Talk:European Union/Archive 17

message: Okay, previous discussions are now archived. For editors who have just arrived the issues have not been closed but we now focusing solely on the contentious sports section - so please do not bring up new major new issues for a while. The archive is here. - J Logan t: 09:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Whilst we're on the subject of keeping the content of the section relevant, you might want to cite this/mention this alongside what you're saying. http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=2048/newsid=628119.html This sort of thing is what the article should be on about, not how often sports are played in EU countries etc, I dunno, everybody else think its worth mentioning here? Seems like a pretty major development. --Simonski (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is more something we should mention. And I agree on the above common sense point, lets just take a risk please and try it. Lear and SE, stop reverting and see if we can agree on this. From the point I post this message, I'll revert whoever makes the next revert on the sports section, whichever version it is. I hope some other users might help out on this regardless of the position on what the content should be. Simonski, based on the link you have given, how do you see the section as the best compromise? - J Logan t: 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm quite willing to have Lear's section in the form he's proposed it if he'll agree to the Competition, Single Market, Single Currency sections being put in. Otherwise I'm going to have to withdraw my willingness to compromise with the keeping of the sports section and agree with SE's tags. As for how we'd mention the thing above, I'm actually not sure. Given that I have no interest in the sports section its difficult to try drafting something. I'm surprised Lear's not added it to the sentence he's battling with SE over. I still think the fact is that Lear's most recent draft has been far differently worded from the mess he was originally trying to put in, and the fact that the bodies quoted were linked to a discussion with the EU through that white paper discussion, make it easier to accept now. If SE really wants the FIA mentioned, then he can easily find a similar document to do with their discussions with the EU over the tobacco advertising directive, and cite it after the white paper document reference. The way its written now, I mean the way its worded, surely there aren't serious grounds for claiming that somebody would read it and think that the ones listed were the most popular sports played within the EU. Hopefully that makes sense. --Simonski (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On another side note, Lear this might be an opportunity for you to - politely - try and convince SE that you've made the article more sport neutral, rather than simply aggrevate the situation with some sort of rude response. --Simonski (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The version as it was a day or so ago is all that is needed, the additional content that people are now suggesting belongs in  the dedicated article that I (and the "Further information"  section header) keep pointing to, FFS we keep trying to limit the size of sections that have far more relevance to the EU and how it runs and affects other countries (not just other member states) but here we have the same people suggesting we add even more to an irrelevance! Sorry but if Lear can play the rules by being belligerent so can I. As far as I'm concerned we had the consensus the other day when Lear's content was copy edited by at least three other people besides myself and not one reverted previously removed content - that is, until Lear returned and reverted the whole paragraph regardless of the discussion that has taken place... SouthernElectric (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, again you are twisting things again - there were prior to the archiving, 3 editors (I'm not counting the unknown editor who just suddenly magically seemed to show up when you needed a bit of support) were in favour of the sports section being kept. Since then, the ones who have been saying right fine, keep the section but do this, have been simply fishing for a consensus. You know for a fact that Logan would remove the section if it was up to him and him alone (as would Arnoutf and Sandpiper) but instead we are now trying to reach a compromise that satisfies all editors. For as long as there are 2 editors who don't like what you're proposing, then there is no consensus and this page will just keep going in circles (that is assuming the lock at the moment isn't indefinite). You need to realise that and be a bit more helpful. And I think you'll find it was the "Lear21" draft, neither Logan nor SSJ came here and proposed your draft. I prefer personally the SE draft (blank). And I disagree with you, I think it reads more professionally with the naming of the sport associations and allows for individuals to go and investigate further for themselves the link between the association in question and the EU. --Simonski (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Here-here. Lear you should be careful to interpret people's positions more accurately. The position we are seeking is a compromise, it is not whole-hearted support for the sports section or your view on it. It would also be prudent not to trigger another escalation by moving too rapidly before there is sufficient consultation of an idea among the editors. However SE, if such an situation comes along please do not escalate, the world will not end if Lear has his sentence for a few days while we discuss it. All we have gained now is an article tagged and locked. I think we have something reasonable and if this is accepted in return for Lear backing the entire new economy section, I believe the article should be weighted enough in favour of important areas to make the sports section tolerable. - J Logan t: 11:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stated my position (above), it's not helped by Lear trying to use socks to bolster his position, trouble is, he is so inept that he changed his mind but forgot to change the tense of his message from third person to first - check the edit history of this talk page for the last 24hrs (or here) if you don't believe me! SouthernElectric (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to add as well that my position above is not set in stone, I'm willing to be convinced either way. But certainly as far as I'm concerned I could accept the most recent proposal of Lear's if he'd not oppose the economy section changes Logan suggested below. As I said, would you really say SE that Lear's recent sports sentence gives the impression that it is only the listed sports that are played within the EU? Surely instead common sense and the word "including" make it clear to the reader that it isn't the case. Of course the sentence afterwards that the national associations are taking part in UEFA etc is stating the obvious, but at the same time I don't think it reads in the same way as a sentence like "Spectator sports are popular in the EU". --Simonski (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to any lists, the current list is no better than the original list of named sports, all that will change is that people will start adding sport governing bodies rather than the name of the sport, sorry but I'm not going to move from this, we had a sports section version that I was and still am prepared to accept (this version) even with the two governing bodies mentioned, the extra content that some are now wanting to add is better placed in the dedicated article and not here. SouthernElectric 13:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've told you which version I can live with and unless that version is accepted by you Lear nothing will change, the tags will stay and the lock will most likely stay too. I will not be moved on  this as we have all, except Lear, move many Km since Lear's first attempt at placing this content - I don't really want the sports section at all, I don't really want any lists of sports or governing bodies but I am prepared to accept this version, as previously mentioned. Your move Lear, or should I say, it's time for you to move a cm Lear and accept what everyone else is happy with or at least found acceptable (in so much as they either left it alone or copy edit rather than finding the need to revert). SouthernElectric 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmmm. The way I see it here its now just a case of SE and Lear having to come to some sort of agreement. Like I said, I'd be happy with it removed, but I'd also be just as happy with the sentence as it was last put in (even if was the list of sports rather than association names). As I keep pointing out, theres a big difference between saying that certain sports associations are consulted in how the EU forms its policy, and saying which sports are the most popular in the EU. At the same time, as I've already said, I think I'd be looking for a compromise elsewhere on the economy section (see below) if there was to be this final sentence, purely because a number of us have gone from wanting the section gone completely to being quite reasonable in negotiating a consensus. Ahh, sports. --Simonski 18:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SE, if your really going to escalate this, I hope your prepared to follow though on what would need to be done. If you are, please get on and do it.  We're not going to get anywhere if this persists. And I agree with Simonski on the list, better without a sports section but I can live with it if we get the deserved areas on economy more space. - J Logan t: 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I know, how about this. The sports section with the list stays for now, BUT: when we go for FA, if the reviews object to it and think it should do, Lear has to agree not to reinstate it after it is removed. That way it is a clear third party opinion from several editors not involved in this disagreement and is an opinion on the quality of the article which could block our FA. - J Logan t: 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: J Logan, I think you have stated your true priorities, thanks for your honesty... As it is, I've stated my position so we need to see what Lear thinks first.SouthernElectric 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I was going to agree to J Logan's suggestion but as Lear will not undertake (promise) to accept the judgement of others (independent reviewers) there is little point now, this article is moribund, thanks Lear!... SouthernElectric 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that an opinion or a wish? SouthernElectric 10:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Injury Time

