Talk:Council of Europe

message: FYROM,the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,as Republic of Macedonia is fabrik for forgery Greek history,Greek culture,Greek geography and Greek symbols Macedonians!See Greek Macedonian symbol "Vergina Sun",Philip II king of Macedonia and Alexander the Great king of Macedonia !!! Vergina 19:43, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I still fail to see how "F.Y.R.O. Macedonia" fails to meet your standards, while the expanded acronym does -- the difference seems negligible to me. You can impose the conflict in the name to a point, but if you overstate it, you're not doing the readers a favor. Note also that the RoM link is a pipe link, avoiding a needless redirect. --Shallot 20:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: The problem is only with Vergina who seems to believe that we need to display the ridiculously long name and link to the respective redirect. While the former could be explained with accuracy and honoring the dispute, the latter is really pointless. --Shallot 18:07, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I see no problem with the long name if that is the name under COE. Link should never go to a redirect; that would be a bit POV - Marshman 19:26, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonia 

message: It has been proposed that uses of terms Macedonia¤, Macedonian¤, and Macedonians¤ in articles mentioning the Republic of Macedonia¤ should be accompanied with the following disclaimer:
: Template about to be deleted per TfD consensus.-Splash 02:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Macedonia¤-related poll 

message: The article itself and the graphic contradict about which observer status the USA and Israel have. Tfine80 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall 4 other nations: Argentina, Chile, Japan and Morocco whom applied for European Union membership but withdrew have signed agreements with the E.U. in 2006 and these countries are on the way to acquire observer status in the E.U. Indeed the 3 nations of the NAFTA treaty: the USA, Canada and Mexico have obtained observer status. I understand clearly on why there's involvement of Israel in the Council of Europe, but they don't include the Palestinian Authority which remains under Israeli occupation is an internationally recognized soveriegn state. Only one observer member, the Holy See or Vatican City consists of an organized religion (the Roman Catholic Church). + 71.102.10.169 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Anon changed:
*
to
* minus Greenland
I do not believe this is the case; indeed, I think the anon is getting the Council of Europe confused with the European Union. I am reverting this change until such time as they provide a source for their assertion. --SJK 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenland 

message: How did Montenegro join in 2004, when it was still part of Serbia and Montenegro? john k 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't, and the article doesn't claim it did, either... Where did you get that impression from? —Nightstallion (?) 10:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegro 

message: I heard that Serbia will be the next Head country of the CE, but I failed to see any mention that there is a leading country in the article at all. --PaxEquilibrium 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Country 

message: Maybe this is a naive question, but I would expect to come away from the article understanding something about  what the Council of Europe actually does - and I don't. Perhaps a summary of its various activities would be more useful than the list of partial agreements and Committees - worthy though these may well be. This reads as though written by someone who knows so much about the Council that these simple references are enough to explain; but to the outsider, they aren't. Raggio 21:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And I don't think your question is naive so much as indicative of the confusing state of affairs in Europe. Seems to me that if they really want to propagate the Union and establish a united entity, they need to rid themselves of some of these competing institutions. Or maybe that's in the works ?76.113.104.88 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the Council actually do? 

message: It is starting to become clear that there are a number of people and/or organisations (mainly of a European nature based in Strasbourg) are writing and editing articles about themselves. I would like to remind them that although new content is welcome, it is against Wikipedia's policy to write about yourself, your company, your organisations, your colleges and so on.
In many cases the information is needed, which is why I haven't made a fuss however some pages are starting to sound like promotional items. If you are such an editor please consider using citations for everything you write if it is direly needed. Otherwise inform others of information and sources via the talk page so an independent editor can write the article. Thank you for your attention. - J Logan t: 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice to editors from organisations in Strasbourg 

