Talk:European Union/Archive 13

message: I notice that someone has changed this to show him receiving some sort of Charlemagne prize about European conquest. Isn't this a massive giveaway? TharkunColl 23:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schuman's picture

message: Good Article nomination has failed for the following reasons:
#Way too much of the article is unreferenced
#The "Enlargement" section needs work. The list of countries that may join the European Union is written in prose, and is necessary, but paragraphs should flow. It seems almost as if random facts are just thrown into paragraphs. Goals of joining and things going for the country followed by issues preventing the country from joining
#Religion section is specific to Europe, but its relation to the Europian Union is not clear in the article.
#Many parts were confusing and didn't really elaborate. History section should probably elaborate sligtly more. It goes from the 1950's to the 2000's. Something had to have happened in between.
--SefringleTalk 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination has failed

message: Why is the President-in-Council listed as Germany when it ought to be Merkel? Her position is more official and notable than Steinmeier's, the head of the Council depends on the configuration so if anything should be listed as the country it is Council. European Council has a clear position, it is based on the Presidency so could also be a country but I don't see why that position should alone be the country. Both people, both the country or the council as country and PiO as a person - those seem the only logical choices. - J Logan t/c: 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox, presidents 

message: The map in the Member states section: Image:European Union vector map III.svg has two mistakes on it - Moldova is missing to the right of Romania, and some Greek Islands are shown as part of Turkey. No one who is able to seems to have fixed it since May when it was pointed out. Just thought I'd mention it here =) Rossenglish 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member States map 

message: I don't think it's necessary to have the image in the template. It's just merely a promo logo, which is used on Portuguese meetings. We've had logos like this: :Image:EUAT2006KoolhaasLogo.jpg. Wouldn't look really good on the template? Besides, it's very possible that we won't get proper logos for every presidency country. I don't think we'll even have those logos in the future, if the current rotating presidency system is got rid of. --Pudeo (Talk) 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is good to use. The Presidency is very powerful, controling the direction of the Council. And it rotating presidency will not be abolished. It will be replaced in the European Coucil but not the Council of Ministers. Even under the trio system (already in place) the presidency is still important and it is symbolised by the logo. - J Logan t/c: 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidency insignia 

message: What is the reason for using the spelling "competences" instead of "competencies"? --rich<Rich Janis 01:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess a, typo, possibly cuased by non-native English level of most of the authors of this article? Please keep in mind that this page is edited by many Europeans, of which only a minority were born in an English speaking countries; some (minor) misunderstandings in idiom, spelling and grammar are therefore to be expected. (In my own writing as well!). If someone with a truly high level of English language control would like to copy-edit; Welcome!! Arnoutf 10:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it is the plural of "competence", not of "competency". I would say that neither is in some way more correct than the other. Naomhain 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reminder, Naomhain. It took me awhile to sort out my perception of the difference between these words. Now I see the appropriateness here of competence, with its meaning of ability or authority, vs. competency, with its emphasis on specific skills and their performance. --rich<Rich Janis 23:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree with RJ; unfortunately, this view is not even slightly reflected in the competence article. Moreover, the article competency is merely a redirect to it. --media_lib 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  competences? 

message: I moved the enlargement section from politics to members and geography for three reasons (that are all enough to move it on their own)
# Enlargement is very much about members (past, present and future) and geography. Although it is a politicised issue, it is more about members than about politics. 
# The politics section focusses very much on the three pillars (introduction, and a short section on each pillar). Enlargement is not a pillar, thus enlargement should not be part of the (current version of) the politics section.
# The members and geography sections holds a table with accession to the EU of different new members. It also shows a map with candidate members. Hence this section implicitly deals with the enlargement issue. There should not be two sections explicitly or implicitly dealing with the same issue, hence the enlargement and the last bit of the members and geography section must be merged (which is what I did by my move). Arnoutf 08:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that enlargement has a strong political element, however it is not addressed as such in the segment. Indeed there is information overlap between enlargement and member and hence I think they should come under the same heading. Although perhaps below the map? - J Logan t/c: 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've corrected the ECSC article. The foundation would when it comes into force, as it obviously isn't its signature. It was signed in 51 and came into force in 52, therefore it was 52. That was also the date before it was changed to 1957 if you check the history. - J Logan t: 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I did see that it had previously said 1952, but I assumed (you know what they say) that the larger ECSC article would be more accurate. Also, in looking at the "picture" to the right, the caption obviously couldn't be changed without changing the image itself as it does not start with the 6 countries in the ECSC (as far as I can tell). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No well the image only follows the EEC-EU line, not the ECSC which is more an indirect ancestor so to speak, compared to the EEC which is considered the start of the modern EU. When I maade that animation I had included the ECSC but ran into some technical probs. If people think it should be on there I can try to include it again. - J Logan t: 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a big deal, but if one were to assume that the original change from 1952 to 1957 was not vandalism (vandals usually aren't so subtle), I'd guess that figure was the inspiration behind it. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, wasn't vandalism, the IP just looked like one below that was vandalism. It was just a mistake because 1957 is date people hear most for the foundation, but it is different. There is certainly no chance that the ECSC was created half a decade after all the ministers were meeting and thought they were running it. Would have been amusing though. - J Logan t: 09:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlargement section 