message: OK, I'm prepared to go with Logan's suggestion of an independent review regarding the merits of a sports section - if this can be done before going to FA, as this might still be a while away yet, so much the better but if it has to wait until the FA so be it - so what I suggest is a straw poll; SouthernElectric 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course only one persons vote really matters here...- J Logan t: 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really as he is still editing other pages, see here, if he decides not to vote then that is his problem... Just so he can't complain should we put a note on his talk page? SouthernElectric 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice to check this page put on his talk page at 17:33hrs UTC. SouthernElectric 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Look like someone is trying to implement WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than accepting Wikipedia:Consensus. SouthernElectric 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, consensus can, and does, change you know... SouthernElectric 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, read WP:OWN, this is NOT your article. SouthernElectric 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sod Lear's vote then. Everyone else supports following an external opinion, lets put it forward for that and just follow that? Then we have a good consensus then with just one dissenting voice. If Lear goes against it then he is alone this time and we can take action.- J Logan t: 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering we had some muppet peer review the page a while back asking where the tourism section was, I'm not sure I'd hold my breath. Certainly the Consensus-1 thing might help below with the new Economy debate. Anybody got the energy for it? --Simonski 10:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, it's not as though he is unaware of the current vote taking place, will this mean that admin/arbcom will take the same view on this as the consensus or will he still have half a leg to try and hop around with? SouthernElectric 10:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully rather he'll just read the sports section, laugh heartedly, and ask us why this amateurish paragraph has been tacked onto the rest of the article so haphazardly. We'll see anyway. Still laughable that its included (I mean come to think of it, just as relevant as a tourism section after all) but there you go, thats wikipedia. Maybe I'll go edit the Wikipedia "Scots" version [] of this page instead and actually make some progress! No doubt though I'd bump into a "McLear" arguing for a "Fishing" section or something. --Simonski 10:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He gets around more than you might think. Anyhoo, as soon as I realised how hard it was here I've been concentrating on other articles. Right now the law and economic ones need the most attention. How come you two haven't joined WP:EU yet anyway? @ Simonski, yes that can be a problem, which is why I was after the FA as you have several people report back on that, we need numerous people who experience in reviewing a lot of FA articles.- J Logan t: 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the later (as it says), an independent review (such as a FA assessment) will decide on the merit of the sports sections inclusion. As for comments, FFS we have been arguing/discussing this issue for the last 6 week or so, how long does one need... SouthernElectric 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pehaps we can ask the specific "sports" question somewhere; and accept its outcome. There seems to be clear consensus in favour of such an approach, even if Lear votes against, we are still at a sold U-1.  Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two people who have expressed an opinion who have yet to cast a vote (expressing an opinion is not voting BTW...), what's the position if they both vote against - meaning a U-2 situation? SouthernElectric (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if this is the best position for this. I'm replying to SouthernElectric's reply "It's the later (as it says) . . .". I was attempting to apply the EU principle of "harmonious interpretation". If that is how it is being understood, I'll have to vote "No". I don't think we should try to vote here to treat a future FA assessment or similar review as some kind of binding arbitration on content. As regards review, I would suggest that we attempt to agree here on a shortish description of the issues involved and then add an RFCHist template to put it on the Community Portal main page. This might give us more insight into what people who have spent less time studying the EU might expect to find in the article. As regards the question to be asked, I would restrict it to something like "Should there be a sport section, and if so should it include only those matters discussed by EU institutions or should it also have a brief description of sports in EU members states and/or deal with those issues regulated by other (non-EU) European organizations?". The short description of the issues should include our rationale regarding possible implications for the question of whether the EU is state-like or not. Nobody should object to good faith copy-editing once the article is unlocked. --Boson (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, so we should ask what people want to read rather than what they should be reading, well yes that might work if you want an article about straight bananas and every other miss informed article the media has written about the EEC/EC/EU since 1957! Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to inform people who don't know?... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are trying to inject some humour into the discussion, but I will nevertheless explain what I meant. What I wrote was This might give us more insight into what people who have spent less time studying the EU might expect to find in the article. We tell them the truth (to the best of our ability), but only the reader knows where he or she will look for the truth on which topic. So if an average American, say, who is informed about the inner workings of the EU about as well as most Europeans are informed about the division of competences between the US federal government and the individual states, is likely to look for information about sport in the EU in this article, this may be a good place to put some of that information. If he or she is likely to be misinformed about the extent to which EU institutions are involved in sport, this may be a good place to explain the truth. If the reader is likely to expect the same sort of information here as in the article on the United States, we should take that into account. At the opposite end of the scale, if we write only for the experts who know it all already, we could leave the article blank. As regards the straight bananas, regulations related to penis size etc., it might indeed be a good idea to have a link to an article on "European Union myths", since people are not likely to look there first if they don't already know which imagined facts are myths.--Boson (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually trying to be deadly serious, if I want to find out what sport is played on the Mars and I look at a concise article but find sport not even mentioned I would be safe in assuming that there is no sport what so ever played on the Mars, but if I was to read a section entitled "Sport" and then a diatribe of badly written text of what sport could or might one day be played on Mars I could actually find myself thinking that sport is already played on the planet and thus by extrapolation (someone or something must live on Mars) that Martians are a fact! OK, a far fetched example but miss information can very easily lead people to the wrong assumptions. What we need to do, seeing that we (as editors) can't or won't come to a mutual agreement is to ask others who know or at least understand the subject to review it and give their opinion as to what is relevant and what isn't, it's pointless asking people who do not know or understand the subject to do so as they don't know what is relevant and what isn't - we want/need a review of the content and not readability. Anyway as things stand this is all pointless as there will be no consensus and thus no way forward, except into another edit lock or worse. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do want  a review of the content and not readability, but, as you point out, the dispute is about the relevance; not the factual accuracy, of the material; so we do (also) need to think about what readers will look here for. Even if you or I prefer to look at the EU primarily as the sum of its institutions and their activities (or even just their competences), others might look at it primarily as a political, geographical and social entity, perhaps in the same way as they look at the United States. Actually, until this poll started, I was beginning to think that a consensus had almost been reached to include sport in the article, but only to the extent that there was some involvement of EU institutions, and to refer readers to other articles about sport in Europe. --Boson (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the content is irrelevant then it is factually incorrect for the article as it could miss lead. A good encyclopedic article (like good factual newspaper articles or TV programmes) contains what people need to know and not what they want to know, even highly relevant content often needs to be constrained - I'm sure someone could match the word count of this whole EU article whilst writing about the EU wine lake or butter mountain but to leave such content un-a-bridged would give far to much weight to such matter in this article. No one has said that there is a relationship between sport and the EU, just that more than a passing mention (which is what the position was before the current extra content was added) together with a wiki link to the Sport policies of the European Union article. This dispute is more about copy editing that what subjects should be included, given the realistic space available before someone slaps an article length tag on it, even Lear accepts this is an issue but like all 'junior hacks' doesn't like the copy editor taking the blue pencil to his own work... The point I'm trying to make is, it needs an someone with the knowledge to know what others need to know, hence why this article needs something like a FA review to do the final copy editing rather than just a review of what those without knowledge think they should read. SouthernElectric (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Penalty shoot out

message: :Of course only one persons vote really matters here...- J Logan t: 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really as he is still editing other pages, see here, if he decides not to vote then that is his problem... Just so he can't complain should we put a note on his talk page? SouthernElectric 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice to check this page put on his talk page at 17:33hrs UTC. SouthernElectric 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Look like someone is trying to implement WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than accepting Wikipedia:Consensus. SouthernElectric 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, consensus can, and does, change you know... SouthernElectric 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, read WP:OWN, this is NOT your article. SouthernElectric 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sod Lear's vote then. Everyone else supports following an external opinion, lets put it forward for that and just follow that? Then we have a good consensus then with just one dissenting voice. If Lear goes against it then he is alone this time and we can take action.- J Logan t: 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering we had some muppet peer review the page a while back asking where the tourism section was, I'm not sure I'd hold my breath. Certainly the Consensus-1 thing might help below with the new Economy debate. Anybody got the energy for it? --Simonski 10:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, it's not as though he is unaware of the current vote taking place, will this mean that admin/arbcom will take the same view on this as the consensus or will he still have half a leg to try and hop around with? SouthernElectric 10:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully rather he'll just read the sports section, laugh heartedly, and ask us why this amateurish paragraph has been tacked onto the rest of the article so haphazardly. We'll see anyway. Still laughable that its included (I mean come to think of it, just as relevant as a tourism section after all) but there you go, thats wikipedia. Maybe I'll go edit the Wikipedia "Scots" version [] of this page instead and actually make some progress! No doubt though I'd bump into a "McLear" arguing for a "Fishing" section or something. --Simonski 10:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He gets around more than you might think. Anyhoo, as soon as I realised how hard it was here I've been concentrating on other articles. Right now the law and economic ones need the most attention. How come you two haven't joined WP:EU yet anyway? @ Simonski, yes that can be a problem, which is why I was after the FA as you have several people report back on that, we need numerous people who experience in reviewing a lot of FA articles.- J Logan t: 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the later (as it says), an independent review (such as a FA assessment) will decide on the merit of the sports sections inclusion. As for comments, FFS we have been arguing/discussing this issue for the last 6 week or so, how long does one need... SouthernElectric 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pehaps we can ask the specific "sports" question somewhere; and accept its outcome. There seems to be clear consensus in favour of such an approach, even if Lear votes against, we are still at a sold U-1.  Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two people who have expressed an opinion who have yet to cast a vote (expressing an opinion is not voting BTW...), what's the position if they both vote against - meaning a U-2 situation? SouthernElectric (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if this is the best position for this. I'm replying to SouthernElectric's reply "It's the later (as it says) . . .". I was attempting to apply the EU principle of "harmonious interpretation". If that is how it is being understood, I'll have to vote "No". I don't think we should try to vote here to treat a future FA assessment or similar review as some kind of binding arbitration on content. As regards review, I would suggest that we attempt to agree here on a shortish description of the issues involved and then add an RFCHist template to put it on the Community Portal main page. This might give us more insight into what people who have spent less time studying the EU might expect to find in the article. As regards the question to be asked, I would restrict it to something like "Should there be a sport section, and if so should it include only those matters discussed by EU institutions or should it also have a brief description of sports in EU members states and/or deal with those issues regulated by other (non-EU) European organizations?". The short description of the issues should include our rationale regarding possible implications for the question of whether the EU is state-like or not. Nobody should object to good faith copy-editing once the article is unlocked. --Boson (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, so we should ask what people want to read rather than what they should be reading, well yes that might work if you want an article about straight bananas and every other miss informed article the media has written about the EEC/EC/EU since 1957! Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to inform people who don't know?... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are trying to inject some humour into the discussion, but I will nevertheless explain what I meant. What I wrote was This might give us more insight into what people who have spent less time studying the EU might expect to find in the article. We tell them the truth (to the best of our ability), but only the reader knows where he or she will look for the truth on which topic. So if an average American, say, who is informed about the inner workings of the EU about as well as most Europeans are informed about the division of competences between the US federal government and the individual states, is likely to look for information about sport in the EU in this article, this may be a good place to put some of that information. If he or she is likely to be misinformed about the extent to which EU institutions are involved in sport, this may be a good place to explain the truth. If the reader is likely to expect the same sort of information here as in the article on the United States, we should take that into account. At the opposite end of the scale, if we write only for the experts who know it all already, we could leave the article blank. As regards the straight bananas, regulations related to penis size etc., it might indeed be a good idea to have a link to an article on "European Union myths", since people are not likely to look there first if they don't already know which imagined facts are myths.--Boson (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually trying to be deadly serious, if I want to find out what sport is played on the Mars and I look at a concise article but find sport not even mentioned I would be safe in assuming that there is no sport what so ever played on the Mars, but if I was to read a section entitled "Sport" and then a diatribe of badly written text of what sport could or might one day be played on Mars I could actually find myself thinking that sport is already played on the planet and thus by extrapolation (someone or something must live on Mars) that Martians are a fact! OK, a far fetched example but miss information can very easily lead people to the wrong assumptions. What we need to do, seeing that we (as editors) can't or won't come to a mutual agreement is to ask others who know or at least understand the subject to review it and give their opinion as to what is relevant and what isn't, it's pointless asking people who do not know or understand the subject to do so as they don't know what is relevant and what isn't - we want/need a review of the content and not readability. Anyway as things stand this is all pointless as there will be no consensus and thus no way forward, except into another edit lock or worse. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do want  a review of the content and not readability, but, as you point out, the dispute is about the relevance; not the factual accuracy, of the material; so we do (also) need to think about what readers will look here for. Even if you or I prefer to look at the EU primarily as the sum of its institutions and their activities (or even just their competences), others might look at it primarily as a political, geographical and social entity, perhaps in the same way as they look at the United States. Actually, until this poll started, I was beginning to think that a consensus had almost been reached to include sport in the article, but only to the extent that there was some involvement of EU institutions, and to refer readers to other articles about sport in Europe. --Boson (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the content is irrelevant then it is factually incorrect for the article as it could miss lead. A good encyclopedic article (like good factual newspaper articles or TV programmes) contains what people need to know and not what they want to know, even highly relevant content often needs to be constrained - I'm sure someone could match the word count of this whole EU article whilst writing about the EU wine lake or butter mountain but to leave such content un-a-bridged would give far to much weight to such matter in this article. No one has said that there is a relationship between sport and the EU, just that more than a passing mention (which is what the position was before the current extra content was added) together with a wiki link to the Sport policies of the European Union article. This dispute is more about copy editing that what subjects should be included, given the realistic space available before someone slaps an article length tag on it, even Lear accepts this is an issue but like all 'junior hacks' doesn't like the copy editor taking the blue pencil to his own work... The point I'm trying to make is, it needs an someone with the knowledge to know what others need to know, hence why this article needs something like a FA review to do the final copy editing rather than just a review of what those without knowledge think they should read. SouthernElectric (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I inserted 'community of states' into the intro, and ssolbergj removed it. We did discuss this in the archived debate  under 'founding treaties' when no one opposed that change. My reason for the amendment is to make clear that whatever it is, it has 27 members, not 500 million. It is a club of 27 members who are all independent sovereign states who have entered into an agreemement. Whatever the EU may commonly be said to possess, it does so only by 'borrowing' from the member states, or by simple addition of the whatever for its members. The intro must make clear it is an organisation of states, not people, because that is what it is. Sandpiper (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny that, I'm sure, the last time I looked, my passport is an EU passport and not a United Kingdom one and that I'm a Citizen of the European Union and not just of the UK - I can't be one of only 27... SouthernElectric (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused! I didn't get if SE's post was sarcasm or not! As far as I see from my passport (both of them actually!) Its always the name of the country and then underneath/on top (depends on the country) "European Union". Plus the concept of EU citizenship is pretty developed now in the courts, without having to go that far. Anyhow, I don't think that was really Sandpiper's main point for putting the community of states bit in. I don't see why it'd hurt to put the "of states" bit on, if anything it is slightly more objective. --Simonski (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Simonski beat me to it. Mine has that wonderful phrase; Her brittanic majesty's secretary of state requests and requires all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance. Technically, I think it is corect to say people with UK nationality have no citizenship at all. They are subjects of her brittanic majesty. Her majesty has kindly entered into a treaty with the european union letting us do all sorts of things in foreign countries without having to get special permission. Very kind of her. (My recollection also being that treaties are made by the sovereign?) Sandpiper (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree with your first analysis Sandpiper, I see no problem with it, in fact I can see that wording serving both pro and anti sides. Though what is your argument SSJ? - J Logan t: 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think British nationals, at least those who are EU citizens, will normally find "British citizen" in their passports under "Nationality". As I understand it, British subjects, within the meaning of the Act, are, by definition, not British citizens; however "British subjects" used to be equivalent to "Commonwealth citizens".--Boson (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Original correspondence between Sandpiper and myself can be found here
The EU is more than just an equivalent to the NAFTA, were each countries citizens have no more rights than given to them by their own government, the EU is different in that the EU has given citizens of all member states certain rights in excess to those otherwise granted by their own state - such as freedom of movement within the EU - this surely makes every EU citizen a member of the "EU"? SouthernElectric (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope; we are citizins of EU, not members (i.e. we are not allowed to be in all meetngs open to members, hence we cannot be members). Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard anybody use the phrase "members" of the EU before. EU citizenship exists as a concept and we are all "EU citizens". And before anybody chimes in with "but the member states!!!", the phrase "citizens of earth" is also a phrase that people can use in day to day life. --Simonski (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an odd term. I've never heard it, general if you're a "member" it is like a club. You hold a little card and everything and you've signed up with other members who comprise the club. That is what the states did, and the states have citizens. We have citizenship, not membership, we do not comprise the club, the states do. No one says I'm a member of France or I'm a member of NAFTA. Sorry, we're not members, we're citizens.- J Logan t: 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my reading on EU treaties, the status of individual EU citizens is somewhere in the middle. Status as Union citizens (in the words of the treaties) shall complement and not replace national citizenship. (see #REDIRECT Citizenship_of_the_European_Union) So, no, individual people are not "members" of the European Union - the state(s) they belong to is/are. However, EU law recognizes this distinction: some laws deals with rights of the member states, such as vetoes on certain policy issues and seats in the Council and Commission, while others deal with the rights of the citizens, such as civil rights and the right to vote for the EU Parliament.
In short - the EU has 500 million citizens, each of whom is also citizen of one (or more) member states. My passport says both Republique Francais and Unione Europeenne because I am a citizen of both.
Vonschlesien (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only have to read the Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) Part Two: Citizenship of the Union
This Citizenship gives every citizen
* the right to circulate and reside freely in the Community;
* the right to vote and to stand as a candidate for European and municipal elections in the State in which he or she resides;
* the right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of a Member State other than the citizen's Member State of origin on the territory of a third country in which the state of origin is not represented;
* the right to petition the European Parliament and to submit a complaint to the Ombudsman.
--Thw1309 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  community of states 

message: :Original correspondence between Sandpiper and myself can be found here
The EU is more than just an equivalent to the NAFTA, were each countries citizens have no more rights than given to them by their own government, the EU is different in that the EU has given citizens of all member states certain rights in excess to those otherwise granted by their own state - such as freedom of movement within the EU - this surely makes every EU citizen a member of the "EU"? SouthernElectric (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope; we are citizins of EU, not members (i.e. we are not allowed to be in all meetngs open to members, hence we cannot be members). Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard anybody use the phrase "members" of the EU before. EU citizenship exists as a concept and we are all "EU citizens". And before anybody chimes in with "but the member states!!!", the phrase "citizens of earth" is also a phrase that people can use in day to day life. --Simonski (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an odd term. I've never heard it, general if you're a "member" it is like a club. You hold a little card and everything and you've signed up with other members who comprise the club. That is what the states did, and the states have citizens. We have citizenship, not membership, we do not comprise the club, the states do. No one says I'm a member of France or I'm a member of NAFTA. Sorry, we're not members, we're citizens.- J Logan t: 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my reading on EU treaties, the status of individual EU citizens is somewhere in the middle. Status as Union citizens (in the words of the treaties) shall complement and not replace national citizenship. (see #REDIRECT Citizenship_of_the_European_Union) So, no, individual people are not "members" of the European Union - the state(s) they belong to is/are. However, EU law recognizes this distinction: some laws deals with rights of the member states, such as vetoes on certain policy issues and seats in the Council and Commission, while others deal with the rights of the citizens, such as civil rights and the right to vote for the EU Parliament.
In short - the EU has 500 million citizens, each of whom is also citizen of one (or more) member states. My passport says both Republique Francais and Unione Europeenne because I am a citizen of both.
Vonschlesien (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only have to read the Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) Part Two: Citizenship of the Union
This Citizenship gives every citizen
* the right to circulate and reside freely in the Community;
* the right to vote and to stand as a candidate for European and municipal elections in the State in which he or she resides;
* the right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of a Member State other than the citizen's Member State of origin on the territory of a third country in which the state of origin is not represented;
* the right to petition the European Parliament and to submit a complaint to the Ombudsman.
--Thw1309 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member States vs. Members 

message: Ok so it was Dan who changed it, Dan can you discuss here why you think the legal system bit previously agreed to should be changed? I really don't think it is necessary to give the primary/secondary law description. This isn't a law book, but a brief description of the legal system and I think the introductory sentence describing that the Treaties lay down the basic law of the EU and that then Decisions, Regulations and Directives further it, is enough. If anything needs sorted here its just the layout surely. I can't be bothered getting into another edit-back-and-forth situation here so hopefully somebody else will give their thoughts? --Simonski (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary/Secondary sources

message: it is here reported that there are 785 MEPs, but elsewhere on wiki it says there are 750. Hmm?Sandpiper (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is 785, (expanded after Romania and Bulgarya joined in 2007) which is higher then considered desirable, after 2009 elections it will be reduced to 750. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As A says, if you look on the EP pages you will see the data on seats. Perhaps you can provide the page so it can be seen if it an error or not? - J Logan t: 18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It was the link I followed while copyediting for President of the European Parliament. While I am at it, I notice now that the article European Parliament cites the separate article as 'main article', yet in fact contains rather more detail about the role of president than does the daughter article. Sandpiper (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just behind in development. If you find something like that just copy the data over, I'll do that to the President article in a sec, it is on my todo list though to build up that article. As for the number, that is because there it is talking about the post-2009 changes and hence wouldn't be correct to use pre-Lisbon figures.- J Logan t: 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that, but the wording still rather implies(d?) that it is the correct figure. Sandpiper (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of Meps? 

message: I have removed the following ref from the politics section. The ref talks about trade negotiations, and I don't see how it is relevant to integration and enlargement both being important processes going on in the EU, which was the article text. Perhaps someone knows where it belongs?
   Sandpiper (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to the bicycle theory as its title spells out. - J Logan t: 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: mmmmmmmmSandpiper (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bicycle wobble ref 

message: The  section on Justice ... should be part of governance.Infrastructure Section: Wow - didn't see that coming - I like it. It is notably missing in many country articles. Personally I also like Demographics and Culture to be included within a section named "Society" as (at least one of) the China article(s)--Keerllston 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Justice, we're semi-following the three pillar structure, don't know if anyone else is thinking about changing it? I agree on the Society point, would simply matters, thoughts people?- J Logan t: 16:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I'd agree there. The reason you won't find infrastructure on many country page is because the EU is not a country. Anyway, the idea of a European "society" would certainly be drifting into non-NPOV waters. I'd oppose the idea (without hopefully opening another can of worms here). What China articles do you mean exactly? I wish people would stop suggesting we copy the UN/nation state template for this page, the EU is completely different from both. --Simonski (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't countries have an infrastructure section? And I think you're over reacting on Society, it is just a title and there is still a society whatever it is, policies can relate to society without saying there is a single society. Demographics doesn't mean everyone is the same age.- J Logan t: 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its probably a tomayto/tomatoe, military/security, fundamental/human rights type question, and not something I'd go mental over if it was changed. Certainly though I could picture in future a band of editors, similar to the sports objectors of recent months, coming along and disputing the presentation of the page as inferring some sort of united "European society" and coming across as pre-enlargement propoganda. I'd only be against "society" because I think it would give the wrong impression, personally. --Simonski (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting (Justice and the law) 

message: Sorry but I've had enough of the belligerent Lear, in my opinion he is a vandal playing the WP:RULES. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear you'd be giving him what he wants by doing that. I wouldn't leave the page or anything, particularly when its clear we're almost at the end of the sports thing. Considering it now isn't banging on about everybody playing sports as a happy EU family and Romano Prodi waving EU flags at olympics, surely it could be worse. --Simonski (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, stick to it, we can work something out. Sometimes you have to deal with people you don't like to get the results you want.- J Logan t: 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, lets just say it was a bad day and saying what I did vented the possibility of being even more uncivil. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving.... 

