Talk:European Union/Archive 12

message: I think its quite ridicolous when talking about the geography of Europe to use an image of a beach and believe it is somehow representative. I've placed a satellite composite of the European continent which is far more suitable. I've made two reverts, I'll leave it for others to decide. --A.Garnet 13:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both you and Lear21 have a bit of a point here. Although many countries have shores, not all of them have sandy beaches and this is hardly a generic geographical property of the EU. Of course countries like Luxembroug, Austria, the Tsjech republic, etc etc are mountainous countries without sea access. Perhaps a mini gallery with some of the most typical EU geographical landscapes (beaches, mountains, wetlands, dry mediterranean country side, please add more) would be more suited. I agree with Lear21, that the satellite image does not add much over the maps and does not distinguish between EU and Europe. Arnoutf 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not completely agree. The EU is not a country; hence we should be flexible about using so called standard things. Furhtermore the climatic influence is not easy. There are several marine climates in Europe (Northsea, Atlantic, Mediteranean) that are highly different, to say that coastline without any further specification determines climates in the majority of countries is too simple. Hence again, I would say give a mini gallery of 4 typical EU geographical landscapes. PS it is not all that standard. large countries should be considered and here Canada shows both a satellite image and a waterfall, the US shows a dormant volcano, Russia shows a snowed mountain peak AND a pine forest, China shows a precipitation map and no photo, India shows a topographic map showing elevation, and Australia shows a climate map. Hardly a standard feature I would say.....Arnoutf 09:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, that is a fair enough argument, will see how the text develops and come back to this later. Arnoutf 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geograhpy 

message: It is almost mirroring this article and could be used for expansion .  Lear 21 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Magazine article about EU 

message: This is set up wrong, with my Firefox and Opera browsers the table covers up half the article. It needs to be fixed so it it readable. I don't know how to do it or otherwise I would
4.142.180.158 07:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table next to population of city stats

message: This section is the result of a difficult compromise. Any change to this section is not minor, and needs a very, very good edit summary, or better an argument here, or even better consensus here. Any other edits will be reverted. Arnoutf 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest Cities

message: Hi, I don't know if anyone else has found this but to me, despite the content being good, the ordering of the page seems a bit haphazard. I figure we could re-order a few things and prioritise things better. For example the pillars seem to have an undue amount of attention and such detailed information on the political workings should be kept on the politics page. The huge amount of detail on candidate countries could be slimmed down to talking generally about expansion. In addition, some areas seem unnecessarily split, for example; religion is also a matter of culture, environment is also a matter of geography, the CFSP is a also a matter of foreign relations. And so on. Here is a quick list I drew up of a possible way to organise it. Any thoughts?
 1. Geography1.1 Environment2. History3. Member states3.1 Enlargement4. Politics and Government4.1 Institutions and bodies4.2 Treaties4.3 Three Pillars4.4 Foreign Relations4.5 Law5. Economy5.1 The euro5.2 Infrastructure5.3 Development6 Culture and Demographics6.1 Languages6.2 Religion6.3 Sport6.4 Largest cities7.1 Education and Science7.2 Exchange programs7.3 Technology Institute7.4 Space policy8. Footnotes9. References10. See also11. External links
-JLogan 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an interesting idea. There is however some consensus that EU should be modelled as a country following the ideas in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries I am not sure how you proposed structure goes against that; just something to throw into the discussion at an early stage. Arnoutf 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've taken that into account and reordered things a bit;
 1. History2. Politics and Government2.1 Institutions and bodies2.2 Structure --Treaties & Three Pillars--2.3 Foreign Relations2.4 Law3. Member states3.1 Enlargement4. Geography4.1 Environment4.2 Schengen5. Economy5.1 The euro5.2 Infrastructure5.3 Agriculture and Development --CAP / eu grants to poorest areas--5.4 Education & Science --Erasmus, Technology Institute etc. / Space Policy - Galileo--6 Demographics --primarily stats--6.1 Languages6.2 Religion6.4 Largest cities7. Culture --Actually talk about European culture--7.1 Cultural Capital7.2 Sport
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JLogan (talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering 

