Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TastyCakes (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 11 August 2009 (→Dictatorship?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 45 days

	European Union is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	European Union has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 8, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 21, 2006 Featured article review Demoted May 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 4, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted June 23, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 30, 2007 Peer review Reviewed March 16, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Template:Archive box collapsible

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)

French native speakers represents 68.5 million people (roughly, without Switzerland) - English native speakers are 65 million and Italian native speakers are 60 million. So how is it possible in % we came to "13% English native speakers, 12% French native speakers and 12% Italian native speakers" ? This should be 14% for French, 13% for English and 12% for Italian. I am afraid the data here is corrupted, it definitely needs to be changed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.152.13 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

EU superpower

EU has the status of superpower that you should add in the presentation.If EU hasn't the status of superpower (check datas) Usa is neither a power.This should be written in the EU presentation and in the articles of Misplaced Pages "Emerging superpower" and "Superpower"(The same Misplaced Pages warns about the low level of the articles).These articles are so ridiculous to set Misplaced Pages in a very low level.Nobody today (except US citizens trust these articles).Now and for the next years the majority of scientists and writers consider EU the main superpower.The problem is that EU people is quiet,while US people set in Misplaced Pages a lot of PROPAGANDA.Anyway liars have short legs!151.60.118.143 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously support the EU 100%. --Boson (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm objective.And you? In this crisis EU (also after the Yes to Lisbon Trarty in Ireland in Fall)is the only superpower .Check datas and everithig suggests that or EU is the main superpower or EU is a simple superpower and Usa aren't anymore a superpower.I travel and studied a lot.The US PROPAGANDA has legs shorter and shorter ,the theatre is fallen.151.60.117.188 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

evidence (in the form of reliable sources) please. Arnoutf (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It only needs to see the datas in Misplaced Pages.In the majority of the lists you can see that EU is superior vs Usa.It's so clear that only a guy that isn't able to read can't understand.It's very evident.151.60.118.176 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to a reliable source describing the EU as a superpower? I can read just fine, but if I, as an editor of Misplaced Pages, describe the EU as a superpower it would be original research - we need a reliable third-party to describe the EU as a superpower, so we can cite them. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 12:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And even that may not necessarily suffice. Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia presents mainstream accepted scientific view. If there is a debate in the academic world whether the EU is a superpower we cannot say more than that there is disagreement whether to label EU superpower or not (and that statement alone does require a scientific source for both positions). Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

there are a lot of writings on EU as superpower.One of them is "The United States of Europe:the new superpower and the end of american supremacy" written by T.R. Ried J.J. Myers ,December 2004 This is an example .The guys like you if they look for reality and not for other things should look for bringing up to date the data of EU vs the world.The EU is without doubt superior to Usa if you check all datas.Only the presentations in Misplaced Pages ("Superpower" and "Emerging Superpower") are stedy in the past.Propaganda is now made only by Usa presentations.That's sure!Nobody fight US PROPAGANDA and this isn't honest.If you need more books for set EU as superpower i can suggest you much more.I've seen that usa are considered superpower with only 1-2 references in "emerging superpower" of Misplaced Pages.151.60.116.96 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Our role here isn't to "fight US propaganda" (living in the UK I tend to focus more on fighting British propaganda - like "our elected representatives deserve swimming pools paid for by the tax-payer"), but rather to report verifiable claims. If the mainstream view is that the EU is a super-power, we'll cite those sources that make that claim. If you can provide references from the mainstream media that would be great. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

EU is considered as superpower also in US media such as CNN.Many writers and the majority of scientists consider EU the main superpower today.I can suggest you also more books as references:i don't like propaganda for EU and i also dislike Us propaganda.I want only to set the things as well (not to me ,as other people do in Misplaced Pages very easily).I'm not able to set directly here the references,anyway i'll set them if you need as soon as possible with the help of my friends.Anyway you can ask me at the moment also more books about EU as superpower.151.60.116.96 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a two claims above: 1) CNN considers EU a superpower. Please link to the article by CNN with that exact quote. 2) The majority of scientists consider EU the superpower today. There are several million scientists in the world. Please provide a reliable majority vote of these (And to be fair, I'll let you off the hook and only ask for a majority vote of all political scientists (still probably over 100,000)). Without such references your remarks are only dogmatic ranting. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll set the references as soon as possible .Also you could look for them to set in Misplaced Pages a real situation.I wrote that i'll set the references.Instead of criticizing like a disruptive NOMAN (you say your "no" before and this is not good for your ojectivity) help in the work otherwise you're unuseful.Be aware to be not offensive or sarcastic. Anyway you must wait as i wrote for references ,are you blind? Can you show me the references and the criterias that allow Usa(THAT EU OVERTAKES IN THE MAJORITY OF WORLD RANKINGS) to be a superpower at the same time?I want to read a joke!At the end with some criterias only Us people will read Misplaced Pages in english.Anyway my main aim is to make clear a situation not very clear at all in some Misplaced Pages presentations.151.60.119.253 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to read sources on the point and come to a view on whether it should be included then. I think that summarises the position of most editors here. If you want to make claims such as these you should come equipped with the evidence to prove it BEFORE you expect people to go along with it. Also, your talk of US propaganda/lies and whether the US is a superpower are irrelevant here and undermine the strength of your argument. This is not a place to dispel what YOU perceive to be US propaganda. You also make sweeping generalisations such as "Nobody today (except US citizens trust these articles)", which make me doubt your unverified assertions elsewhere. I am not a US citizen, and I have no reason to distrust these articles.

Being rude to people who are simply asking you to prove what you assert is unpleasant and is unlikely to improve your argument. Lwxrm (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My dear the same Misplaced Pages warns you about these 2 articles about superpower.I heard novels when i was a child. In Misplaced Pages there are a lot of things presented without objectivity ,above all when we talk about presentation linked to today policy.People aren't stupid to understand it.Anyaway i'll set here the references about EU as superpower.Which are the criterias to write that Usa is a superpower? In the majority of ranking lists EU is ALWAYS superior vs Usa.The rest it's only lost time to speak.Buy $ for next years,and you'll have a lot of paper in your pockets!No idea.My aim is to set these references.151.60.118.161 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No evidence. No point Arnoutf (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, this is not US[REDACTED] article. Nor is it the superpower[REDACTED] article. Nor is it a forum for rantings about currency. It is the discussion page for the EU article. You have raised a point and been asked to verify it. Until you add some new argument or produce the references to it I will not respond further here. Lwxrm (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So how can you define if EU is a superpower or not? How can Usa be declared a superpower?Which are the criterias? If we talk about EU we must know also if it is a superpower as lot of people say or write.The same must be checked in the articles.I wait my friends to set the right references.Now wait please.151.60.117.72 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop feeding this troll? TastyCakes (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You want to stop me in setting references.You are without doubts a Us citizen. I wrote to wait.What do you want ?151.60.118.82 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Time to archive? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 21:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. TastyCakes (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to me and the most of part of EU people that aren't Us propaganda man like you.151.60.119.119 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

100% EU people that aren't "Us propaganda man" are all one indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer, with a penchant for trolling, particularly making uncited claims, then promising supporting references that never quite seem to materialise. Blaming US propaganda on their inability to get anyone to agree with them is another aspect of this strange character's nature. The sock puppet investigation referenced above ("Time to archive?") gives more details on this recurring pest. Cheers, TFOWR 11:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an old way (not very clever in the long time) to stop uncomfortable people by continuous and disruptive sentences.You're talking about something or somebody that i don' know .I prefer to talk about article "EU" instead of losing time with you.151.60.117.41 (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually have anything you'd like to discuss about improving the article? Cheers, TFOWR 13:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No because i've seen your partial position in the other edit about EU spuperpower.It means that also many other people think similar to me .It's a defeat for you and official Misplaced Pages partial ideas ( at the source controlled by US citizens).Your nation doesn't matter and you can't prove the real nationality of everibody.That's all.151.60.117.41 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's pointless. If you have nothing to say then say nothing (i.e. don't post). Incidentally, you do realise that the vast majority of regular posters here are EU citizens? I'm not; I'm a New Zealand citizen. Sorry to rain on your conspiracy-parade. Cheers, TFOWR 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Globe map

On the blue one French Guyana seems alot more visible. Worth changing it?--SelfQ (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard to see on both. (BTW we may need to add Bonaire etc in the EU colours soon too). Arnoutf (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My preference is for blue - slightly easier to see. Maybe have a (part) circle around French Guyana, though that's arguably more appropriate for island groups? Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If we start geographically remote areas, we probably should also find a way to show French Polynesia. Mmmmm, that would mess up things big time, as they are on the other side of the globe. Maybe we should just accept that remote areas are remote and that it is just too bad that they are hard to see. Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