message: Following the points above (concerns about editors involved with the organization) and lack of clarity about what the CoE actually does, I have added a section highlighting criticism, after achievements. These criticisms suggest that the Council of Europe at this point does too little. For NPOV, the entry needs to reflect that there such criticism from a number of established and reputable sources. The current information on criticism may be too short still, as there likely are many more concerns out there, from established external sources. (Hundnase (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The map on the right side of the screen is helpful, but the color key is ridiculously small and, for me at least, illegible.  Could someone please duplicate the map in the body of the article where the key might be made bigger? -Laikalynx (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed!  As the font size was calculated at less than 9pt on Mac, 'greeking' was used.  The requirement is thus to adjust it to 9pt or higher.  The 'legend' style is set wiki-wide to 90%.  A previous editor had tried to allow for this by wrapping the legend in a div with font-size 110%. However, 114% was need to get the font to round to 9pt on Mac.  This may behave differently on other operating systems.Ferg2k (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Hi all,
After reviewing the article on the Council, it seems that the potential for confusion with institutions of the European Union is recognised, yet does little to alleviate it.
For instance, the flag of Europe, simultaneously flag of the Council and the EU, is placed before the Council's logo and unproportionately bigger. IMO, this only reinforces common misconceptions.
Would it be possible to amend the placement and scale? CoEComm (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the flag of the Council! Yes its confusing but the situation itself is like that, we can't change reality because its confusing.- J Logan t: 09:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is the flag of the Council. And I am not proposing to remove it completely (I resorted to the maybe slightly rash measure of removing it temporarily (!) to attract attention to the problem). I know that the confusion is inherent in the emblems of the Council. Therefore it shouldn't be made worse by having the flag first and much larger than the logo, which was specifically designed and adopted to counteract the confusion. All I would like is for the presentation to be as unambiguous as possible, especially since the infobox is the first thing readers look at. Can the placement and the size of the flag be changed?CoEComm (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is people read the article. We shouldn't change a standard used throughout wikipedia being people can't be arsed to read the first line of the article - or indeed the title. By changing the infobox standard it would only create confusion rather than get rid of it - standards are there for a reason. If people confuse the Council of Europe with the European Union because of one image then they should stick to reading the Simple English Wikipedia so its spelled out nice and clear.- J Logan t: 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a reductive view of Wikipedia readers was certainly not the motivation. The general observation still stands, however, the current arrangement taints the overall quality of the article. Well short of changing standards of the template all over Wikipedia, it should be possible to find a specific solution to this article, especially since only minor changes would lead to visible improvement.  CoEComm (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How does factual accuracy taint the quality of the article?? Sorry, but if it is confusing then perhaps it is the Council of Europe's fault for inviting the EU to adopt it and sticking with the same flag. Any confusion with the EU is merely a reflection of the reality and it is not Wikipedia's job to change reality. What I will alter the line at the top to make it clearer that there is no connection. If they fail to read that then I really have no sympathy for them.- J.Logan(t): 10:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential for unnecessary confusion: position of flag and logo in infobox 

