US has a veto, so its designation as a ''European'' force seems disputable. The Council of Ministers can not independently command the force.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 13:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Too many images ==
 
The article is overloaded with images and graphics. For a start all portraits should be removed, and the two images of towns. They say nothing about the EU. If in doubt, priority for the maps and tables, which do convey information.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
The images of the article illustrating the current situation and responsiblities. The leading personalities are crucial for the understanding of the issue. The city pictures visualize an EU
culture programme initiated more than 20 years ago. Nothing wrong with it. [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Inappropriate headers and sections ==
 
The article is apparently using a standard format created for articles on nation-states. Since the EU is not a nation or a nation-state, some are inappropriate, especially ''Politics and Government''. The EU has an executive but not a government. It has a politics, but so do the individual member states. I also suggest moving the candidates section to under the Members section, which would be the most appropriate place for it.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 13:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:You are right considering the Government argument, Politics will do. Other section headers have to be changed like Fundamental policies ... The [[Three pillars of the European Union]] have to be the Leitmotiv. Candidate countries are foreign policies and have to remain there. The accession of Turkey for instance is not expected within the next 10 years, if ever ... [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
The headers are a mess. The politics header belongs more on the Current Issues section, and the 'politics' section is about policies and structure. The article needs restructuring.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Delete Largest Cities ==
 
A list of largest cities (or highest mountains or deepest lakes) does not belong in an overview article on the European Union. Pictures of three of them certainly don't. There is a separate article on geography of the European Union. If no-one else objects (other than the user who inserted the section) I propose to delete the section, and the pretty pictures.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:Its a standard section. View China ,USA ,UK, Russia ! I propose to include the first 5 or 6, to avoid dispute wether city/metro area size matters. A small gallery is best I think. all the best [[User:Lear 21|Lear 21]] 18:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 
The EU is not a country, and it is complicated enough already without extraneous material.[[User:Paul111|Paul111]] 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Union/Archive_14"