French Polynesia is not part of the EU, so it should not be on the map. to the best of my knowledge, the visible hemisphere of the current globe view covers the entire EU. This article might be able to falsify my statement though. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I hate to be a contrarian but I think I'm partial to the green. That is the colour used on the maps for practically all the country articles, for the sake of consistency alone I think it's the better choice. I also don't think changing the colour makes it much easier to make out French Guiana. TastyCakes (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with blue. It is the color you connect with the EU, if any. Also, French Guyana is more contrasted and thus it is slightly clearer that it is part of the EU. At last, there is no standard for coloring. About half the EU countries are colored orange on locator maps of their articles. The Turkish editors chose red, probably because its some sort of national color to them. Many other countries take red for less obvious (perhaps no) reasons. However, if it remains green, I am fine too. i think it is in deed the most common color. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Green is the de facto standard (although the word 'standard' is of course dangerous on Misplaced Pages). If the articles of all countries were to follow this logic, China would be red etc. But that hasn't happaned, and I don't see why the case of the EU would allow for special decorative creativity in colours. Not encyclopedic IMO. - SSJ ☎ 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I really like the blue. Better than the green. Europe is blue in the Risk board game, and if thats not a good enough reason then I dont know what is :) Seriously though, the blue looks better in my opinion. --Simonski (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio of Risk/Hasbro is probably a reason not to use blue then...... But I would not stick to much to green either as the EU is not a country. Arnoutf (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer blue to green, however in terms of what we actually use (i.e. ignoring my personal preference!) I'd want to stick with green because (a) it's the closest we have to a standard, and (b) it's iconic of "land", as opposed to blue ("ocean"). Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Simonski: Sure, blue isn't a bad colour. But my concern is the uniformity vis-à-vis other articles. Traditional encyclopedias would certainly not play with colours like this. - SSJ ☎ 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Related to this point, I've recently been involved with standardising maps across continents and the maps used use green for land outside the polar regions, and blue (albeit a lighter blue) for land within the polar regions (see e.g. Antartica's new map). I realise that the EU isn't a continent, and we shouldn't necessarily be bound by usage elsewhere, but uniformity is useful. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've seen this discussion, this is to register my preference for the green map for aforementioned reasons. Orthographic maps, by design, distort peripheral territories, so a substantive solution would be to use a map with a different projection. (I'm not advocating for that.) And seeing how there's no apparent consensus to changing it yet, I've restored the green map. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't really argue with most of those points, no problem with sticking with green actually! --Simonski (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

New map

I've recently changed the map of the EU to this one but apparently some editors don't like. Could you please explain your reasons here? Personnally, I prefer the new map for the following reasons:

1. it focuses on the EU countries and so it makes each of them visible even as a thumbnail.
2. It shows the country borders.
3. The French Guyana appears more clearly on it (while it was almost invisible on the previous map)

Laurent (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You might like to browse through the archives, where there have been various discussions of the map, including

• Talk:European Union/Archive 22#Mercator projection
• Talk:European Union/Archive 22#The Orthographic projections

--Boson (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The focus of your map is not acceptable. Why would you obviously make a cut so to include French Guyana while you obviously leave Reunion out? Tomeasy _{T C} 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers - after having read the discussions I'm fine with the current map. How about adding the country borders to it though? Is there any reason why they don't appear on the map? Laurent (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that the decision whether or not to include the borders of the member states is a POV - so or so. The arguments pro and contra the borders are probably also clear, but you might open the jar if you like. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The boarders inside the EU are irrelevant. Fireleaf (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the prior, long-standing orthographic map for aforementioned reasons. In fact, I'm unsure why the EU was changed to blue from green, since most locator maps in use in Misplaced Pages are green. As such, I've restored this map.

Yet, I am tempted to devise a version exhibiting EU internal borders, since member states retain their individual statehood and this is not unimportant -- alternatively, the EU is not yet a state, and the map should not usurp its member states while it exhibits non-EU countries without qualification. Basically, the map without internal borders gives the impression that the EU is a state on par with others. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Member states' borders are of course not irrelevant, but IMO the infobox map's purpose is to locate the EU in the world. We have a detailed member states' map a quick roll down on the page. Here's a previous discussion on this issue. - SSJ ☎ 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm: then, perhaps the EU map can/should be rendered like the one currently at Europe, without any political borders. Otherwise, it gives a false impression: that, regardless of the map's function, the EU is on par with sovereign states. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's nescessary to analyse the map so tendentiously. The EU is a political body, so I don't see why external political borders are any problem. - SSJ ☎ 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not tendentious: the EU is a political union of member/sovereign states, sine qua non. As does the CIA World Factbook entry for the EU, I believe the locator map herein should also exhibit constituent borders. I'll work on an alternate map. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sovereign states, but here we go again; the EU also has supranational elements (so it's not quite like the 100% intergovernmental NATO). - SSJ ☎ 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting tendentious: these things are not in dispute per se (even though Encyclopaedia Britannica merely refers to the EU as an "international organization"), but the map may be. In essence, there's no reason why the map cannot exhibit the EU's internal borders and still convey its supranational character, just as the CIA World Factbook, etc. does. Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The current map is OK, it's purpose is to show where the European Union is in the world. The detaled map can be seen below. Fireleaf (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that to say the locator map would not be 'OK' with internal borders? I am really not understanding the resistance to including internal borders for EU member states on the locator map, just as it does for adjacent sovereign states and as it does in other compendiums. The fact that internal borders are on maps underneath doesn't obviate their necessity in the locator map; it strengthens the reason why -- consistency. If the mere colour of the territory is sufficient to identify the entity, the map needn't any borders on it. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

New map (after a fashion), w/borders

So, per above, I've refreshed the current EU locator map through the addition of the member state borders; otherwise, it is unchanged:

So, what's the beef? Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I think I like it more with the internal borders because it is portraying more information. By the same logic I would probably vote to include state and province boundaries in the US and Canadian maps as well, which is clearly not the consensus, so perhaps my opinion should be viewed with that in mind. Although the EU is kind of an odd duck without much to compare it with, perhaps it's worth noting that the African Union's map has internal borders? TastyCakes (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the one with borders, it gives a better sense of the number of countries within the EU and their relative sizes. Laurent (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the country borders included, so that the EU doesn't look like a country. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Piling on) I prefer the borders-included map, though to be honest I think the projection is so cool that either map looks good to me ;-) My rationale for the borders-included map is that it makes it clear that the EU is supra-national (I know there's a more detailed map lower down, but still...) I think for continents we could dispense with countries' borders, but for regional blocs internal borders are helpful and useful. Cheers, TFOWR 22:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Enlarged preview to show the map at about infobox-size: --Cybercobra (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the professional quality work that went into these maps, but if you're going to show borders, you'll need to indicate disputed borders separately (e.g. as dotted), or you can count on the maps being shot down over "NPOV". Check out Kosovo, Western Sahara, Israel and Kashmir on google maps (which incidentially isn't bound by NPOV, and unlike Misplaced Pages would be perfectly free to just show the US-recognized borders). --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes: the Online Map Creator apparently renders maps with a particular set of borders. But, actually, if you didn't notice already, I did include the disputed border for Kosovo in the map (the only one of direct relevance to this map of Europe, essentially, but didn't announce that), and -- sensitive to such issues -- endeavoured to also do so for the retrofit of the Asia orthographic locator map. Nonetheless, the map has since been updated again to reflect the various disputed borders. Still, if this was truly an issue (at least in this instance), it would've been used a while back to shoot down the prior EU orthographic map. So, thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya, the existing map uses the same (disputed) borders outside of the EU, so I don't see its relevance to the current conversation (other than "it'd be better to fix everything at once"). TastyCakes (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the preponderance of opinion in favour of the EU locator map w/ internal borders (arguably a consensus, if one simply 'counts' supporting and dissenting editors in this discussion, and none of the latter since the map w/ borders was presented for review), I've boldly updated the locator map in the article. Thanks all. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not make out that the Kosovo border was indicated in any way differently from other borders. But since this map is for thumbnail use, this question is moot anyway, because there is no way this border shows up at all at thumbnail size. --dab (𒁳) 20:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely moot. One of the advantages of SVG is that it's scalable; it your browser supports SVGs try clicking on the map, then following the link from the description page to the "map-proper" (or just click this link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Locator_European_Union.svg). In my browser (Firefox) images can be zoomed by clicking Control and "+" - normally that's fairly crude, but with SVG the image scales beautifully. If you zoom right in you can see that the Kosovo border is dashed, rather than solid. Cheers, TFOWR 22:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Demonym"

The infobox says that an inhabitant of the EU is known as a "European." And how, pray tell, are we to distinguish an EU denizen from an inhabitant of say, Switzerland or Serbia? The OED is cited as justification--but are we sure it's for the right word? Dawud (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm another sticky situation based on the EU's unique circumstances... I would say it is accurate as a demonym, just as "American" is valid for citizens of the US despite it also being used by other countries (in Latin America, mostly). I'm no expert on the matter, however. Has this been brought up before? TastyCakes (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we do often hear talk of the "European" this or that, when they mean just the EU. On the other hand, the immigration signs at the airports say "EU citizens."Dawud (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

EU citizens are Europeans, so it's an accurate, albeit imprecise, description. Airport immigration can't afford to be imprecise, or we'd be swamped by no-good Swiss citizens, wanting to breeze through our orderly immigration queues into our clean airport terminals. ;-) Cheers, TFOWR 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is valid. In my 2001 edition of the New Oxford Dictionary of English, sense 2 of European is (p. 634): "of or relating to the European Union: a single European currency". Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact that's even worse--the Eurozone being smaller than the EU. They shouldn't even call it the "euro," they should call it the semi-euro or something!Dawud (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that, since Robert Schuman has so many things named after him, and Jean Monnet comparatively few, that the ECU should have been called the "Monnet" instead of the "Euro". Of course, that's largely because I thought it would be quite amusing to have shop-keepers asking if customers had any "Monnet" ;-) Cheers, TFOWR 12:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

As well, speaking of definitions, I find it very unusual that the lead definition of the EU is unsourced; though it is a unique entity and IMO something to behold and aspire to, I have mild issue with its representation and implication of statehood and stature for reasons similar and related to those of the locator map. As such, I have massaged the lead, incorporating sourced dialogue of it being an "international organization" etc. while generally retaining other notions. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding these edits,

• (1) I take exception to describing the EU as a sui generis (i.e., unique) entity without adding a relevant source (not done) in favour of a clutch of sourced definitions; in and of itself (in the infobox), it is an insufficient description of the type of government, particularly when a number of sources do describe it as something more comprehensible (e.g., international organization (which is otherwise not even noted in this article), union, partnership, association of states, confederation, what have you).
• (2) As well, in promulgating a certain viewpoint, I am curious why said editors insinuated an arguably misplaced link for "union": this somewhat defeats the purpose of recent referenced edits, though undoubtedly there are other sources to draw upon; relatedly, there is already a bona fide link for 'union' (the failure to link to by said editors is also curious), and an international organization is not necessarily a synonym.
  

