Talk:European Union

The Court of Auditors
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)

It is a judical body though. It may not deal with law but it is does not lie within the executive or legislative branches hence it would be misleading to place it with those. I reckon it makes more sence for judical bodies to me mentioned together, their overall role within the government is the same even if they are dealing with different elements. - J Logan t: 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

(see Talk:Institutions of the European Union)

Proposal to delete the politics section
I wish to propose deleting the politics section. I feel somewhat responsible for the continued existence of the the politics section since I included it in my proposed structure for this article. But after thinking about trying to improve the section, I've come to the conclusion that best thing to do is delete the whole thing.

I logic of my original structure proposal was to have separate section on the Union's policies and politics. (I still think it was wrong to have section on the institutions and foreign relations relations within politics section). I now see this separation between policies and politics as rather problematic, since it could involve us having separate sections on the budget, enlargement etc... Moreover Wikipedia's guidelines on criticism/controversy sections, which I think applies to the politics section, says that its preferable to integrate these sections into the rest of the article.

On the point of integrating the politics into the rest of the article, the entire section is so poorly written, even the topics that I think we should cover, like the budget, don't contain anything worth keeping. Caveat lector 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it is a bit weak, but I think we ought to have some politics section - for a start new issues may come up. Talking about the issues, the budget it a wider point that the CAP and reform isn't covered anywhere else. The intergration section is something we should have as it is a (or the) major political topic in the EU - but the section needs a big rewrite to cover the right issues.
 * Perhaps though, if something cannot be made of it, we could combine intergration and reform topics, loose the intro and buget then have it as a subsection of Governance which would become "Politics and governance"? - J Logan t: 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The new section is better, but only really because it's smaller. I'm not really sure what the section is about any more. (Actually I was never that sure.) The EU itself, not its politics is divided into pillars. Perhaps the policies [sic] might be said to be divided among the pillars but not the politics [sic]. And the section still uses weasel words. Caveat lector 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very hard for me to write about EU politics without doing so. The idea is it should talk about the political issues of the EU, which are mainly enlargement and intergration (which I've connected also to reform). Please, others have a bash at it unless you agree to get rid of it. I think it is good to have the section for reference but maybe this is another point where we should drop a country template point. - J Logan t: 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the section as well. — Nightstallion 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Part deux
I've decided to have a second bash at this. If we're going to retain this section, I'd feel happier with a more defined scope for the politics section. We could rename it. Otherwise it's very likely to swallow up much of the rest of the article, much of which could conceivably fall under the politics heading. Does anyone have any suggestions? Caveat lector 00:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, two thoughts, we define the scope here and include it as an editors note, it would limit it to a brief overview of the political issues of intergration, enlargement and reform but without detail. It can not include anything that can come under an existing heading (economic issues, second or third pillar issues and so on.
 * Second idea, we do a similar scope note but include governance and legal as two subsections of Politics again. - J Logan t: 07:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I added a proposal to merge the article Politics of the European Union into this one. A quick read of the politics article will reveal its contents to be essentially the same as this one. Caveat lector 00:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's fine the way it is. We'd find the same set up with United States and Politics of the United States. It seems sensible to follow that example. --Hemlock Martinis 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is too long already, merger would either mean further expansion or removing essential parts (election) in the politics section; that IMHO are likely to expand if we keep the articles apart. Arnoutf 11:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's fine the way it is. Imperium Europeum 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Revised proposal: All of the sections of the article Politics of the European Union should be merged in the European Union article except the elections section which should be merged into Elections in the European Union, the resulting article could be called "Elections and politics in to European Union" (or something similar).


 * The basis problem of all of this is that these two articles have too much in common to justify having separate pages. Both pages have lede sections which try to describe what the European Union is, sections on government, the law of the union, the institution, foreign policy, and the section on issues in the politics article which looks much like the politics section in the EU article. The only really significant difference is the elections section in the politics article. There is an article on Elections in the European Union. If the politics article is to be kept as an extended elections section (with all the other section merged into this one) that would be fine. It just seems a bit bazaar to keep these two articles with their almost identical content in parallel.


 * As far as the size of this article is concerned, as per my revised proposal, I don't think this should be much of a problem. It's not like I'm proposing to increase the topics covered by the EU article. Merging them will just require a certain amount of amalgamation, summation and rewriting where necessary. Caveat lector 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced there's a problem to begin with. The whole point of a Politics article is so that we don't have to stuff it all into the main article or diffuse it across twenty articles. In terms of content structure and organization, the current system (which is also in place in the United States and United Kingdom articles, among others) is working fine. --Hemlock Martinis 17:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hemlock Martinis, also I think the politics article may further expand, and this structure is most flexible and indeed standard over many country like articles. Arnoutf 17:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles United Kingdom and Politics in the United Kingdom deal with different topics and issues. The EU articles don't. This is simply a result of different nature of the European Union when compared to countries. European Union articles look much like the politics-of articles, simply because an article on the EU is more likely to deal with its policies and structure than articles on countries. Surely the problem is obvious. We have two articles with cover almost exactly the same topics. If they're to be kept separate, they should at least have different scopes. Caveat lector 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The UK article gives a concise overview of the subject, while the Politics article goes far more in-depth. It's the same with the EU article and the EU Politics articles. Sure, the prose for that section in European Union could be tightened and cleaned a bit, but the basic format is solid. --Hemlock Martinis 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: The politcs article needs developing not deleting. It may be thin on the ground right now bit it is a big subject which should not be crammed into this article or any other. It would hurt the development of information by getting rid of the politics page. On the elections idea, elections cover only the European Parliament - every other institution and esp. under the other pillars have nothing to do with them. - J Logan t: 16:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per JLogan. And I believe that there is sufficient opposition to the proposed merger to determine that there is no consensus to merge the articles. nattan g 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn: Don't seem to be getting anywhere with this one! Caveat lector 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