message: The sports section has been repeatedly deleted by user SouthernElectric. After a recent discussion about its relevance and existence the actions of the user have to be considered as vandalism. 
I ask the established users to reintroduce the content on a frequent basis. The user SE has to be informed that his actions have violated a number of Wiki policies.Lear 21 (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, he isn't technically violating the rules as we failed to reach a consensus in the end. I don't think you helped Lear by putting your final sentence in without coming to a complete agreement, which we were so close to. If you check the Wikipedia rules on vandalism, I don't think there's anything you could pin on SE here. Instead what we have to do is finish the discussion above, which was based on keeping the sports section but not yet decided on how the final sentence should be worded/presented. Lets get a consensus and move on! --Simonski (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please lets finish the discussion above, I have noted on this there and responded to your request also. I agree there is little you can pin on SE right now and I think jumping ahead of the discussion has caused this problem. So please, let us return to the discussion. - J Logan t: 15:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to say as well that I'd agree that SE is entitled to put those tags up that he has but hopefully we'll get a discussion on the go here that can see them unnecessary soon enough. --Simonski (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would just point out that this article is about the European Union (the "EU") and not Europe (the landmass). As for the sections merits or otherwise, that is being discussed / voted on in another section SouthernElectric 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly Electrobe, if you want to know why there shouldn't be a sports section (mainly for the 100% valid point that SE just made), go read the archived discussion on it which points out the holes in your point above. As it is though I guess we're keeping this section in order to maintain a consensus, see above. Thanks for the useful input. --Simonski 10:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We all agree the edit war has to stop; and the vast majority is either for complete deletion or a very much trimmed down version; however it is basically one very stubborn (a mule is easily persuaded in comparison) who is keeping the debate alive. You could as easily say to him: "I think that you should just delete the sports section.", for much the same reason. Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in fact the rational that Electrobe used could almost be used to have a 'sports' section in the Earth article - at the end of the day it comes down to common sense, sorry Lear and Electrobe... SouthernElectric (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The point electrolube, is that the EU as an organisation has virtually nothing to do with sport. Better to discuss the mining industry, the car industry, favourite television series. None are really worth going into much detail about here. There are a lot ofthings which happen in Europe which the EU affects more than it does sport. Sandpiper (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Electrobe observed that the current sports sections seems to be relatively harmless, and wanted to say so; without wanting to engage in this troubles debate. So I think the overly wordy reponses (including Sandpipers last one) may have been a misinterpretation of the original meaning Arnoutf (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports 

message: The current main section contains several duplicated information and should be trimmed. Lear 21 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who keeps trying to put a "Military" section in but its a very bad idea I'd have to say. Haha perhaps we're about to being a new fun discussion on whether there should be a military section or not. --Simonski (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is ill thought out and I don't see how it is meant to help. Plus it does not warrant its own section given its low level in the EU. - J Logan t: 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a dammed-sight more important than the sorts section... SouthernElectric (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry Lear but military (or what ever it gets called is more than defence, IIRC the EU has taken part in peace keeping roles under the EU flag, min short there is not other heading it can be placed under other than it's own - but if your rational is correct there is also no need for sport to have it's own sub heading. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lear is not the only one objecting to this SE, the ESDP is related to the CFSP, I for one see it best under that heading, the sections flow better and all round I don't see it worth as a stand alone. - J Logan t: 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think its better as "security" personally, purely because its what the EU calls it itself, never mentioning "military" really. (Simonski)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.125.251 (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "Security" is far better and actually more relevant, in fact external boarder and airport security would be natural 'bed fellows' in any such section. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be different meanings for security, but I agree with Simonski that we might as well just stick to the EU term and considering the following term I don't think it will be confused. However I can't say I'm that bothered.- J Logan t: 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military and defence

message: 4 vandalisms in the first three and a half hours after being unblocked. You forget how much they attack the page don't you, when we go for FA we better get partial protection. But that's for another time, not it is unlocked I'm going to put the economy changes up, I'm holding back for a few hours as there haven't been many people commenting on it yet, just to give you a chance.- J Logan t: 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would call it 2, as most were made by the same anon IP adress, so basically one extended vandalism attempt. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've put it up now. Hopefully it will get ironed out now, please don't start an edit war over anything but I expect some of the unresolved points will get kicked around a bit. You can check the original copy in my sandbox for a while longer and see its talk page for points that have already been raised. User:JLogan/Sandbox, User talk:JLogan/Sandbox. Thanks. - J Logan t: 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To implement shortly

message: The warning tag stating: "This article's coverage of a controversial issue may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints.
Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page." was recently placed. However I think it is out of place because:
* coverage of a controversial issue: What is the controversial issue? I think there IS a controversy, but not in the content, but about whether the content (sports) should be added. This is in my opinion completely different from what is meant here as the phrase inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints does not seem to be suitable (ie nobody argues about the facts (albeit about lack of references) in the sports sections, there is not even much disagreement about the fact that football is most popular in the EU (ie no unbalance). So the controversy is not IN THE ACTUAL VIEWPOINTS; but rather in the RELEVANCE OF THE INFORMATION FOR THE ARTICLE. Therefore this is not a controversial issue as meant in the template. 
* Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, There seems to be agreements that no viewpoints are neglected. The problem is that some editors consider the given viewpoints IRRELEVANT. Hence this line again does not apply to the article.
* The controversial issue here is: "Should sports be seen as part of EU (union) or as part of Europe (geographic region)". However THAT SPECIFIC issue is not in the article itself, hence can never be "the controversial issue" in the warning template.
Hence I think this template completely misses the point and should be removed. (btw I agree with the (what I call here) meta-controversy about whether this should be in or out, but that is talk page controversy, not article controversy. Arnoutf (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lear, you understand wrong, what a surprise. As it is, when protection comes off the top tag could well be removed BUT the two tags within the sports section will remain until we go to the FA (or another) review process and this  tag will be placed on this talk page within a section pointing to all the recent sports section discussion. In short, whilst the top tag might now be invalid (having reached agreement) the lower two tags are even more valid now than when first placed. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was indeed only talking about the top tag; both local sports section tags do adress the actual ongoing debate. There is no agreement whatsoever about the sports section, the only agreement seems to be that we leave it as is now until a review is performed, after which we all accept the outcome of that review. Arnoutf (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither tag adds anything to the content of the article. Please accept that this article has achieved GA status because of a reason. The quality of this article has been acknowledged already. The editor who has put this article in constant crisis and instability has no edit history in any EU European related articles. Instead this editor has repeatedly tried to delete content and images in several sections. I ask the established editors to take a clear stance on that behaviour. The article must regain stable access and must become untagged completely. Lear 21 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those tags stay until FA review or the irrelevant content is removed. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, read Wikipedia's editing policy, someone could use a dynamic IP address and still have every right to remove irrelevant or add relevant content, as long as they can rationalise their edits. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given your remark on the role of Competition in the EU somewhere else on this page Lear I'd be wary of making comments about anybodys expertise on the issue of the EU. What if Jose Barroso himself was to sign up to wikipedia tomorrow and start helping to fix up the page, would that make his contributions less worthy of consideration? I think not. --Simonski (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, writing EU articles on wikipedia does is not a qualification in European studies. And tags can add a lot to an article if the issue of their inclusion is dealt with, they are placed because of a fault. I seem to remember when I first came here and an editor put citation tags up. Rather than adding citations to an article with next to no references you (Lear) just removed the tags. Had I and others not pressed on with referencing this article regardless this would not be anywhere near GA status with no chance of FA. - J Logan t: 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Lear for once again providing the arguments for removal of the sports section (i.e. majority wants to get rid of it; as discussed here in exhausting detail). Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Barroso point above. If somebody comes along tomorrow and is able to point out that a major part of the article is flawed, then it doesn't matter whether they've been involved in the editing of the page for 1 week, 1 month or 1 year. --Simonski (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What people have been saying Lear is, whilst some accept that a rational of sorts can be put forward for a 'Sports' section what they actually want is nothing more than an acknowledgement than; "Yes sport is played in EU member states but it has sod all to do with the "EU" and if you want to read more then the reader needs different article - such as the one pointed to at the top of the section". As such, the warning tags are relevant, well placed and will stay all the time there is anything more than a single paragraph on sports and certainly whilst the content is nothing more than a badly written diatribe... SouthernElectric (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, while I sympathise with your argument, I will NOT tolerate you insulting a fellow editor in that manner! ("your capacity of understanding is limited") I demand you apologise before we go any further.- J Logan t: 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lear, thanks for proving just how weak your rational/argument really is and how worried you are than the sports section will be deleted... SouthernElectric (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wiki is all about opinions of editors; there are no guardians or owners of the project even administrators are only primi inter pares. This means that no editor should take the attitude (for whatever reason) that he/she has zero tolerance for any kind of editor, except of course for clear vandals. Personally I have very serious problems with editors who show (or voice) zero tolerance towards others. If you stick with above statement Lear, you seriously disqualify yourself as a discussion partner in the future, and probably even as a reasonable person in general. Arnoutf (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lear's response above actually shows up two problems, the first is one of not understanding the WP:OWN policy and the second is being able to follow a written debate, I was never suggesting that I wanted Formula One (or what ever) included just that Lear's rational for including football (and his other named sports) would later give reason (that could not be rationally refused having accepted Lear's content) for others to add even more sports to the list of named sports - it seems to me that, whilst others might not have agreed with my opinions they at least understood the argument I was making, that is except Lear who is now trying to claim that I was suggesting the complete opposite to the above! I have no doubt that Lear can (as per is claim on his user page) hold a face to face English language conversation at a near native level but I am starting to doubt his ability to grasp written punctuations and phrasing etc. SouthernElectric (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt Lear21 even ever clicked on the WP:OWN wikilink, let alone read that article, as it (IMHO) very closely describes his behaviour. Also SouternElectic, I thought your response were misinterpreted but did not want to speak for you. Anyway, this section was about the topmost Unbalanced template and we are back to sports again..... Arnoutf (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, you'll need to use the  template to request such a change. Secondly unless the U-2 decision (in the recent straw poll) is accepted as 'section policy' and consensus there is a danger than the weight of the sports section could increase should more content be unilaterally added and reverted back after deletion, this being so the unbalanced tag should stay as the article is unbalanced. Thirdly, if the vote is accepted as the consensus there is no reason why we should not ask for the protection to be lifted - meaning we can remove the said tag ourselves. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not accepted as a consensus, perhaps we could at least try to agree on a voluntary ceasefire? Unless there is full agreement, no changes to the sports section. Ditto for other contentious areas if unresolved, e.g. law. - J Logan t: 11:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning tag