message: I removed images from sections where there was no reference to that image. Images should be an illustration of the text in a section. If the issues related to an image are not treated in the section, that image has no place at that place (important as that image may be). That does not say the image has no place in the article, only not in the section it was placed in. Concretely I removed Mandelson from the subsection European Community where neither his function nor WTO are mentioned. I remove the passport image from the law section as this section does not mention EU citizenship, nothing about border control, nothing about passports. Arnoutf 08:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have argued before, these are pointless images and when they are restored there is no real argument for them. They are not talked about the the text and hence have no relevance. The EC does not talk about external trade, external representation, Mandelson himself, individual Commissioners, the WTO or anything that justifies Mandelson. I honestly have no idea why there is such force to have Mandelson there, there are far better images that could be presented there. Of course there shouldn't be an image of image sake, there are far too many already. As for the passport, again it is not addressed in the text so there is no reason to have it there. It seems like some editors are using images for "did you know" boxes, rather than improving the text.- J Logan t/c: 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no relevant images placed in the education and science section. The only picture placed are more or less random university buildings, but these seem irrelevant and not at all illustrative to the section; as these university buildings are actually under the authority of local govts and not EU. Hence if should not be here. The logo of the Galileo project is also placed on the Science and educt section. However Galileo is much more of an infrastructure than a science project; and indeed, all intext reference to Galileo are in the infrastructure section and none in science. Hence Galileo is not illustrative of anything in this section and should not be here. Arnoutf 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Totaly agree, sometimes I'm not sure if people bother reading the article before trying to turn it into some kind of childrens pop-up book! RELEVANT images ONLY. And for the sake of stability can things be taken to the talk page where possible. - J Logan t: 12:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just to clarify further on particular images: The euro is not mentioned in the text of the European Community (just to clarify, the word euro only appears once in the ENTIRE politics section - in talking about the ECB), the image has no business there. Sibu was selected as the non-EU capital for 2007 - selected years before Romania joined for this year - therefore Luxembourg should be shown as it was selected as the EU capital. Yes Law as the EU courts, but that is a picture of the courts, it is not representing the city. And generally, there is no need to have three, or even two, images in a section unless it is needed to demonstrate the article. - J Logan t: 12:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's because they have national universities, and usualy talk about them. The EU different and a random uni picture adds nothing. - J Logan t: 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with JLogan. If for example the EIIT (a proposed EU institute) would have its own campus, I would support adding an image of that. But putting up a random uni of a random member state without any obvious link to the EU should not be done. Arnoutf 09:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of images

message: I was working on a quick project and needed the population of the EU. Since the number on the EU page seemed a bit low, I went through the wikipedia pages and added up all of the member states populations as stated. The number I got started with 594, instead of 494 - I'm guessing this is a mistake? Could someone with a bit more experience check this out and fix it?
:I'm quite sure the figure usualy cited is just under 500, but I may be mistaken. The Parliament says 492 million, although that is not an exact stat of course. Don't work on the Wikipedia pages though, use citable sources, whether indicated national stats that can be added up or a stat for the population as a whole. - J Logan t: 12:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population mistake

message: I removed Russian from the languages table for several reasons.
First and foremost, tables, just like figures, are meant to support the body text. The Russian language is not mentioned as a speical case in the body text (it is listed third among a long list of minority languages but that is all), hence it should not be in support elements in that paragraph.
Secondly, all other languages in the table are (the most occurring) official languages of the EU. Russian is not an official language. If we start adding non-official languages this opens the door for other non-official languages such as Chinese, Turkish and Arabic (some of which I am pretty sure will have over 5 million first language, and much much more second language people in the EU).
Thirdly, with 1% (approx 5 mill) first language speakers Russian is smaller in the EU compared to e.g., Danish, Finnish and probably Catalan; all of which are not in the table. Therefore I think there is a pretty strong case to exclude Russian. Arnoutf 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll stick with that (although I had to correct the "other" to include the Russian you removed) but I think it is reasonable. Russian is big in the east (something to do with the U.S.S. something or other, Enterprise?) and immigrant populations are mainly in the west. Quite possible Russian speakers are larger (esp. in Baltic states, hugh Russian speaking populations there, see the riots in Estonia). It is also an important fact, denoting the numbers of the language, the history of why it is so wide spread and about the Russian comunities in the east. - J Logan t: 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  good point and indeed interesting; migrant language populations in the EU are indeed very interesting. Think of Indonesian languages in the Netherlands, Indian languages in the UK, and indeed different migrant language in West, versus Russian in the east. I do howerver think that migrant language populations is just at too much of a detail level for this specific article/table. You are welcome to explore elsewhere though Arnoutf 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong preference myself, but a reasonable compromise is to have a expandable/collapsable item such as in the table at the top of the page. People who are interested can expand it and see percentages of "other" languages. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a bit much, something for the languages page? Also we would need more sources for those, might have problems if they conflict. - J Logan t: 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this might be developed in detail at the Languages of the European Union. The reference search can then also be much more comprehensively focussed on this issue alone. Arnoutf 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages table

message: It seems information in these two sections is duplicated - particularly at the end of each. Does anyone object to me removing it from one section, or have a suggestion as to what should be removed from where? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, I recently (30 minutes ago) restructured that section, and in doing so made the mistake in copying the lines (which were indeed identical). I left it at church and state and removed with belief. Arnoutf 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I don't want to step on any toes, and I know religion is a sensitive topic, but I think "belief in a God" should be either "belief in a god" or "belief in God". Thoughts? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmmm, I would go for a god (lowercase), but it is indeed a difficult issue, me being an atheist may not be the most reliable source for that debate Arnoutf 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Was I writing God in there? Mistake, should be more generic to clarify. Although I think the question was a singular god, can't recall if it was a capital. - J Logan t: 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I did use the capital, probably a Pavlov reflex, but changed it again where it is preceded by 'a'. Arnoutf 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious belief vs. Church and state 

message: I reverted to the last stable version (of this morning) just before the massive set of reversions and resetting previous ideas by Lear21 which lead to an edit war on this page (over 100 edits in 6 hours). 
While there has been an evolutionary growth and general consensus on the vast majority of changes of the article over the last month or so, much of this hard word was radically undone by a single editor (Lear21). This has raised protest and reversions.  
@Lear21 if multipe editors start reverting your work at least have the decency to consider you may be wrong. At least discuss your edits on the talk page. This behaviour is getting pretty close to 3RR and disruptive behaviour. If you strongly think you are right (and the rest of the world is wrong) I would suggest mediation (this requires willingness to accept an outcome even if you don't like it) rather than this. Arnoutf 16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do find Lear 21's lack of participation on the Talk page to be odd considering what appears to be very strong opinions. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping to force him to the talk page with my rv, it seems I was wrong with that strategy and I apologise for letting it run for so long, half of those revisions are mine and you shouldn't have had to reset it like that if I had tried another way. In the interests of being open, you can see my messages to Lear on his talk page, he hasn't replied clearly to my offer of ceasefire but I'll still staying away for now. I fi have any ideas I'll drop them here on the talk page. - J Logan t: 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest I think there is some in sports - the Bosman judgement- that is interesting as here the local sports union rules were overruled by EU treaties. Similarly the Framework programs and the Socrates exchange programs are EU initiatives in education and science and are (IMHO) important in further integration within the Union. I agree these sections should be limited to EU specifics, and not become a summary of what happens in the individual members states within the national agenda. Arnoutf 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, and I suppose it would become a bit too politics heavy even for the EU to remove those areas. Just have a nagging feeling there is something big we've overlooked. But anyway, I see Lear has ignored me so I'm back here till I have to go - though I'll avoid starting another edit war with him if I can. - J Logan t: 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last revert

message: I have removed the stuff on the Bologna Process. The Bologna Process is not an EU process or programme; and it did not lead to the European Credit Transfer System (which is an output of the ERASMUS programme). It is worth remembering that when the four starting nations (France, Germany, Italy and UK) started with the signature of the Sorbonne Declaration, the overt intention of three of the participants (Italy was the exception) was to keep the EU and the European Commission out of the activity. It was not until the Prague Ministerial in 2001 that the European Commission was allowed in - indeed, by that stage, welcomed by France and Germany and grudgingly accepted by the UK.
The Bologna Process is 'European', but not 'European Union'. Raggio 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get what your saying, and there needs to be some fact checks, but I think it is something we could mention as being EU-centric? Projects like these are essentialy thought up on an EU basis and, if they are easy like this, extended to others because of the flow of peoples and that they are 9/10 going to join anyway. After all, the Single Market includes 3 EFTA countries. - J Logan t: 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this sort of thing used to be thought up on an EU basis; but not this one. It started with four countries - France (the originator), Germany, Italy, UK - in 1998. From there it went direct to 29 countries in 1999, when the EU was still 15 Member States. The EU has now expanded to 27, and the Bologna Process is at not far off 50. It is true that it could not have happened without the experience of the ERASMUS programme - but neither in intention nor in reality was it EU-based. Interestingly now, it is rather the non-EU countries that lead it - the Norways of this world, for whom it is OK because European but not EU. The other point to note is that if it had been an EU project, it would have been more centrally driven (and perhaps less successful as a result); but more hologenous; and what is striking about (say) the way the Bachelor/Master system works is that it is different in almost every country. Not really harmonisation ...Raggio 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but the nature of the project I think is something along side and with the support of EU projects, as you mentioned, and I think the connection is stronger than its membership suggestes. I think its importance would merit a mention, albeit a small aside and clearly stating it is not an EU project. Anyone else have thoughts on this? - J Logan t: 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Education and Science

message: The number of people with German mother tongue has just been altered from 90 million to 100 million.
The document cited in that paragraph (Eurobarometer survey, published Feb. 2006, based on data from Nov./Dec. 2005) gives 18% of 450 million (EU25). That amounts to 81 million. There can't be that many Bulgarians and Romanians with German mother tongue. Can anyone give a citation to account for an increase of 19 million mother-tongue German speakers since 2006?. Otherwise I will change the figure to 81 million (as of 2006). --Boson 09:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eurostat figures should also have Romania and Bulgaria listed, that should provide the true figure. - J Logan t: 09:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But the citation for that whole area is Eurostat, the link to the citation is in the first para of languages and at the top of the language table. From what I can see it doesn't look too wrong, but I haven't been able to look deeper into the figures and do the math to know exactly. - J Logan t: 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we are both talking about this: This is based on data from Nov./Dec. 2005 and states: "Today the European Union is home to 450 million people from diverse ethnic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds." and "German is the most widely spoken mother tongue in Europe (18%)". That gives 81 million. Even if we use the 18% (also given in the table) and erroneously apply it to the current population we still get less than 90 million. Romania and Bulgaria cannot have anything like a million mother-tongue German speakers, so the figure cannot be much higher than 81 million.--Boson 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, like I said I didn't look deep into it. Yes we are talking about the same thing by the way. But the exact percentages should be in there somewhere - no doubt lower as you say. - J Logan t: 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages: German mother tongue 

message: The Sport section has been a stable part of the article for more than half a year. It is referenced and written in with common knowledge (football a major sport in EU countries) which is credible even without citation. It is a standard subsection within Culture among comparable Country or City articles.
Two third of the subsection deals with EU policy issues.
Lear 21 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The areas removed were uncited and had been marked for a while. Section was only absorbed into culture only because it was then too short. Provide citable information and it would be fine. - J Logan t: 09:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, considering the way previous discussions have gone I'd suggest you try to get support from others before forcing the uncited sports content back. As far as I can tell above comments have generally been against your recent edits rather than for, if you get support here then I won't fight your edits. Is it so hard for you to wait for support before yet again forcing your edits on everyone? I have made a point of only reverting your edit to sports right now but again you have shown no interest in doing likewise. - J Logan t: 09:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: About everything else is references. Besides, that is not the only thing said. How about anti doping convention etc? And it being the most popular is disputable, and saying it is major is a bit of a weasel word. - J Logan t: 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Then rewrite it then, for once add something to the text. So long as there are citations for the facts I have no problem with a sports section. - J Logan t: 11:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. If the content is notable, relevant to the article (like the bit about the court case regarding free choice of workplace for football players) and cited, I'm okay with it. —Nightstallion 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the second para as if your read, all the facts in there are in the first. I think I made a point of that when I first reduced it. One bug I still have is the picture, I haven't removed it yet as I want to know if people really think that has anything to do with the text? It's a ramdom stadium, what sentence does that illutsrate? The anti-doping convention? Maybe there is a better picture at least. Anyone know a sports stadium that has been supported by an EU policy mentioned? thoughts? - J Logan t: 17:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reintroduction of Sport subsection 

message: The map is valuable content to provide a quick overview of the religious heritage in Europe. Because
EU member states covering more than 70 % of the population in Europe the relevance is given and not misleading. As long no other maps are available for this issue the map is reintroduced and maintains the quality of the section. Lear 21 10:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the map should be replaced by :Image:Europe belief in god.png, which shows more clearly what the religious situation in the EU. The current map covers the whole of Europe rather than the EU, while dealing with "religious heritage" (i.e. historical situations) rather than the present-day reality. There's nothing wrong with keeping the map there as long as we had no alternative, but I believe that the "Belief in God" map based on the Eurostat survey carries a better information load by essentially showing the current levels of religiosity within the EU. Ronline ✉ 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic Ronline, I quite agree. Far more relevant to the information in the text. - J Logan t: 11:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Aye, I agree. —Nightstallion 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the map now. On religion section as a whole, one thing I was wondering was if we should move the whole text to a new page ("Religion in the European Union") and just leave basic demographic details. That way it could justly be reincorporated into demographics and reduce overall text on this minor subject. Thoughts? - J Logan t: 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the removal of the old map (religious heritage) because many of the issues between members of the EU stem from their historical relationships which are nearly entirely based on their religions. To ignore historical religious divisions would be to entirely ignore internatinal relationships within the EU. The current map is of little use because the EU has nothing to do with national religious trends or policies. I don't think it's very relevant to this article. JRWalko 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think this mainly comes down individual opinion. I personally don't believe that religious heritage is a particularly significant source of division between member states. The EU has three dominant religious heritages - Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy - and I don't really see any evidence of relationships between EU states based on these heritages. Many Catholic-heritage countries have more in common with Protestant-heritage countries than with other Catholic-heritage countries. The more significant determinant of relations between EU member states is political heritage, manifested in the divide between the old and new member states as well as (arguably) the divide between those states which had authoritarian regimes up until the 1970s and those which have an entrenched history of democracy. Another source of division is that between the more secularised and irreligious members of the Union, and those where religion plays a more significant role. Ultimately, however, I think that the current map is useful because it shows the current demographic conditions in the European Union, which is what should be presented in the Religion section. The religious heritage map is undoubtedly useful, but would be more appropriate in a section dealing with the history or traditions of the EU. Ronline ✉ 11:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Religious heritage has a lot to do with the types of political parties that EU citizens elect and thus directly influnces what their countries may do. Catholic countries tend to be more conservative and although religion probably isn't on their minds when voting I'd wager it's still a significant influence. This isn't a major issue for me but I think the old map would complement the current one. It also provides invaluable insight into some of the less publicized issues with the Turkish candidacy. JRWalko 02:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I'm not sure if you could even argue that Catholic countries tend to be more conservative in their politics. Perhaps as an aggregate, Protestant-heritage countries are less conservative than Catholic-heritage countries, which are in turn less conservative than Orthodox-heritage countries. However, the diversity within each of these blocks are so large that there is no room to make any meaningful generalisations. For example, Catholic-heritage France and Spain are just as liberal as Catholic-Protestant Germany, and significantly less conservative than Protestant Latvia. There is a much stronger link between religiosity/belief in god and political conservatism, than there is between religious heritage and political conservatism. I agree that religion can be significant influence on politics, and I thus believe that a map which shows the degree of religiosity is more useful than one that simply show heritage. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to including the "heritage" map, but I believe it would just clutter the article with more photos (and there is alread a Religion in Europe article). Ronline ✉ 07:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Protestant/Roman Catholic divide in western Europe is dealt with in the Religion in Europe article. This article deals more with the secular/religious divide in the EU and the argument over religious references in the constitution and treaties. The image :Image:Europe belief in god.png is more useful for this article. Caveat lector 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reintroduction of map in section Religion 

message: I doubt many people reading the article know what this means. I certainly didn't. I think all instances of its usage should be removed. I'm sure it's probably someone's pet phrase though. Votes in support or opposition of removing all uses of the term in the article please. Abc30 22:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree I liked it because it forced me to learn a new phrase. :) That said, I do agree that it shouldn't be there as it more obstructs the meaning than clarifies it. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose, it's the word used most often to describe the status and structure of the European Union. —Nightstallion 10:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose - the fact that many people don't know what the word means isn't reasonable grounds for its exclusion. Readers can easily find the definition of "sui generis" simply by clicking on the link. I also agree that this is the most precise term to define the EU. Ronline ✉ 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree If it appears it needs to follow a plain English description along the lines of 'the EU has a somewhat unique status ('sui generis'). Latin and technical legal terms should only be used sparingly. CBM 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose Is the best term for now see its definition sui_generis 88.149.209.60 17:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose What's wrong with it? It's just right! Mastermindsro 11:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose Latin terms are used all the time in everyday life (vice versa, i.e. etc), and you can easily guess what sui generis means, and if not, you can click on the link. You wouldn't omit all instances of the word 'mediaeval' when describing a castle, just because not everyone understands what it means - why should this be any different? Rossenglish 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sui generis is quite a bit less common than vice versa, i.e., etc., or medieval, although admittedly I am biased because I didn't know what it meant. I've heard a lot of people here use the simple word unique to describe it, so why is sui generis a better term? What about CBM's suggestion? (To use another word that I've actually seen used more often, how would you feel if the word choice options were poikilothermic versus cold-blooded? I could give you a reason why the former word is a better choice than the latter, but I truly believe that the latter word would be the best option unless there was something you were specifically contrasting to the "cold" in cold-blooded.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and I suppose my Latin examples aren't the best comparison, but one supposes you can so what I was getting at...! Although in this case, I still believe that sui generis should be used rather than say, unique, because unique is not a strict synonym, and sui generis has (rather fittingly!) a unique and specialised meaning, which is what is needed in this context. Rossenglish 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-read the sui generis article, and I have to admit that I don't see what specialized meaning it has that is not conveyed by unique. Here's an additional thought: perhaps there is a language/culture divide involved here. I dare say that most editors for this article are from an EU country, and so have been exposed to the term much more frequently than us Yanks. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it has virtually no public visibility here either. It is very popular, though, among EU enthusiasts who like to present it as argument that this entity is somehow almost a country. Strange it should keep appearing here. DSuser 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly, that may be because the EU *is* "somehow almost" a country, but I can see why you would prefer to disconsider that notion; it might actually cause you to have to re-think a pre-set notion of yours.  —Nightstallion 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Boson said, unique and sui generis are different, in that they cannot both be applied in all cases. They may have a very similar meaning, but cannot be used in a similar way. Rossenglish 21:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Some further explanation why I believe this term should stay as is now: There is no official definition on this fact, so sui generis means unique, EU political structure is unique. This term is particulary used in such cases and in various other domains like Legal applications, sociology & other... It is usually used when an entity, idea etc. can't be compaired with anything else; is unique in its characteristics... Mastermindsro 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose removal. It is exactly the right term to describe the unique status. In my experience it is quite a common expression. There is no reason to dumb down wikipedia. People can look up the expression when they don't understand. −Woodstone 15:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose removal. "Sui generis" is the most precise term. It is not quite the same as unique: every human is unique, but not sui generis. The United States and Germany are each unique but can both be classified as federal states. In other words, the characteristics of the EU (i.e. the presence or absence of specific attributes) do not permit it to be uniquely classified as belonging to another sufficiently narrow and relevant category (e.g. federal states, free trade areas).  --Boson 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that still true considering the existence of the Union of South American Nations (which I have just recently learned about)? Also, if it is the most precise term, and neither "unique" nor the article on sui generis conveys the reason why it is the most accurate term, then how are those of us who aren't familiar with the term supposed to really understand it? I.e., if you don't already know that the EU is sui generis, then what have you learned by reading that it is sui generis, that you wouldn't have learned (more easily) from the word unique? (Despite my continual "debating" on this point, I don't want anyone to think I have strong feelings about it. I really am just trying to understand. I am amazed by how many people think this term is important. When it was first proposed, I thought that surely everyone would agree that it was somewhat pretentious, like using poikilothermic where cold-blooded would do.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also not that worried about it, but I think I have explained why I think "unique" is not adequate. One should perhaps remember that generis is the genitive of genus. It is difficult to find an alternative term that is equally accurate and concise. After a previous edit war I changed it to something like "in a category of its own" because some people were obviously misunderstanding the term (and apparently not clicking on the link), but someone changed it back. I don't think it's anything like "cold-blooded" versus "poikilothermic"- more like "left" and "right" versus "port" and "starboard" or "equal" versus "identical". The Union of South American Nations doesn't look to me as if it's in the same class; that looks more like a free trade area with some plans for something more. This is not really the place to discuss all the different characteristics of the EU but it seems to me that various characteristics prevent the EU being classified as a federal state (e.g.the degree of sovereignty of the members and the current lack of legal personality), while other characteristics make it inappropriate to classify the EU merely as a free trade area, currency union, or whatever (e.g. the concept of EU citizenship, the direct election of the European Parliament by EU citizens, the right of EU citizens to vote in local elections where they reside, the right to take up permanent residence anywhere in the EU, the enforceability of court judgments across the EU, the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality among EU nationals - with a few exceptions for civil servants exercising sovereign power).--Boson 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sui generis 

message: The EU to my knowledge has no anthem or motto - these were scrapped in the discarded 2005 Constitutional Treaty and have deliberately been taken out of the new Reform Treaty as there was a large public sentiment against symbolic EU-nationalism. The Commission and the governments in the various member-states have been very explicit about this detail, that the EU will have no official anthem or any motto, because it is not a country.
I find it misleading and incorrect to list a motto and an anthem in the Wikipedia entry when these do not officially or legally exist and have therefore removed them. 
--Pontoppidan 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RCS is quite right, they may not be in the treaties but they do exist. Just like the flag they have been adoped as symbols, and need I point out that the UK flag and anthem also do not enjoy any legitimacy as symbols. - J Logan t: 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake - the EU has no anthem or motto 

message: http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/index_en.htm. RCS 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RCS is quite right, they may not be in the treaties but they do exist. Just like the flag they have been adoped as symbols, and need I point out that the UK flag and anthem also do not enjoy any legitimacy as symbols. - J Logan t: 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of today, it does have both 

message: DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU in lists 

message: I noticed that you are using a lot of HTML in the wikisource. You might consider using templates instead. A simple example of why using raw HTML is short-sighted is . If you want to be XHTML compliant, you should really use  . I noticed you got swatted down about the scrollbar on the ref list. I do think that the infobox looks great, but is the infobox really a one-off or could others benefit? If you abstracted the desirable features into templates, other articles might benefit.--SallyForth123 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your notes on the HTML, I'm glad we have that improvement. On the infobox however, I think most is a one off, unique subjects need unique presentation. - J Logan t: 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, yeah. —Nightstallion 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML usages 

message: In regards to images on the left and the right. My personal preference is right, it is more tidy, professional and creates smoother text. They have all been aligned right for a while now although three are now to the left. Considering Lear is involved, I have not put them to the right as I have no desire to start yet another edit war with him on a trivial matter such as we are applying for GA. I would however appreciate comments from people on their preferences and I am willing to follow whatever consensus emerges.
Sorry to bring up a trivial issue, but I'm sure some of you understand why I have brought it up like this. - J Logan t: 12:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prefer to the right, unless it's a special case. —Nightstallion 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See FA promoted articles for the prefered layout design. The mixed left/right illustration is the vast majority here. Lear 21 14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't mean it has won it the FA. I am compromising with you on those three for now as there are already two in those sections. Not others though, wait for other people to give their thoughts. - J Logan t: 15:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone read this? I'm not trying to be funny or anything; it's just that everyone is talking about their own preferences, comparing other articles and so on, when there already exists a widely accepted set of guidelines for wikipedia articles to follow. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I thought there was something but couldn't find it. I'd still stick with preferences but I'll accept left right - just not in the among that is coming up. Having a single picture in a section placed half way down on the left just looks silly. - J Logan t: 11:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on images 

message: A violent content dispute is opposing, since July 26 (, ), several users (in decreasing order of importance : , , , ) and , who is perceived as being very stubborn. Unceasing and unnecessary mutual reverts are the consequence. Although owner of a long block log, Lear has not been considered guilty of 3RR in this case after a complaint had been filled against him on July 27. RCS 16:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don´t call me stubborn while maintaining high quality visual content. Rather call me "evangelical computer out of a StarTrek episode" , haha!  Lear 21 16:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I responded in good faith to a request for comment. I'm sorry that you don't like my opinion, but it is important to realise that other editors do have a right to see things differently, that you are not in a position of authority here, and that this is not your article. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you SheffieldSteel for your comment. To be honest I didn't expect Lear to listen to anyone but it was worth a try. - J Logan t: 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Random selection : , , , , ... RCS 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 

message: Is football really the most popular sport in the EU or is this one of those myths that "everyone" erroneously "knows" to be true? In connection with the Tour de France (and the enormous numbers of spectators in Britain and France), a TV commentator claimed that cycling was in fact much more popular than football. So I tried to find evidence. If football really is that popular, it shouldn't be difficult to cite a source. As regards participation, I found data suggesting that football is not one of the two most popular sports in Austria, the UK or France; so it doesn't look open-and-shut (i.e. it requires a reference). In the process, I also came across statements suggesting that "a significant proportion" of health gains from sport "are lost due to sports injuries", caused by "popular sporting activities with a high injury risk like soccer . . .". In fact much of the EU interest in sport seems to revolve around sports injuries. --Boson 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim should be backed by references, you are right. But! My common knowledge tells me 3 things : Football professionals are the highest paid team sports athletes in EU countries. Football matches nationally and even more internationally draw the highest number of spectators in stadiums and on TV all year round. Organized amateur football can claim the highest number of members in various EU countries. Lear 21 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an idea on how to work around the problem, and to sort out some of the other conflicts between us. I have to find material first though but I'll be trying to deal with languages, religion, sport and education. I'll say when I'm done and we can discuss if it satisfies everyones designs. Meanwhile, I'd like to ask you to look at the remaing areas of conflict between us, and see if you can come up with a solution to our disagreement. As you can see above I am not alone in my view of your edits but I do not wish to see an end to them, just for your to work with the rest of us. I hope to see you ideas shortly. - J Logan t: 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular sports?  

message: Okay, I will explain what I've done just now and why.
*Under Sports, if you insist on a section and an image, then I'm making it more relevant and citable. Mentions of football are now in connection to how it has been used by the EU. Same strategy I used on culture. Connected picture is now of the pitch used for the game mentioned in the text. I've also tied in the Olympics information better.
*Religion and Languages, if you insist on having them as demographics sub-section, then I've stripped them down to demographic information. Details on official language usage etc. is talked about on the Languages of the EU page (or should be, I've copied the removed para to the talk page there just in case). As for Religion, I've created a Religion in the European Union page for information on the EU and religion, information left is about religions and belief (demographics).
*Education, the uni picture is pointless, but as you won't leave a section without one I got one I could tie into the text. In the text there is a tad more on Erasmus and a mention that it was made into a film. Hence the movie poster is up. Although I'm unsure if the fair use covers it. 
**If it doesn't and can't be changed to do so, perhaps someone has a shot of the film we can use? I was hoping to get something of real Erasmus students. However unless there is something meaning full it would probably be of students drinking. An alternative might be to have the Erasmus student charter up maybe? As that would show the rights of a student under the programme.
Now, I've moved for you, can you also do something? I'm sure you haven't been able to miss the problems that have been mentioned? - J Logan t: 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems to be fine for now. Lear 21 17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coming back from holiday. Most problems seem to have been solved satisfactory. I think the sections on culture and sports is acceptable in its new incarnation, as it is much clearer on the EU-Europe distinctions and is now decently sourced. I have no major problems as it is, although I would support removing of the Reform treaty image, which is mainly a stack of photocopies; but that is a detail. Arnoutf 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said that there is some movement in the major issues, a new thorough copyedit is needed before applying for GA status again. I see two possibilities here. (1) I will go through again and remove unsourced/original research things, or (2) I will write a review as I would for a submitted scientific paper (I have experience with this as I am a regular reviewer of several scientific journals). Then it is up to others to answer to my comments. For both options however I want the agreement from both Lear 21, and J Logan, (and others) that my work will be appreciated; i.e. if you don't agree, only change it with a decent (neutral and objective) argumentation on this talk page. If I cannot get that agreement any more work will be pointless and a waste of my time. Arnoutf 11:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok I agree, have not followed all as I was away for 2 weeks, At least the new sections need to be read carefully read. Will do that soon. Arnoutf 13:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: On your comment he represents the single market, actualy the Commissioner for the Internal Market does that - hence the name - so who do you want?! And I don't see how you think Mandelson better represents the Community that Barroso - Barroso is the President! And he actualy has a lot of control over the others now. - J Logan t: 16:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 1. How dare you use such tones as "Stop your nonsense!"  I've tried damn hard to accomodate you of late and all you've done is throw it back. And you reverted my other changes without even giving an explination. You attitude here has been appauling, I had hoped that you might have learnt a little humanity at some point or at least taken my desire to resolve this to heart and made an effort yourself but I see I give you too much credit. - J Logan t: 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 2. On the points. I doubt a picture of the External Trade Commissioner is "crucial" to understand the EU, but I am willing to accpe the fact you want him in there. However he ought to be in the proper place, which if foreign policy. Barroso is the President of the Commission and hence has central importance to the Community over any indivudual Commissioner (who represents but one area and is subject to the Presidents authority). And incidentaly Mandelson is mentioned under FP nut not EC - logic would dictate that he should be illustration the part that mentions him. - J Logan t: 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, idea. What if we hived off and expanded the ESDP para into its own section? Mandelson would be in FP but the peacekeeping image would also stay with the expanded Military section. - J Logan t: 16:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the issue that the EU as a body has a representative at WTO (next to each member) is (mildly) interesting, and is duly treated in the text. The actual 'puppet' (ie person) being that representative is much less interesting (IMHO). In general I think the politics part of the article is a bit overendowed with images of politicians; of course all 27 commisionars are important (ie Neelie Kroes has been fining several cartels for hundreds of millions of Euros), but nobody proposes to put them all up. Arnoutf 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well exactly, Competition is a major area that has had a huge affect on the whole world, just look at the GE-Honeywell case. I don't quite understand why Mandelson is being singled out with such vigour. - J Logan t: 09:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point, although I'm not convinced by Mandelson's power. Still, I'm fine with him there (In the FP section) and it is a contrast to having just another FP spokesperson I suppose. There may still be a better image around though that we haven't come up with yet so lets not treat is as gospel. - J Logan t: 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Work, cooperation