City table
Archiving of an open discussion is IMHO not the best idea. Anyway, here again the tally:
 * Sorry, figured it had petered out, but I should have probably copied recent discussions over. Caveat lector 13:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This tally has been unchanged for 10 days now, so this seems to be fairly conclusive Based on above table I would say a reduced list of 5 is the preferred (mentioned as option by most). Also IMHO this seems a far compromise between editors who want a short, and those who want a longer list. IMHO the only other option is to remove the table altogether (preferred by most). If there is no objection in a few days I'll assume consensus and change the table to a 5-city table on Saturday.Arnoutf 12:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fair compromise. Few people would be bothered by that who might be bothered by complete removal of the table (although I prefer a table, its removal wouldn't really bother me). As a consensus-building strategy, it seems sound. Ben Hocking (talk 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A table with 5 city entries can´t represent a multinational territory of 500 million inhabitants. The established table is most convincing in various aspects. Lear 21 13:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is a 10 city table enough. If I were from Luxembroug I would state the shortest acceptable table is the one listing at least Luxembourg city (pop 77,000 - imagine how many entries such a table would have). In other words this is your minority opinion, and you have given not a single convincing argument for this. The 5 city table is already a compromise; formed after due weighing and interpreting votes; either accept that or all-out removal.Arnoutf 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, go with 5. Incidentaly it is also a compromise between those who want a large table and those who want no table, which we have to admit it quite popular. It is also a solid figure, a top five and all cities over 2 million.
 * And I agree, 10 can't represent 500 people either but the table's job isn't to represent 500 million people, it's job is to show the largest cities.
 * I think considering the past discussion (again, bad time to archive) the only major outstanding issue would be images. I say we just wait till the new table is up and see what fits in. If there is disagreement about that then we come back to it here. - J Logan t: 17:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * New table looks good, fine by me. Except can we do something about the positioning. Fits in now (well done for getting that far!) but I'm sure there must be a better way or arranging it. Anyone have any ideas? - J Logan t: 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

see 3. para in section
Can someone explain me what this means. It apparently means that a picture of the commission president can be placed in the legal system section where the word commission is mentioned once; and the word president nor the name of the president a single time. I truly have no idea what it means; and as it reverted a reasonably argumented edit (admittedly myself interpretation of my own summary) I have reverted it. Arnoutf 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh how I wish we had some other legal images so we don't have to go through this. As it is a decree of Lear that all sections must be bursting with images we have to include Barroso, and hence have a reference, even if it is totally unsuitable. As the Commission as a body is mentioned in the legal section that means a picture of Barroso can be included. Apparently. In fact I think I added the Commission line in there a while back so it was an improvement on Lear putting Barroso there with absolutely no reference as to it in the text. The section needs a bit more work so if someone wants to add more justification in there for the image it should help matters, unless someone can find a better legal image which would be marvelous. - J Logan t: 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I still do not understand how the cryptic "see 3. para in section" has any relation to my edit summary while moving the image: "neither commission PRESIDENCY nor Barroso is mentioned in the SUB-pars where the image is". Anyway, do you think Lear has ever bothered to read WP:OWN as he is so obviously violating it in both this issue and the city table issue? Arnoutf 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, he hasn't even read this article let along WP Policy. I doubt he even read your edit summery. I say go ahead. - J Logan t: 08:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Logan. Although I imagine the "see 3. para in section" is meant to say that the commission is referred to in the third paragraph. I guess he ignored the bit about Barroso.


 * How anybody can think a picture of the current commission president is "essential for the article" or for understanding the Union's legal system is just too absurd, incredible and ridiculous to believe that Lear is a real person. I have come to the conclusion that Lear is a beta computer program which is attempting to pass the Turing test, but has got itself into an indefinite loop attempting to revert changes to the European Union article. I think we should report him as an unauthorised bot so his author will at least be forced to put a red button on his user page, so we can shut him off when we get tired. (Relax I'm joking! -:) )


 * More seriously, if Lear wants to put images on the article, let him find/take ones which are actually relevant to the article, rather than just getting ones from Wikipedia's stock of public domain images. Caveat lector 10:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I never removed the image but moved it to the section where the EU Commission presidency WAS mentioned. Arnoutf 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting CL, I hadn't thought of that one. Though I did come close with my Star Trek idea, does remind me of Nomad. If you want to remove such images though, you have to be prepared to come back next time Lear edits as he will go through the whole thing correcting things to his plan again.
 * On the image, moving it good but now Governance is cluttered, you shouldn't have two images each side of the text. I'm removing it but I'll see if I can put it back into politics - I am going to see if I can rewrite that section to get the weasle words out - or something. - J Logan t: 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Barroso image is of high relevance for the article. The legal system section is not the optimum place for it but is still justified because of the Commission´s role in proposing and watching the law. Thanks for all the admiration... Lear 21 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The connection is tenuous. Barroso is important to the EU but it is not vital to include his image hence he should be only where is relevant. That section is about judicary and law, Barroso is more politics and he or the post of President is not mentioned there. It isn't even a very good image for a start. I think people can live without the image until we can come up with a better way of doing this. - J Logan t: 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * @Lear. If you agree the subsection is not the place for it, why in heavens name do you move it back? Furthermore I noticed your edit summary starting with 'RVV' this is wikipedian abbreviation for "Revert Vandalism". Either it is a typo, or you are saying I am a vandal. That coming from a person making unintelligable edit summaries and not responding on the talk page is IMHO a grave insult. I hope it WAS a typo. Arnoutf 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand Lear, if the legal system section is not the optimum place, then why put it there? Why is the image necessary? Ben Hocking (talk 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I´m sorry for RVV! Didnt knew about the abreviation, it was a typo as well. Nevertheless: Barroso is the most important & prominent EU offical. That makes an image of him essential to this article. Lear 21 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You ahve replaced the Council President, I am not sure if that is the right way to go as it is the European Council, not Commission, which decides policy direction. Commission President is still a position of following the ideas others send them. Yes Barroso is important, but he needs to connect with the text. Perhaps, in relation to the politics section above, we could use the section to talk more about the various leaders? - J Logan t: 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Scrap above, I forgot in rewrite I included Barroso's commission. Never mind. - J Logan t: 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

'EU' or 'the Union'
This may seem a bit petty as a quibble, but what would people think of changing all mention of 'EU' to 'the Union'? 'EU' always seems such a clumsy acronym, and 'the Union' is used rather than 'EU' in all official European Union correspondence and Treaties. Imperium Europeum 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm against it, but I don't have strong feelings about it. Ben Hocking (talk 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Its just like beginning an article by referring to Joe Bloggs and then subsequently referring to Mr. Bloggs. I can't see anything wrong with it. Caveat lector 01:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm against it. Using "The Union" is only good for internal communication, but is meaningless in a world wide international context as wikipedia. &minus;Woodstone 03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was originally putting it as the Union but then someone started changing them to EU so I've been keeping with that for consistency. I think "the Union" sounds better, as CL points out above it is just like someone's name. I disagree with Woodstoen on this as it would be obvious it is the EU rather than any wider context considering this is the EU article and no other Unions are mentioned in it. In fact it is just like saying "the Community" which is quite common. To me, EU seems a bit clumsy to use again and again, the Union has a better flow in the prose. - J Logan t: 08:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming somewhere between Woodstone and what appears to be shaping up as a consensus (and as someone quite removed from the EU, er, the Union), there are definitely global differences in what sounds natural to us. That said, I think it will be clear that "the Union" is referring to the EU (per Caveat lector's comment), and the choice for which to use is similar as to whether to use the correct spelling for words like "center" or the British spelling. Obviously, this article is written from a British spelling perspective, so if "the Union" is more appropriate than "EU" to those who speak that strange dialect, so be it. :) Ben Hocking (talk 12:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ehem, "correct" spelling? May I remind you that English was invented in England and American spelling only came about because someone was too lazy to learn so wrote his own dictionary. I know kids tried to do that to get around school classes but for an whole nation! Sorry, but it is not correct, it is a different language! :p
 * Sorry, had to make that rant (that's the short version!), and it is UK-IE spelling to be exact as all European articles follow the English used in Europe, not America. "The Union" and "EU" is nothing to do with spelling, it is just has better flow in my opinion. "EU" isn't a very good acronym. - J Logan t: 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was meant to be inflammatory, but I figured I could get away with a little good-natured ribbing. :) You're right it's not so much spelling, but probably more accurate to compare it to using odd words like "lift", "petrol", "bonnet", and "boot" for the more proper "elevator", "gas", "hood", and "trunk". I've never heard anyone on this side of the pond call it simply "the Union", but that's no doubt because we don't talk about it that much at all. Regardless, it would be quite clear from context that "the Union" == "the European Union". Ben Hocking (talk 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't get away with it with me around!
 * Em, no not like lift/elevator or anything. This is not a language thing, and Union is not often used in general discussion as far as I know. As I doubt it would be used outside the EU at all as there are other Unions, for example the US was historicaly called "the Union" (I do not know to what extent, I know Hitler even used the term "the American Union" in a letter once).
 * It is however used in more profesional discussions, and the treaties (always "the Union" in such legal texts). - J Logan t: 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally all in favour of using "the Union" instead of "the EU". — Nightstallion 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, I think 'the Union' sounds better than 'EU', but I think if we do change it that '(hereafter, the Union)' should be placed directly after 'European Union' in the first instance. This will make it totally clear! Imperium Europeum 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Prose-wise, I agree. It's more fluent for the article and sounds formal. Sounds like something to bring up for ASEAN... Ariedartin JECJY Talk 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Em, not sure about "hereafter", we already have "(EU)" and hearafter doesn't sound very encyclopedic? I think people would understand what is meant by "the Union" in an article about "the European Union" without spelling it out.
 * Thing is with ASEAN, it does actualy work, you can say it in prose. - J Logan t: 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. Good point. It has been standardized on "ASEAN", anyway. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 08:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I see the changes, I'm not very happy about the ubiquitous use of "Union", rather than "EU". In my experience, "Union" is used to refer back to an antecedent "European Union", in the same way that "country", "state", nation, or "confederation" might be used to refer back to a particular country (or whatever).  So I think it is OK (particularly in treaties etc.) to refer to the European Union and then refer to "citizens of the Union" (or even "the state [condition] of the Union"), but the change has also been made where I would expect the short name of the entity, and I think "EU" is nearly always used in this context -- like USA or UK/Britain for the "United States of America" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", respectively.  To me, using "the Union" also sounds a bit like using "the United States" with a plural verb (OK in the Constitution but not elsewhere).--Boson 11:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, precisely: European Union is used at the start and the Union thereafter. It is very clear that the Union refers to the European Union in an article on the European Union rather than, say, the United States or United Kingdom. Incidentally, the Union is not used to refer to the United Kingdom; short terms instead normally include Britain. I think the Union looks much neater, is easier to read, and doesn't clutter the page with endless acronyms. Imperium Europeum 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand Bosons point on this, however it does read better in most cases. I'd suggest we just be flexible with it. For example I think "...the Union's foreign policy...." works better however "...Union citizens vote in..." does not. Perhaps as a guide we go with what Boson says on it being used like "country" and use it in cases where we might use something like that - while in other cases just stick with EU? (I know, de-standardisation is very un-European!) - J Logan t: 17:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I take your points that 'Union citizens' sounds a bit funny, but surely we would use 'European citizens' in such a case? Imperium Europeum 03:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you'd say that commonly and it is kind of okay, however it European does not equal EU and can be misleading. This is an encyclopedia. - J Logan t: 06:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but what about the equivalence drawn between United States and American? Canadians, Mexicans and even Brazilians are all Americans! Imperium Europeum 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the above ... I live and work in the UK and I have never (knowingly) heard or read the words "the Union" used to refer to the EU, so I flipped onto the EU portal and, lo and behold, all the shortforms that I could see were "EU". No matter how it flows I think we should stick to EU as by far he most common abbreviation in this article. Abtract 12:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also from the UK, and see and hear it all the time. Maybe we should just go with whatever sounds most appropriate. Imperium Europeum 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The term 'the Union' should be rather an exception than a standard abreviation. 'EU' is still the official term even though it sounds not elegant. Lear 21 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, EU is used in daily use. Arnoutf 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't see any reason why we should change it. EU is both the common and the official abbreviation. We don't need to invent our own. --Hemlock Martinis 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, Crazy in my opinion, I say stick with the official terminology where possible.--Lucy-marie 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, stick with the official and common term "EU" UserDoe 22:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose, I never hear it referred to as 'the Union' in the British press. Besides, isn't 'EU' shorter? Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, we stick with EU then. Seems sensible and solves the problems we're having. Would like top point out that I never said it was in common usage - as stated above. One small question though, were did all you guy's come from? - J Logan t: 07:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see I lost that one. Nevermind! Imperium Europeum 17:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Never fear, pleanty more articles to use it on ;). - J Logan t: 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

european union GDP 2007
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Okay but what about the GDP in € it is 12.068 billion and not 11.600 for the year 2007. On the IMF database if you choose national currency and combine all 27 member states then this is the right figures, the right € figures most replace the wrong 11.6 billion, maybe then the figures in $ can be calculated to what the Dollar was worth in april 2007 when the IMF database was made. 1 € was 1.36 $ in april 2007 so €12.068 was $16.436 at the time the report was made. new amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by New amsterdam (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

No, becouse first yuo calculate the pounds,zlotyies etc to euro and then you calculete it to Dollars and that is €12.068,     new amsterdam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.176.31 (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Lede
I noticed some toing and froing there. Maybe we could discuss here any improvements to the lede paragraph. --John 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why the new lede is a considerable improvement on the older one:


 * The old lede described the EU as a Union. This is a circular definition. Describing the Union as an association avoids pigeon-holing and is used by the Oxford English Dictionary.


 * The old lede also used the terms "sui generis" and "supranational". "Sui generis" is a term many readers will not be familiar with. It is unnecessary to use "sui generis" when describing the Union as an association as every association is the same. Describing the Union as supranational is over-simplistic and misleading. The whole point of the rest of the lead is describing both the intergovernmetal and supranational nature of the Union. It is not just supranational.


 * The new lede gave a much better description of the range of activities the Union is involved in. The old lede just repeated information about the economy and the institutions from elsewhere in the article. The new lede gave information about the Commission and Parliament in context.


 * The old lede gave too much information too soon. It listed all the institutions without describing what they do. Caveat lector 00:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well-argued. I could support the trimming out of some of the information but I rather like having "sui generis" and "supranational" in the lead; these seem like two terms that define the EU. The former is linked for those who do not know what it means. I do not agree that "every association is the same". We need to strike a balance between being too complex and too simple here. I feel your proposal maybe errs on te simple side. --John 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely happy with either version, but on balance, I slightly prefer the older version. I think the new version is far too short. For an article of this size, I think we probably need something like 4 paragraphs of 2-3 sentences, and I think we need to cover more aspects. If possible, the lede should cover: Particularly with the new version, I do not really recognise the EU that I live in, where I drive acrosss internal borders at 120 km/h (75 mph).--Boson 11:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The lede should clearly indicate the original size. Neither version gives the impression that the EEC statrted off with only 6 countries.
 * The sui generis' nature of the EU needs to be mentioned, though the term should not be used in the opening sentence, because it is not self-explanatory to many readers. Since the matter frequently comes up in other places, this might be a good opportunity to mention  briefly the debate behind the  term sui generis in relation to the EU (intergovernmental vs. supranational vs federal state).  This should probably be discussed in more detail in the body of the article.
 * economy (including the euro)
 * location and size (population, area, GDP)
 * constitutional and political setup, including the major institutions and other major characteristics, such as citizenship and direct election of a European parliament, free movement of people and capital etc.
 * some history.


 * I agree the new version is too short, and doesn't give a proper summery. Please see WP:LEAD, I think this articles comes under the 3-4 para. In terms of intergovernmental/supranational etc, association is a far worse word but the issue should be pushed down a bit from the first sentence. looking at the other artciles, I'd suggest something along these lines;

(this is an approx outline, need cleaning and it is off the top of my head. For example, change "extensive" to the actual figure) - J Logan t: 12:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and I was trying to take inspiration from FA country articles: India, South Africa for example. - J Logan t: 12:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to answer most of these issues in a new lede I've just uploaded. I've left the first sentence alone for the moment. The first para of the lede deals with a bit of history including enlargement. The second tries to give a good breath of the thing the Union does. And the third describes the institutions. Caveat lector 15:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As it has been reverted by Lear, I have placed your lede below;


 * I've changed the version of the lede below to reflect what I had wanted to post but didn't in the vain hope to avoid revertion. Caveat lector 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall it is okay, but I have a few holes to poke. First, how come you've gone back on your first point about the word "union"? Second, I think we should say that Maastricht made the EU, and then we can branch off there to talk about intergovernmental areas and the CFSP/JHA powers. 3rd, I think citizenship has come two high up in the list, it isn't that important and should only really be mentioned in relation to elections at the most - the following line in brackets is unnecessary for a summery. - J Logan t: 18:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The rewritten intro version of User:Caveat lector adds no improvement. Neither quality of writing / prose, content or focus is raised. Instead many inaccurate statements have been introduced. In general, the new version looses the focus on important facts concerning the European Union and its article. The trimmed, established version has to be maintained. all the best Lear 21 20:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the point of the EU/Union question. I didn't think supporting calling the EU "the Union" meant that we had to replace every reference of EU with Union. I just thought people would stop replacing references to Union with EU. In any case we should at least give this very common abbreviation for the Union.


 * Both the new and old ledes say that the Union was founded as the EEC. I didn't make any changes to that point.


 * Before anyone suggests otherwise the intergovernmental/supranational elements of the Union, pre-dated the Maastricht Treaty. The Council and the European Council are essentially intergovernmental institutions. The EU coordinated on foreign policy a long time before 1992. EEC leaders participated in the 1964-1967 GATT talks in the same way as they participate in the current Doha round.


 * The first sentence of the second paragraph of the above lede talked about a customs union and citizenship, in order to give the reader an impression of the evolution of the Union. That's why I gave citizenship the emphasis I did. I thought the best way to describe the Union was to give a brief but broad account of what the Union does.


 * On the point of Lear21's usually tactful comments, my most recent version of the lede was a considerable improvement of Lears most recent revert. Whatever about focus, the writing and structure of my lede was a considerable improvement on what was originally there and what is there now. The above version gives a better overview of the EU's policies and information about the institutions in context.


 * I had wanted to add geographical information into the lede as per JLogan's suggestion, however this is quite difficult to do so, since I now need Lear's permission to make any edits to the page.


 * Lear: what factual inaccuracies does the above lede contain? Caveat lector 22:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lear, please elaborate on your analyasis. Could you please give examples and perhaps suggestions on how the new lede can be improved? Simply making general criticisms does not help the development of the article.
 * On citizenship, I think we can find a better example of its development, citizenship isn't exactly a major point of intergration compared to, say, foreign policy or the euro.
 * "geo-political union" does not sit well with me, I suggested geo-political entity as that is a technical term used to describe such things (very broad though I know) where as geo-political union just seems a bit odd.


 * If Lear wasn't around we could probably have a proper collaboration over this... Actually I never wrote or described the EU as "a sui generis geo-political union". This was Lear's rather crude prose which I decided to keep in the vain hope of not being reverted. I have now change my lede above to what I wanted to post. I originally described the EU as "an association of twenty-seven European countries". And then subsequently went on to describe the unique, supranational and intergovernmental nature of the Union. Describing the EU as an association is good enough for the Oxford English Dictionary but apparently counts as unencyclopedic in the world according to Lear. Caveat lector 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the EU/Union, I agree it is not meant to be every mention, especily the first "European Union (EU)", it is meant to show its formal abbriviation not what are are casualy reffering to it as here. - J Logan t: 06:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The slightly trimmed old version is more convincing in prose and focus. Especially the 2. para concentrates on the economic status and currently established policies in a better manner. The 3. para names the institutions in comprehensive way. I see room for improvements in the 1. para last sentence: "In 1992 the Maastricht Treaty introduced the base of the current legal framework with supranational and intergovernmental elements." The term "supranational" is mentioned twice in the 1. para, which is superflous repeating. Lear 21 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lear, you have no idea of how to write good prose! What's the point in arguing with you, when you don't even engage in discussion. You make random criticisms about edits to the article without ever attempting to back them up. You can't back them up because they're nonsense and never had any substance to begin with. Caveat lector 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * CL, I more than understand your concern but would you kindly calm down, this is not helping the situation. To Lear though, I do have to say I haven't seen you write much text so far. Perhaps to prove us wrong you'd like to contribute below in writing new segements? Meet us half way, our ideas and your prose? - J Logan t: 16:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The lede: starting from first principles
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:

Caveat lector 15:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Principal description; reference to some history, membership and geographical location.
 * 2) 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).
 * 3) * Describing the Economy alone is insufficient. Considerable broader areas are covered by the EU
 * 4) * 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.
 * 5) A description of what the Union's institutions and deeper analysis of its nature as an entity.


 * 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)

Sui generis
I see this is part of the above discussion on the lede ... I suggest that unique is a better word (if such a qualifier is needed) since it is easly understood by almost everyone whereas sui generis will be understood by almost no one as it is a neologism and unlikely ever to become a true part of the English language. Abtract 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the last time this was discussed. Obviously, consensus can change, but the logic (right or wrong) of the original discussion seems unchanged, so it's worth a read for anyone unfamiliar with that discussion. Ben Hocking (talk 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link although frankly it doesn't alter my view that unique is a perfectly good well-understood word, whereas sui generis is a jargon word used in political/legal circles. Following the link interupts the flow and must end for most readers with the thought "Oh, it means unique". Abtract 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (There's no reason not to have another discussion!) Abtract, you are quite right sui generis is only used in political/legal circles. The EU's legal system is often described as sui generis. It was described as such in Van Gend en Loos. However it would be quite difficult to find the EU itself described anywhere as sui generis. I'd love some one to prove me wrong. Caveat lector 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, I quite agree that there's no reason not to have another discussion – I just think it's important to remember good points that were made on both sides of the previous discussion. As I mentioned in the previous discussion, I'm in favor of dropping the term, but I don't feel strongly about it. Ben Hocking (talk 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unique is fine, although I have just changed it back before reading this. What is not fine though is that someone keeps calling the European Union a geopolitical union. This term is never used anywhere, and the original term supranational union is far more accurate. Imperium Europeum 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem being that "supranational union" was a phrase invented to describe the EU. surely we can describe the EU in simplier terms. Caveat lector 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem in discussing things again!
 * Sui generis may be jargon word, but it is linked. I see your point that one can understand it quicker, however it is more exact (as exact as a word saying it is not exact can be). I suggets it is used straight off one the first line, but never again anywhere in the article. Elaboration and the link should provide the information.
 * On "geopolitical union", I suggested "geopolitical entity" before as that is a real technical term used to describe the EU (in fact I've just seen it again in the sui generis article!) but changing to "union" really doesn't help and sounds a bit odd (plus, to what extent? Real union, Political union...). In the inclusion of any they should be linked though as all these words can be interpreted in many ways. Or perhaps, we could even stick out necks out and use some really common words, the CIA fact book describes it as a hybrid Confederation - Federation. - J Logan t: 07:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I really think anything including the word 'geopolitical' is not really suitable. Geopolitical is a term normally used to describe a foreign policy relating to geopolitics; that is to say, a foreign policy influenced by geography. In Anglophone academia, it was brought into circulation by Halford Mackinder in the early 20th century, who argued that maritime powers like Britain would loose out as large continental powers like Russia utilised railways to link up their vast interiors. It has a lot of negative connotations also, as the Nazi 'living space' policy in Eastern Europe was also considered decidedly geopolitical.


 * The current definition, that of a 'unique supranational union' is a bit of a mouthful though, and probably needs refinement. I think J Logan is broadly accurate in stating that the Union has federal and confederal dimensions. How about the following as a new first paragraph part of the introduction:


 * 'The European Union (EU) is a unique political and economic community with federal and confederal dimensions. It is composed of twenty-seven member states, primarily located in Europe. In 1957, six European countries formed the European Economic Community (EEC) by the Treaty of Rome. Since the foundation, new accessions have raised the number of member states, and powers have expanded considerably. In 1993, the Maastricht Treaty established the base of the current legal framework, although amendments were made in the treaties of Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001).'


 * How does that sound? Imperium Europeum 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we need so much detail with amending treaty dates but it looks good. "federal and confederal dimensions" is an exact phrase and if people are prepared to use the "F" word then I'm all for it. People can understand it and it is accurate, I just hope it doesn't attract vandalism or an edit war. - J Logan t: 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it is accurate to say that the Union has federal and confederal aspects. It's like saying Britain has parliamentary and monarchical dimensions! Imperium Europeum 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Federal and Confederal will likely provoke vandalism or conflict over time. Supranational & Intergovernmental has proofed stable and is accurate as well. The amendments are too detailed for the introduction and are not even mentioned in the main article (they should be mentioned though in History).Lear 21 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever about the chance of a reversion war, I'm not sure whether the terms "federal" and "confederal" are sufficiently conceptually defined to be used for the article. As far as I've always understood it, a confederation is just a word for loose federation. My Thesaurus lists fereration and confederation as synonyms for each other. What exactly is meant when we ascribe federal/confederal elements to the Union? If we really mean supra-national/inter-governmental, why don't we just say that? The latter words are the ones most used in connection with the EU. Caveat lector 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Article size
This article is too long. The size of the prose is almost twice as long as the recommended length. If we're going to successfully reduce the article size we're going to have to face up to dropping entire sections of the article.

For my own part I would suggest dropping the "Humanitarian aid", "Security and defence" and "Sports" sections for starters. The latter is completely insignificant in an EU content and need not be replaced with anything. The first two are important in their own way, but are not significant parts of the Union. They could be replaced with two sentences under the foreign affairs heading. Caveat lector 00:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Drop sports and humanitarian aid, certainly. Sports should come under culture, and humanitarian aid under foreign policy anyway. Security and defence should not be dropped, however. This is one of the growth areas in the Union at the moment, and is reflected in the changes in the Reform Treaty. But for the purposes of shortening, perhaps a new title should be created called Foreign, security and defence policies of the Union, which would allow for significant compression. I am happy to compress, merge and where necessary redraft these sections. I could also put them on the discussion page first, to allow for discussion. Imperium Europeum 03:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It has always, like most country articles, been too long. I did want to get rid of sports but can you guess who objected? Needless to say I still think it should go. We only need to trim a bit more though, it is a big topic so we should just get it below 100 I think - aim for 90 to give us some space. As for foreign relations, I say we take humanitarian aid down to a sentence, and security and defence down to a paragraph. Combine with rest of FR and cut that down a bit (we can loose the Maastricht Treaty quote for a start). That should take care of it maybe? - J Logan t: 08:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actualy I've just tested it doesn't quite do it, but cutting out religion should. Same as sports, had wanted to get rid of it before but faced opposition. Such data can just be cut down and merged with demographics - same for langauge, that area is way to long and could loose a bit of weight. - J Logan t: 08:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The EU article draws structure and several features from comparable country articles. Because country articles integrate a vast and highly diverse content, they enjoy exceptional status in the Wikipedia. Article overlength is therefore widely tolerated. Compare USA 163kb, UK, 111kb, Russia 108kb. The EU (as an article) is considerably more complex compared to these country articles. The currently established content has to be maintained but can be expanded and altered. Lear 21 10:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At Lear21 presenting your opinion as fact is getting very tiresome; and does not make your argumentation stronger (the reverse actually).
 * I agree with JLogan and Lear21 that many country articles do not manage to stay within the recommended length. That does (of course) not mean we should not try to keep this article as focussed as possible; only that we should not be enforcing reduced length over comprehensiveness.
 * In first instance I would not go looking for whole sections to delete. I would start out with a round of copyediting; ie carefully reading, tightening the prose and structure. Indeed some sections may prove supoerfluous (and indeed spots might be one) but I would not make such a statement before the exercise. Arnoutf 10:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

@ Arnoutf: Your constant lamentation and ongoing destructive approach get tiresome. What you realize as 'my opinion' is the result of reading, comparing and observing Hundreds of articles comparable to the EU article. Lear 21 11:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And you are the only one who does this then? Perhaps you might consider that the rest of us have also put thought into what we say and have some experience on Wikipedia.
 * Back to length though, just because everyone else goes over doesn't mean we should, indeed I wouldn't say the nature of the EU would bring the length down, as there are so many areas it does not cover. However considering we are only a small bit over it is perfectly tolerable, but it is something we should monitor as there is a reason behind the limits - they are not there just for some fun.
 * On the word "destructive" you used Lear, I'd just like to say I for one do not advocate deleting any information, but I do advocate moving it. Sometimes we have more detail in this article than the main articles for that subject, my moving data out it should prompt editors to think about working on those articles also. - J Logan t: 14:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My so called lamentation will stop as soon as opinions are presented as such and not as facts. I think (and have argued for this many times before) that we cannot treat the EU article as a normal country article; but as the special case it is (albeit taking in the relevant bits from the country article structure). I doubt (if you acknolwedge the EU is not a country) there is a single article like the EU article, so I am surpirsed you managed to find hundreds comparable to the EU article.
 * Anyway, I think the new structure, is much better than it was a while ago. Let's start combing through the article as a whole soon, to find inconsistencies in the text, to improve prose, etc. This will take some time, but after that, if everyone is happy, we might try GA nomination again. Arnoutf 15:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS at destructive. I have been proposing compromise after compromise. The only compromise you want to accept is your opinion to prevail. I will not appease a megalomanic German as Chamberlain did; because THAT proved to be destructive. Arnoutf 16:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this have something to do with the eponymous Mr. Godwin becoming counsel for the Wikimedia foundation? (-)--Boson 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article's length is OK for now. If it is to be shortened, I don't think it's necessary to delete any sections, just replacing them with summary of what was said before would do. Such articles are long because there's a lot of relevant information (United States is even longer).--Rudjek 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

@User:Arnoutf: You could at least call me megalomanic European, for politeness reasons! The content is of the atricle is likely to be changed over the time but the established substance has to be maintained. Lear 21 17:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lear if you think the current version of the article is so good, why don't you submit for Featured Article status? Nobody else thinks the article is as good as you do! If it gets FA status (as it is), I'll quit Wikipedia and let you do what. If it doesn't, you can go back to German Wikipedia and let the rest of us actually improve the article. This would be considerably easier to do if you weren't around! Caveat lector 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand everyone might be getting a tad annoyed over this, but this is going a tad too far. I am especially surprised Arnoutf that you would use his nationality in that manner, it is hardly the attitude you'd expect here. And CL, there is no need for anyone else to be escalating this situation. But you Lear, please take a look around and see what your attitude here is doing. Please just take a step back and reconsider your position, you have holding onto very solid positions while nearly everyone else here wishes for an alternative. I feel this is against the spirit of the consensus system and of a normal community - especially one of the European project which is build on discussion and compromise. I'd like to ask you, editor to editor, to work with us to reach an agreement that satisfies all out ideals. It can be accomplished if you would like to engage with us creatively and think of the box for a solution. We will not just go away and you are only encouraging less friendly action to be taken against you. - J Logan t: 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I responded to a provocation made by Sauce Hollandaise, Kerry Gold butter went in later, haha! There are 3 ways dealing with article size: expanding, altering, reducing. I´m in favour of the first two options. That is what I call flexible and forward looking. all the best Lear 21 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm! I guess it just goes to show that German humour is no laughing matter -:) Caveat lector 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet you oppose most proposals put forward here despite consenus against you and as for expanding I have seen little contribution from you towards that. From your record seems more that you are in favour of one thing; the status quo. - J Logan t: 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a criterias which are important to this article: quality and high standards in a broad sense of meaning. Layout, quality of writing, comprehensiveness and focus are among them. Change for the sake of change is not among these criterias. Apart from this article here I contributed significantly to the articles Berlin (rated A-class) and Germany (FA-class /FA-article of the day) and maintain them. In terms of layout I introduced many features which have been copied by many city and country articles. My contributions to this article has been most significantly before your first edit and is always flexible in putting issues, quality and focus forward and not backwards. I´m dedicated to achieve this for the EU article as well. This includes a continuing revert of so called consensus (your imagined consensus) and maintainance of the achieved standard. The article has achieved a certain degree of quality by now which could lead to GA status if proposed as candidate. Lear 21 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus is not imagined. Consensus does not give anyone a veto. Please give us one example of a constructive (ie not an revert) edit made to this page. This article is neither FA nor A class. It needs improvement. Your reversions don't help. Much the opposite. Caveat lector 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Further more, this article went from FA to the gutter and the recent improvements started from that point. I for one do not recall you writing so much as a single paragraph of original information in that time so are you saying all your edits contributed to the state it was in before hand? This is not change for the sake of change, you yourself have said there has been a massive improvement. Just because you have a view on what is better does not give you the right to block everyone else from improving this. I remind you that you were a single voice defending the old city table, every other user was actively engaged in seeking an alternative. - J Logan t: 17:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I should have left nationality out of it, even after being accused of producing "lamentations" and being "destructive".
 * I agree with Lear21 that "quality in high standards" should be sought after. In my opinion a concise (ie as short as possible) article is one of the highest level of quality standards achievable in an encyclopedia. I also agree layout (place images only in the paragraph where they are relevant), quality of writing, comprehensiveness (but not to the level of trivia), and focus (let's choose for EU and leave out anything that is European such as most of the sports section) are important.
 * I disagree with Lear that this article has any status (B-class for such an extensive well referenced article is a clear indication that the quality is low). Hence we need to change, and perhaps drastically. Arnoutf 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick reminder for those who havn´t seen the articles appearance 10 months ago. Lear 21 00:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article certainly isn't too long, and the fact that it's only rated "B class" is a complete mistake. It's "A class" at least, more likely a good article and close to being featured. — Nightstallion 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Sports and culture has been weakened by notably one editor. The former content can be easily reinstalled. Polls can be regarded only as a trend and can´t replace discussion. Lear 21 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Sports section

 * 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)
 * Very small section mentioning that there are no EU sports teams and that for information regarding sports teams of EU members see the respective country articles. Basically, keep the first paragraph. Ben Hocking (talk 13:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Benhocking. — Nightstallion 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Section needs expansion and needs to move away from sport policy matters only (like 3 month ago). A general perspective on sports within EU is needed. Lear 21 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Being both sports-ignorant and an American, how are sports within the EU different from sports within their respective countries? If they're not different, why should we duplicate information here instead of directing the reader to articles that contain that information? Ben Hocking (talk 15:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the only true EU sports thing is (IMHO) the Bosman ruling, where the EU overruled the rules of UEFA not that allowed only a few non-national players in the national competition. This was deemed in direct violation of free traffic of people which is at the core of the EU treaties. Arnoutf 15:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reduce in length, can probably be merged into the culture section. Arnoutf 15:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally out of EU remit, bosman ruling is the only useful thing, but I doubt that needs to be on the EU main page. Move data to the culture/sports pages. - J Logan t: 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The sub-article should mention the 2007 white paper on sports, the proposed treaty provisions on sport, the economic and societal aspects of sport, in particular connections between sport and corruption, crime, money-laundering etc., and the effects of sports injuries. This should be summarized very briefly in the main article. --Boson 20:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid section
Reasonably obviously, the result is a keep. Caveat lector 23:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace with a sentence in main foreign affairs section. Caveat lector 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. Small section, and is EU/EC specific. Ben Hocking (talk 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. — Nightstallion 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. With a tendence to replace or merge into a trimmed foreign relation section. Lear 21 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, although merger into foreign relations is an acceptable second choice. Arnoutf 15:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, can have a small trim but lets concentrate on higher priority work and then come back to it later to see if we need to. - J Logan t: 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep first paragraph. Move rest to sub-article.--Boson 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Security and defence
Reasonably obviously, the result is a keep. Caveat lector 23:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace with a sentence in main foreign affairs section. Caveat lector 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as is - a reasonably small section differentiating between NATO and EU/EC. Ben Hocking (talk 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important info on relations between NATO and EU. — Nightstallion 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Still forming a pillar within CFSP. Also a standard section within country articles. Lear 21
 * Keep, this is likely to grow in importance in the years to come. Arnoutf 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, can have a small trim but lets concentrate on higher priority work and then come back to it later to see if we need to. - J Logan t: 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but try to précis.--Boson 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign relations
The text box should be integrated in fluent text within the section. Lear 21 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Algeria
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Note that Greenland is not mentioned in the member state section. Arnoutf 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

I think it's preferable to keep this articles on only those places which are currently part of the EU. If we start referring to everywhere that might have been part of the EU, the flood doors open. This article is meant to be a summary! The article Special member state territories and the European Union, is intended for this kind of detail. Caveat lector 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Research & Technological Development
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)
 * Agree, that is a technical detail and should not be in a general topic. - J Logan t: 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, with above. Arnoutf 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Council vs European Council
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)


 * 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)


 * I see my mistake, sorry --> PatchEremit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.158.201 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)