Talk:European Union/Archive 9

message: Why are some people changing maps all the time? Can't they get along or something?
:Well I suspect the recent map change had to do with the two new members of the EU at the turn of the year. Syrthiss 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map change 

message: I see that there are many accusations against the Republic of Turkey in this article, presented as "facts".  Those sections need to be revised to keep the article objective. --129.42.208.182 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a list of sections you are unhappy with.--Lucy-marie 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU vs Turkey 

message: I propose the renaming of the "CIA World Factbook" section to something like "Treatment as a nation" (please suggest better alternatives). The CIA World Factbook is mearly a reference to the point rather than a direct subsection of the EU. ie Though an important reference source, the CIA World Factbook is not really associated to the EU to be worthy of a subsection of the topic. --E! 09:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree ! It should be merged with the section above "Comparison with other regional blocs".The section name could summarize it : "International perception and comparison with regional blocs". all the best Lear 21 15:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA World Factbook Section

message: If the E.U. wants to be counted as a country why should it be counted only in positive things like GDP even though there is no E.U. treasury and member states cannot touch other member's money? Why not negetive things like external debt, obesty, and unequal wealth between member states? This is just an ego trip for arrogant and anti-american europeans who like to use the "What if" scenario so they can think that they are better than Americans. We all know how europeans think Americans are fat and uneducated but if you were count the E.U. as one country they would be the fattest country in the world, one the most uneducated countries in the western world, and the most in debt country in the world. Why not count NAFTA as a country as well? NAFTA would be the richest in the world "If Ranked". That some  bullshit, the E.U. is not a country and nor will it be anytime soon or ever, so I have no idea why it is counted as such. Wow, they have a flag and some countries have a common currency, big fucking deal, that doesn't make it a country.
Daniel 18 January 2007
:Ummm, I don't think your reasoning really makes sense, as you fail to distinguish between absolute and per capita measures. Measures such as the "fattest country in the world" are measured on a per-capita basis: i.e. the average American tends to be fatter than the average European. It's not as if they calculate the whole weight of the American population and compare that to the EU population :) In that case, there is no reason why the aggregate EU figure for "fatness", if you like, would be any bigger as a whole than the sum of its parts.  Same with levels of education: these aren't calculated on a compound basis, but on an average/per-capita basis. And I don't see why the EU would be more uneducated than the USA. If we take the median weighted educational attainment of the EU, it would probably be higher than the US, considering that the US usually fares towards the bottom of the OECD tables in this regard (this is not an insult, just a fact). 
:As to external debt: perhaps yes, we should calculate the external debt of the EU as a whole. As to unequal wealth between member states: again, I also think it would be interesting to work out a Gini coefficient for the EU as a whole, because even though the individual countries within the EU all have small Gini coefficients, the wealth gap between member states would mean that the overall EU Gini coefficient would be quite high (though I don't think it would be higher than the US one). In any case - can you find any published source which has computed a Gini coefficient for the EU?
:Your comparison between NAFTA and the EU isn't entirely accurate, because there are significant differences. Whereas NAFTA is pretty much just a free trade area, the EU is also a political union, with an elected legislative assembly, a single market, free movement of persons, an executive body and binding laws in the form of directives. Integration between EU countries is significantly higher than that between NAFTA countries. Finally, no-one is implying that the EU is a "country". By ranking the EU as an aggregate, however, it can be compared to other countries more precisely, and for the purposes of this article, that is useful.  Ronline ✉ 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really must say I find your claims dubious. I don't even understand what you're trying to say about the differences between inequalities in U.S States and European Countries, perhaps you could try to explain better what you actually mean. As for the "fattest country" thing, there is absolutely no doubt that America is by far the fattest, all the statistics bear that out. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what the title of "fattest country" means, it means simply the country with the highest proportion of obese people (that is the USA), now remember that doesn't mean what country has the Overall most fat people, it's the amount per capita. It's possible that if measured by total numbers then the EU has overall more fat people than the US, simply because it has a much larger population than the US, but the proportion of fat people to non-fat people is still much higher in America. I'm not sure about the debt issue, the US certainly has the biggest in absolute terms, though I haven't seen any statistics on the EU's collective debt, it could be bigger but I don't know. As for who has the biggest economy, well the US and EU are very close in terms of GDP, it tends to fluctuate who is No.1 and who's No.2, though I believe with the accession Romania and Bulgaria the EU is the biggest again, but of-course it changes from year to year. 'The U.S. will have a bigger population than the E.U. by 2030'? Huh? Where did you get that figure from? Even if the US population continues to grow and the EU's continues to fall, that is absolutely not going to happen. The EU is currently about 500 million people, the US 300 million, according to Encarta, the predicted population for the US by 2025 is 335 million and about 400 million by 2050. The EU's population is predicted to fall by about 5% over the next 50 years, which would make it about 475 million in 2050. But of-course that assumes that the EU will not expand to include any more countries than it already has, which is obviously not true, the EU could easily have 600 or 700 million+ people by 2050. Essentially there is no prospect that the US population will exceed that of Europe at any time in the 21st century. Frankly I just don't even know what you're getting so upset about, at the start of your post here you accused this article of presenting some Arrogant, anti-American, European POV, well it sounds to me as though you are the one here who's acting arrogant, angry that the US is not being presented as the greatest place on Earth and that another rival is bigger than it. Well all I can say is, Face the facts. --Hibernian 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "If Ranked" bias

message: We need a Geography section here. all the best Lear 21 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography needed! 

