Talk:European Union/Archive 15

message: I know the sentence about the Court of Auditors looked a bit out of place in the main paragraph on governance, but the reason I moved it out it out of the legal system section was that, despite its name, isn't a law court and has almost nothing in common with either the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance. I just feel that putting all of these courts together gives a misleading impression of the functions of these bodies which can only add to the confusion already created by the name of the Court of Auditors. Caveat lector 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Court of Auditors is not a judicial body. It does not have any judicial functions. Its name is a misnomer. The Europa website says the same thing. Caveat lector 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You might also want to have a look at this quiz by the Oxford University Press. Caveat lector 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Even better, this official document issued by the Court of Auditors confirms that the court has no judicial powers. Caveat lector 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I know it does not have judical powers, but its function is of a judical nature. In that it composed of judges that judge, if you know what I mean. - J Logan t: 14:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't think I do! The Court of Auditors is not composed of judges. They do not judge anything. There is no requirement that members have any legal experience. They are accountants. Caveat lector 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Since when did a judge have legal experience! And they judge the accounts. However thinking about it in this case do we even need to mention it? It is far from important and is only an institution to give it independence. (we still need to sort it out for the institutions page of course be we can continue this on that talk page?) - J Logan t: 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree to disagree: The Court of Auditors is pretty insignificant. I'll remove the reference to if from this article and respond to you on the institution's talk page. Caveat lector 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Court of Auditors 

message: the combined EU  GDP for 2007 is €12.068 according to the IMF economic outlook database april 2007 and if you make it up in US $ then you will see that in Dollar that will be 16.870
becouse the Dollar is so low against the €,  so this figures needs to be updated.  new amsterdam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by New amsterdam (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't keep updating figures in line with exchange rates, we should just add a note stating when the conversion was made. - J Logan t: 14:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey Amsterdam. I take it you're new here. I reverted the edits on the article because a previous user changed the dollar amount on the article. This figure is footnoted with a link to the IMF's website. This figure may not be right, but it is it verifiable (See: WP:VERIFY). As far as the exchange rate is concerned, I'm not entirely sure whether it should correspond to the current rate or the average rate for the year? Caveat lector 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You have to choose dollars. Not all member states use euro. By adding all the national currency figures together, you're adding euro, pounds, zlotyies etc... Caveat lector 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The IMF already provide dollar figures which correspond to those given on the page. There is not need to convert to euro and then to dollars. The figure given for the EU is taken for the same source as the one in the United States article. Caveat lector 12:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: european union GDP 2007

message: As far as I see it almost any piece of writing should begin by describing it subject matter is the simplest terms possible and then introduce further complexity afterwards. Describing the EU as supranational or as sui generis is the inversion of this principle.
As far as improving the lede goes, I would propose its structure should go as follows:
# Principal description; reference to some history, membership and geographical location.
# A broad description of what the Union does, to give the user an idea of what differentiates the EU from international organisations (which normally only have powers in a single area).
#* Describing the Economy alone is insufficient. Considerable broader areas are covered by the EU
#* The size of the economy is unnecessary here, is repeated both in the right info bar and in the economy section. If it is to be kept it should be given less emphasis.
# A description of what the Union's institutions and deeper analysis of its nature as an entity.
Caveat lector 15:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting outline, I think part of the question is how much weight to give each one. For example on geography most country articles spend most of the para talking about that - however they all have far fewer names to mention than the EU! I am not sure about leaving out the size of the economy, I understand your point but it is a major aspect of the EU (depressing but it is the market that is No.1 in Europe). I suggets though that as we discuss this we leave out the first line till the last moment, as discussing what it is is a tough point. - J Logan t: 16:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The lede: starting from first principles

message: Right, I think we all managed to get off track here. A straw poll should help focus the discussion. Caveat lector 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I think it is a good idea to get the focus back, I am not so happy with this approach. First of all (as I argued above), yes the article is long, but so are other comparable articles; we should not cut the length for the sake of cutting the lengths , only if it makes the article better. Secondly, I think a thorough and careful read-through/ copy edit may indeed flag up these sections for deletion. But there maybe other sections as well, and it is conceivable none of these sections should/need to be deleted/reduced aft Ier all. Only an integral copyedit of the whole article will reveal this (at least in my opinion). Hence I will withhold my votes for this poll Arnoutf 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your point. Perhaps I put the wrong emphasis in my initial posting. Considering whether these sections should be kept of not, relates as much to their relevance as to article size. It's just that if an article could be of an indefinite size, it would be difficult to formulate a useful guide on relevance. I proposed to delete the sections below, because I don't think they deserve as much space as they currently have. The sports section talks about a one-off football match, the culture talks about an art exhibit. The problem with copy-editing alone is that it could quite possibly result in very well written irrelevant content. I proposed these sections for deletion after I copy-edited much of the rest of the article, and after I decided that these sections were not worth keeping. I may be wrong in relation to all three section, but I would appreciate your opinion. Caveat lector 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Making edits to the talk page doesn't necessarily count as discussion either. The EU has little competence in the culture and sport areas. Just because country articles have section is not reason for the EU article to have them. Caveat lector 18:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of trimming down, I think the only victims should be those with loose EU connections - sports. For now we shouldn't worry about getting rid of the FP sections. There is useful data there so, whether we should cut it down or not, we should be concentrating on others areas like the general copy edit.- J Logan t: 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: * Delete entirely or saving that merge in current culture section (and reduce combined section to 2 paragraphs). Caveat lector 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports section

message: * Replace with a sentence in main foreign affairs section. Caveat lector 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Humanitarian aid section

message: * Replace with a sentence in main foreign affairs section. Caveat lector 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Security and defence

message: The text box should be integrated in fluent text within the section. Lear 21 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the box for the CQUOTE template. I am not sure that is an improvement, imho it looks better. Arnoutf 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign relations 

message: Perhaps Algeria should be mentioned for being a part of EU prior to 1958 (unless I'm mistaken). --Thus Spake Anittas 13:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the EU did not exist prior to 1958. Furthermore, (unless I am mistaken) Algeria was dependent on France until 58. Thirdly Greenland left the EU in the 80's and is not mentioned either. In other words, I do not think Algeria should be mentioned. Arnoutf 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greenland is mentioned in the article--as it should--and when I said EU, I meant its predecessor. I'm not an expert when it comes to the EU and the reason I reacted to this is because the animated map shows Algeria as being a part of EEC. Greenland, however, is not shown on the map. If you're looking for consistency, then perhaps a few things should be changed. I think both Greenland and Algeria should have their role mentioned in the history section. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that Greenland is not mentioned in the member state section. Arnoutf 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree it should not be included on the grounds Greenland is not mentioned. But you are quite right in Algeria being part of the EEC - I included it on the animated map - as it was an intergral part of France and hence the EEC in the same way as the current overseas territories of France are today. - J Logan t: 19:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algeria 

message: I'd like to oppose this. The European article is already big enough. It would make more sense to either merge Research & Technological Development with Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development or propose it for deletion. Just because it's a phrase doesn't mean it should have an article. Caveat lector 11:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, that is a technical detail and should not be in a general topic. - J Logan t: 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, with above. Arnoutf 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above (i.e. oppose merge). I will propose Research & Technological Development for deletion. I see that someone has already removed the Mergefrom template from this article. I take that to mean "speedy close". --Boson 19:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually Lear21 just deleted the merger tag without commenting on this discussion. For once he was right, there is/was really no case for the merger. But then even broken watches..., right Caveat lector 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Research & Technological Development]] 

message: There are bad links on this page and further through the European Institutions Pages:
* Portugal heads the European Council and not the Council
* Jose should be linked with the Council and not the European Council
Sorry I could not edit it myself. 
Please check on this and correct. There are also other Pages in this topic that need to be edited. 
Thank you, PatchEremit --> wikipedia.de [without account hier]
--77.177.158.201 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Portugal is head of both the Council and the European Council. The Portuguese representative(s) chair(s) both institutions. Caveat lector 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see my mistake, sorry --> PatchEremit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.158.201 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council vs European Council 

message: I started copyediting, I will leave some broad comments here on every section I complete Arnoutf 11:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Looks good so far. - J Logan t: 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for picking up on this and amending my edits. Arnoutf 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I will see if I can do something about the treaty notes, looking at it I can't see the Nice Treaty in there at all. - J Logan t: 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Politics in Governance makes sense. Lear 21 12:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree also, we still have the section which is an important note I think. - J Logan t: 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  This may seem like quite a turn-around from my previous posts, but we could always merge governance with politics. I've even started writing a merged section. Caveat lector 16:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure a full merger is needed. Let me first move the section into the governance section (typing two ='s), and see how that looks. Arnoutf 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a full merged would clutter it. Most might be to put governance under politics rather than politics under governance but that is a minor detail. - J Logan t: 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the spectator sports should be cut, but can't be arsed to fight Lear on this again so we'll just see if it is brought up by GA/FA reviews. - J Logan t: 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks great. Thanks for the good work Arnoutf! I say we go with it. With luck we should sail though GA and should be able to go for FA right after. - J Logan t: 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit comments

message: Two changes. When referring to treaties, please add a few words to clarify what it is about. (eg Amsterdam treaty, amending the Maastricht treaty (which is clearly explained) - is much clearer compared to Adam treaty alone.
Removed a few trivial references: Jacques delors as president, and Santer commission. This level of detail is ok for main, but as it is not further mentioned has no lasting essential relevance for development of the Union, hence should not be here. Arnoutf 11:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will see if I can do something about the treaty notes, looking at it I can't see the Nice Treaty in there at all. - J Logan t: 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History

message: Some minor copyedit, mainly removal of overprecise border lenght (zero decimals is enough, we need no be precise at 100 mt). Arnoutf 11:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography

message: Some minor copyedits, mainly clarifications and language. Arnoutf 11:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Governance

message: Done, minor copyedits. However important question. This is a very brief section. I think it would do much better as a subsection of governance (cf legal system). That move would only require the header being set at 3. If you agree, will be happy to do. Arnoutf 11:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Politics in Governance makes sense. Lear 21 12:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree also, we still have the section which is an important note I think. - J Logan t: 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  This may seem like quite a turn-around from my previous posts, but we could always merge governance with politics. I've even started writing a merged section. Caveat lector 16:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure a full merger is needed. Let me first move the section into the governance section (typing two ='s), and see how that looks. Arnoutf 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a full merged would clutter it. Most might be to put governance under politics rather than politics under governance but that is a minor detail. - J Logan t: 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics

message: Done, mainly textual, some clarifications. I did not understand everything right way so tried to claify, if I made mistakes feel free to correct. Arnoutf 17:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations

message: As above, feel free to amend. Arnoutf 17:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justice

message: As above, feel free to amend.Arnoutf 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: Opening lines no reference for expected growth and net immigration. Needs to be provided or line deleted
I moved the table up as layout experiment; am not very attached to that move, but I think it looks slightly better.
At Religion - I made the link to Eurostat and Eurobarometer stronger to link it better to EU instead of Europe. I still think this section is a bit lengthy. Arnoutf 18:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: Copyedit, some structuring. Shortened sports section a bit, as spectator sports had no reference to EU, and thus has no place in this article. Arnoutf 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the spectator sports should be cut, but can't be arsed to fight Lear on this again so we'll just see if it is brought up by GA/FA reviews. - J Logan t: 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Society1

message: I went through the whole article, and I think we managed to create a very nice article. It does focus on the important EU issues, and no longer on the generic Europe issues. I suggest that if there are no objections we list it for GA nomination soon. Arnoutf 18:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great. Thanks for the good work Arnoutf! I say we go with it. With luck we should sail though GA and should be able to go for FA right after. - J Logan t: 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit complete

message: Pending above, are there any objections or suggestions before we go for GA? - J Logan t: 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, go ahead and nominate. It's about time. Caveat lector 00:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To remove 'member states' from the infobox. (previous discussion) - S. Solberg J. 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind on this one, I wouldn't miss it. Does it affect anything else? Didn't you just argue we should use all options? - J Logan t: 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but this is about the de-facto difference between a nation-state and a UN-style "geo-political" organisation-use of this infobox template, not whether or not to 'use all options'. We know that the EU is more like a nation; so we shouldnt have the member-list in the infobox. (We have one already in the geo-section) The UK is a union, and it has no list of members in its infobox. I've mentioned most arguments before... - S. Solberg J. 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, yes it is more like a state however the thing is with the UK is people know it as such. With showing the members, which everyone knows, it may help to better show where/what/how important the EU is. On the other hand the information is already shown on the infbobox map, history enlargment image and the member states section which is quite near to the top (a section which shows the name in a list first off and clickable on a large map). So I suppose the article is already overloaded with that information, so I support removing it unless there are some strong objections to it. - J Logan t: 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we have a shortage of space in the infobox, it is quite small compared to some others. But we keep then? On your FR point, I'm nto sure what you mean, what extra listings? - J Logan t: 09:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh and just on a side note. I took a look at the WP:GAC list and we would have to wait awhile. So I suggest once we get things sorted here and it is put up, anyone who can takes a review of the other ones waiting before us to speed things up. - J Logan t: 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, and CL has done it. I think there is just about an agreement now unless I'm mistaken. I think I'll stick my neck out and nominate. Any issues I have missed or people want to bring up, we should still have time for as we wait for a reviewer. - J Logan t: 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Go for GA?

message: According to the reform treaty, the flag, anthem and motto will be dropped from the union
see Reform_Treaty#Name_changes_and_elimination_of_all_.22state-like.22_symbols
In this article they are already implemented. What precisely is the status of these symbols?. V8rik 17:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See archives: Talk:European Union/Archive13#Mistake - the EU has no anthem or motto. As I understand it, the symbols have been established (by decision) for a very long time. If the Reform Treaty does not mention them, their status has presumably not changed, i.e. the treaty has not dropped them, but merely dropped all reference to them, possibly to avoid giving them constitutional status and appearing to confirm that the European Union is a federal state. --Boson 19:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, they have been used for ages. The flag was adopted in the 1980s for example and the TEC would have just given them a position in the treaties. As a note, the UK flag also does not have a formal position, it is the flag by convention. I think we need to stick a huge sign in that article making this clear. - J Logan t: 20:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  flag / motto / anthem -> confused 

message: Is united in diversity an official translation?  Concordia means concord, harmony, and is different from united.Hillgentleman 02:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: European_symbols#Motto discusses this.  It's translated as "united" in all of those languages.  But we should hear it right out of a random horse's mouth here, "United in diversity / Unity in diversity" --Talionis (Shout me · Stalk me) 02:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plus Latin is not an official language, hence technicaly the Latin is a translation of the English (&French/German/Italian...). - J Logan t: 08:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure about that last remark, it may have been a standing Latin proverb/expression adopted for the EU. Arnoutf 09:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The English translation of the motto

message: Ther is no such a thing as EU anthem. beegees  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In January 1972, the Council of Europe chose the 4th movement of Ludwig van Beethoven's 9th symphony, as the European Anthem. In 1986, the European Community adopted this as the European Anthem. http://www.delblr.ec.europa.eu/page931.html --Boson 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good lord, not this again. See "flag / motto / anthem -> confused" section just above and the link to the previous discussion on all this. If you like you could also go looking for all the other times we have had to go through all this because people couldn't be bothered to look at the pages for these symbols before coming out with these remarks. I'd suggest putting an editors note in there but I doubt anyone would read that either. - J Logan t: 08:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anthem 

message: Opt-outs in the European Union, please. Just created it -- please link to it where useful, and expand it if I missed anything. —Nightstallion 07:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, good work we need that. I will see where I can create links. - J Logan t: 08:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Do you think there are any opt-outs I missed? —Nightstallion 09:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand and link to