message: Okay, still trying to accomodate but I don't quite understand why you want to have Mandelson up so much. Yes he represents a major area but foreign affairs is centred on JS and BFW, not Mandelson. It is just like a Minister negotiation at a conference because that is his area, nothing more than that. But if you really want to have him up, then okay in the FP section but more than two images is a bit much. So is it Mandelson or the peacekeepers? Or are you, just once, going to try to find a compromise on this yourself?
And your move of Barroso to Institutions I think made things worse, he ought to be under Community I reckon and Mandelson under FP. As for the images in Institutions, perhaps we are concentrating too much on the buldings there though. I'll have a look for alternatives on that one. - J Logan t: 14:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On your comment he represents the single market, actualy the Commissioner for the Internal Market does that - hence the name - so who do you want?! And I don't see how you think Mandelson better represents the Community that Barroso - Barroso is the President! And he actualy has a lot of control over the others now. - J Logan t: 16:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 1. How dare you use such tones as "Stop your nonsense!"  I've tried damn hard to accomodate you of late and all you've done is throw it back. And you reverted my other changes without even giving an explination. You attitude here has been appauling, I had hoped that you might have learnt a little humanity at some point or at least taken my desire to resolve this to heart and made an effort yourself but I see I give you too much credit. - J Logan t: 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 2. On the points. I doubt a picture of the External Trade Commissioner is "crucial" to understand the EU, but I am willing to accpe the fact you want him in there. However he ought to be in the proper place, which if foreign policy. Barroso is the President of the Commission and hence has central importance to the Community over any indivudual Commissioner (who represents but one area and is subject to the Presidents authority). And incidentaly Mandelson is mentioned under FP nut not EC - logic would dictate that he should be illustration the part that mentions him. - J Logan t: 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, idea. What if we hived off and expanded the ESDP para into its own section? Mandelson would be in FP but the peacekeeping image would also stay with the expanded Military section. - J Logan t: 16:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the issue that the EU as a body has a representative at WTO (next to each member) is (mildly) interesting, and is duly treated in the text. The actual 'puppet' (ie person) being that representative is much less interesting (IMHO). In general I think the politics part of the article is a bit overendowed with images of politicians; of course all 27 commisionars are important (ie Neelie Kroes has been fining several cartels for hundreds of millions of Euros), but nobody proposes to put them all up. Arnoutf 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well exactly, Competition is a major area that has had a huge affect on the whole world, just look at the GE-Honeywell case. I don't quite understand why Mandelson is being singled out with such vigour. - J Logan t: 09:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point, although I'm not convinced by Mandelson's power. Still, I'm fine with him there (In the FP section) and it is a contrast to having just another FP spokesperson I suppose. There may still be a better image around though that we haven't come up with yet so lets not treat is as gospel. - J Logan t: 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mandelson image