message: According to the Accession of Turkey to the European Union, Turkey was actually one of the earliest members of Council of Europe, but based on my reading that article, the membership ended due to a coup. Shouldn't stuff like this (on former members) be included in the article? --Voidvector (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: Please see link from CoE site:
--Avg (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We should refer to it on this article as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" then Ijanderson (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, no, we shouldn't: this article is us talking about that country, not the Council of Europe talking about it, so we should do what we and common English usage and reliable sources out there do : refer to the country in our own voice, as we always do, using our own standard naming convention for it just like everywhere else. The fact that the organisation has its own naming convention is something that we should mention somewhere, but not something that should dictate our own usage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, why in the case of RoChina-Chinese Taipei-Taiwan, Wikipedia is not doing the same? So, it is inaccurate what you say that this is what we always do. This is not what we always do.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, what are we doing in the Taiwan case? I find it is handled correctly in, for instance, the World Trade Organization article: "the Republic of China (ROC) (commonly known as Taiwan, whose sovereignty has been disputed by the People's Republic of China) acceded to the WTO in 2002 under the name of "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" (Chinese Taipei)." The name Wikipedia itself uses in this sentence is the one we commonly use everywhere, and the one chosen by the organisation in question is mentioned, but not used. That's as it should be. If other articles do it differently, they are wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aha! So, should we also say here "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (commonly known as Macedonia) bla bla"? RoC is not the name commonly used everywhere. This is mentioned in the above excerpt only in parenthesis!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to sharpen your sense of parallelism. With the Taiwan case, there is a three-way naming issue, and only one part of it is comparable to the Macedonia-in-international-organistions one. The double naming scheme of "Republic of China" + "Taiwan" is a cludge because in that case there's a divergence between the self-defined official name (R.o.C.) and the common English name (Taiwan), so the compromise has been to use them both. Whether that's the best solution for that part of the problem is immaterial here, because the Macedonia case doesn't have such a problem: "Macedonia" is both common English and self-defining/official. What is comparable and relevant to the present case is the treatment of the third name, the one chosen in the international organisation in question: "Chinese Taipei" logically corresponds to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The parallel is that this domain-specific external appellation gets mentioned, but not used in our own voice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: And I am afraid you did half-reaserch. If you go here. you'll see that in the table it is "Chinese Taipei". Are you going to turn it into "Taiwan"? Or what then?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that article, too, the first mention in the text itself is the full description along the correct schema: the Republic of China (Taiwan), which acceded to the WTO in 2002, and carefully crafted its application by joining under the name "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei)". I have no strong opinion about the table, but personally I guess I would prefer some bracketed or footnoted solution there too. But I have no intention of editing Taiwan-related issues. China is another mess; let's get our corner of Wikipedia tidied up first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Fut. In China case you have a formula for int. organizations where certain special naming conventions are implemented and respected, and which could be a guide for us here as well. After all, the relevant bibliography (do some book-googling), when it is about int. organizations, it is not standardized towards "Macedonia"; "FYROM" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are broadly used, and the instances of using "Macedonia" or "RoM" alone is not the majority. And this is something I realized doing my research when adding references to the "Macedonia (terminology)" article. So, even per your MOSMAC 3 the uniform use of "Macedonia" or "RoM", the solution you want to impose here rejecting any other view on the issue, is not the most appropriate. By restricting the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in a mere footnote I am afraid you are pushing a POV solution.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  We may or may not have a "formula for int. organizations" in the China case, I wouldn't know about that, but if we have one and those articles are showing it, it isn't the formula you are pressing for in the M. case. What you want here is analogous to using plain "Chinese Taipei" throughout there, and one thing is certain: that's what we are not doing. As for usage in reliable sources, I would accept a special convention only if there was a clear majority of sources following such a special convention, including popular sources such as news media, and I'm not seeing that anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You tend to forget that you are also pushing for a formula of yourself where any "former Yugoslav R|epublic of Macedonia" is pushed into the "vestiary", and only the "Macedonia" is "visible"! This is not acceptable as well! I did not say a clear majority. I said that a simple google booking reveals that the "FYROM" term is not banished as you would like it. To the contrary, it is broadly used. By the way, "reliable English-language sources" (quoted from your MOSMAC 3) does not mean only news media. There is a whole bibliography on this issue which cannot be ignored. Therefore, ablishing "FYROM" where it is used as you systematically do in all int. orgs article is also what we are not doing. Regards.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never denied that some sources use "f.Y.R.". But we must still settle for a single name to be our standard name throughout, and that is  M. or R.o.M., and the only reason we should be introducing domain-specific exceptions is if the sourcing in that domain has overwhelmingly a different convention from ours. And I never said we should make "f.Y.R." invisible – to the contrary, we should of course mention it in an article like this one, but mention it as part of what we are reporting, not use it as if it was our own preferred name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: *So, what is your opinion in our case? Does Fut.Perf.'s position cover you?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: **Not entirely. We should mention that the CoE uses "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as a provisional reference - and even the "The" nonsense, to explain the alphabetical order; but we should call the country Macedonia; no sane reader will suppose that the Greek region is one of the "47 member states". If it were necessary to disambiguate, the route in text is "the Republic of Macedonia.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoE refers to FYROM as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" 

message: It seems there are two maps showing the member states according to when they joined. The map at the top of the page shows Norway and Sweden in light green, which according to the key means they joined subsequently. However, the text and another map further down the page imply that they were amongst the founder states. Jammy07 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory maps 

message: According to Jean-Louis Laurens, Director General of Democracy and Political Affairs at the Council of Europe EMNI; Kosovo can become a member of the CoE if Kosovo achieves 2/3 of a vote and Kosovo already has 2/3 recognition in the CoE.  Is this worth a mention? Ijanderson (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosovo again

message: We've seen another flurry of anonymous edits to this page, presumably from Council of Europe hacks. What induces them to redraw the boundaries of Europe to include Kazakhstan? Annettelucy (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since its founding with Turkey its always been recognised as including Eurasia. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Asia and Europe

message: Can we get a reference that they're considered 'founding states'? Though it's very probable, I would still like to see a cite. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greece+Turkey 