message: Apparently everyone agrees the template  at the top of the page is indeed not warranted (there is discussion about other templates so these should stay). So I would like to ask an administrator to remove the unbalanced template. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, you'll need to use the  template to request such a change. Secondly unless the U-2 decision (in the recent straw poll) is accepted as 'section policy' and consensus there is a danger than the weight of the sports section could increase should more content be unilaterally added and reverted back after deletion, this being so the unbalanced tag should stay as the article is unbalanced. Thirdly, if the vote is accepted as the consensus there is no reason why we should not ask for the protection to be lifted - meaning we can remove the said tag ourselves. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not accepted as a consensus, perhaps we could at least try to agree on a voluntary ceasefire? Unless there is full agreement, no changes to the sports section. Ditto for other contentious areas if unresolved, e.g. law. - J Logan t: 11:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to topic

message: Mentioning european fusion reactors as such seems to be exaggerating somewhat. I suppose strictly they are, but not in the sense understood in the term 'fission reactor'. No one has built a self sustaining fusion reactor capable of generating power, and there is no likelihood of one any time soon. Sandpiper (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what discussion (or part there of) have I missed ?! SouthernElectric (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon, I was reading the article, not the discussion. Section about energy. Sandpiper (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think ITER as a high profile, multi billion Euro project deserves mentioning; although Research maybe a better heading compared to energy in its current status. Arnoutf (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I definitly think it wants mentioning, just that it is not remotely near generating power. I was also wondering what the EU research budget gets spent on, and whether a significant portion might be spending on energy, so that the research element might somehow be combined with energy. I liked  Logans proposed rearrangement placing research into the economy section, so they would at least be together, perhaps adjacent. Sandpiper (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Euratom is mentioned at the Cordis FP7 site , so I think we can link it into research. Arnoutf (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it could go in either, it is advancement energy production, even if just experimental, and indicates the direction of the EU. On the other hands it is a huge piece of research. Does anyone object to it being in research or energy?- J Logan t: 14:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fusion reactors 

message: I just changed it there. Wow, does it read better or does it read better. I can't believe I didn't notice that earlier, only when Sandpiper pointed it out there. The bit on the Member States should be right at the top without a doubt. Aside from the obvious, anybody else have any problem with the new look? --Simonski (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know how long that will last, those two sections have been playing musical chairs with each other for months.- J Logan t: 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of it being my Jego-Quere - it probably won't last long but it'll get people thinking about how the previous setup has been crap. I'm quite willing to go into the whole sports-length/consensus bs here again on this one, I think its that important. --Simonski (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I really like the new layout, well in Sandpiper. It just seems to make more sense how it has one half dealing with the setup of the EU and then the second half dealing with things like Education etc. It also means finally the Environment section won't look so bloody out of place, as it has for ages now. Good idea. --Simonski (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I'm cautious about environment as economic policy but considering the inclusion of REACH etc I suppose its the best we can do, it certainly did look out of place under geography. Still not sure about geography under demographics but I'm happy enough with it. On the country thing, we have been through the EU-not-a-country thing but even though there are differences, there are similarities so while we're not saying the EU is a country we can still look at the manual of style for an idea of layout, adapted to the EU. I am not trying to advocate it (I was one who pressed for it to be dropped originally) but just don't get too carried away with ignoring it. And indeed with "facts" such as EU-not-a-country, as what is a country etc... but save that debate for another time.- J Logan t: 09:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wherever these sections get moved around to, and wherever they end up, as long as the Member States section is the second thing on the page, I'm happy. It just makes far more sense. --Simonski (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Member States as the 2nd thing on the page

message: Lear (and anyone else), if you really think a brief description of the physical geographical highlights of Europe belongs near the start of this article, can you please explain why? I'm not necessarily hung up on exactly what the section should be called, but it is general info which ought to go with the other general topics, towards the end. Similarly, why do you feel that a discussion of the EU's policy on the environment ought to be tucked in between the description of its history and members, and its organisation? Environment policy ought to go together with other policy topics. Sandpiper (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the brief explanation offered in the edit history isn't good enough to be honest. Everything under the sun is mentioned in the introduction to the article. Nothing is more relevant than what countries actually bloody make up the EU. --Simonski (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Geographical information

message: Logan, since you asked, I see two sensible ways to organise the first paragraph of the 'geography' section. Either place it later in the article as relatively unimportant additional information about what territories are part of the EU or are not, or place it as a final paragraph in the 'member states' section (as I just did). This informtaion is already partially repeated in that section. It is relevant, as it is detailed information about what regions are part of the EU, and which are not. It may be argued that it is precisely what a reader will want to know when looking up which states are members and which are not. He will want to know that in fact the channel islands are not EU, so he can't go there, or that the Azores are included, so he can. The extent to which I agree Lear has an argument for keeping this material early in the article, is that for good organisational reasons it belongs with the 'member states' information. It does not belong with a discussion of land mass and coastline. I also think that the remaining geographical statistics belongs best as a section under 'demographics'. Sandpiper (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'll get the speech for this but if I remember correctly states come under geography on the country template. Not saying we should follow the country template but something as simple as that we can use surely? I objected to your changes because it looked a mess, fine if you want to make a point or lead to getting rid of geography etc but long term it isn't very useful, organisation of the sections doesn't make much sense.- J Logan t: 09:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I havn't found a template, but looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries I see that they recommend separt main sections for 'geography' and 'subdivisions' (in our case, superdivisions). They even suggest that 'subdivisions' should go into details about overseas territories, etc. Not that I'm saying we should follow their guidelines, which also heavily emphasise that everything should be short, and they don't mention 'sport' at all. In what way did the change look a mess? I took out one of the geography pictures, because there were too many for the amount of text. On the whole we are a bit heavy on pictures. I'm not convinced there is very much useful to say about geography in the context of an article talking about an administrative organisation spanning an entire continent. Sandpiper (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I've been looking at the country articles for too long, I forget that most don't bother to follow it. Okay, so if we go with that though I think at least we should move environment away from there (if people object to economic, perhaps "other policies" for that, education, culture and sports?- J Logan t: 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either environment or geography should be at the start. The country layout suggestions suggest that 'governance' should be before 'geography' and I would certainly agree. I don't really regard the 'environment' section as 'geography' either. As a section it talks about general policies of the EU, with a couple of examples. Actual physical geography is pretty irrelevant to it.  I did place environment and geog lower down, but Lear moved tham back up again. Lear, perhaps you would care to explain why? Sandpiper (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And alternatively insert all state info into the member state section