If you're going to make such edits, please have the courtesy to buttress them with references and explain as I have. My goal is to develop an equitable and sourced description of what the EU is in the lead, given the various sources indicating this and that. So, I'm open to suggestions. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And, regarding this edit by Lear21, please have the decency to use the talk page to prove your points. I'm fairly easy regarding content, but your lack of discussion while reverting smacks of POV-pushing and your blanking of references is arguably vandalism, which won't be tolerated. Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The longstanding lead sentence claiming a "economic and political union" reflects the current state of the EU. A newly introduced term "international organization" describes the status quo not in a sufficient way. The former lead was approved by several highly credible editors and is the result of monthlong discussions. The former version has been stable for more than a year now. Any altering of the introduction must therefore be discussed at the talk page first. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How many things are wrong with this comment? Arguably, the prior introduction did not equitably reflect the EU's current status, since other reputable publications (and fairly obvious ones) have been presented to describe it as something else. Curiously, nowhere else in the article is the EU described as an international organisation, which I believe says something. Despite reported input from 'highly credible editors' (which is irrelevant), the prior lead is also unsourced: I guess the editors missed a step or two. Moreover, your blanking of references simply because you don't like the content doesn't fly and smacks of POV-pushing. And, note that I initiated discussion, which you saw fit to ignore through your initial revert. So, no, the burden of proof is on you and supporters to justify why the prior lead should remain unchanged given the above. Or, we can add a nice big neutrality tag atop the article until this settles. Take your pick. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition of the United States in the intro also seems to be currently unsourced.--Boson (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My recollection of previous discussions is that, although "international organization" was regarded as one valid definition of the EU (one point of view), there was no consensus to regard this as a neutral point of view, because it did not, for instance, adequately represent the supranational, rather than international, elements. That the EU is a supranational organization is a view represented, for instance, by the CIA factbook:

The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 27 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history. Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations

Perhaps one could cite the CIA Factbook as well as the EU source ("unique economic and political partnership between 27 democratic European countries") and restore the version that reflected the previous consensus arrived at after numerous and lengthy discussions. I think sui generis adequately reflects "unique" and "unprecedented phenomenon".

--Boson (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Boson. First, one thing at a time: I can't speak to the point about the United States; that article is not at issue, but perhaps should be. Notably, it isn't a featured article, perhaps partially for that reason.

As well, the fact that the EU is supranational is not in dispute and is iterated in the 3rd paragraph of introduction -- in fact, this seems a flourish of 'international organization' (which is not noted anywhere else in this article despite citation). (The article 'supranational union', where 'supranational organization' redirects, seems rather lacking too.) Ditto for it being a sui generis entity (which I acknowledged upfront): while this is perhaps apt in the lead (though I would prefer the layman "unique", per Europa), I believe it to be unnecessary upfront (as it's obvious), and can be noted below (e.g., at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph); as well, in the infobox, it is insufficient to describe the type of government this way given other options. Lastly, consensus isn't static, and I do not believe a mere restoration of the prior lead is sufficient at this point and justifies unreferenced minimalism, since other reputable sources very clearly indicate other things to describe the EU: e.g., the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries respectively describe the EU as an 'economic and political association of ... countries' and as an 'economic, scientific, and political organization' -- this predicated my edits and inclusion of the 'integration' link.

I would welcome integrating the various sources into a more equitable introduction. Apropos, how about this:

• The European Union (EU) is a supranational organisation of 27 member states primarily in Europe that is committed to regional economic and political unification....

I changed 'integration' to 'unification', mindful of the prior notation of 'union' in the lead, but believe the link is apt to describe one of the EU's main goals. And, the 3rd paragraph would begin as:

• A unique partnership without parallel in modern history, the EU operates through a hybrid system of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism....

Or similar. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should leave the old version until we can achieve a new consensus with a much larger number of participants. I appreciate your efforts, and I personally, would probably support some of your suggestions. However, as I remember it, the previous version was the result of lengthy and sometimes heated debate that resulted in a version that everybody could more or less live with, even though most people found some of their own views (each supported by some sources) not adequately represented. Without checking in detail (I don't know if I can bear to go through all the debates again), it is my impression that the suggested changes are reiterating positions already discussed interminably before. There really is a reason for referring to the frequently asked questions at the top of the talk page, though it should perhaps read "frequently repeated edit wars ". --Boson (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not concur. I challenge the prior lead largely because it is unsourced and, per above, seems inequitable on valid policy grounds. (I would think that editors would've previously referenced the lead to preclude a recurrence of whatever issues.) The current lead may be imperfect, admittedly, but less so than its predecessor. If major English publications define something as X (and the current lead does hark of them), why should Misplaced Pages opt to describe it, perhaps, as Y? I read the FAQ section, and it does not justify vagaries or inaction: besides, there appears little specific talk in support of the prior lead (i.e., only limited mention of it being a union as described, despite the obvious). I just emerged from an unnecessarily drawn out discussion on this very talk page regarding the locator map for what I deem to be related reasons: undue emphasis on the EU's unique nature, while deprecating other valid notions. I also appreciate your engagement; so, let's move on and discuss, and others can weigh in if they choose to. Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, how about this:

• The European Union (EU) is a supranational polity of 27 member states primarily in Europe that is committed to regional economic and political unification....

As for 'supranational polity' (with the latter term 'polity' referring to any political organization or group, used particularly in political science) to describe the EU, there are numerous references online. This version has the advantage of being equitable (given the meaning of polity, which is applicable to organisations and countries), but being slightly more esoteric (which is remedied through an appropriate link). Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the old version was much better. The EU is not an international organization. Not anymore. Nowadays it has more features comparable to an integrated state. The version from Bosonic dressing sounds weak in my eyes. I also don´t think that the so called purpose "committed to regional...." belongs in the lead. KJohansson (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sources clearly disagree with your assessment about the EU not being an international (also supranational) organization (provided above), which is not to deny it may also be other things. Perhaps it will move beyond its current status once the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all members. And as for the purpose of the EU in the lead, compare with the lead for the United Nations, though suggestions are invited. The current lead is no 'weaker' than the unsourced, arguably subjective introduction which has prevailed for some time. This is precisely the point I'm trying to highlight. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• The European Union (EU) is a monetary, economic and political union...