message: I know that there have been edit wars and vandalism around this issue before, but it's a matter of course that numbers in the EU infobox considers the EU "as a single unity". Before, there was a "if ranked" footnote instead. If the EU isn't ranked/considered as an ordinary country in another wikipedia article is totally irrelevant for this article. Let's get rid of this stupid compromise, and improve the infobox. +It looks better. S. Solberg J. 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, the EU is not ranked in that article. Its listed on an unranked line just as "World" is. That said I don't see how your suggestion will improve anything. In all likelihood, the edit war is probably going to start again. Gdo01 18:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the comment by Lear 21. However, note that the "considered as single entity" is essential. Arnoutf 12:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox footnotes - If ranked? If considered as a single unity? 

message: I have strong reason to beleive that User:Andrew16 is User:Daniel_Chiswick sockpuppet:
*Both users state to be 16
*Both users edit the same articles, w/ the same outlook
*Both users seem to be patriotic
*Both users give California as a place of residence/origin
*Both users agree with each other on this talk page
*User:Andrew16 is a brand new account opened just one day after User:Daniel_Chiswick got blocked for two weeks.
The only difference is that User:Andrew16 gives SF as a place of residence/origin rather than LA. Something that he/she might have done to throw off supicious editors. The above are simply too many conicidences for me- The same agenda, the same type of edits, the same age with one account being opened just one day after the other got blocked. I have voiced my concern on the appropriate notice board as well. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied from Talk:Superpower#Possible_Sockpuppet.3F Gdo01 06:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Sockpuppet?

message: Basketball is hugely popular in Greece,Lithuania,Italy,Spain,Slovenia and enjoys varying levels of popularity in France,Germany,Latvia and elsewhere. Mentioning field hockey as popular and omitting basketball seems arbitrary. Please add basketball to the list,without it mentioned it is incomplete, plain and simple.XVA 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording of these example sports are chosen carefully. They never indicate the listed sports are exhaustive (ie complete). Hence (perceived) incompleteness is not an issue (plain and simple).Arnoutf 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that if an incomplete list is given some arbitrary choices have to be made one way or another. I would agree to put up the list of most commonly played sports in Europe if reliable references are provided (this was discussed before, but nobody have provided any). However without good souces we could as well repace field hockey with Golf, Bull-fighting, Carting, Athletics, Rowing, Sailing, Swimming, Marathon, Chess, Bridge, Checkers, Darts, Pool, Snooker, Skiing, Figure Skating etc etc etc. Without some good report about the most popular sports of Europe to serve as reference, your demand to add basketball is just as arbitrary as adding any of these.  Arnoutf 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports Section

message: The map in the "Member States" section is incorrect. It shows the Turkish Bosphorus in EU Member State Blue, while the rest of Turkey is the correct green as a candidate country. I'd correct it myself, but I've got no time or graphics editing skills, so could some-one fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JavaJawaUK (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member States 

message: I suggest "in varietate concordia" be seperated from the European symbols article. --WoodElf 09:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles 

message: I am a retired European Union official and the editor of 'http://www.europedia.moussis.eu/ ', a free, non-advertised based website that endeavours to explain the policies of the European Union institutions from a purely technical and legal point of view. Although Europedia is originally based on a book that is widely considered as a scholarly (encyclopaedic) reference on European Union policies, the website is considerably more up to date and is free to access by anyone. It permits direct links to the European legislation EUR-lex site and to hundreds of other sites of European and international institutions and organisations. As a specialist site on the European Union it can be of much use to Wikipedia readers, who want to learn more on subjects of their interest. Europedia links to many Wikipedia articles, which I consider worthwhile and I intend to place the Wikipedia url in the links of my homepage. For all these reasons I request that you allow me to place the Europedia url in the external links of some Wikipedia articles. 
Best regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.60.140 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link to Europedia 