message: "Currencies 	Euro (EUR or €),
Pound, Lev, Pound, Koruna
Krone, Kroon, Forint, Lats,
Litas, Lira, Złoty, Leu,
Koruna, Krona"
This list mentions two pounds and two korunas, and the only way to tell them from each other is to look at the URLs they point at.  Not a good way to list the currencies in my opinion.  A better solution could be to include the country name ("British pound", "Cypriot pound", "Czech koruna", "Slovak koruna"), or to use the currency codes (GBP, CYP, CZK, SKK).  The names "krone", "leu" and "lira" may also cause some confusion, because people might be unaware that Norway, Moldova and Turkey aren't part of the EU (and might not read the appropriate sections in the article text).
It might also be useful to add CHF to the list because it is used in some German and Italian exclaves. (58.188.97.134 12:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currencies 

message: A useful source is the Europe article. all the best Lear 21 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should not duplicate content from the Europe article, the EU is complex enough as it is. And it is inaccurate, since they do not coincide. For this reason, the sport section should be removed. If the EU has no policy on an issue, then it belongs elsewhere.Paul111 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sections of Religion,Military,Sports,Infrastructure needed! 

message: The picture of beethoven with the caption "Ludwig van Beethoven wrote the EU anthem "Ode to Joy"" is not needed.
In my opinion, he himself has nothing to do with the EU, and presence of the picture alludes to the possibility that Ode to Joy was written FOR the EU, which is false. I'm going to remove it... Kareeser|Talk! 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beethoven? 

message: Can someone make a [Navigation box] for the European Union. Ssolbergj 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Navigation Box would be good 

message: I am really glad to see such good work on this article recently, especially in simplifying the structure. However I'd like to suggest that the "intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism" be removed. It's currently under the "law" part, but it doesn't have much to do with law. It's a discussion with, what I think people call, "weasel words" - some say that intergov. is good, some debate that and say it's bad, etc - and it's pretty baseless.
Here's a part from the Law#International law page (and the EU law page) that I've been editing:
* European Union law is the first and only example of a supranational legal framework. However, given increasing global economic integration, many regional agreements, especially the South American Community of Nations, are on track to follow the same model. In the EU, sovereign nations have pooled their authority through a system of courts and political institutions. The EU adopts common trade policies, labour laws, consumer laws and many others, where the goals of such laws are better achieved at a level higher than the nation state. It constitutes "a new legal order of international law"*ref**/ref* for the mutual social and economic benefit of the member states.
I agree with the European Court of Justice back in 1962, and think the discussion is redundant! Most issues are not consensus based anyway. Are there any objections to me removing the section and putting in something else? Wikidea 05:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove "intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism"? 

message: Let's try talking to him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left the report on WP:AIV for the time being with a small note about the situation. That serves two purposes - not having another one added, and allows people to see whats happening. ViridaeTalk 10:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok I've just put back the section. I just hope there'll be no more trouble with this. --Hibernian 04:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: hang on with the edit warring a bit

message: The image is copyright and taken from an EU website. The reason to remove it is that it gives a false impression, violating accuracy and neutrality criteria. The image suggests a proud and independent EU military force with its own commander. However, it is a cropped image, and another photo taken at the same time, , shows that Leakey is also sitting in front of the NATO flag. What is more, he is speaking next to his superior officer, US Army Brigadier General Steven Schook. That sums up the geopolitical realities, and the image here conveys a false perspective.Paul111 13:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image illustrates that there was and is still is an EU initiative called EUFOR, no matter what context the image was taken from. It is adding valuable visual content to the section and can be considered fair use. all the best Lear 21 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The image is vital in creating a complete image of EU activities and responsibilities. Lear 21 13:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense is it vital? Countersubject 14:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading image of General Leakey 

message: Schengen is not an EU treaty, and not EU policy, and not adopted by all EU members. Its special status should be accurately described.Paul111 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Schengen Agreement article states: The Schengen Agreement was created independently of the European Union in part due to the lack of consensus amongst EU members. However, the Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated the developments brought about by the Schengen agreement into the European Union framework, effectively making the Schengen Agreement part of the EU. -- BIL 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schengen 