Don't you think this is the best way to describe the EU? And you don't need sources to prove it, everyone knows it. The European Union is a UNION!!! Fireleaf (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the EU more like a country. It's definitely not an "organisation". Fireleaf (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No: I don't think the prior long-standing lead is the best way to describe the EU, hence this discussion. What you or I see the EU as is not relevant per se: it's what reliable and reputable publications equitably indicate that matter. I think I've addressed your points above: notably, why link 'union' when an article entitled 'union' already exists? And, if it isn't an 'organisation' (despite the fact that some reliable references say precisely that), why link to an article about that topic? Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The now well established term "economic and political union" was the outcome of an in depth arguing over the status of the European Union. Several longterm EU-Wiki-editors from many countries have agreed or accepted that. The outcome reflects the current status of the EU being something different than an "international organization". To be more precisely, the high degree of European integration sets the EU apart from any other so called "organization". In fact, the EU has many state-like characteristics like a parliament, general elections, a currency, a seat at G8 summits etc. The term "organization" therefore can not describe the situation sufficiently. Please stick to the discussion at the talk page first in order to avoid a destabilized articles´appearance. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeating the same rhetoric will not get us anywhere. Your continued POV-pushing and blanking of references in support of an unsourced, arguably inequitable introduction will not be tolerated. As well, you obviously haven't kept track of the discussions above, which are dealing with all the aforementioned issues; your reversions, well, don't at all but seek to sweep the issue aside. This isn't going away. If you don't want a 'destabilised article's appearance', which you decided to adopt when you reverted initially without discussion and blanked references, edit more constructively. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here? It seems that none has supported the Bosonic dressing changes yet. I count four editors against. The third paragraph sounds now like an advertisement but not like an encyclopedia. I also don´t see the necessity in the lead to emphasize the supranational element. This part is explained in the third paragraph. BTW, the EU is not only supranational. I´m still convinced that the EU is more like a state and not anymore a simple organization. Can somebody stop this nonsense? KJohansson (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what is going on here? This is not a gang-up, or a rule by majority, or a promo piece. What you or other editors are 'convinced' of is not necessarily relevant, since you and other editors have provided NO sources to support the prior lead and have been generally unconvincing. Why do you insist on treating the EU falsely like the United States of America or the United States of Europe? It is not a state, though it does have some of those elements which is not in dispute. Your argument about its stature has been refuted, yet you persist in pushing it onto the rest of us? We can yet return to describing the EU in the lead, as sourced, as an 'international organization' or something comparable, but the prior lead is insufficient as it was for aforementioned reasons. I'm trying to work towards a more equitable and sourced lead and see little reason to refrain from editing boldly, and your biased armchair criticism is almost bordering on insulting. Yes, let's stop the nonsense: get off your high horse, make germane commentary, and compel. And if you can't or won't, withdraw. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please consult the FAQ section first before making further amendments: The text of the FAQ was written by several editors others than myself. Right now there seems to be no reason to reopen discussions concerning the introduction. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Per above. Your continued blanking of references, including your edit warring (both recent and not ) and the apparent intransigence of some commentators, signifies precisely why this is currently an issue -- I have reopened it, and it will not go away. If you continue to push your POV and vandalise the article, you will be reverted without further comments; if you do not start editing constructively, this matter will escalate. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Consensus can change after all... --Cybercobra (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I´m sorry BD, as it stands you have neither convinced the majority nor myself. The lead should help to describe the auctual nature of the EU. To call the EU an organization is not enough. The third paragraph sounds like original research and is marketing speech. I also think that your approach is not supported by Misplaced Pages Netiquette itself. One thing to think about for you; it should be no surprise that an article of this importance has already undergone thouroughly discussions. As I understand it, your arguments are nothing new to the audience here. Probably it is this circumstance that make some others here more stoic and ignorant. KJohansson (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can indeed change, but I have not yet seen any evidence to that effect. One editor does not a consensus make. In my opinion, the old version should be retained until a new consensus can be demonstrated. In other words, the discussion should be conducted here, not by edits to the artcle page of this very widely read article. One of the main problems is that there are conflicting attempted classifications of the EU; this is to be expected with sui generis entities. Other publications can use any one of these because they are not bound by WP:NPOV. In my opinion, the old version is supported by the sources, though that version apparently avoided the exact wording of certain sources to avoid adopting one of the conflicting points of view. I would suggest retaining/restoring the old version but, possibly, retaining/adding the references, which in fact do not contradict the old version, bearing in mind WP:NPOV. The text should, in my opinion, not prejudge (for instance) the differing views of EU governance as supranational rather than international, or of the EU as an organization rather than a geo-political entity with geographical extent and external borders. It should also not imply that the EU is a sovereign state; nor should it imply that the EU does not have elements of statehood. --Boson (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, to kJ, a number of references clearly support the content -- you simply don't like the content, given your explicitly stated opinion above about the stature of the EU. I don't need to convince you, since references do that; I don't think I can convince you. And, you have so not convinced me. As well, an article of this importance (not a featured one, I might add) must have references to buttress content. If my approach is not supported by Wikiquette, which is doubtful given that I've been referencing my edits and discussing them, your fairweather commentary and blanking of references definitely is not. Your vandalism won't be tolerated, and has been corrected.

As well, to Boson and perhaps others, consensus (which is debatable and, in this case, perhaps groupthink) cannot trump verification and neutrality issues per policy. What seems more at work is a consensus to not reference claims in accordance with policy: it is contingent on those wishing to retain content to justify it. I yet see no reason why a definition/description was arrived at and left unreferenced for amity and stability, and recent editorial behavior is disconcerting. Despite its name, a union implies a degree of stature which is misleading given the unreferenced context: even the Europa website describes the EU as a partnership. So, either the current lead must be referenced, the lead must be changed equitably and referenced, or (through the actions of a few POV warriors) the lead is and has been partial and neutrality is trying to be swept under the rug. Given the clear intransigence of a couple of the assembled editors, I believe discussion with them would be futile. Thus, I've restored the references and changed lead with one minor change. If the blanking of references persists, I may yet add neutrality tags to the article which will require action and response ... and these won't be removed until this is settled. It may also be prudent to widely advertise the neutrality issues regarding content (i.e., seeking added input), with the intent of developing something more equitable. So, there you go. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• The European Union (EU) is a sui generis economic and political partnership of 27 member states...

I have changed the lead sentence and also added the source/reference to it. It's actually from the European Union's official website so I think it's a very reliable source. Fireleaf (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, didn't I add the Europa reference?  ;) Anyhow, I applaud you for trying to work with what's there, rather than reverting and blanking references because you didn't like it. I've made some tweaks, and have added other sourced notions below (which are simply some of the references which were already added). The Europa link notes "unique", and it does seem obvious to describe it as that upfront since many scholars believe it simply to be a unique IGO. Therefore, I am moving this down to the beginning of the third paragraph; per this reference:

• In practical terms, the EU is perhaps still best characterised as a ‘supranational organisation sui generis’: this term has proved relatively uncontroversial in respect of national constitutional sensitivities, being at the same time capable of embracing new facets of integration.

There. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some links to previous discussions (though many discussions were conducted via edit summaries:

Talk:European Union/Archive 1#sui generis
Talk:European Union/Archive 2#Country?
Talk:European Union/Archive 5#Confederation?
Talk:European Union/Archive 6#Sui generis
Talk:European Union/Archive 6#EU sui generis????
Talk:European Union/Archive 9#remove "intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism"?
Talk:European Union/Archive 10#New intro paragraph
Talk:European Union/Archive 10#Introduction
Talk:European Union/Archive 11#Intro reverts by Lear 21
Talk:European Union/Archive 11#Rewrote intro
Talk:European Union/Archive 11#Support for Introduction
Talk:European Union/Archive 12#Is the European Union a supranational body?
Talk:European Union/Archive 13#Sui generis
Talk:European Union/Archive 15#Lede
Talk:European Union/Archive 15#Sui generis
Talk:European Union/Archive 16#Requesting mediation
Talk:European Union/Archive 16#Get over it
Talk:European Union/Archive 17#community of states
Talk:European Union/Archive 18#INTRODUCTION political and economic community=confederation
Talk:European Union/Archive 18#proposal for intro : loose confederation
Talk:European Union/Archive 18#editorial proposal for intro :use of the term "loose confederation" or "very loose confederation" or "extremly loose" or "very very loose" or ....
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#The EU is an NGO
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#Editorial proposal: "loose confederation"
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#Introduction
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#sui generis supernationalism
Talk:European Union/Archive 19#Intro (again)
Talk:European Union/Archive 20#A de facto federation?
Talk:European Union/Archive 21#Propose change for the lead
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#Intergouvermentalism of the EU council
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#Supranationalism and intergovermentalism in "the EU"
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#intro again Supranational union
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#"Economic and political union" – a mistake?
Talk:European Union/Archive 22#EU first economical-political being in the world

Some of this discussion reflects debate in the ´wider world, as reflected in the sources.--Boson (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

break

The longestablished leading sentence was restored. A reference from user Bosonic dressing was added. Other newly introduced parts were put to the 3. para, where the nature and the purpose of the EU is explained. All new refs have been kept. @Bosonic dressing: Please trim the new references in number and in quality. Right now, they are not complying the standard format. Otherwise they will be removed again. One comment regarding the sui generis term: in the past, this was a much discussed issue. Future conflicts about this are very likely. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And your edits will be cancelled somewhat. The Europa reference doesn't support the prior lead verbatim. Also curious is the lack of a link to 'union' in the lead. The references are both clear and authoritative; you are not. I have no intention of trimming references to satisfy your desire to retain an imperfect introduction. Your recent edits have made the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph nonsensical. Lastly, at least three editors have recently made changes or have commented regarded the prior lead; of assembled commentators, that translates to a lack of consensus for the prior lead. In fact, a perusal of links above doesn't really demonstrate a clear consensus regarding the lead at all. Lastly, you have a clear pattern of edit warring and article ownership issues, and you will be reported if you persist. Be more collaborative. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How about introducing this authoritative ref... ? Barroso: European Union is 'empire'  :) all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Boson, for providing references to support the prior lead. They are no more or less valid than others recently added in support of other notions about the stature of the EU. Apropos, enough sources do not describe it as such that notable alternates also w/multiple, non-tertiary sources must also be included in introduction, which is simply a rejigging of references and text recently added. This should settle the matter ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell, I missed a fair bit here. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the original lead text of the Article reflected a long drawn out, well compromised agreement between numerous editors of varying views, as Lear pointed out. I do not agree with the majority of Bosonic's comments (and of course, as tradition must have it, some of Lear's either). The EU remains an organisation built upon a mixture of supranational and intergovernmental governance (I have to say I find it difficult to consider the Council, the major player that it is, a supranational institution given the politicking and maneuvering at the national level that goes on within it - completely different from the pan-European approach that the Commission takes) and it certainly is not controversial to label it "sui generis", as the majority of respected commentators do. I would oppose any changes to the lead as I think the way it was was absolutely fine and am not convinced by any of the arguments raised. --Simonski (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I should note though that clearly people are not going to put it back to what it was, certainly at the time of reading the lead now, whoever made the last edit made it slightly acceptable, bar the combined GDP/Population sentence which I tweaked. So to save more pointless discussion, I'll say I can live with its current state (last edit being by TFOWR at 14:37 at the time of writing) Again, I'm sure we've had this problem before that it is written to suggest that the EU is always taken together as far as calculating GDP and population goes, which it is not. I understand my tweaking of this sentence may not be perfect but you will get the point of what I was trying to fix I hope. --Simonski (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My ears are burning ;-) Lest I be accused of improving the article, I should point out that my edit was simply reverting vandalism. I'm too much of an ignoramus to have a view on the lede. Cheers, TFOWR 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, well it was probably still more productive than half the recent edits to the page have been anyway. I should say one last thing though - this sentence "committed to regional integration" sticks out like a sore thumb and should be changed. What is it supposed to mean - "European Integration" could mean so many things - it could mean commitment to the free market, something more, commitment to a federal European state (which as the German supreme court has assured us all, it is not)... it has to be changed or clarified as its too open ended/POV. --Simonski (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The prior introduction may have been an agreeable compromise but it was unsourced and arguably partial ... given the preponderance of sources that describe the EU as something else, it still is not ideal but it is acceptable with collateral edits for current purposes. It is interesting to point out that the most vocal opponents as of late to changing the introduction are avowed supporters of the EU (per their user pages). But I digress ...