message: I was looking up some stuff about the United Kingdom, when I found out a bit about the upcoming Scottish elections. Apparently, the Scottish National Party's leader, Mr Salmond, has detailed plans that state that within 100 days of taking office, an SNP led Executive will issue a bill timetabling a referendum, proposing that the Scottish Executive enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom Government in order to repeal the Acts of Union 1707, thereby returning Scotland to its ancient status as an independent and sovereign state. It is proposed that such a referendum will be put to the Scottish electorate towards the end of the parliamentary session in 2010. Now, if this occurs, will Scotland remain a part of the European Union, or will they have to arrange for their own accession and membership into the European Union? Would they even want to become members? CeeWhy2 05:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: to be honest, I have no idea. I think many Scots won't either. I would suggest to just "wait and see" and deal with the issue when it becomes reality. Arnoutf 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure what the implications of this will be on Scotland's position in the EU, but I do know that the SNP is advocating "independence within Europe". In this way, I believe that most Scots would want to remain members of the EU. Also, considering that their legal base already includes all compatible EU laws and the like, I don't think they'll have to re-apply and go through accession negotiations. It would be interesting if it doesn't happen, since we've never had a country split up within the EU before (though we have had East Germany joining the EU by virtue of reunification, without having to go through a formal accession process). Ronline ✉ 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have seen Greenland becoming under a home rule type of relation with Denmark AND leaving the EU in 1979. Arnoutf 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that's because Greenland specifically voted to leave the EU. In a technical sesne, home rule and leaving the EU weren't part of the same process. I'm not even sure if the EU has a process for this sort of thing. The European Constitution did have a clause dealing with leaving the EU, but not with what happens when a state already within the EU splits up (well, produces a new sovereign entity). In any case, even if it is put up to a referendum I find it hard to believe that Scotland will vote to leave the EU, when it's (SNP) models for independence are "small countries who have prospered from accession", such as Ireland and Estonia. It would be a really interesting thing to see, actually. Not to mention the huge historic significance of the United Kingdom no longer including Scotland. Ronline ✉ 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For those interested in this topic: there's an article about this very issue at Open Europe. According to the article, it seems that the EU has no mechanism for this sort of process. Consequently, when Scotland becomes independent - when it splits off from an existing EU state - it will also automatically renounce EU membership. Then, according to the EU Commission, the new state would have to negotiate its EU entry (even though this may be more of a ceremonial process since its laws will virtually all be EU-compatible). Interesting and topical stuff, since I'm presuming that it's not only Scotland where independentism is flourishing (but also the Basque Country, Catalonia, perhaps Wales, etc). Ronline ✉ 11:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And of course the possibility that Belgium will fall apart into Flanders and Wallonia.Arnoutf 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, now I guess that would open up an even greater can of worms, because it will be very hard to determine a successor state. If Flanders splits from Belgium, I find it hard to believe that Brussels and Wallonia will either 1) hold together, or 2) call themselves "Belgium". So I guess both of them may end up losing EU membership. And then what of the fact that Brussels is the capital of the EU? Of course, I believe that at the end of the day, despite popul(ar/ist) support, politicians will be very wary of actually carrying out independence. I'm not sure though, since it did happen in Montenegro. Ronline ✉ 11:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said before, let's deal with it if it happends (which may be never). As long as nothing happens, just leave it be. Arnoutf 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When Montenegro gained independence from Serbia, Serbia was the heir to all the organizations of Serbia-Montenegro but Montenegro had to apply separately to become a member of the organizations again. Thus I believe the same will happen with Scotland, and they will have to re-apply for EU membership, and indeed membership to all organizations of which the UK is a part.