Talk:European Union/Archive 10

message: The way the largest cities section is organised, is ridiculous. For example, for London and Rome the municipi and boroughs are counted, although for Athens the municipalities (essentially subdivisions) that are part of the city (I'm NOT talking about the metropolitan area), are not! An analogue would be that London equals the City of London, therefore London is not one of the largest cities in EU! This is just silly and should be changed.
Peter
85.75.165.141 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please will you clarify your disagreement, Lear 21.  What precisely in what Peter's written is "Wrong!"?  Is he wrong to say that different rules are used for different cities?  And what do you mean by "Watch also the metro size population"?  What about it should we watch?  I watched, and nothing struck me to make Peter's observation obviously "Wrong!", but then I might have missed the obvious. I'm sorry if I have. Countersubject 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can understand your response, it doesn't seem to address Peter's point.  He seems to be saying that the city sizes are not consistently calculated on the same basis (that we also have a metro column is therefore irrelevant to his observation).  Do you think his observation is true, and if so, what do you suggest we do about it? Countersubject 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually this is the reason why I think the largest city section should be completely deleted (see my arguments furhter down on the page). The division of Athens into seperate municipalities makes the "Athens" city proper smaller than Vienna. As I have argued, these differences in approach to deal with cities within the different states of the EU, makes comparison on size alone useless and irrelevant. Arnoutf 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest Cities section

message: User Lear 21 deleted edits, but the intro should treat the EU as both a politcal issue and a legal entity. Additionnally, the intro should placve the EU in the context of an expanding and deepening process of integration, and should say that it is open-ended. The constantly shifting structures of the EU are one of its most notable features. I propose to use this version:Paul111 12:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union of democratic nation-states in Europe. It currently has 27 member states. The EU represents the current phase of European integration: it was established under that name in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty. Predecessor entities, with fewer members and more limited in scope, were formed after the Second World War."Panorama of the European Union", Europa. Accessed January 24, 2007 Since then, membership, competences, tasks, and goals have expanded. The process of integration is open-ended: although the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU, eurosceptic fears that it will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty have made the EU (and its future) a major political issue in itself.
You say that the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU. This is not completely true: the Treaty of Rome mentions the goal of "ever closer union", which some might interpret as meaning ultimately a single federal state. Luis rib 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The reality is that all talk of federal or confederal structures, from within the EU, has stopped. There are very few outside the EU who still advocate them either. In fact they exist primarily as a eurosceptic bogeyman. Note that there are other options, such as a unitary state.Paul111 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New intro paragraph 

message: User Lear 21 reinserted a version of History which makes a false distinction between 'pacifist' and 'military' unions. The idea that the Roman Empire is an EU predecessor is not historically viable or accurate. Neither is the implicit suggestion that Europe had a menu of 'good' and 'bad' unions in the 1940's. The naming of Victor Hugo  in this section would distort it, (unless many others are included as well) since his proposals were not particularly influential. I have proposed splitting the History of the European Union article into a pre-1945 and post-1945 section, to avoid Whig history. See that article's talk page.Paul111 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just some correction to Luis rib's comment (who should know better;-)). While the attacks in teh west were indeed not part of the "Lebensraum" concept, some territories were neverless annexed and integrated into the Reich (Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, parts of Belgium (possibly also small parts of the Netherlands and Denmark)). Not all of the eastern states and territories named were annexed either (General Gouvernement was administred but not annexed, though I have no doubt it would only have been a matter of time until annexation...) On the other hand I do agree that the 3rd Reich's policy has very little if anything in common with the EU. The same obviously applies to the Roman Empire and the EU.--Caranorn 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Reich and Roman Empire as predecessor 

message: These points seem to have disappeared during recetn edits. Harmonisation is not the same as the acquis, and the initial role of harmonisation was to facilitate the single market. Food safety standards are the classic example, if consumers are not sure that imported food meets their own national standards, they usually won't buy it. Harmonisation, as a de facto major policy, should get more attention.Paul111 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. Countersubject 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonisation and acquis 