message: The dates the members joined are not sorted. McLerristarr (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member table 

message: The flag shown for the Council of Europe is the same flag as is shown on the European Union Wikipedia page. Surely that can't be right?
I have to confess that until today I did not realise that the Council of Europe was a separate organisation from the EU and that previously, when I have heard it mentioned in relation to some decision or pronouncement, I had believed that the item was EU business. I suspect that there are many people like me who have confused the two organisations, and who, as a consequence, give more credit to Council of Europe pronouncements than they might otherwise deserve.
Maybe there could be more emphasis in the article on the difference between the two organisations, the areas of authority, and their powers.
81.187.233.172
:I've added a note on the distinction between the two and on the flag, they share the "symbols of Europe", first developed by the CoE then adopted by the EU as they both pursue a European identity. See Flag of Europe for details.- J.Logan`t: 16:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong flag? Failure to emphasise the separation between the Council of Europe and European Union 

message: Could we have a list anything that's ever been done by this group.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look at the appropriate section? --Boson (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The European Convention on Human Rights is mentioned, as are the other 200 conventions. Should we mention the number of judgments or applications processed by the European Court of Human Rights? --Boson (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achievements 

message: This should be a relatively big story but it isn't yet, presumably because no action has been taken yet and the outlining of what will be cut where is still not very clear; however it seems that the CoE will shrink no matter how. Apart from L'Alsace, the only other newspaper having reported on that story that I found are the Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace , i. e. for now it's only papers from, or from close to, Strasbourg.--Insert coins (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the reason it isn't being reported is because no one will notice. And it is perhaps overshadowed by the massive national cuts which everyone will notice.- J.Logan`t: 11:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: And on the note in the article that it will hurt Strasbourg as 2,321 people are employed by the CoE. Well not all the 2,321 people will be laid off, most of th einflux of money comes from the PA members and other people who are not salaried but bring in money to restaurants and hotels. And of course there are over 270 thousand people in Strasbourg. Even if they cut half the CoE workforce that is a little over a thousand people - yes there are families but I don't even think the impact of such a loss would be "notable", especially given the job losses across the whole of Europe from the recession.- J.Logan`t: 11:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The choice of words was the journalist's, not mine. Or, more exactly, I paraphrased half-sentences like L’économie alsacienne touchée, Une perspective peu réjouissante pour l’économie strasbourgeoise. Okey, maybe I over-dramatized my paraphrase, but the tone of the article is gloomy. The interesting question also is: if the CoE closes some of its foreign offices, how will it supervise the application of the Human Rights Convention in those countries? Wasn't the whole purpose of the CoE to ensure a constant supervision of the enforcement of human rights laws? --Insert coins (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of Europe to perform significant cuts in its activities because of persistent budget shortages 

message: I've added  to the article because this tool shows that an IP registered to the CoE has made the most edits to the article of anyone. A quick read shows large amounts of unsourced information and a lot is a copyvio. Help in reviewing this would be appreciated. Smartse (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any major problems of bias or copyright now, so I assume that any such issues there may have been in 2010 have been resolved. If any remain, they should be flagged individually.  --Boson (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: I removed Kosovo from the list in the section "co-operations with non-members" - it is based on the lists here, where Kosovo is not mentioned. When/if Kosovo applies for some status at CoE (member/observer) it will be mentioned in the members/applicants/observers section, when/if Kosovo is invited to sign/accede to some convention/protocol/other instrument - then it will be mentioned in the co-operations section. In the meantime - we could add a new section "European non-member states", but this is already covered somehow by the "Council of Europe now includes all European states except ..." in the history section. Alinor (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-operations with non-members section 

message: The man was not in any way, shape or form planning things like a "Council of Europe" or a "United States of Europe" in the form(s) they have taken. Therefore, the current institutions have nothing to do with him. As Churchill said about his ideas as put forth by him:Since neither the CofE nor the EU were built by the English, the reference is isolated and purely incidental.
71.173.11.117 (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt if the founders of the United States of America thought they would ever have a Black president and nuclear weapons, not to mention gay marriage and the Iraq War. It is in the nature of history that things turn out differently. Churchill's participation and speeches (e.g. in Strasbourg) make it obvious that his ideas were not incidental. --Boson (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Far from being out of context, Churchill was a key mover of the Council. The broadcast of 1943 was only the first of a series of advocacies. Considering who he was in the world of that time I regard the criticism of this section, rather than Churchill, as of little relevance. It represents the commentator's personal opinion, which we can safely disregard. Here is a website for reference on Churchill's advocacy: . For the other comments on the US government, well, I do not believe WP is for the promulgation of these personal comments. In fact, it seems to me the tags at the top are vastly overrated. I think it is a good article. Unfortunately these tags get on there and seem to stay on for year after year. I don't have time to spend on this article but I think you should be aware the tags may not be a sincere evaluation. Thanks.Branigan 15:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill reference out of context 