--Waterfall999 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: With Algeria, I suspect that it didn't want to remain in the EEC. As for Scottish independence (or, in point of fact, exchanging membership of one union, the UK, with another, the EU), all of these negotiations would no doubt be conducted before it was granted independence. I also find it very doubtful that all those voters voting for the SNP are doing so because they want independence, which is why a referendum will also have to be held. If the referendum duly returns a "yes" vote, I wonder if there will be provision for another referendum, say ten years later, for the Scots to change their mind and want back in? And furthermore, since the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland is of largely Scottish descent, will an independent Scotland be talking Northern Ireland with it? TharkunColl 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also remember that the 1962 EEC (as well as the 1984 EEC when Greenland left), were much less formalised compared to the current EU. Also the issue with Scotland maybe whether Scotland as a new entity is allowed to stay in/ become member of the EU, rather than being allowed to leave. As far as I know N Ireland is connected to England rather than Scotland; anyway Scottish parliament has no say over N Ireland, hence this point seems moot (would be a bit like the  city of Boston becoming part of the Republic of Ireland when that became its own nation). Again let's just take this case as it evolves. Even with the nationalist victory tomorrow, the referendum is suggest only in 3 years time, a lot may happen before we have to deal with this. Arnoutf 18:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When Algeria split off from France, it automatically left the EU - the EU treaties no longer applied to it because they were signed by the state of France, which Algeria no longer belonged to. The same will happen to Scotland, which will not figure as state-party to the EU's core treaties. It will have to ratify these treaties once again, and this may involve negotiations with existing member states. All in all, a rather difficult process, even though it could be streamlined in the case of Scotland. The Northern Ireland case is rather different, considering the significant Irish minority. I don't see any real chance of Northern Ireland becoming independent - Ulster nationalism has never been a particularly significant force in NI politics. Indirectly, however, I believe that the independence of Scotland will lead to real questions being posed as to the viability of the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If we take NI out of the equation, I believe we may very well see a federation being formed between England and Wales, similar to Serbia and Montenegro. Of course, one possible way to implement a stronger form of autonomy for Scotland, short of independence, would be through a federal structure, where the UK is divided constitutionally into four federal subjects with broad autonomy over their own affairs. Ronline ✉ 07:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think even though many Scots may be independence-minded in polls, when it would actually come down to a real referendum and pragmatic thinking about real consequences, much fewer people will vote for independence. I think that in a way the SNP may just be using the independence argument as a means of campaigning for greater devolution. Ronline ✉ 07:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On this, 1) hasn't happened yet 2) SNP need coalition with parties willing to support a poll. 3) They need to win a poll. In the event that all happens the talks would take ages to complete given the complicated constitutional problems and hostility to the idea from London. Although possible it will take ages. If it does the Commission has said it would need to apply as a new member state, only the rest of Britain would inherit membership, and all its opt outs, however as a current member it would not be as drawn out with it being sorted very quickly (but treaties on them joining and allocation of seats, plus an obligatory French referendum, would take longer). I doubt however that Scotland would want to be out of the EU for even a second as independence depends on the UK and EU so membership talks would take place before independence is declared so both events happen at the same time. But all this is mute until we know the future of the Scottish Executive. -JLogan 11:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My repeated point exactly (let's wait and see). Arnoutf 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Now I have no professional knowledge of this issue, but is there any precedent for the fact that the entire population of the EU is its electorate directly? Surely if the people of Scotland voted directly for the EU leadership - which they did - they are independently entitled to membership? This line of reasoning might be worth looking up. Sojourner001 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I fully agree, and as no member country has split up within the EU (note that all previous example like Algeria are from the era of EEC not the EU) I think even the paragraph what would happen is (for now irrelevant). Let's not crystalball, once something happens we will be fast enough in our response to follow the unfolding story. (in this light I have taken out the sentence from the article)Arnoutf 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland? 