message: There is a need for a section on the underlying major issues, separate from accession controversies. They are not sufficiently covered in the current issues section. They include the question of European identity (still no major article on this) and the boundaries of 'Europe'. The related issue of a 'Christian Europe', and the so-called European values, should be included, in this context. I suggest a section on European identity and values placed before the Current issues section.Paul111 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Countersubject that we have to distinguish carefully between EU and Europe (for example I am pretty sure the Swedish culture has more in common with the Norwegian culture (non-EU) than with the Romanian culture (EU)). that not-withstanding there is some effort to come to a common culture/identity in Europe not only with the education and funding but also in relation to Culture (cultural capitals), and research (the EU framework programs). Nevertheless we have to be careful to avoid POV forks and original research. Perhaps the Eurobarometer can give some input. Especially about future developments we have to be wary of crystal balling.Arnoutf 09:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundaries and identity 

message: These need correction or rewriting:
*GDR did not accede to EU
*optimumpopulation.org not a reliable source
*Washington Times not a reliable source
*statistics from secondary sources, use Eurostat preferably
*institutions section is mainly about their location
*law section includes structure, should be in structure or status section: EU law does not establish structure, the treaties do
*international relations includes accession countries, but accession is not part of Solana's competences
*peace between member states is not an aspect of EU foreign policy, since by definition it is internal to the EU
*historical location of the EU within the Atlantic alliance is ignored - until 1989 some current member states had nuclear missiles targeted at each other
*the ambitious Lisbon strategy has apparently failed, and little is heard of it these daysPaul111 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points for attention 

message: I propose to delist the article as a Good Article. This notification allows other editors to improve the article, see Wikipedia:Good article review.
1. Structure is not clear and not yet logical, and EU structure itself, its values, it policies, and political controversies about those, are mixed in with each other. Headers do not always match section content, politics section for instance is more about structural issues. Article needs to be read twice to understand it. Too much about the location of EU institutions rather than what they do.
2. Some dubious claims (EU largest economy, EU prevents war) are not sourced.
3. Coverage of values, European identity, and future orientation is weak, and not stable either. List of largest cities is listcruft and does not belong here, associated images even less so.
4. Neutrality is undermined by the concentration on legal aspects, the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance, but you would not guess that from the article. History section has too much Whig history.
5. Article is certainly not stable.Paul111 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea, Paul111, on each of these grounds.  Perhaps the shock of de-listing will focus minds. Countersubject 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm very disappointed, Luis, that your fifth point seems to be coming close to the kind of personal abuse that has marred discussion of this article (though it is put in you unfailingly polite manner).  When you appear to disagree with fellow editors about the subject of an article, and when that subject is a matter of intense political and constitutional debate, then you need to think carefully before suggesting their edits are destabilising the article.  It not only looks like a discourtesy, but will also distract editors from the discussion of Paul's observations and suggestions that you've begun.  Now I'm going to go and deal with supper before it burns.  That will also give me a chance to think about the substantive points that you've both made. Countersubject 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting as Good Article 

message: The coverage of the Schengen agreement is misleading.  The impression is given that's it's an EU thing, but that's not wholly true (another subtlety). A total of 30 countries – including all European Union states and three non-EU members, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland – have signed the agreement and 15 have implemented it so far. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom only take part in the police co-operation measures and not the common border control and visa provisions.  The agreement was signed outside of the structures of the EU because of a lack of consensus amongst members, and because of a Nordic desire to retain traditional freedoms of movement, irrespective of EU membership.  However, the Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated Schengen developments into the European Union framework.
It might be better to give the Agreement a section of its own, perhaps as part of the reorganisation that editors are beginning to suggest.  That would give room to explain these matters more accurately, and it's certainly a significant development.
Also (and I hesitate to raise this), the current photo of a 'Schengen' border-crossing is inappropriate to the Geography section (which is itself arguably inappropriate to an article on the EU).  It looks like another example of the compulsion to post graphics, irrespective of their relevance and the value they add to the text.  It's a kind of graphical diarrhoea. Countersubject 09:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read intro of the EU-article :"The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control and customs checks for most member states within EU's internal borders, creating, to some extent, a single area of free movement for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest"! Next to the Euro (and some other), this is one of the most important achievements in EU history, initiated by it. The image in Geography is right because it documents the claim in the introduction. It is signed, correct, by all members, though differently interpreted. Lear 21 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Lear 21: the article is about the EU.  We therefore need to be strictly accurate about what's in it.  I'm calling for no more accuracy than can be seen in the main article about the Agreement, from where I took my points about it.  What's the problem?  You seem to see rabid Eurosceptics around every corner, slavering at the prospect of using this article to slander and belittle the EU and its achievements.  I suggest you take a deep breath and re-read my observations and suggestions.  They don't say that the EU or the Agreement are bad things.  In fact, they suggest that the Agreement is so significant as to warrant its own section. And I don't say that the photo is inappropriate per se, but that the Geography section isn't the right place for it (in fact, it's even more odd in that location than its predecessor, the Polish forest).  As a matter of fact, I think it would be a good candidate for a Schengen section or sub-section. Countersubject 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Either or both? Countersubject 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BOTHLear 21 16:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why both? Wouldn't that just be unnecessary duplication? And why does it "have" to be? Might it not be a good idea to put forward this idea as a suggestion to be discussed, rather than simply insist that it must be so? And please don't shout. Countersubject 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't ask whether it was historic or not.  I asked why the material should be duplicated, and why you categorically insist it has to be, without bothering to explain why.  You've failed to explain a necessary connection between the Agreement's historic significance and your idea for duplicating the material.  Note that I'm not saying there isn't such a connection - merely that you haven't bothered to give it. Countersubject 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely the article should not, on principle, repeat itself. Wikidea 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. But then, that's probably my British Europhobia speaking. Countersubject 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schengen Agreement

message: I see that on the 27th January, someone introduced the following sentence to the 'Education' section, in relation to the Galileo Project:
Several other nations are joining the project co financing the development such as China, Israel, India, Marocco or South Korea.
Where is 'Marocco', and why the fractured English?  That we've let this survive without question or correction for a number of days says a lot about the rate of change to this article, and our willingness to pussyfoot around imprecise and even unintelligible edits.  We're so phased by the rate of change and worried that we might offend someone (or frankly can't face the hassle of the edit war) that we just let this kind of thing pass.  Shame on us all. Countersubject 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: It is not sufficient to use the term member states, which could include empires. That would negate the historical background, the transition to a continent of nation-states. The controversy is not a country-by-country issue, but derives from the inherent contradictions of a union of sovereign states. Additionally, each of those nation-states derives its legitimacy from its status as national homeland of the nation (4 nations in the UK case), whereas the European Union does not correspond to a nation, people, ethnic group, or any similar entity. These issues have played a role in the evolution of the EU, and in its current state of crisis. These points need more emphasis, starting with the intro.Paul111 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Euhm that means the UK is not a single nation state, nor are Belgium (Walloon, Flemings and the German part), nor is Spain (Catalunia). So nation-state just does not apply. State is much more neutral and at least not offensive to anyone. Arnoutf 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nation-states