As for 'regional integration', it is no more or less 'POV' than asserting the EU is a 'union' vis-à-vis other things. One of the EU's goals is to effect further economic and political integration throughout Europe (but 'economic and political' would be odd to iterate after being mentioned in the 1st sentence) -- the linked article sufficiently elaborates. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, perhaps. I'm afraid I would have to respectfully disagree, strongly. It is just too open ended a term, and leaving the reader to go and pick up a copy of Craig and DeBurca to figure out what sort of regional integration you are talking about is ill advised I would say. The lead should be able to provide a far better snapshot of what the EU is than this particular statement does. The African Union also aims at regional integration, but an altogether different sort - again I would argue against this sentence you have chosen to include.

As a sidepoint, I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not, but actually the previous lead was constructed by a number of editors of varying views from on one side the very pro-EU such as Lear and Solberg, to those in the middle such as Arnoutf, Logan and co, to the more sceptical such as myself and Sandpiper. A lack of references can be addressed pretty easily without a need for a huge overhaul. --Simonski (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can agree to disagree. A visitor does not need to consult a volume to figure out what is meant -- that is partially why it is linked, and the rest of the introduction expands on this. It is interesting you note the AU, the introduction for which notes it as an 'intergovernmental organisation'.

And, yes, in my opinion. The introduction, and the article frankly, could stand from additional scrutiny. I guess referencing important content escaped the hordes when they conceived and agreed upon this introduction? Given the recurrence of this, it is debatable that the lead arrived at is satisfactory and consensual. Anyhow ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically under the rules of Misplaced Pages I could make a big stink about this and we'd have to come to a consensus on the "regional integration" sentence but I'm happy enough to wait until the next incoming editor raises a problem with the lead, which inevitably will happen - then the tweaks that have been made can be re-addressed.

My referencing the AU was not with regards to the Misplaced Pages page, which I did not even check before making my point - it was a simple point, that the AU also aims at regional integration (this is fact, which you do not need to go to the Misplaced Pages page for, you may be surprised to hear) - yet it is a very different type/form of regional integration from the EU. Again, my argument was that "regional integration" is too open-ended a phrase to be used in the lead.

A final point as well - let us not forget that it was really only yourself Bosonic who had any problem with the lead that had been used for probably half a year now in a page that is heavily edited/visited by Misplaced Pages users. You can see yourself as the saviour of the lead if you wish but don't kid yourself that anybody really had an issue with it until you popped up and tried to give it a major overhaul. --Simonski (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a work in progress. Second, the phrase is appropriate in the lead to succinctly communicate one of the major goals of the EU, which is also a work in progress. Comparison with the AU can be skinned any number of ways.

Lastly, if my experience is any indication, given the skewed content, POV-pushing, and apparent self-aggrandizing of some of the editors involved, it's clear that most editors have avoided the unpleasantness of even touching this article or the lead to begin with. Proposed edits have been relatively insignificant in the grand scheme, with the hope of arriving at something more balanced through discussion, and reactions have been and are generally inflamed. (A major overhaul? Please...) I suppose there's a reason why this article is not a featured article, and I can thankfully take no credit for that. So, on that note, I'm ending this rather fruitless discussion. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point that I keep making; that a number of editors with varying views regarding the EU have been active in editing this page/the lead. How then, the edits/arguments can be said to be POV, is beyond me. And I think you'll find that any edit/change to the lead is by default "significant", it being arguably one of if not the most important part of any Misplaced Pages article. If you can point out what "skewed"/POV content you are actually referring to, then that would be fantastic. Otherwise, perhaps it is indeed best to end your fruitless discussion, having seemingly read an entirely different article from the majority of us.

Quite handy also I should add that your supporters are the "silent majority"... a cynic might just conclude instead that you actually had no supporters (something another editor noted early on in the discussion). Sadly due to the consensus model of Misplaced Pages editing you had to be entertained. --Simonski (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your diatribe has been read. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite fitting. Your reply is about as useful as your recent edits have been. --Simonski (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

New Super Power Discussion

Someone is at 'war' with this writer in that they don't like this contribution to the discussion on cultural differentials affecting perceptions and arguments concerning the definition of the EU's status as a Super Power. Those who assert that Misplaced Pages contributions must rely upon citations from what amount to uncited sources; i.e., anything published by anyone as if this provides empirical evidence of anything at all, are merely presumptuously hiding behind a veneer of faux academic correctness that will be consigned to the same obsolescence as all those other worthy dons whose thesis have been rendered erroneous by subsequent revisions. Much of the discussion here, including in the main project article itself, suffers from the trite subjectiveness of wishfullness. Opinions about the status of the EU, particularly those of Americans who can barely stand the idea that perhaps there's another kid on the block who may be bigger and cleverer, are so barely concealed in belligerence as to render this Misplaced Pages article almost impossible to complete to any degree of studied objectivity. it's risible that so many Americans believe Misplaced Pages to be a more worthy tact of studied objectivity the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's true that the two encyclopaedias occupy different planets of integrity even though opinion on the American side in inverse proportion to the truth. The argument that spirited argument is not a part of true academic study is perverse. I therefore resubmit the articles here that an extreme and reactionary vandal hopes to keep from the consideration of the World. The censorship that seems so effective as to be a bot will probably remove this item very quickly. for those of you who spot this item as it briefly exists, be afraid of the Gestapo who run this website, be very afraid.

Following the argument over at the original 'Super Power' heading, it's clear to me that on the one hand we have a European whose native language is not English and therefore lays himself vulnerable to the not so subtle condescension of both so called editors and Americans who rely upon a veneer of faux academic propriety to support the sort of self aggrandizement that is as typical of Americans as any other patriotic member of other societies. The insistent demand for citations that even include requests for media/press articles, for which any mildly learned person would know can never be accepted as a source of empirical factuality, merely underlines the nature of nationalist pride that is hiding behind that veneer of academic respectability. As sequitur as the forgoing maybe, there are certain easily verifiable facts that do indeed indicate that at the very least the European Union must be a Super Power within the commonly accepted meaning of the term. Clearly the USA still retains a greater military arsenal than the EU in terms of nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles, aircraft carriers, cruisers, nuclear submarines and strategic logistical support elements. Nevertheless it is a fact that the EU has nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers together with about a million more trained armed forces personnel, significant numbers of which are as good or better than thier US counterparts in terms of professional abilities and comparable numbers of skilfully operated modern fighter aircraft, combat helicopters, main battle tanks, frigates and destroyers and enough nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems to make the numerical differentials of merely academic interest. Before moving on from the purely military considerations it's worth considering that the main reason for the EU's underdeveloped military strength is that the nature of the Union is still developing, the level of interstate integration that the Union is slowly but inexorably developing has not yet provided the basis for the economies and efficiencies of scale that are bound to occur as economic-military rationalisation evolves. We can see some signs of where all this going when we observe the increasing pan Europeanisation of key military assets such as the Eurofighter, which also suffers here in Misplaced Pages from patriotic tinted lenses, mostly on the American side. Indeed a number of other significant pan European projects should be noted here such as the nuclear propulsion technologies shared by France and the UK, peerless airborne and ship based missiles, small arms and advanced large caliber guns for tanks together with armour, both of which technologies have been adopted by the USA whose Abrams MBT is protected by licensed built Chobham armour and the 120mm gun originating from the EU. Vertical take-off technology is largely EU derived as are a great many technologies adopted by the US military. Even historically the greatest advances in US military, as well as space and other technologies have depended to a critical degree on Europeans. without Europeans the US would not have the Atom Bomb, the jet engine, advanced airframes, missiles, space rockets, radar, sonar, military medical technologies including antibiotics; the lists are endless. The other significant differentials are that Europeans, unlike Americans, know and appreciate the strengths and weaknesses and the successes and failures of other peoples; so in military terms, the EU is the real 'sleeping giant' whose potential military muscle has barely begun to be flexed. The USA's military muscle is by comparison, already stretched disproportionately to the US economy.