message: Before unprotecting, I would just like to remind all participants that this is one of the 250 most viewed pages on wikipedia, with over 200 000 pageviews per day. Having a dispute is fine, but please don't disrupt one of our most viewed articles while doing so - if possible, keep obtrusive tagging to a minimum and discuss things on the talk page first. 
There seems to be a rough consensus to keep the current sports section as it is for now, and request external review of it. I hope this can be respected and other areas of the article improved in the meantime. henrik•talk 12:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect your argument, but I think you misinterpret the situation slightly. It seems acceptable to keep the current sports section for many (including me) for the moment only, although most of us agree the version is not good (including me again). We look for review to resolve the dispute; and hope to find a way out, even if that means expanding, or if it confirms deletion of the whole section (the outspoken wish of many who accepted the poll). The reason why the current version is maintained is that we want to freeze the situation so review can be conducted on a stable version. Arnoutf (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: If anyone wants a break from arguing about this article, I just want to give you a heads up on the WP:EU advert, drop by the project talk page if you have a mo please, thanks.- J Logan t: 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or listen to this.... Lear 21 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps make a nice warm winter fire with all those leftover copies of the dead constitution. --Simonski (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh but doesn't it make you feel proud! Don't you just want to stand up and salute that EU flag you have hanging over your desk and sing along! Isn't nationalism the reason why the EU was created! :) - J Logan t: 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without wandering into particularly controversial territory, to an extent yes it was, because some countries couldn't seem to keep their nationalism in check. Being nationalistic and supporting the EU is not a contradiction in terms - see the good old SNP in this respect. And anyway, those with the strongest pro-European views are ironically also nationalist in a sense, in viewing Europe and Europeans as superior to the rest of the world. The average European's view on America, anyone? --Simonski (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent chap Beethoven, though I think it needs a bit more 'concert hall' and rather less 'pc speaker'. I recall objecting earlier to the page advertising the adjective 'european' as meaning 'citizen of the european union', which it certainly does not mean. Now, shouldn't there be a section for anthems? Sandpiper (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side note  (anthems and paraphenalia)

message: Facts from the EU Commision, thought they might be good information for the various EU county articles and possibly this article also...Bronayur (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU facts 2/28/06 

message: SE, I don't see how an image of the ECB building has less tokenism than an image of banknotes. It is just a temporary building where the bank sits where as the euro is the currency itself in the hands of several million Europeans. While I admit a picture is still a token, I wouldn't consider the ECB an improvement. It certainly doesn't aid understanding any better for a start.- J Logan t: 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't want to fight on this one, but I preferred the image of coins to notes, and notes to the signboard in front of a building. Sandpiper (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I went for the coin because it is more iconic, it is a euro, the euro, one euro. Far more striking than a bunch of notes I'd say, stands out more on the page. - J Logan t: 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And on SE's proposal just now, although it looks very flashy I think it should stay in the navbox. Maybe stylish but it doesn't even show the whole coin, I don't think it adds anything. What is wrong with the whole coin?- J Logan t: 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because who doesn't know what a coin looks like! This is a presentational issue not a content issue - eye candy in other words - something that will (hopefully) make people who would otherwise not do so, stop and read the sections text. This whole article could stand without any images (bar the member states map perhaps) but it needs images that will entice the unknowledgeable reader to read more than the introduction before giving up. As for the image not showing the whole coin, so what, the image of the brigade doesn't show the whole bridge and nor does the image of Mont Blanc show the whole mountain - are you going to suggest that they are replaced?! SouthernElectric (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, yes it could stand without any images but still showing what the currency looks like can be informative. People can actually recognise it, plenty people in this world can't. So I would say it does have some value in that, granted not vital but it is better than anything else thus far.- J Logan t: 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one flaw in that argument, to do as you suggest (for the reason you say) would mean having 14 images, one image for each side of the notes and coins for each of the 13 member states plus one image for the common side!... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Em, no, even on coins with just one set of sides it is not obligatory to show both. This is why they have a common side, so Wikipedia doesn't get clogged up with images - they thought ahead those cleaver people.- J Logan t: 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err yes, think about it, if only the common side is shown  and someone sees a real Euro note or coin common side down they won't "recognise it"... SouthernElectric (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think this is getting a tad silly now, I mean the same is true for notes and we aren't running a recognise your currencies centre here, it is just a picture. One side is better than one and I think that is more useful than recognising the temporary HQ of the ECB. Besides, it is the most iconic side, which they will connect to the topic if they have seen it before.- J Logan t: 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point, we are not running a recognise your currencies centre here, we don't need to show the face of the Euro, never m,ind it's many faces... SouthernElectric (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It links it with the article though, it helps if we have some connection to the real world and people are very visual and won't read all of this. If they have seen it, or will see it in future, it is a visual link between that real life and this text. You don't get that with the ECB, the euro is everywhere though.- J Logan t: 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on euro images 

message: Sorry guys, but I'm at it again. This is a long article and it needs to get rid of repetition. There is quite a bit of stuff in 'governance' which is repeated or approached from a different angle in 'law'. We can't really afford to go over the different types of regulation or codecision vs whatever it is threee times over in the article, so I think these two sections will have to be merged. Tentatively I would keep heading governance and break some extra sections inside it. I think the intro on 'justice' would work as introduction to the whole section (talking about the treaties), then  the current 'governance' section about institutions. 'courts'  at the end of the stuff from  'institutions' about the parliament. the additional detail about types of 'legislation' should be integrated with the current last para of 'governance', which talks about the same thing.  At the moment there is a whole collection of main article tags at the top of these and hopefully we can split them a bit to the smaller subsections. Sandpiper (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only overlap I can see is the last para of governance, and that is a very basic over view! So, why? I don't see why we need to merge them, right now we have a good clear system from what I can see, the divisions you have mentioned do give that already and we do we have to keep splitting things into smaller sections all the time? Breaks the flow and isn't needed.- J Logan t: 10:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governance and Law 

message: The EU (institutions) make Social policy, groups like NGO's campaign on Social Issues (often to get the EU to make better policies) whilst citizens of each country and or ethnic group have their Culture - thus, in my opinion, the level two heading should be "Social policies" due to the fact that this article is really about the institution of the EU and not either the land mass that makes up individual member countries or the people who inhabit the land mass (both these issues should really be dealt with at the country article level. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with southern, a good way of drawing the distinction. The subsections, including culture, sport or environment, are all things which might have been general social issues, but the text we have here specifically highlights policies/actions of the EU. Sandpiper (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, "Misc"?- J Logan t: 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really... SouthernElectric (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriuosly? no, because it doesnt tell the reader anything.Sandpiper (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social policy vs. Social issues vs. Culture 