message: All of this acting as though the EU is a country is very debatable.  What counts as a "geopolitical entity?"  The EU does not have a unified military nor military policy (look at the conflict in Iraq; some EU countries sent troops, some didn't); it does not have a unified currency (although the Euro is eventually supposed to be it); it does not have a free flow of services; they don't even have a single alphabet; etc.  So where does it stop?  You could state that the UN is a geopolitical entity, or even ASEAN.  In that case, both of those have a larger population than the EU.  This EU bumping the USA ranking pettiness ought to stop, especially while the EU is not yet a single nation-state.  Chiss Boy 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True that the EU does not have all those; but then again to what extent is the US a classical nation state (e.g. differences in Deth penalty between state). I think the EU is in the process of finding its own unique structure, and is unlikely to become a single nation state (IMHO), the end results of which may require a new description. Arnoutf 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'Chiss Boy' has a point,and to imply that 'nation-state' can only be discussed in ethnic terms is beside it.  The US is an ethnically and culturally diverse place, but it undoubtedly has a common legal and political culture, which wouldn't be possible without a cohesive wider culture.  We can't say that of the EU, which as the article puts it is an inter-governmental and supra-national body.  It has a tendency to acquire the attributes of a national government, but as things are the EU isn't a country in the sense that its members and the US are.  It's therefore not appropriate to insist that we follow the standard structure of a country article. Geographical details and comparisons are a case in point.  An institution doesn't have a geography, so there's really no point in giving it a Geography section, or comparing it to 'other geopolitical entities'.  This is not unlike the issue of the Culture section, which suffered as a result of attempts to treat it as if this were a standard country article. The EU doesn't have a culture in the sense that a country has.  All we can discuss in such a section is the interaction between the EU as an institution and the culture of its members. Countersubject 14:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for clarification as I truly did not understand: Which view do you mean exactly that prevails is the view that prevails (1) EU is not a nation state or (2) EU is not a nation state? Arnoutf 15:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For the other issues. It has been argued elsewhere that the standard country format is a guideline to help some consistency in these type of article. I think we can use quit a bit of that structure here; but where the EU deviates from a normal state, we have to use our own best intuition what to do. Writing a Wiki article on something as complex as the EU is of course more than just a fill-in-the-dots exercise (and what would be the fun of that).Arnoutf 15:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a sensible approach.  The standard country format is a good starting point, and part of the fun of this article is working out when to stick with it and when to depart from it. Countersubject 15:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: @User:Arnoutf I didnt understand your question either. haha. But my last sentence was unclear as well, you are right. The EU and its member countries as an entity will never be the nation state in a classical 19th century way. Also, most of the populations have already accepted globally spread lifestyles : American pop culture, Japanese Videogames, Australian outdoor holidays etc. To the 2nd edit of yours: correct/ support! The EU must use some country like formats to identify the complexity, but has to create own sections to characterize itself (which is already the case). In general : The country format guidelines are a helpful set to approach and to understand the issue EU... Lear 21 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the third largest geopolitical entity by population?

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of Strasbourg as a lesser capital in the factbox on the right? Chiss Boy 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice idea, but I think that would not be necessary. Brussels is the capital Strassbourg 'only' the seat of parlaiment once in a while. Arnoutf 10:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Strasbourg actually the official seat of the Parliament? I thought I heard something like that somewhere... Luis rib 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know both Brussels and Strassbourg are offical seats of the Parliament; but that does not matter for the capital (see the Dutch - Amsterdam (capital) the Hague (seat of parl) issue in Capital of the Netherlands) Arnoutf 11:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, true, if we are discussing the issue of the capital of the EU, then it's quite definetely Brussels. (BTW: just to add a bit of POV fuel to this discussion: if Strasbourg were to be added as "minor capital", so of course should Luxembourg, since it is the seat of the EU Court of Justice and other institutions) Luis rib 11:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue of minor capital is weird to start with; so it would be The Principal Town, but minor the another principal town??? Let's not go there at all and leave it at this. Arnoutf 14:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some mention of Strasbourg

message: Actually I think this is one of the issues where the EU-integration has not yet been complete enough to add to the template. For example the GDP of Denmark is about 5 times that of Romania. There is a huge difference in HDI as well within the EU. That this is an issue can also be gathered from the relatively weird wording now used to justify the template. In other words, I would suggest jsut leaving these numbers out of the infobox and discuss it in some more detail under economics. Arnoutf 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GDP(total) is verifiable and an accumulated number, it has to be kept. HDI is an avarage and not verifiable for the whole EU, it is dispensable. Lear 21 18:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Verifiable the GDP may be, but is it relevant? Arnoutf 19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HDI GDP numbers

message: Lear 21 doesn't like the changes to the introduction made by Paul111, so he reverted them, initially without discussion, subsequently explaining that he felt the changes were  "speculative", and that they'd had an adverse effect on the "written quality" of the article (see "Introduction", above).  I believe Paul111's edits included some valuable contributions, though felt they would benefit from amendment, so I asked Lear 21 what in particular he believed was speculative, and in what manner the written quality of the article had been affected.  Frustratingly, he refused to explain, and said that unless given a good reason, he would would remove Paul111's edits again.  Users Paul111, Luis rib and Arnoutf struck up a discussion about the use of the term 'nation states' in Paul111's edits, and they were amended accordingly.  Subsequently, Lear 21 reverted the edits anyway, so I put them back in again.
What do we do next?  If an editor - and especially a regular one - has a problem with the article, then this is the place to discuss it in detail.  Unfortunately, Lear 21 doesn't seem to wish to do so.  Perhaps the problem is that he and I seem to have offended each other, and I have to say that Paul111 and I have suffered abuse from him (e.g. see my discussion page).  Nonetheless, it's the article that matters, so if anyone out there would care to engage Lear 21, and persuade him to detail his particular problems with the original edits, then we might be able to find a way forward that improves the article. I'd be very grateful. Countersubject 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lear21, please talk on this page below this comment and explain what you don't like about the changes to the introduction. Thanks. MarkThomas 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just reverted the last two revisions. I reverted the revision by Paul111 because this was a revert to some time back and I have no idea whereto, I cannot find a spot to compare to without red/green/yellow fields. Please make sure other editors can easily find the version a revert reverts to; otherwise the revert summary can just too easily be abused to cover for original edits.... To Leat21, I agree the longer introduction is not perfect, but neither is the brief one. I think the longer raises a few points that should be raised, some editing is needed. Arnoutf 19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I found it difficult to distinguish in the maze of diffs what the "previous" and "current" versions are exactly that appear to be the bone of contention. However, as a general comment I think the key page for a massive subject like the EU deserves a robust and thorough introduction, so I tend to disagree with Lear21's point above. I have also seen the need to issue a civility warning on his talk page for his conduct towards Countersubject. My take on this after careful reading of the discussions and edits is that we have a committed group of editors on this page trying (and succeeding) to do a very good job of creating an extensive, high quality WP article, so my advice to you Lear21 would be to calm down, reflect a bit, read the article carefully and if you want to make a change, suggest it first to these editors here on the talk page, and then listen to what they say - they have a good deal of experience. MarkThomas 19:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear 21: many thanks for responding (though I would have appreciated it even more if you hadn't also made an another aggressive posting to my user page).  I hope we can sort this out in a civil manner, and that the end result will be a better article.  It will help if you can detail precisely which of Paul111's changes you would like to see moved out of the introduction on these grounds.  Also, what parts of the edit in particular do you feel have an adverse effect on the quality of the writing? Countersubject 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose a,b,c and e are easily solved. Again to d): Everything in politics is discussed optimistic and pessimistic in variyng degrees from country to country, all the time. But the introduction has to present the status quo and nothing else. Sections like politics refer to all pros and cons. With the same right it could be claimed, that eurooptimists are hoping that EU could be a model for cooperation on other continents, but it is speculative wishful thinking. Lear 21 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's go for a,b,c, and e first. And discuss d in some more detail. That will take a lot of the sting out of it. My Personal Point of View is that at least the distinction is worhtwhile to be made; as it is right now a major issue and deserves mention in the introduction. I would not object to something like While many states and large parts of the EU population are very optimistic about the opportunities offered by a strong EU, there is also a strong euroscepticism or something of that nature.  Arnoutf 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated reversion without discussion

message: I removed the Galileo system from Demographics, it has nothing to do with population. Section on largest cities was already moved to Geography of the European Union. I rewrote the culture intro section, which was in fact on identity and history, and gave it a better title, and removed the pointless listing of sports. Intro paragraph restored.Paul111 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed edits 

message: I moved the list from the Culture intro to the Sport section, and it now reads:Paul111 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sport, including spectator sports, is popular in the EU-countries: most popular is football. Cycling, tennis, and fieldhockey are also sports widely watched and played in the EU countries. Other sports are favourites in fewer countries, such as icehockey, rugby, handball, and motorsports; and several sports are unique to one or a few countries (e.g. cricket-UK, korfball-Netherlands and Belgium).
Sound like a relevant move. Mind you the classification of sports is done without references (although I am pretty sure of Soccer, Korfball and Crickett). However it may well be that some of the fewer countries sports should be widely played sports and/or vice versa. If anyone has some numbers there from some kind of sports magazine, that would be a great help in getting it right, and above discussion. Arnoutf 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved sports list 

message: Should we use the (optional) property largest city in the country userbox. I think not, for much the reasons I outlined above. 
# London is not known as a typical European city, Brussels, Strassbourg and Luxembourg are. In countries where the largest city is not the capital (examples: Brasilia, Sao Paulo; Washington DC, New York; Ottawa, Toronto) there is truly no need to name the country as these largest cities are indeed stereotypical of that country. However this is clearly not the case in Europe. Furhtermore, for above reasons the size of cities is truly not a valid measure for importance in Europe. 
# Actually the European idea is based on an equal importance of all members, listing the largest city can do nothing but give a POV a countries with large numbers of inhabitants (e.g. the number of people living in Luxembourg=465.000; its capital has 75.000 people (about 16% of all), the UK has 60 million inhabitant London only 7 million (about 12%) hence London is relatively to population a smaller city than Luxembourg, so corrected for country POV, Luxembourg is larger than London). For these two reasons the mention of London is neither relevant nor informative; and should in my opinion be removed from the infobox; after all these infoboxes were designed for countries not for supranational entities. If you disagree, please provide reasonable counterarguments rather than a plain unargumented no. Arnoutf 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I meant a EU city, London most definitely is a European city. Why London in my opinion is not a EU city, has mainly to do with the UK taking a very isolated spot in the EU (no Euro, fairly Eurosceptic); note that the EU cities I mentioned (Strassbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels) are much much smaller then many others, but IMHO are among the few cities with a EU rather than a national image alone. Arnoutf 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To make it clear, these arguments were directed at the inclusion of a largest city of the EU (singular) in the article infobox template (right top of article), these arguments do not apply to the same magnitude to the large cities section; of which I have a more moderate view and I think that list has some truly interesting content (although I think that section would be better suited for a Geography, or living in the EU separate article). Arnoutf 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We've had all this before. Largest European metropolitan areas is supposed to be about the whole of Europe, not just the EU, and therefore includes Russia and also uses different years and different definitions of cities for different countries. Russian statistics on Moscow are also untrustworthy, ignoring severe depopulations as people flee to the West for example. Largest urban areas of the European Union is also flawed as it defines the Paris urban area differently to that of London. On the same basis used for the Paris calculation, London should be more like 14 million. There is a good deal of sloppy, error-ridden and confused data being displayed on WP pages in this field. MarkThomas 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there be a largest city in the infobox

message: I just found two recordings, public domain, from http://www.navyband.navy.mil/anthems/all_countries.htm. If yall want them, let me know please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU anthem 

message: The claim that superpower status is acknowledged by the CIA is spurious, I removed it. The cited source, the CIA Factbook, simply does not say this. The Washington Times is not a reliable source in general, and the online news cited does not say what the original source is, the 'Chineese report' which sees the EU as a superpower. It is not verifiable. China does support EU expansion, but this is not enough for a reliable statement of its views.Paul111 10:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit I don't know the Washington Times, but your claim that it is in general not reliable needs some more backing then just stating it. How do you know? How can you say? Arnoutf 11:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerging superpower 

message: I moved this issue to a new article Location of European Union institutions, at an overview article the Institutions section should focus on the institutions themsleves, and not on the location controversies. I reverted re-insertion, others may comment here.Paul111 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of EU bodies