Economically, and lets face it, the main limitation to 'SuperPowerdom' is wealth, the EU is increasing its lead over the USA exponentially, year on year. The EU is the Worlds biggest economy by a good margin. It's half a billion people includes a rich and potent diversity that far exceeds that of the so called melting pot of the USA. At its most developed Western and Scandinavian sector the EU already has a society that easily equals or betters the sophistication of any other in the World, but the new members newly released from the repression and World War II legacy of the Soviet Union are demonstrating abilities that are accelerating them as sophisticated societies faster than any others including the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). The term sleeping giant once used to describe the USA by Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese navy after Pearl Harbour now applies with even greater prophetic accuracy to the EU. Consider the recent launch of the heaviest pay load into space by an EU Ariane rocket, the Large Hadron Collider, the World Wide Web (not to be confused with the Internet), the Merlin Helicopter, the vastly superior automotive, mechanical and electrical engineering, the prevalence of imported Europeans behind the best US technologies etc., etc., and it's abundantly clear that to not accept the EU as having Super Power status can only be surly, patriotically motivated and/or self evidently ignorant.82.27.227.187 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As an European citizen I would say there are more or less 5 superpowers actually and these are the European Union, the United States, Russia, China and India because of their economy, the number of people living into these "superpowers" and their military and political strength. I don't think one of them is superior to anotherone. --Vicente2782 (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Political correctness doesn't help progress this debate. Whilst Russia, China and India have recently enjoyed rapid economic growth neither country can be described as equal yet to either the EU or the USA in terms of economic size (merely holding a disproportionate percentage of Americas paper money units is not, as China is now discovering, nearly enough to dominate the balance), neither are they equal in military power (and that include Russia) nor do they enjoy the social, political and cultural diversity or the individual empowerments that sustained exponential development requires. The only area in which they can be regarded as greater is in the size of their populations; and yet, consider the EU's half a billion people as enough to represent sufficient critical mass of scale to make the differentials merely academic. With the current global economic recession has come the revelation that both China and India depend heavily for their own economic welfare on the economic health of the developed West. It may be that China and India will continue to gain on the EU and USA until parity has been achieved but this writer does not believe that they can exceed that parity or that they are anywhere near it yet. The reason for the West's success is the freedom of culture and socio-political diversity. The free thinking individualism of Western society is the foundation for the level of cutting edge science and intellectual exploration required for solving the most challenging conundrums in any area of human life. For example, in China today the annual numbers of graduate mathematicians might be impressive but virtually none of them can beak the glass ceiling that separates maths by rote from the maths that have never been calculated before. Maths is the purest and highest form of science and the basis for all new developments. It's not because Westerners are inherently cleverer than Chinese, it's because western societies have evolved the sort of freedom of thought and expression that is currently five or six generations ahead. India is interesting in this respect because despite India's more chaotic and shambolic development Indians produce a lot more creative science than China. It's also this writers belief that India will surpass China within twenty years once their primitive cast and religious dogmas have been relegated to the status of mere primitive tradition; and by this I don't mean the powerful evolutionary potentials of spiritual enlightenment commensurate with the expansion of pure conciousness that both Eastern and Western societies should value above all other human achievements. It's the primitive religious dogmas and blind rituals that this writer refers to; unfortunately there remains more that enough of it in both the Americas and Asia to ensure the continuance of conflict for at least another generation. For the record, this writer is mixed race European with no connections with India or Asia. Nevertheless, neither India, China or Russia show much sign of evolving above the trite mindedness of their overly collective reactionary tendencies; it's these national traits that will continue to hold them back form their potentials for some time yet. Considering the evolving nature of global societies though, it seems probable that as the emerging power blocks settle into their natural relationships so will those of the western democracies, Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and other divers nations with umbilical connections to those societies and probably, also to be a member of that group, though somewhat anomalously, Japan. Ultimately this union might also include India, Brazil and Russia as these nations are likely to evolve ethics commensurate with tolerant liberal democracy before too long. This Union of liberal democracies will continue to dominate as the biggest economic and military power for some to come. As far as the world is concerned, that Super Power Club is the Sleeping Giant of the generation to come. By the Grace of our Creator we might hope that by that time the nations of the Earth will have begun to pull together for their mutual salvation and our primitive tendency towards national pride and the evils of blind patriotism will have been consigned to history. 82.27.227.53 (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)82.27.227.53 (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TLDR to the 7th power. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TLDR indeed. Was there any proposal for the article in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.76.207 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that this was previously repeatedly removed for the reasons above. The most recent version was re-added by 82.27.227.53, including the comment by Vicente2782. Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read the entire thing. Besides him saying that EU is a superpower and all Americans are just denying reality, and how all of us American are gestapos on Misplaced Pages removing and censuring his comments (hey Arnoutf, I guess you're an American gestapo :) ), the only thing that could be taken as a suggestion to improve the EU page is something he said about the European military cooperation or something like that. Also, besides being too long too read, and carrying very little suggestions for the page if any, this wouldn't even work on the pages about the superpower. It's all the IP's personal opinion, not backed up by relialbe sources, with no improvements specified for the article. Pretty much, it's a huge rant that belongs in someplace meant for it, like a blog. Deavenger (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody living in Europe, the idea of the EU being a superpower is laughable. The EU couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery as far as foreign policy goes, and the rest of the world laughs at us. If you're looking for superpowers for this generation look no further than the USA, Russia and China. The EU? Hardly. Apologies for feeding the troll but it had to be said! Back on track, absolutely pointless long post which put forward no real suggestions as to how to improve the page. To avoid being a hypocrit, I will end this post with a suggestion on how to improve the page... ignore "editors" like the guy who posted that rant. --Simonski (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As a pro-EU Dutch person (why the anon editor, just like the sockpuppet group EU100%, Worldpower27 and UEonly, thinks that everyone disagreeing with his megalomanic ideas about the EU cannot be from the EU, and has to be against the Union, I have no idea.) I have to agree with Simonski, not only has the EU serious trouble with foreign policy, internal regulations are also seriously stretched, among others by a non-democratic system of closed decision making, the veto system on even the smalles issues etc. These things are nice for a club of 6, but are unworkable for a group of 27. Furthermore the stability pact for the Euro is in serious trouble with the financial crisis, and the precedent is already there as Germany got away with flagrant breach of the pact a few years ago. EU military - There is nothing close to a central command, and all countries put emphasis on having a multibranch military with their own, often incompatible, equipment. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a superpower.

LMAO. The OP rambling and incoherent rant is quite the tour de force of the amateur philosopher. To all experts though, the EU is not even close to being a superpower. While as a grouping the EU have economic and even military heft, the EU is not a unified entity as in the US or China (Lisbon Treaty or not). There's a reason why David Miliband said that the world is dominated by the US and China in a G-2 and if the EU spoke with one unified voice it could be a G-3 world. But as it stands, this remains wishful thinking. 76.65.20.105 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a sock of EU100% as the anon's IP is way better then EU100. However, this discussion is go8ing nowhere and adding nothing to the improvement of the page. Deavenger (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly not - EU 100%'s IP addresses resolved to Italian ISPs; this one is UK-based. The original post is not relevant to improving the article, however; I agree with Deavenger. Cheers, TFOWR 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not a secret anymore that the EU or to be more precise, the collective influence of its member states can be considered an "economic superpower". The EU is the dominant single force in trade talks via WTO and is home to the, by far, second largest reserve currency. The GDP of the EU is higher than that of the USA, four times the size of China. Since the beginning the EU is on board at all G7/G8 summits. It is also not a secret anymore that most experts agree on the future role of the EU and/or the collective will of its members in global politics Parag Khanna (Obama advisor on foreign policy).

The EU integration process will go on like the last 50 years. Why? Because it has to in order to ensure European interests on the globe. One personal assessment: I see Russia and India as global middle powers not as superpower candidates. China will have to go a long way to rival or to overhaul the US or the EU in terms of economy, military, science, culture, political influence.

Does this current state has an influence on this article? Well, at least in the Economy section it could be considered to add the term "economic superpower" while explaining the consequences. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia is a semi-great power undergoing decline and is on the verge of being downgraded largely to a regional power status. India is a country that is growing but has a chaotic political and foreign policy voice not to mention a proportional of very poor people and the associated social problems that come with that. It is a middle or regional power that may or may not emerge as a great power in 20-30 years depending how fractious it's voice is. ---Chrissy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.60.7 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While the EU maybe a superpower, all your other claims to EU superpower relate to individual members or summed influence of member states. The EU as a united military power, for example, has a potential similar to that of Iceland (i.e. negligable). In any case, we need reliable sources confirming superpower status otherwise this is all original research. Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with the definition of super power. In the past (ie during the cold war) it has been used to describe a hugely influential economic, military and political force in the world, and it has always been applied to sovereign countries (single nations) acting with coordinated foreign and domestic policies. While the EU fills certain parts of this definition (economic and perhaps political and domestic policies for many issues), it does not fill the definition in its original sense. Any adaption of the term (that it is an "economic superpower" or something like that) seems to me a less established, more "original research", concept and should probably not be included in the article on that grounds. TastyCakes (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From an outside perspective it doesn´t matter if ONE single EU authority is projecting influence in the world or if several EU members with the same interests and the same opinion are doing it because they´re heading in the same direction. (funny/strange prophetic US view). It would be easy to underline an "economic superpower status" with sources: but the age of so called superpowers is over. Several experts tend to emphasize more and more the concept of a multipolar world order without a single or few superpowers. Thats why I think the term "superpower" alone doesn´t help the article at all. On the other hand, within the Misplaced Pages world, terms like "energy superpower" (Russia), "emerging superpower" (China) are common. It is only this circumstance why I could imagine to introduce the "economic superpower" term. Lear 21 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving in one direction.... France and the UK have often opposed international views, especially regarding the middle east. And if moving in the same direction is an indication of several nations being a single superpower then the anti Somalia piracy actions would imply as US-Chinese-EU superpower.....

I do for that reason agree that superpower is not at all useful in this article. However constructing "partial superpower" definition seems equally unhelpful as well as original research. Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Vicente and 82.27.227.53.EU is a leading power,better the leader power.151.60.116.214 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

EU 100%. TFOWR 09:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The people of Iceland will CRUSH!!! the pathetic European Union and end its nonsense once and for all. Super power my ...--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC) .

The people of Iceland no less...... Ow, I think the EU should be very scared.... Arnoutf (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article nobody cites EU as potential superpower as Misplaced Pages does in "Superower" article.There's a conflict (or at least an omission) between the 2 articles.I agree with Vicente and others about EU world leader position.89.97.225.77 (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does mention the political debate about the EU's possible status as a "postmodern superpower". I think this gives the discussion the appropriate weight. Any more would probably degenerate into original research and discussions on semantics, etc. which would be more appropriately conducted in the context of the articles Superpower and Potential superpowers. --Boson (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Iceland's parliament voted to join EU

On July 16th, the Icelandic parliament voted to join the European Union, in part of the country's severe economic crisis last year and the adaptation of the Euro as the country's single official currency to repair the damages caused by bankruptcy. Here's the resource on Yahoo News for July 16 2009. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dictatorship?

With all the rules that the European Union states, it seems like a dictatorship. If you do not follow the European Union rules, you cannot be a member. For example: No EU member is allowed to have the death penalty. How can a "union" like that claim to be democratic? Democracy means creating rules that most of the population agree with. NOT something that a few politicians decide on. Now a few politicians make all the rules... nay... laws... for an entire continent? If that is not dictatorship, then I do not know what is... 68.200.98.166 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I think you have no idea what dictatorship is. If the EU decides democratically death penalty should be allowed it will be, but for now it has been democratically been decided that the death penalty is illegal in the entire EU. If a country wants to be a member it has to underwrite the existing charter; i.e. not allowing death penalty. But that is obvious, the same goes for each and any membership organisation. Once a country is in, it can try to change the rules; according to democratic principles; nothing dictatorial there.

In any case western democracy is not as simple as "the majority at any moment X decides everything". Representatives get a multi year mandate. Constitutions often require super-majorities for change. Systems like that in the UK and the US do not use the 1-man-1-vote system but a district system allowing (in extremis) for a 25.1% fraction to gain absolute majority (50.1% of votes in 50.1% of districts). We call all these systems democracy, and so is the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The US won't allow individual states to provide religious eduction to their citizens, New Zealand prohibits its citizens from working with nuclear weapons, and Australia forces its citizens to vote. Democracy is a funny thing ;-) Cheers, TFOWR 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider the ban of the use of the death penalty like a federal law in the US. All EU laws are passed democratically through our parliament.--Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The EU is democratic, but not necessarily through the existence of the talking shop that is the European Parliament (it certainly was not the European Parliament that decreed that the Death Penalty is incompatible with EU membership). You could simply argue it is democratic because it is an organisation sitting on top of 27 democracies... it is therefore by definition democratic, no? --Simonski (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Spot on, indeed, Simonclamb! --Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The European Union's political structure resembles that of the U.S.S.R. The European Parliament is elected by the people, but is very similar to the Central Committee in its actions. The Council of Ministers is not unlike the Supreme Soviet, but also shares similarities with the Central Committee. The Commission bears a remarkable similarity to the Politburo. Certain individuals have used that point to make the suggestion that the E.U. is a dictatorship that does not know that it is a dictatorship, with the suggestion that a European leader might at some point. Currently, these same people point out that 75% of law in E.U. member states 'comes from Brussels'. However, Brussels has no direct authority over the armed or police forces of any member state, or any other direct authority for that matter. Nor does the E.U. charge direct taxation, it charges indirect taxation via the member states. There is no direct parallel with the Secretariat, and no equivalent to the General Secretary. Essentially, the E.U. is a quasi-dictatorship with no dictator. It could also be described as an oligarchy.--86.157.189.229 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If we start these comparisons here come the USA:

• Central Committee / Parliament: USSR 1 party; USA 2 parties; EU dozens of parties
• Supreme soviet / Council of ministeres : USSR Bicamerial system with region (either based on people voting or equal share per republic) representatives very similar to the USA Senate / House of representatives; EU, on representative per state (similar to US senate)
• Politburo / Council of ministers: USSR Leaders chosen by single leader; USA ministers appointed by President; EU each memberstate sends the relevant minister to the meeting

Out of the 3 topics you compare the EU with the USSR; for the first and the last the USA and the USSR are clearly more the same compared to the EU and the USSR. For the second it seems the USA and USSR are also more similar (but that is not as clear). (Note also that the US president has powers not unsimilar to those of the General Secretary in the USSR system). Hence your comparison, for whatever reasons goes not beyond: The EU and the USSR share some similarities that are present in many federal states (such as the USA). What point did you want to make here?

Following up with calling the EU a "quasi dictatorship" witout dictator is rather empty. I.e. it is no dictatorship.

And finally ending with "oligarchy". I agree the EU is an oligarchy to the same extend that every modern democracy is. To be able to act in the political system we have you need some attributes that not everyone has (money, charisma, pragmatism, being a good speaker, etc etc). These requirements make any such system by definition somewhat of an oligarchy.

So what is exactly the point you try to make above, and how would this help the article? Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Another anonymous American who opposes the EU and loves the death penalty. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for your personnel ignorant opinions. Ijanderson (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the anon 86.... IP is registered in the UK. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to IP 68 who is editing from Florida US. She/ He started this pointless discussion which I may delete as it not constructive towards the improvement of this article and because this discussion resembles a forum. Ijanderson (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh leave that poor American alone. Almost everything we achieved is commented from over the Atlantic with envy or (growing) hate. Our medical system? They say it's Stalin like. Environment policies? They say we have none. Death punishment? It does not matter what it is: the U.S. are a trembeling giant, soon to stumble, they know it and howl like kicked dogs. Poor americans. --84.141.41.129 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but how does this relate to improvement of the article? Ijanderson (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that the EU is not a dictatorship because there is no dictator, but has a structure similar to one in some ways. It is also not a democracy, since the Commission is not elected. The Council of Ministers is appointed and not elected (the U.N. General Assembly would have been a better comparison) but it is still neither democratic or totalitarian. The U.S.S.R. is recognized as a dictatorship and bears certain similarities, but the resemblance is superficial. However, if the E.U. is not a dictatorship, what the heck is it? The U.K. Independence Party have called it a dictatorship, which may or may not be relevant to the article. And, yes, I am a British Eurosceptic.--86.157.189.229 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? Why are you telling us this? Ijanderson (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially as it is wrong. The Commission consists of Commissioners who are nominated by the democratically elected governments of each of the member states; the Councils of Ministers each consist of the relevant Minister who is a member of the same democratically elected governments; the European Council consists of the prime ministers (or equivalents) of those same democraitically elected governments. This is a total red herring that does nothing to improve the article, indeed to include it would make the article laughable. --Red King (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I think it would be ridiculous to label it a dictatorship in the article since it appears like a fringe opinion infrequently held and heavily disputed. Even mentioning that some people say that is giving undue weight, in my opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead, first paragraph

I don't know whether its following all the recent tweaks but I feel that we should still mantain a balanced lead that does not lean towards one specific view regarding the EU (ie. Pro/anti). I raised concern earlier about the sentence "The EU encompasses a population of 500 million and generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product.".. I have been adding to the sentence "Together the EU encompasses", something Lear obviously disagrees with. I could be wrong but I think this issue was discussed ages ago and a compromise was reached so I don't know what has happened since, whether somebody edited the lead to change the tone or what.

I understand that as far as Misplaced Pages goes, despite not being a country, the EU's GDP is listed amongst countries. However, when the EU is included in such lists as population or GDP there is always specific attention drawn to the fact that it is not a country, instead comprised of 27 countries itself. Basically, without similar emphasis in the lead as to the fact that the figures reached are taken from when all EU countries are counted together I am not happy with the tone of the first paragraph of the lead. Considering how well constructed a compromise has been reached elsewhere, I would have hoped that simply adding "Together" would have ended the issue. This is considering the fact that now I remember it, the compromise was including the figures in the first place!!!

And to save the effort of the same source being cited, can we leave the CIA factbook out of this one. I couldn't care less what it says. If the GDP/Population figures are to remain in the intro then they should be subject to the same sort of compromise that was originally reached to retain them --Simonski (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The longstanding version was: With almost 500 million citizens, the EU combined generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product. Because in economic terms the EU is seen as highly coherent, SINGLE entity, there seems no need to emphasize a "togetherness". all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the longstanding version is definitely the most sensible solution. I have no problem with the version you just restored it to Lear. Problem solved. --Simonski (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Benelux

The Benelux Customs Union from 1944 and its forerunner, the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union from 1921 were at least direct precursors to the European Coal and Steel Community from 1951. Similarly, the Benelux Parliament from 1955 foreshadowed the European Parliament from 1979. I find the omission of any mention of Benelux in this article to be glaring. Somebody, please explain its absence. :)--Thecurran (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it? If so I have not heard of it in that explicit terms. To put it in we need a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Benelux Customs Union is covered in another article (in fact, Benelux Customs Union redirects to European integration). Cheers, TFOWR 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Benelux is specifically mentioned in the intro to European Coal and Steel Community. I believe it was treated as such in the 2001 CIA World Factbook appendix on international entities, too. :)--Thecurran (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In the coal steel community article, it is only mentioned in the passing, to identify Netherlands Belgium and Luxembourg. No further claims about Benelux are made; so I am not sure what the relevance of that single mentioning is to this article. furthermore, Misplaced Pages articles are never reliable sources.

I cannot find relevant mention to Benelux in the CIA factbook, but please provide a relevant direct link to discuss whether that contains information relevant to this article. Arnoutf (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

n/a infobox

Do the infobox need to have the n/a, when the list of countries have EU listed? Jørgen88 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to use an archival bot for this talkpage

I propose that we get a bot to archive this talkpage automatically. Using the following config:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(2m)
|archive = Talk:European Union/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 24
|maxarchivesize = 175K
}}

— Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To proposal. Yes please

194etc. Why oppose? These scripts only archive threads that have been inactive for a while; moving inactive discussion to an archive is generally accepted, and necessary to keep a talk page operational. Arnoutf (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support--Boson (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I added the bot a couple of weeks ago. I used a 90-day waiting period, so the effect hasn't been drastic.

—WWoods (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

90 days puts us in early May. The last manual archiving was more recent, so the bot should not have yet kicked in ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has ... 65k worth. page history: /Archive 23 —WWoods (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Aargh stupid me. Of course with the bot in place there should not be stuff older than 90 days........since that is what the bot archives. At least I didn't notice the bot as something bad (if at all ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now I see. The oldest stuff on the page is from May. Given that the page is still rather large what about trying a 45 day period instead of a 90 day one? If the archiving is going to work properly it needs to keep the page at a more managable size. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A shorter period makes sense to me. I put it at 90 initially 'cause I figured that was so long as to be uncontroversial.

What does 194x... think about reducing it to 60 or 45 days?

—WWoods (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

45 days sounds good to me. 1 1/2 month inactivity on a talk page as active as this one should be a sign of a dead topic. Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Good, I've set the interval to 45 days. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Considering the negative nature of the EU and all the criticism that exists regarding it one has to ask if the whitewash that it receives in this article is appropriate and if it shouldn't at least have a criticism section?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See: Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions Arnoutf (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• SupportSTRONG!!! SUPPORT Adding a criticism section to the article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• strongly oppose critisism section per the arguments somewhere in the archives, and summarised in the FAQ section. I.e. my vote is to maintain long standing consensus not to add a critisism section. Arnoutf (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Criticism sections can sometimes be OK if they are focused, but if criticism is of a general nature, over a range of different issues, it is best to parcel the critical coverage out to the different sections. I am also questioning whether the request here is being made in good faith in light of the diffs and . Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think there should be a criticism section (just as there is no "criticism" section of Canada despite many Quebecers wanting to separate) but I think there are important elements that fall out of the criticism that may warrant mention. I'm thinking specifically about countries not ratifying the constitution in popular votes and such. TastyCakes (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: is it wrong to consider supporting this proposal purely because of this? (looks innocent, slinks away). Seriously, though - don't agree with a criticisms section (per WP:UNDUE), do agree with incorporating notable "flak", per TastyCakes. Cheers, TFOWR 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose critisism section. It is very probable that it would become a troll magnet. The issue has been discussed at length. See the result of the discussions in th FAQ.--Boson (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This "it's been discussed throw a FAQ at em" attitude is most disturbing. Just because the section wasn't agreed upon at some earlier time doesn't mean that we can't agree to create it now. As for these troll magnet predictions they are not really appropriate. I realize that the editing of this article is dominated by proEU people but I do not really think that the existence of the EU is justifiable and I know that there are many people out there that feel the same way as I do, should our voices simply be silenced because of political correctness and corruption? How would that be in any way fair?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the FAQ is that regular contributors get fed up with going over things again and again and again. Please read the archives and the Misplaced Pages page on criticism sections. I won't repeat all the arguments here, because they are already there if you can be bothered to read them. --Boson (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict Boson) Comment - recomment. It is not that the section was not agreed upon earlier - it was actively decided that critisism should be topic wise and not a stand alone section.

All your following comments show that you are out there to give an anti EU view; how is that neutral?? To maintain neutrality of view is exactly why there is no critisism section. Following the same outlook "do not really think that the existence of XXX is justifiable" a critisism section towards the USA or Israel (or any non muslim country for that matter) from Taliban/Al Qaeda point of view could be suggested.

This issue has been discussed in depth. It has even been deemed important enough to preserve the outcome as FAQ to give new editors like you an overview rather than an even less satisfactory "Find it somewhere in 1 megabyte of archive". It is not the task of established editors to repeat a discussion, it is the task of a new editor to familiarise oneself with the history of the page (i.e. read talk page archives).

In short, just accept there will not be a separate critisism section. Arnoutf (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to compare those who oppose the EU to Al Qaeda members or members of other terrorist organizations and I hope that this is not the general opinion of the EU supporters that edit this article. You do however make some valid points but I nor anyone else is obliged to accept that there will not be a criticism section, this matter is now under discussion and we'll see how consensus evolves.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information. Standing consensus is that there is no critisism section. You will need to organise consensus (and consensus is preferrably anonimousunanimous) there should be such a section. As it stands now 4 editors explicitly are against critisim section; a fifth prefers parcelling critisism out per topic; but has not explicitly stated being against (nor in favour) of a critisism section (as it is currently done, and discussed as such in FAQ) and only 1 (194x..) in favour. To achieve true consensus the supporter will need to convince all of us. That is very unlikely, so I would suggest to close now. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous consensus you say? Well in that case on behalf of my anonymous friends I hereby vouch for their support regarding including a criticism section into the article and seeing as their numbers are greater than 4 the consensus now leans in favour of including the criticism section.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem! You're forgetting my anonymous friends (all opposed). Cheers, TFOWR 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer consensus to be unanimous, but there's often one who disagrees with everbody else.--Boson (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the article should contain criticism, not a criticism section. A criticism section is normally just a good sign of a bad article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blue-Haired Lawyer puts his finger on it precisely. --Red King (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ditto above - Blue-Haired Lawyer - practice is no criticism section as magnate for loonies, disperse into relevant sections (that way, also kept relevant to article, rather than irrelevant twaddle by IPs).- _J.Logan`: 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ditto above. This is just a redundant slippery slope. There is no "support" section either. - SSJ ☎ 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per same reason as editors above. A section about criticism would be biased, we don't have section about support of the EU. Not having sections about criticism and support is more NPOV! Ijanderson (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets wrap this up. 9 opinions against adding a critisism section 1 in favour. Seems clear standing consensus (that there should not be such a section) is not changed. Arnoutf (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual error?

According to Intergovernmental organization, they have a legal personality. But the EU doesn't have a legal personality, so the EU is not a intergovernmental organization. Right?--217.112.177.214 (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the EU is a legal person in relation to its treaties. Arnoutf (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the EU per se is not a legal person until Lisbon enters into force. Today, only the European Community (one of the EU's pillars) has a legal personality. Therefore, the EU isn't formally a WTO member, but the European Community is. I personally think "a mix of a supranational system and an intergovernmental system" is a vague and not particularly good description of the EU, but it's certainly a catchy and convenient label. - SSJ ☎ 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, without Lisbon, the EU (in contrast to EC) treaties are pretty scarce ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the Lead

It should be trimmed a lot, way too much for an intro. Because its a complex isue, generalise the language to fit the general idea in some sentences. No need to mention the commission, court ect... Don't metion too much detail, its just an endless source of conflict. So everybody can read what he whants.

a first draft:

The European Union (EU) is an association of 27 sovereign member states, that by treaty have delegated certain of there competences to common institutions, in order to coordinate there policies in a number of areas, without however constituing a new state on top of the member states. Under international law, the EU respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituing treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement.

then a little list, in prose, of important competences, fisheries, agriculture, common market... A lot can be recycled here.

--217.112.177.214 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the intro is too long. For an article of this size, I think we need 4 full paragraphs; it could perhaps even be slightly longer.

As for the first paragraph, I agree that it should perhaps be improved if we want to get back to FA status, but I prefer what is there now over what was proposed, though the multiple references should be consolidated or pruned and "primarily", though necessary, should perhaps be put in parentheses (or in a footnote).

I think the remaining paragraphs do a reasonable job of summarizing the article, but improvement is, no doubt, possible.

I think the major institutions and the four freedoms are significant, so I would not like to remove those bits.

I think the two sentences about intergovernmentalism etc. (An international organisation sui generis,the EU operates through a hybrid system of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. In certain areas, it depends upon agreement between the member states; in others, supranational bodies are able to make decisions without unanimity. ) should be moved to the article body (e.g. the Governance section).

--Boson (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally concur with Boson. Per B.'s last point, though, I do not concur since those two sentences more specifically identify what the EU is and its basic operation, and those are important enough for the introduction. It's also a counterbalance to the minimalism of the lead sentence. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is not too long, it is about right for an article of this size isn't it? (according to WP guidelines)- _J.Logan`: 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Timezone

Why does the timezone list UTC 0 to +2? What about the overseas departments that are integral to the EU? They should be included no as they are just as part of the EU as the mainland.- _J.Logan`: 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I think it would get quite messy adding all the overseas departments. Would adding a footnote be enough? TastyCakes (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, its just accuracy you know.- _J.Logan`: 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for entering this discussion on a different note, but I was just thinking, do we even need a timezone entry for the EU infobox? Is it really that relevant? I mean there are so many timezones found across all the EU countries that to me it seems like another instance of this article being used to make it seem as if the EU countries have another thing in common when clearly here they dont? Can somebody convince me here that we need the timezone entry? --Simonski (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ "European Union". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 1 July 2009: "international organization comprising 27 European countries and governing common economic, social, and security policies...." {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
2. ^ "European Union", New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 635, ISBN 0-19-860441-6: "an economic and political association of certain European countries as a unit with internal free trade and common external tariffs...."{{citation}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
3. ^ "The EU at a glance". Europa. Retrieved 1 July 2009: "A unique economic and political partnership between 27 democratic European countries."{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
4. "http://europa.eu/abc/panorama/index_en.htm". "A unique economic and political partnership between 27 democratic European countries."

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class European Union articles
• Top-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• GA-Class International relations articles
• High-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class organization articles
• High-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• GA-Class Europe articles
• Top-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles