Talk:Euromyth

message: Does this new section belong in this article? In the article, a euromyth is defined as an urban legend, and I don't think this applies to assessments of the strength of the EP (whether or not they are mainstream).--Boson ([[User 
talk:Boson|talk]]) 14:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Parliament is weak 

message: .. removed all that was sourced and replaced it with mere statements sans sources. That's definitely not the way to edit Wikipedia. i. If you want to rewrite a part of an article, first find sources and then write with these checakble references included. ii. In any case removing sourced examples - especially where they are illustrative of the subject matter - is not a good idea. Expand rather than remove is the best thing to do. But make sure you add those sources too! bon chance! JaneVannin (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They look properly sourced classic Euromyths to me. Hence I have restored them. Setwisohi (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples were just copied from the EU web portal, which is not a reliable source and is certainly not an unbiased source. I have tried to make this article more balanced, but its very existence is borderline POV. No one would dispute that there is inaccurate reporting of the EU, just as there is of the UN, the US Government, or the French Government. The EU's claim is that this is uniquely an EU phenomenon. If we start copying examples from the EU's web site to back up its case we have strayed away from NPOV. Jay-W (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Please give it a rest, Mr Watts. You have been here several times before judging by your contributions history and have fallen foul of different editors. There is nothing wrong with the sources or the examples. By all means add to the article in a constructive manner but do not just delete sourced material. Setwisohi (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please spare me your condescending remarks. It's irrelevant whether I have disagreed with another editor or not. You have visited this article over several months and had disagreements with at least three users on this subject. You repeatedly copy opinions from an EC website and present them here as facts, while deleting any mention of alternative viewpoints. You seem to lack any understanding of  the NPOV concept, as well as any basic civility, so perhaps its you who should give it a rest. Jay-W (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The version which removed all examples.. 

message: I don't know where to start with this page. It's at best coatrack article designed to discredit Euroscepticism. At worst it's an attack page. Some of the "Euromyths" that are mentioned here haven't actually been rebutted at all. Phrases like "The scale of negative and distorted reporting on the European Union in the British press" are so far off presenting a neutral point of view, I'm surprised they've lasted so long. Additionally, much of this is sourced from the EU, which is hardly a disinterested source in this case. Furthermore some of these "myths" are actually true, as the EU's own website seems to concede. Being encyclopedic and being cynical are two completely different things. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there's nothing here calling the rhubarb story a "Euromyth" or discrediting it in anyway so it shouldn't be in the article. --Lo2u (T • C) 01:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten this. "Euromyth" is a perjorative term and this should be made clear. It shouldn't be applied indiscriminately; opinions should never be presented as facts. I think there's a lack of understanding about what constitutes a "neutral point of view" here. The following is not NPOV: "The British press tells lies[source]". The following is NPOV: "The British press has been accused of telling lies[source]". For some reason, this article nearly always favours the first formulation. There's also a misunderstanding about what constitutes original research. It's not enough for everything to be sourced, the article mustn't contain unpublished analysis of sources or synthesis of published material. It's not enough to find a story on the BBC about swings, debunk it and call it a "Euromyth": where are the sources that say it is a Euromyth? The same goes the story about rhubarb. It's worth quoting WP:SYN here: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C." You can't simply say, "I think this story is exaggerated therefore I'm calling it a euromyth." --Lo2u (T • C) 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  Lo2u - as per my talk page, I've removed the weasel words from your changes (hate using that expression!) and restored much of the rest, which was fine. (eg. the Rhubarb has gone as per your comments but the swings are back - cant see an issue with that). Thanks for your input. On one point I think we may disagree - I dont think it necessary to put euromyth in "" or to cover it up in any other way (no need for words like 'alleged' and stuff like that). Your version of the intro covers it's perjorative nature and we have to assume that intelligent readers will bear that in mind when reading an article like this. Setwisohi (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page 

message: The section on condoms (pause, tee-hee, OK, are we ready to continue yet, thank you) quotes an EU representative as saying "The European Standardisation Committee (CEN) is a voluntary body made up of national standards agencies and affiliated industry/consumer organisations from nineteen European countries. It has nothing to do with the EU." whereas our own article on the European Committee for Standardization states CEN is officially recognised as a European standards body by the European Union; CEN is contributing to the objectives of the European Union.  The CEN website says that CEN supports the policies of the European Union (EU) and its Annual Report shows that it is funded by the EU.  In a nutshell then, it is false to say that "It has nothing to do with the EU."
So my question is: how should this be reflected in the article in question?  Groomtech (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I read "It has nothing to do with the EU" as meaning that it is separate from the EU rather than that there is no cooperation between the two organisations. CEN is one a number of pan-European bodies independent from the EU whose goals overlap with those of the EU and hence cooperate with, and sometimes receive funding from, the EU. It is not strictly true to say that CEN has nothing to do with the EU, but I don't think that the article would gain from a detailed discussion of the relationship between the EU and CEN when the main point is that both the EU and CEN deny that they have (or are planning to) set standards for condom sizes. Duncan Keith (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The statements by the newspaper, the European Commission and CEN seem to be correctly reported. --Boson (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements may well be correctly reported.  Unfortunately they are inconsistent, and so cannot all be correct.  Is it improper to say so?  Groomtech (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements of the EU and CEN are consistent with respect to the allegation that the EU was planning to harmonise condom sizes. The supposed inconsistency is tangential to the fact that both organisations deny the truth of the Independent story. If you can find a source that claims the EU spokesman's description of the relationship between the EU and CEN casts doubt on the substantive point he is making then it may be proper to include it here. Duncan Keith (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the third sentence It has nothing to do with the EU is inconsistent with other sources, and, as you say, tangential to the condom size issue, I propose to delete it from the quote.  Groomtech (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CEN 

message: This recently added section is seriously flawed: 
The title is extremely POV. That this is a straw man is disputed, as is obvious from various sources (and other statements in this article). The same is true of the first sentence: Sometimes, pro-EU commentators will cite an exaggerated critical statement as a straw man Euromyth. Other statements are also tendentious in the same way: not precisely true if so phrased (source?), the commentator can call the ban a myth while still technically telling the truth,thereby creating the popular impression that claims of EU over-regulation are without foundation. The whole point is that the reporting allegedly portrays the facts in an exaggerated or distorted way. It is the reporters who made the exaggerated claims, not their critics who exaggerated their claims (as the "straw man" argument would imply). 
In an article about alleged distortion by the British media, it would be permissible to cite the Telegraph blog post as an example of the (allegedly misleading) coverage by the British media; it is not permissible to treat such sources as factually accurate authorities. 
The argument expressed in the section also relies on a substantive (and illogical) error of interpretation: "a minimum grade (curve) of 27mm" interprets "grade" as meaning "curvature". Apart from the fact that this appears to be claiming that the regulation forbids straight bananas, grade refers to thickness, not curvature, as is obvious if you read the regulation.  
--Boson (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now changed the section heading and rewritten the section to remove inaccuracies and POV and provide more references.--Boson (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made slight changes to your revised version. But otheriwse I agree with your reasoning and the changes you have made. Setwisohi (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

text: If you have a look below, it seems there's some doubt about whether this particular regulation was repealed. I claimed it was and was corrected. --Lo2u (T • C) 01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euromyths as a Straw Man 

message: I think that's a good idea. Of course it's a vast area. Even if we're not going as far back as the old common market, it'll probably be necessary to discuss, first of all, the historical perspective: the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon and so on. Euroscepticism and the attitudes of various papers, any telling articles (there's plenty of source material saying which are considered the most and least Eurosceptic). Finally we would need to discuss specific criticisms and accusations of bias: not only Euromyths but other negative coverage. Additionally, there are complaints of a pro-European bias directed against some parts of the media. I've started a new section in the hope of getting some fresh discussion going and pointing out the proposed move. There are some regular editors of this article who've not said anything yet. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Media coverage of the EU]] 

message: Since the Euromyth article is mostly about British media coverage, the article Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom might be a more appropriate target. 
However, I would tend to oppose both merge proposals. 
Euromyth and Euroscepticism both suffer from being inherently non-NPOV. They are really about two separate subjects, British media coverage of the European Union and  Attitudes to membership of the European Union, respectively, and both discuss only negative coverage or attitudes. This makes it very difficult to avoid the appearance of bias. I think this is the main problem. --Boson (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose the merge, as I believe these are two different topics.  Euroscepticism is a standpoint against the EU and its political structure. Whereas a purported Euromyth is a report about a specific aspect of the EU.  One does not imply the other, just as you can criticise an action of your national government -- even in a misleading and sensational way -- without objecting to your country's constitution in general. 80.68.82.223 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I've not made much comment on this. I can't do much while I'm waiting for my (basically evil) ISP to come and fix my broadband connection and with the sort of work this article requires, I just couldn't face looking at this again. I'm not sure how I feel about a merge. I could be persuaded I suppose. My worries are firstly, this sort of story is not confined to the UK. Secondly, a POV consideration: if we make this merge it seems like we're basically deciding that every story that gets called a Euromyth was only published because the British press hates the EU. As I've said before, some of these Euromyths are plainly, unequivocally true. I don't believe everything I read in the Daily Mail but I also don't refuse to believe something just because it appeared in the Daily Mail and it's a mistake to assume that just because such stories don't appear in the European press they aren't true. The Europeans don't have a tradition of scepticism about EU institutions. They have largely accepted them and their discussion tends to be less evangelical, neither Eurosceptic nor enthusiastically pro-European. There's no particular appetite for stories that present the EU in a bad light. A Dutchman would no more discuss the pros and cons of having EU legislation than an American would discuss the pros and cons of having a constitution. It doesn't mean such criticism is false. Compare attitudes to the NHS in Britain with those in the rest of Europe. A different style of coverage may simply reflect a different conception of the reality of the EU: in the United Kingdom it's largely viewed as an international organisation with good points and bad points. Elsewhere it's viewed as a layer of government, inseparable from a country's constitution. Anyway I think there's a danger of seeing all criticism of the EU through the prism of British Euro-scepticism, as if any negative attitude to the EU needs to be sign-posted as a weird British affliction. It's not, it's a widely-held point of view that is as valid as any other. Even as things stand now, most criticism is marginalised and confined to articles like the proposed merge article above: opinion polls in most countries show people object to the Lisbon Treaty or would like to be given a referendum, for example, but the article doesn't really reflect its controversial nature. In fact very little EU coverage on Wikipedia reflects the existence of any sort of controversy. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, that's my opposition to a move to Euroscepticism or similar. British media coverage and attitudes to membership are a different matter and I would support such a move.--Lo2u (T • C) 10:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Curiously there is no source cited in the article for this actually being a Euromyth.  Groomtech (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was the reference following "Examples cited as Euromyths include stories about rules banning mince-pies, curved bananas and mushy peas.", but I have added a few more references and quotes (using terms like "most famous", "mother of all Euromyths", etc.) where they are more likely to be seen. Of course, it is not the regulation that is a "Euromyth" but its alleged content. --Boson (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The banana regulation 

message: This article is slightly improved but still has some problems. I've made some changes to the intro to make it a little more neutral, and added the Eurosceptic position. The use of the Communications Ethics Now book is OK in context, but the same source has been used several times to make big claims eg "The British press and to some extent the Greek press too are often blamed for circulating Euromyths". This needs to be more specific if it is to be used and explain the source. 
I also removed the examples copied from the EU web site for several reasons. I've been over these exhaustively in the past but for newcomers I will clarify why these shouldn't be used: 
:1. EU site is a biased source. 
:2. The site is known to be unreliable and has made claims in the past which aren't true. 
:3. The EU site is being used to quote other sources and this can't be done without making that clear. You can't claim "The Daily Mail wrote this" if your source is not the Daily Mail but the EU site.  See here []
:There's also still a question mark over the naming of this article and if it meets NPOV naming conventions.
Jay-W (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the lede could be improved. First defining what is a Euromyth, then who uses it - in clearer language. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes

message: It is simply not true that the banana regulations have been repealed. A list of regulation *currently in force* can be found here http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fruit-and-vegetables/legislation/index_en.htm You'll find on that page a link to "Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011 laying down marketing standards for bananas" which states clearly that "In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the bananas must be . . . free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers,".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.231.29 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current EU banana regulation 

message: Please delete it! Your "myths" are mostly true, the very few that aren't can be described in a paragraph in European Union. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's nothing else than a leftist pro-EU propaganda page! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Euromyth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6481969.stm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321161425/http://ec.europa.eu:80/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth05_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth05_en.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The last two paragraphs are a repeat of the previous two. Can someone fix?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.188.56 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated text 

message: This is a bit of a junk article isn't it?  -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.119.246 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that such stories probably had an impact on the UK brexit vote, maybe it should stay right where it is. AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should probably be removed or merged elsewhere, no?