message: I think this needs amending per WP:CRYSTAL. Personally, I would argue for removal, but I suppose one could replace it with a section on the speculation about what might or might not happen (legally, politically, economically)  if existing member countries, such as the UK, split up.--Boson 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree, and as no member country has split up within the EU (note that all previous example like Algeria are from the era of EEC not the EU) I think even the paragraph what would happen is (for now irrelevant). Let's not crystalball, once something happens we will be fast enough in our response to follow the unfolding story. (in this light I have taken out the sentence from the article)Arnoutf 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An independent [[Scotland]] would also apply for EU accession (?)

message: It is a bit long. Perhaps if the bulk of the politics section, such as the subtitle areas like the pillars, be moved to the Politics page? -JLogan 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is of rather short length compared to USA, UK, Germany. The politics section seems large but is still the most important content within the EU article. Lear 21 10:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Germany has about the same lenght (80-Germ vs. 77-EU) and is the only Featured Article among the three. The EU is complex so the article will be long; nevertheless some attention to the length is warranted as all articles tend to grow uncontrollably if the issue of lenght is not raised once in a while. Arnoutf 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: It is my impression the EU wants to supress just how close the EEA-countries are to a real membership in the EU. So do the EFTA-members of the EEAs politicians. Should this go better into the article? I mean, my impression is, the three EEA-members not being in the EU, are just second-rate members of the EU, and nothing else. I know the rule about original research, but surely, this obvious thing must have been noted by others than me? Greswik 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems a bit weird. Norway had the opportunity to become full member of EU; but Norway declined mainly because of EU fishery and whaling policies. Being EEA member means you can have some of the agreements especially in relation to trade, goods, services and people without having all the obligations (such as the forementioned fisheries) or the benefits (all kind of subsidies, e.g. for agriculture). IMHO it is more the choice of the non-EU EEA members not to join, than the choice of the EU to set them apart. So obviously the EU wants to stress the similarity (because of good neighbourship relations); but they are definitely apart. Ãll togehter I am not sure what addition you practically suggest Arnoutf 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ouch! First time _ever_ anyone has managed to make me regrett I voted "yes". Kudos. But this is not a place to discuss politics. If no-one sees my point of the EEA treaty being a second class membership, it's no use discussing it. Greswik 08:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is second class membership, although I wouldn't use that term. Associate member might be closer but I think that is more Turkey. I think the word for it is actually satellite state, or something along those lines at least. Considering how close EEA members are, esp. through the fax democracy, I think they do deserve a bigger mention. They are tied to the EU economically, and politically. They even get involved in the CFSP as their gov't seem so egar to join. But perhaps it is not something to mention here, it is already very long. European Union member state perhaps? A brief section on those closely tied to the EU and/or trying to join. But defiantly the EEA, members without representation. That's what I think of it all at least. Shouldn't be to hard to find some articles to base it on, if not, there are enough facts around to just talk about the relationship. - J Logan t/c: 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[European Economic Area]] and the European union 

message: :Image:Eurocoin 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Eurocoin 1.jpg

message: The image of London used in the Demographics-Largest Cities subsection has changed a number of times recently between these two images:  . 
It needs to be agreed upon which image to use; personally the left image is quite dark and not recognisable as London, so I would opt for using the image on the right, with St Paul's and 30 St Mary Axe ('the gherkin') in it. Rossenglish 08:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The night is unacceptable bad quality. Lear 21 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, the night may be everything including a chemical plant. Prefer the day-time image Arnoutf 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London image in Largest Cities subsection 

message: This image was added recently to the demographics section.
Although I agree the fall of the Berlin wall / Iron curtain was essential for the growth of the EU, I would place this image under the heading Enlargement of EU, rather than under Demographics; as the image and text in themselves have no direct relation with the demographics. Arnoutf 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently added image Fall of Wall 

message: Are these vandalism?  
And the text "HOTTIE by Germany (Angela Merkel, Chancellor)" under one of the images looks strange. (Stefan2 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first example is blatant vandalism, the second maybe a Good Faith edit, although I would tend to revert as well. HOTTIE by Germany is also clear vandalism. Arnoutf 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential vandalism? 

message: May be a bit much, but what do people think about using the South African method of displaying country names in the infobox? - J Logan t/c: 11:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information is already there within the footnote. I think the SA option may indeed a bit be over the top. Arnoutf 11:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU names in languages 

message: The References to this article have recently been formatted inside a fixed height scrollbox. The associated :template:scrollref is relatively new. What do you guys think about this template being implemented on the EU site (please discuss here)  or about the template in general (please discuss at its talkpage).
My personal opinion is that as the references are at the back of the article a lengthy list is no problem for legibility of the body text. Hiding part of the list through application of this scrollbox obscures first glance assessment of the sources. Therefore I am against implementing this template Arnoutf 13:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scroll ref

message: ...is there a "1" next to the words "European Union" in the infobox? It's not linked to anywhere explaining its presence. --Islomaniac 973 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to the footnote at the bottom of the infobox Arnoutf 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why...