message: The article implies that Vatican City has been excluded from membership of the CoE because it is a "theocracy". Firstly, one should question whether "Theocracy" is the best descriptor for the rather unique governmental system of Vatican City. At that article, the lead describes it as an "Ecclesiastical" state or a "Sacerdotal-Monarchical" state. In the infobox, the term "elective theocracy" is given as the final descriptor, but note the modifier.
Secondly and more importantly, is there any evidence or source to support the idea that Vatican City has been excluded from the CoE due to a lack of democratic structures? One wonders how democratic a nation must be when Russia, Armenia, Liechtenstein and Azerbaijan (currently holding the presidency) are all members. I generally don't insist on everything being referenced when the assertion seems likely to be true, but this is not the case here. I doubt the CoE would actually object to Vatican City's constitutional structure. I also suspect that due to the unique nature of Vatican City, it has little need to participate in many international organisations, and relatively few resources to do so. Given these common-sense considerations, I think it's abundantly necessary that this statement be supported by a reference. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The single most important instrument of the Council of Europe is the European Convention on Human Rights. Can you imagine, what would it lead to if the Vatican clergy could sue the Vatican? It is actually the main reason why there are now debates to exit the Convention and Council both in the UK and in Russia - both states which had a multitude rulings against their handling of human rights in the past years. I will get to this in detail on weekend. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Theories are nice, but if they are to be reflected in the text of the article, we need a reference. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican City excluded due to being a theocracy? 

message: The flag of Europe is indeed the official flag of the Council of Europe (CoE). The problem is that, flag of europe are more known for its use by the European Union (EU), as a result, its use in the infobox of the Council of Europe confuse (me, in the past and others, for that reason the CoE has logo with "e") which is not desired by the directive. Good, then, is the flag of europe only exist in a similar conceptual framework within the Council of Europe article (the link of logo within infobox) to avoid confusion and the informations listed smoothly. --IM-yb (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Copyright / {a}, from the official page of CoE. --IM-yb (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

text: See also https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=565003&SecMode=1&DocId=717532&Usage=2 --Boson (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of Europe 

message: Given the string of recent disruptive edits, I would like to emphasize that Council of Europe "flag" and "logo" are two different things - they are both official CoE symbols but serve a different purpose. Although the presence of the flag may cause some to confuse CoE with the EU, the reality is that we cannot purge official CoE symbols from Wikipedia just because it confuses you. The issue with the shared nature of said symbols is more than adequately explained in the very first paragraph and also has its own dedicated section further down the article. I think we can expect our readers to actually, um, read?!--Damianmx (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  And adding the same "clarifing" url 7 times to the lead is not helpful.  TDL (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks for your input. Unfortunately, looks like the user just reversed your edits, like he did countless times before, and now went further by deleting any mention of CoE on the Flag of Europe page. And its with the same copy/paste URL and comments. I'm starting to question this person's mental stability. I already contacted an admin to see what can be done to end this disruption.--Damianmx (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo vs Flag

message: I am amazed that 68 full years after its creation the CoE would still have no rule on how to sack one of its governing members after a vote of non confidence and several calls to resign, but here you go: (about Pedro Agramunt's ill-advised and ill-timed journey to Syria) Ausbügeln kann diesen Fehler nur der Präsident selbst und zwar mit einem Rücktritt, denn über Regeln, ihn des Amtes zu entheben, verfügt der Europarat im Augenblick noch nicht [only the President himself can right this wrong, by resigning, because the Council of Europe doesn't have, for the moment, any rule about relieving him of his duties], Deutschlandfunk, 27 June 2017.--Edelseider (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nothing is going in the wrong direction with the assembly as such" says "...the chairman of the United Left, the Dutchman Tiny Kox". With a name like that he is ideal for investigating COE corruption. :) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing rules on governing persons 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Council of Europe. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.mipim.com/App/homepage.cfm?appname=100517&moduleid=288&campaignid=11888&iUserCampaignID=43827991
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808073053/http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/translation.pdf to http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/translation.pdf
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) 16:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Council of Europe. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528112349/http://www.coe.int/t/dg2/trafficking/campaign/Source/PDF_Conv_197_Trafficking_E.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/dg2/trafficking/campaign/Source/PDF_Conv_197_Trafficking_E.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528112354/http://www.coe.int/t/DC/Press/Source/PressFile_%20AGORA_fr.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/DC/Press/Source/PressFile_%20AGORA_fr.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418213025/http://www.theewc.org/about-the-ewc.html to http://www.theewc.org/about-the-ewc.html
*Added  tag to http://www.lalsace.fr/fr/france-monde/article/3340157,218/Reduction-drastique-des-activites-a-Strasbourg.html
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) 00:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe that a section should definitely be added to reflect Russia's voting suspension at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council, as this is an element of importance. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has just been reversed, presumably because the financial contribution from Russia might have, over time, caused a shrinking of that organisation. Now the Ukrainians have moved out. I was most surprised that the Council gave NGOs a legal status. NGOs are not democratically elected bodies. They are hobby horses and lobby organisations, only accountable to their funders. They operate in the political space without being elected or accountable. That is a concerning development which is why Russia has cracked down on these organisations. This is a potential point of conflict. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:9C:B334:C7BC:B1A9 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia's status at the Council 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Council of Europe Palais de l'Europe aerial view.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should we add the British Overseas Territories into infobox and page in general? (For example; Falkland Islands, Akrotiri, Dhekelia etc.) 176.227.44.104 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's absolutely necessary, we don't want to overly clutter the infobox with every singe minor geographic anomaly or technicality. The infobox isn't the place for that. Besides, there is a separate article with a list of CoE member states where users may link to any of the country articles, where specific geographic features are covered in greater detail. Archives908 (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Overseas Territories 

message: Hi all, the  Euler diagram for the CoE needs updating to reflect Russia leaving it. I have no idea how to edit it's formatting, so if anyone does that would be grand. Jamzze (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please leave the edit until the actual withdrawal Chris Archer (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Ok, now it was excluded officially, now we need a new diagram. Chris Archer (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   Euler diagram 

message: I know that there are statements in some versions of the article stating that Greece and Turkey both joined in 1949, but there are sources cited which claim that Turkey didn't actually join until 1950, after Iceland had joined.  Does anybody have an explanation for this discrepancy?  Fabrickator (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkey, alongside Greece, attended meetings of the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly from August 1949, but their instruments of accession weren't deposited with the Secretary General in Strasbourg until April 1950. I agree, the article in its current form is confusing and needs this explaining somewhere. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Turkey join in 1949 or 1950? 

message: Evidently the Rollback button doesn't allow for an edit summary (mea culpa; re-noted for the future), so I'm putting my justification of my rollback of the IP user @213.52.58.244's hatnote change here.
# Piping Council of the European Union to "EU Council" in a hatnote is typically improper, per rule (1) of WP:Hatnote.
# The tangential links to European Union and Institutions of the European Union are improper per WP:HATEXTRA.
# It's not obvious that merely having similar membership makes European Political Community (2022) particularly confusable with Council of Europe. The only word they have in common is "Europe". I would argue that "Community" and "Council" aren't sufficiently confusable. Based on the Wikipedia article, it doesn't sound like the E.P.C. has any subsidiary organ with "council" (or a near-synonym) in its name.
Hence my rollback. Cybercobra (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote rollback 

message: Noticed that the paragraph on the Secretary General's role cites the name of a previous SG : 
"The Secretary General, who is elected for a term of five years by the PACE and heads the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. Thorbjørn Jagland, the former Prime Minister of Norway, was elected Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 29 September 2009. In June 2014, he became the first Secretary General to be re-elected, commencing his second term in office on 1 October 2014."
The link to and the text of the article on the SG itself indicates the current SG.
Alternatively, "Marija Pejčinović Burić, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, was elected Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 26 June 2019. Her term began on 18 September 2019." SLobey (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph about the SG