message: The "Environment" section needs to be a section by itself, the reason I say this is because environmental issues stray into most (if not all) other sections, it really doesn't sit happily as a sub-section in any one section due to this. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I havn't yet tried sorting out research/energy/environment. I agree they interact and the article may perhaps be reorganised a bit to make them more individual. The environmental information basically amounts to a policy of the EU. I don't know whether the EU sees it as one policy area, but it is something which matters to the public so it makes sense to me to talk about it as a topic. If we have one main heading of 'social policy', then I think environment ought to be inside it rather than standing alone. but I don't have a fixed view on how this end of the article ought to be organised. Sandpiper (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see the dilemma but what ever happens it really doesn't fit under the "Social Policies" (or what ever...) heading - and certainly not under a culture heading! SouthernElectric (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For structure/readability of the whole of the article there should not be more than 10 main (level 1) sections (excluding refs see alsos etc). Each of these sections should have a relevant length. We are currently at 11, so if you want to split of environment something has to go. Arnoutf (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that set in stone though, guide line are just that, guide lines, also this article has already shown up that it can't always fit the normal 'country' style guide. If a level 2 (not level 1, that's the article/page title!) heading has to go, why can't the level two 'Member states' be made a level 3 heading within the level 2 history section? Having the sections laid out in that order would still read correctly whilst if the list was based on accession date rather than alphabetical order it would fit well into the history of the EU. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the egalitarian approach of an alphabetical list, but also there is a sort-of chronological list in the history section where it mentions countries joining as it goes along. Sandpiper (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: How about the global warming bits go with energy, which already talks about it, the waste spill goes with law, as that is about criminal law which we can expand on if need be, and the rest is renamed 'health'. Social policies could be renamed 'social impact'.- J Logan t: 10:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they all over lap, (waste) land fill can cause 'Global warming' (due to Methane emissions etc.), transport contributes too (due to fossil fuel use), the economy contributes by using excess processing (causing both excess waste and energy use), sport contributes by using energy (Lear's beloved football could play all their matches during daylight hours rather than under flood-lights...) and so on. As I said, it doesn't really sit happily as a sub heading under anything other than the article title. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I'm saying get rid of it, environment comes under so many different things we might as well spit it all up and call the rump "health". Hence avoiding the problem. We just stick it all under a title generic enough to cover it and just don't give a damn that there is overlap, it isn't the end of the world.- J Logan t: 11:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are suggesting that environmental policy etc, relevant to a section subject, are dealt with within the subject sections I can live with that. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Brr. I think the environment is probably a relatively minor aspect of EU activity per se, though rather more important than eg sport. I would place it equally important to religion. Looked at from an external perspective, the environment issue is very important and will have a major impact on the EU and the rest of the world in the coming decades. It is also topical (always in the news!), so it is something we ought to cover as a collected topic, somewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon the environment is a major aspect for the EU actually, most national environmental legislation is from the EU and it is always on the agenda, look at the manifestos of all the parties, and it is getting bigger. It is a role everyone says the EU should do more on. WHich is why I put together the environment section and would like it to say, but it is getting dispersed and is so connected to others and we are having trouble on where to put it>- J Logan t: 13:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Environment, or Climate Change as it should be called if you ask me, is now a major policy consideration of the EU and has to be reflected in the article. I think in a post-Reform Treaty EU we're seeing that they (the EU institutions and the Member States) are coming out and saying that there are a few main things that are to be focused on in future - one of them being Climate Change, whilst others include stuff like sorting out the political situation in Serbia and so on. Definitely post-Reform Treaty the impression that is being given is they are starting to try and focus on things that are actually important to their citizens. Anyway, point being - Environment shouldn't be in Geography, it should be down as a Policy somewhere. --Simonski (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment section 

message: * In my opinion, Environment should not part of Geography, instead falling under the category of a key EU policy, social policy to be precise. From the version Lear keeps reverting to, I would say the thing I would disagree with heavily is the placement of Environment at the top. --Simonski (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''What needs changed in your opinion? (summaries only please!)'''

message: Right, going from the above (to which people can add to still obviously), Lear surely you could just say "fine" here and accept a couple of the views just stated - given in particular that if you were to do so I think we'd finally have an end to any significant debate that destabilises the page. (Assuming SE that I'm right in inferring that you would give way on a couple of things) From what I gathered, SE has offered a compromise position, would be helpful if you could do so here too. I think given, as discussed, the page is oversized already the introduction of any new sections should be avoided though SE. --Simonski (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent changes look good, I've tweaked a few points. One thing I'm not sure of though is the current geography/demographics merge, seems very disjointed and messy. I think it is fine to leave it with member states really but if it must go udner demo I think it should be in a clearly defined section.- J Logan t: 11:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Side point on environment/climate change. Climate change may be caused by non-environmental factors but the section isn't discussing the EU's environment but rather its policy. It is "environmental policy", don't think there is a "climate change policy".- J Logan t: 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly, and some of those policies will affect economic, development, environmental policies - or even all three at once - that is why I feel that CC needs to have it's own sub heading, the EU might well have environmental policies about the 'yellow back spotted toad' (Hypth' exp') that has nothing to do with CC, in fact the 'yellow back spotted toad' might actually benefit from CC! SouthernElectric (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its pretty obvious though you're going to have to find a middle ground here with Lear (and whoever else), so I'm guessing one of the first things you'd compromise over is the need for a CC subsection? I think the article could survive without it surely! --Simonski (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's only Lear, if the article can survive without a CC subsection then it will survive even better without the irrelevance of a sports subsection then!...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernElectric (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is lear objecting to a CC section? I'd be surprised. Though to be honest I've lost track of what he is supposed to be objecting to. I'll be happy with CC and so on if it gets an agreement, its no big deal. On what Lear has said in his summary though, the only real out standing issue is geo and environ at the top, I am fine with geo but environ ought to be with the other policies. Could we perhaps compromise there Lear?- J Logan t: 11:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, I'm not actually sure what Lear is objecting to now (other than not being allowed to get away with WP:OWN), half the problem is Lear's failure to correctly use the edit summary to tell us what he has done without checking every ruddy word he has added or removed... As for Geo, I can live with it as a level 3 heading under a level 2 member states heading but not as a level 2 heading near the top of the article and certainly not within the first five headings. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of the above

message: There was clearly no consensus to split research and education. Nevertheless it was recently divided between culture and economy. There was no consensus about what was done to Geography. 
I think the recent edits of this page are bold, blunt, offensive to people who try to reason, and in make the page worse rather then better. If you think such drastic changes are needed; create a page on the sideline where you create your perfect version before trampling all over the careful construction of the article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. No need to split it. Lear 21 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there seems an overall idea to connect these two again, from the other discussions, I'll stick my neck out and merge them again, if someone objects revert.- J Logan t: 10:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we create something like EU-identity. That could hold Culture, Sports, and E&R all as 2nd level headers. That would also allow us to merge 2 very short sections at level 1 to bring more balance in the article as a whole. Arnoutf (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think E&R is identity. Come on, research programmes? Erasmus yes, you could call that part of identity but even stuff like the Bologna process, I really isn't cultural. On EU-identity in general, if we could get some backing for a section it might be debatable but there is hardly anything on it besides speculation which will drag in POV claims.- J Logan t: 11:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was Research and education split?? 

message: Okay, can I just archive this whole lot then we have a talk page header for each header being discussed on the article. There are way too many new ones here branching off.- J Logan t: 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a couple of days I think, I just want to see what exactly it is people are wanting changed/kept and whats causing all the fuss. --Simonski (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can as well archive now as recent changes in the mainspace article are made with no attention whatsoever that what is said about these changes on this talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many new talk sections do we need? I'm lost! 

message: Can someone, who knows their way around the accepted reference work, please check the recent change to the quoted GDP figure made by an IP editor (62.243.176.52) here, it just seems one hell of a jump - from 15.8 trillion down to 16,574 billion US$). SouthernElectric (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't match with the ref just revert it, they're forever fiddling with the figures for POV reasons.- J Logan t: 18:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to the GDP figure 

message: Hi all, there seems some agreement that the sports section should be reviewed; and untill then not changed. While I agree in principal it is essential that the review is conducted very soon; it cannot be that a decision/sentiment for review results in the complete locking of a section. So either we start the review or we decide it is practically impossible to do so, and accept new editing in the section. Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the  template that gets attached to the talk page requesting article review (or a section there of) by interested parties - bar the FA review perhaps that is the way forward? I agree that something needs to be done but would far prefer the section to remain dormant and bad than to reignite the issues and end up with the article locked again... SouthernElectric (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make of it what you will, policy states that a page may not be repeatedly locked for the same content dispute. I presume that means we move on to banning repeat offenders. For my part, I would say this has been a very genteel dispute so far. Sandpiper (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports review 

message: Something has got to be done about Lear constant abuse of both the edit summary and minor edit tick box, article restructuring is NOT maintenance or a minor edit, a minor edit is something like a typo that when corrected doesn't change the meaning or flow of the article - changing the header level of a section or rearranging the article whole-sale (as was done a couple of days ago) and calling it "maintenance" is simple abuse of WP and needs to be stopped. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lear violating edit summaries and the minor edit marker