message: The sections of policies, cooperation, and harmonisation are a mess. They fail to distinguish between central pillars such as the single market, the many other Commission-level policies, intergovernmental cooperation, and the harmonisation which implements the major goals. (Harmonisation is instrumental in the EU, not a goal in itself).Paul111 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy and co-operation 

message: What was I supposed to see on the official site? And what official site? --Bjarki 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The European Flag is not an exclusive EU sign, it was originally the flag of the CoE and is meant to represent the whole of European continent. The European part of the Ryder Cup is organized by PGA European Tour, a body that is not related to the EU at all and is funded primarily by private sponsors. PGA European Tour organizes several golf tours throughout the continent, including places like non-EU members Switzerland and Russia. Team Europe at the Ryder Cup has also featured non-EU players through the years, there were Swedish and Spanish players on the team before these countries joined the EU. Please please please remember that Europe ≠ The European Union, one being a continent and the other a international organization. --Bjarki 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryder Cup 

message: EUFOR does nothing without the authorisation of NATO, and therefore the US has a veto, so its designation as a European force seems disputable. The Council of Ministers can not independently command the force.Paul111 13:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EUFOR a NATO force? 

message: The article is overloaded with images and graphics. For a start all portraits should be removed, and the two images of towns. They say nothing about the EU. If in doubt, priority for the maps and tables, which do convey information.Paul111 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: The article is apparently using a standard format created for articles on nation-states. Since the EU is not a nation or a nation-state, some are inappropriate, especially Politics and Government. The EU has an executive but not a government. It has a politics, but so do the individual member states. I also suggest moving the candidates section to under the Members section, which would be the most appropriate place for it.Paul111 13:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right considering the Government argument, Politics will do. Other section headers have to be changed like Fundamental policies ... The Three pillars of the European Union have to be the Leitmotiv. Candidate countries are foreign policies and have to remain there. The accession of Turkey for instance is not expected within the next 10 years, if ever ... Lear 21 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate headers and sections 

message: A list of largest cities (or highest mountains or deepest lakes) does not belong in an overview article on the European Union. Pictures of three of them certainly don't. There is a separate article on geography of the European Union. If no-one else objects (other than the user who inserted the section) I propose to delete the section, and the pretty pictures.Paul111 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a standard section. View China ,USA ,UK, Russia ! I propose to include the first 5 or 6, to avoid dispute wether city/metro area size matters. A small gallery is best I think. all the best Lear 21 18:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete Largest Cities 

message: Maybe this question was already asked before, but why are the largest cities classified by population within the city limit? After all, London is not much bigger than Paris; Paris's agglomeration just happens to be split among different territorial entities while London's mostly falls into a single one. Idem for Berlin: the city of Berlin is identical to the Bundesland Berlin - which again disfavours Paris. Luis rib 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about this; the delimitation is pretty silly. On the other hand, it does make Berlin look like the second biggest city. And if you came from Berlin, maybe you'd want that! Wikidea 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest cities 

message: I would like to make these changes to the contents layout:
*"candidate countries" be put with "members", rather than international relations
*the "foreign perceptions" part to be deleted (although I must stress that I do care what foreigners think - just that the CIA factbook doesn't say anything that isn't said by the ECJ, and, well, the emerging superpower business can be put somewhere else)
*three pillars and politics be separated, with their own headers
*the status part be split, so that the Constitution explanation be merged with the explanation in the history part; the slightly woolly stuff at the top of that part should be merged with the part in the law section
*"infrastructure" be put in with the "politics" header
Hopefully this would make the overall layout more coherent, and a little more sensible.
Also, I'd like to suggest that "demographics" is a word which really means general statistics about a population and the stuff in that section is dealing far too much with general discussion of what life is like - the religion section probably could go in with the culture part. Thoughts? Wikidea 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The candidates certainly belong with the members and the expansion, that is the logical place for them. And as it is, the 'Foreign perceptions' refer solely to the status of the EU as a potential superpower. They apparently are copy-pasted from the article on that issue, and one of them is just an 'unofficial Chinese paper'. Attitudes to the EU as an entity can go in the International relations section.Paul111 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'll go ahead and do these things. Wikidea 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which change did you object to? Did you need to change the whole lot back!! Wikidea 03:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ich bin kein "Deletionist"Wikidea 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see, Lear 21, you think I deleted those photos! I didn't you know, I only did the things I said in the summaries. I'm not so bothered about the photos, I think they're fine. Will you put back the improvements I made, please? And if you object to something specific, can you leave the changes you don't object to? Wikidea 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  structural change 

message: Please do not revert copy-edits or other material which you do not dispute.Paul111 12:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts by [[User:Lear_21|Lear 21]] 

message: I added the point that the EU is formed by the territory of its member states, that it expands with the accession of new members and that it is not in itself a geographical unit. All three are relevant: the EU does not have a geography in the sense that a country has, largely because its area changes with accessions. All geographical averages, such as population density, also change with accession. The issue of the boundaries is a political issue, and should be mentionned as such.Paul111 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography