Usually, when you hear intergovernmental, people understand, ministers talk talk and talk, they sign a treaty, and then it must be ratified by there parliaments to be valid. But in the council of the EU, they ,talk they talk and they talk, then they vote, anything from simple majority to unanimity, and then that's it, it goes in to force immediately. This distinction should be made explicit in the article, preferably in the lead, and also in the councils article.QMV is only among the ministers, it's not about which Parliament ratified a proposal. Intergovernmental organizations that work in this way are the exception not the rule, and when they do,it's far more limited then with the council.Also is this strictly speaking intergovernmentalism, under this scheme, council seems to be by it's self an entity, while intergovernmental means that decisions are up for the member states,meaning, according to there constitutional arengments, not only to there ministers."However, it also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions without the agreement of all national governments" this is bogus, they are areas that only a QMV in council is needed, does this say that council is supranational?--88.82.47.129 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From the current introduction: "The EU operates through a hybrid system of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. In certain areas it depends upon agreement between the member states. However, it also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions without the agreement of all national governments." Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This to me,implies, that they negociate treaties that then must be ratified by there parliaments, and that they are also supranational entities that fax them what they should do.It's also too vage.--88.82.47.129 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So, what do you propose instead? Let's see how you would formulate and then we can discuss if your text adds quality to the article or not. It would be great, if your proposal was more precise, easier to comprehend and yet not longer than what we currently have. If you meet those requirements, I am sure you will find open ears here. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Basicly say what's the place for national parliaments.Just say(more or less), that "In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means that national ministers, or head of states, are taking decisions that are immediately binding, just by voting among them selves(unanimity is considered voting?), they don't need ratification by there national parliaments. EU decisions aren't draft treaties, but immediately binding laws and executive decisions, national parliaments are involved only for amending the treaties on EU it's self."In the lead of course, because this form of intergovermentalism is not the rule.--88.82.47.57 (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the erroneous grammar, which could of course be fixed by the community, I have several points that make me prefer the original phrase:

(i) The original is much shorter, yet conveying in a clear tone what you are trying to explain by wordiness: There are institutions and processes that are intergovernmental or supranational or something in between.

(ii) You implicitly focus on two institutions the Council and the European Council, while not (even implicitly) mentioning the Commission and the Parliament.

(iii) The way how you mix up the former two (Council and European Council) is causing more confusion than clarifying the message that you want to convey. First, people are left wondering if those are the institutions that you refer to and then they will be uncertain if those two are the same or different or whatever.

(iv) For a lead proposal it is much too specific and not generally correct, e.g., "just by voting among them selves(unanimity is considered voting?), they don't need ratification by there national parliaments". OR "national parliaments are involved only for amending the treaties on EU it's self"

(v) You use terms that are explained later and should therefore not be used at this point, e.g., "EU decisions aren't draft treaties". Tomeasy _{T C} 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(i)it's not suposed to replace the original.You now many international organizations that work like the council.You can trim my proposal.

(ii)The distinction of the councils is ceremonial,even the council of ministers is not really one body,please focus at "In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means ....". Commision and EP are not intergovermental.

(iii)I beleave that they both work like this

(iv)Not generaly corect?You are refering to directives?I'm not trying to explain all EU in one phraze

(v)I beleave this is important, it's the point that sets it apart from "normal" international organizations.

(vi)Feal free to amend my proposal.

"In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means that national ministers(council), or head of states(european council), are taking decisions that are immediately binding, just by voting among them selves, national parliaments don't ratify the decisions."--217.112.186.165 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you something completely different? Perhaps you would like to register an account. As you are using different IPs it will otherwise be difficult to always assign the origin of your individual comments correctly. Apparently, you are motivated to create an impact on Wikipedia. To this end, an account will certainly be helpful and registering takes less time than posting one comment. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just stick to the issue.Do you have a problem with, more or less "In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means that national ministers(council), or head of states(european council), are taking decisions that are immediately binding, just by voting among them selves, national parliaments don't ratify the decisions." If you want we can have a poll, about what people expect by intergovernmental.Say the "ask for comment" thing , no not among people editing this article,among the average Joe, and simply ask people if they rather understand the "drafting treaties for ratification" or the EU way.--217.112.178.33 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a problem with your proposal. This article is about the EU and not about intergovernmentalism. Unfortunately, your formulation yields a specific definition of the latter rather than a general explanation of the former. Moreover, as I mentioned in point (iv) above, you are making false statements. National parliaments (or whichever process the country chooses) are in deed required to ratify treaties negotiated at the European Council. Also point (i) appears even more relevant to me now that you say you want to add your proposal instead of substituting text. I do not feel that your brackets solution for the Council and the European Council really solves issue (iii).

If you do not want to create an account than make at least clear which of the above contributions were posted by you. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't start splitting hears.The normal decision procedure it's by vote among the ministers/presidents,"treaties negotiated at the European Council", are you referring to the EU treaties them selves?I'm not aware of doing this outside amending EU treaties."your formulation yields a specific definition of the latter rather than a general explanation of the former" the point isn't to rerwite the article on intergovermentalism, only explain what is the prosedure in the EU "In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism means .....", pepol expect treaties when they hear intergovermental, EU clearly doesn't work in this way."is much shorter, yet conveying in a clear tone", sory it isn't clear,it's to general, and pepol have prconsieve ideas going in the other direction."Council and the European Council", are you just trying to win the debate hear? just propose a wording, until now you just reject everything."In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism almost always means that members of national governments, are taking decisions that are immediately binding, just by voting among them selves,and national parliaments don't ratify the decisions." And don't start with how often they just vote just propose a replacement for "almost always" that you like say "most of the time" "usually" "normally" "overwhelmingly" "X%".You can propose further changes that you like, i just whant to convey the message that treaties are the exception/rare/unusuall/special cases/ugly/taboo/avoided/monstrous whatever, and voting somehow among members of goverments/ministers/presidents/prime ministers/govermenet whatever you what to put here, is the rule/usual/natural/normal/beautiful whatever you what to call it.Intergovermental to the average joe says that it's about treaties, like in most international organizations, EU is clearly whay out of the norm in this one and should be in the lead in some form.And don't complain about the the weird syntax/grammar you can fix this trivially.--217.112.178.73 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I also have problems with the formulation. Bundling the European Council and Council of Ministers together in such a way is unhelpful. The former is a policy formulator and does not take decisions which are immediately binding law as your description implies. Not to re-open old arguments but they are different... Also they take decisions "just by voting among them selves". They do? This implies they are the SOLE influence in taking a decision. The reality is not quite so simple. Many areas adopt the co-decision procedure in which the European Parliament operates as co-legislator. I feel the *original* lead allowed us to, without confusion, follow this point up later, and your formulation causes confusion. Also I am not certain of the link you are making between intergovernmentalism and the ratification of decisions by the national parliaments. What does this have to do with intergovernmentalism within the EU? Orthodox academic opinion in the field of the EU makes no such connection. Finally I agree with the other points raised by Tomeasy Lwxrm (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bundling the European Council and Council of Ministers together in such a way is unhelpful"."In the context of the EU, intergovermentalism almost always means that members of national governments, are taking decisions that are immediately binding" Thats beater? "Also they take decisions "just by voting among them selves". They do? This implies they are the SOLE influence in taking a decision." legaly yes, they are the only one that deside, in practice of cource is a litle diferent, like with parlements, legaly they do what ever they what, in practice they take the opinion of voters under due councideration, in the same way when they vote at the council, they don't act autoritarian, they take there voters/parliament/party in to acount.Feal free to propose something that that satisfies your councern.This is not a countest about how good my wording is, just propose something that you feel it's beater, not nescascary satisfactory, and we'll see if we can modifie it to something that satisfies most of us."The reality is not quite so simple. Many areas adopt the co-decision"the proposal is about intergovermental part of the EU, not the supranational part. "I feel the *original* lead allowed us to" I don't what to replace anything, i just whant to add a phraze similar to what i have proposed. "Also I am not certain of the link you are making between intergovernmentalism and the ratification of decisions by the national parliaments" I argue that the average joe, expects intergovermenta=treaties, we can ask a request for comment to check this out. "Orthodox academic opinion in the field of the EU makes no such connection."This is not relevent, i don't understand what you understould, i just whant to point out that normal EU decisions are not treaties.--217.112.178.73 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's my proposition to tackle these aspects in the lead. The governance section will then explain in detail how the institutions work, and therefore answer your concern as to how much intergovernmental they are.

I disagree with you about the average Joe, which you do not want to be yourself, but even better want to know. Intergovernmental co-operation is not equivalent with the necessity to ratify decision. I also disagree with you that this would be the rule. I think, it's rather the exception. Look at the UN, NATO or whatever intergovernmental organization! When they make decision, e.g., whether to expand or UN resolutions, they do not need a ratification process for it. So why would average Joe assume this hearing the word intergovernmental?

"This is not relevant, i don't understand what you understould, i just whant to point out". Honestly, you should try to understand us first, before deciding that our arguments are irrelevant. This thread is not a one-way street! Tomeasy _{T C} 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"I argue that the average joe, expects intergovermenta=treaties". I would argue to "average Joe" intergovernmental means nothing...It is not a concept "average joe" will have come across. Which is why we link the word in the lead to the wiki page on intergovernmentalism which mentions nothing of intergovernmental==treaty... and also briefly define how it applies to the EUAlso once again I challenge the accuracy of your "legaly yes, they are the only one that deside". They are not. Article 251 lays down a co-decision procedure for JOINT legislative (decision making) authority between council and parliament. They cannot legally do whatever they want. They would swiftly face an action for annulment if they did...Again "the proposal is about intergovermental part of the EU, not the supranational part". When a proposal about one part distorts the meaning of the section as a whole I think it is fair to flag this up. The EU works on a HYBRID system of the two. Therefore you cannot fully separate out the two issues. In things which are considered "intergovernmental" there are supranational influences. Lwxrm (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Heed the wise words of Lwxrm here I would advise. He speaks the truth! Btw Lwxrm I didnt get a chance to respond to your last comment on the direct effect issue, it was archived before I could but just to say briefly that I did agree with what you were saying and that there certainly was scope for it to be redrafted - just I didnt think the removal of any reference to direct effect at all was the right move. --Simonski (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, to the anon IP user, whilst I dont mean to be rude, your spelling borders on the downright horrible at times. I think you do your arguments no favours by making so many mistakes. Considering most of them are already quite poor without the mistakes. --Simonski (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'm searching for countries disappeared in the European Union, former member countries of European Union and Countries that are short-lived in European Union or Defunct members. - User:Allo002(Talk), 7 October 2008

Greenland is the only territory that comes to my mind having ever left the union. Whether this is a country or not depends, of course, on what you have in mind when you say country. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) disappeared into the European Union when it merged with the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you (Fishy), but the GDR was never member of the EU. It joined the EU when joining/merging with the FRG. If I understood the original question correctly it is about countries that abandoned the union. In this context the mention of the GDR is not appropriate. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Allo, Greenland voted to leave in the 1980s when they gained home rule (for fisheries issues I think, same reason Iceland hasn't joined) and Algeria left when they gained independence from France (unlike most of the French empire, they were declared an integral part and hence were part of the European Economic Community. EU treaties have never really applied to any other colonial territories that have left and there are no territories in Europe that have ever left. Aside from those examples, there are no countries fitting your description. See our article here: Withdrawal from the European Union. - _J.Logan`^t: 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to cover the issue of defunct countries, no member states have ever merged or collapsed. All EU members have been relatively stable and due to European integration, any ideas of union between certain EU states have been put to one side. There has also been, to date, no successful separatism (potential cases are Scotland, Flanders and Catalonia. But all would join the EU as separate members afterwards rather than leave the EU all together)- _J.Logan`^t: 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A current edit war requires to discuss the statement of the EU motto. My position is that the given reference clearly makes United in diversity the official motto in English language. Since we are on the English Wikipedia, I see no reason to include the Latin version, or (even worse) its literal re-translation to English. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Did not see this post before my revert. The EU is not an English organisation. Both its international (Latin) motto and its official English translation are relevant. −Woodstone (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point is that United in Diversity is not a direct translation of In Varietate Concordia. Concordia would more directly translate to agreement or concord in Latin, and diversity has the connotation of variety of people, whereas varietate would translate to variety which can be of anything, people, culture, language, food, climate etc. (NovaTabula (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

This is my understanding:

There is one version of the motto for each official language of the EU. Latin is not official language and there is no Latin motto with any official (or unofficial) standing. In each language, the official motto is the motto in the appropriate language. In some circumstances, for instance in an international setting where no one official language would be appropriate, some people have occasionally used a Latin version (this is similar to the use of consilium and curia in URLs). This is a transfer into Latin of the authoritative versions in the official languages, not the other way round. The supposed "translation" from Latin into English is not a proper translation but a calque, which is not appropriate here. It might be appropriate for "translating" an original Latin engraving in a Roman temple or a famous saying by Horace. If anyone has any citations to indicate that the alleged English translation of the purported Latin motto has any standing, or is used by reliable sources in any other way than that described by me, I would like to see them. --Boson (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Boson hit the point. This translation has been made up to be closer to the Latin version. The creator of this translation probably interpreted closer in a way that it was closest if all utilized words have the same (Latin) etymology. This is in deed not appropriate, but rather some sort of original research, while we do not need to research at all: The EU has done the job for us and cast the motto in the most appropriate translations they could think of.

A separate issue is the inclusion of the Latin motto. Of course, Woodstone's right that the EU is not an English organization. Yet this article is called European Union rather than Europese Unie. Similarly, we write the currency euro and not the Greek way. All versions are equally fine, just they apply to different languages. Since we use the English language here, we will also use the English version of the motto. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the words derived from the same root are logically likely to have the closest meaning. In varietate concordia and United in diversity are not one and the same, but it does get interpreted that way. My point is the translation is not accurate as it is. (NovaTabula (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

If the translation is not accurate, it is the Latin that is incorrect, since the English is an authoritative version and the Latin is not. Consider the other authoritative versions, such as Unidos na diversidade Uniti nella diversità, Unidos en la diversidad, Unitate în diversitate, In Vielfalt geeint, Eenheid in verscheidenheid , Unie dans la diversité.

So if you are arguing that the translation is wrong, this is a strong argument for removing the incorrect Latin translation and a very strong argument for removing the even more incorrect back-translation.

Also, what is the evidence for the words derived from the same root being most likey to have the same meaning? Apart from faux amis, a normal word in Latin may often have different connotations, a different register or even a very different meaning from the English word derived from it, while the same concept is expressed in English by a different word derived from French or German.

"Iniquitas" may not be best translated as "inequity, "decorum" may not be best translated by "decorous", and "concordia" may not be best expressed by "concord.--Boson (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Granted, but in this case concordia definitely does not have the English meaning of 'united', 'diversity' of course could well fit for 'varietate', but as I said it does have the connotation of variety among peoples. I'd agree with either offering a correct translation or removing it altogether. (NovaTabula (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Fine. So, there's only Woodstone left with their stance that the EU is not English and therefore using the Latin version is better. I think this argumentation has been sufficiently diffused, but it's not up to me to decide this. What do you say Woodstone? Tomeasy _{T C} 07:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many official versions of the motto (one of them is the English version). There is no, I repeat no, official Latin version. Any reference to a Latin version is completely made up and fictitious and therefore about as relevant as a reference to a Chinese, Swahili, or ancient Maya version (i.e. not at all ever). Arnoutf (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We should only show the official motto. The only reason that we would have to translate the motto into English would be if there was no official English version. Translating the motto into Latin and then back into English is completely pointless. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Latin isn't an EU language, there is no formal translation into it. 2. It has 23 translation. 3. We have a drop down box for them all or 4. we just have English as this is the English wikipedia and hence English readers would know and be able to read that English version.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I have not found an official source, there is enough evidence ([1] [2] [3]) to support that the Latin version is seen as the standard motto, from which all other ones are translations. We all know that a literal translation is not always the best and in this case the official English one is surely close enough. This being the English wikipedia, I see reason to include the generic Latin version plus the official English one, but we should not attempt to offer another English translation. −Woodstone (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

An official source would be a requirement for the assertion that it is "standard", considering the fact that all those three sites are unbelievably minor and probably citing Wikipedia.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed without an official source (of the EU itself) the Latin translation is not acceptable. Full stop. Arnoutf (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only are those three references minor, they also do not specifically address the question as to whether the original version is the Latin one or the 23 official language versions equally. From the second and the third source, I rather understand that they put the official language version (here English) higher than the Latin one. However, they do not really make this question an issue. That's why I think they do not really help us.

Without having a source myself, Boson's explanation seems the most reasonable to me. The Latin version is used as a mere auxiliary to avoid the conflict of choosing one of the official version. We do not have this problem here, because our article is anyway written in English.

Perhaps we might ultimately solve the issue by digging up the proclamation of the European parliament of 4 May 2000, see source 2 of Woodstone. This should be published. I will give it a try later. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK here's what I found:

The European Parliament decides on the symbols of the EU. Sole mention here is the English version. I suspect this is due to it being an English report. In any case, it does not mention a Latin version, which it would have to if this version was in deed above all others.

This text explains the creation of the motto through a European wide competition. To me, this text suggests that actually the English version is the most original one as it was the submission of one of the participants of the competition. However, this I understand a bit in between the lines - so not sure.

At last, the English version of the European Union draft constitution proposed the English version of the motto only (p. 222). Why on earth, should we do differently here. Sorry, but I think this case is more than clear, unless there is going to be really substantially new insight. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The report Tomeasy cites is also available in other languages each of which use their own version of "the motto" and NONE of which uses the Latin version. I am not convinced on the reference to the constitution/competition so much.. Although the report cited is only a "draft" and there is no reference in any legally binding document to the authoritative version of the motto, I feel we should use just the English (not the Latin which should be removed). This would reflect how the EU uses the phrase. It uses whichever version is suitable to the language of the document. We are an English page and so should use the English version. Lwxrm (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As the opposition died out, I allowed myself to implement that removal of the Latin version, because IMO this seems to be consensus here. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Because this question continues to go unaddressed: why is the Mercator projection used for the map? I can think of no justification, particularly when there are more accurate projections easily available. Slac speak up! 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I had started this discussion once - my opinion still stands - I agree to dismiss the Mercator projection. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it inaccurate? (MJDTed (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Any 2D plane projection of a sphere is inaccurate in some sense. You might be interested in this. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This question is anything but unaddressed. Please read through this and examine the consensus that was reached then, so that the same arguments don't have to be repeated now. - SSJ ☎ 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest it was not really consensus. There was clearly no consensus to abandon Mercator (for different reasons), so the status quo was maintained, there was no clear consensus in favor of Mercator (the suggestion for change was dropped as that had become unlikely, buyt that does not say the people who proposed it agree with Mercator). The effect: no change, is the same though Arnoutf (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SSJ, where in the link you were pasting is the consensus you mention? Until the end, I raised the issue which projection is appropriate and it has not been addressed. IMO, Mercator is outdated, because it opens doors for claims that it is politically incorrect. I have always been for changing, just the discussion by then did not develop and I did not want to bully myself through against status quo. However, there were about as many people for changing as against. So, I think it makes sense to discuss the issue of the projection properly. Last time it was mixed up with all kinds of irrelevant side points, which I hope we can exclude now. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We did discuss the pros and cons of the mercator projection and the mercator projection. I assume everybody agrees that neither of them are able to show any geographical area without distorting shapes. I argued that the latitute of Europe makes the mercator projection show the EU less distorted. Both the mercator projection and the robinson projection are mainstream and legitimate, so we can choose. The way I see it, the purpose of having a map in the infobox is to locate the EU in the world; shoreline details are just a bonus. But as the mercator projection makes the EU look bigger than it looks in the robinson projection, I think the mercator projection is more adequate for this article as the EU's borders and shorelines are more detailed when it is used. - SSJ ☎ 16:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"opens doors for claims that it is politically incorrect"? - SSJ ☎ 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mercator projection is doomed, because it makes the countries closer to the poles appear larger than those close to the equator. The main criticism is therefore that the richer, western countries use there publishing power to appear occupying larger fractions of the earths surface than they do. You prefer the Mercator projection, because it distorts the size of the EU to the larger - well that's why people oppose it.

Are you seriously proposing the globe view? Tomeasy _{T C} 16:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to use a more accurate projection, but it should show at least Europe in fine detail, so maybe it ought a section of the map zoomed in on Europe. (Nebulousity (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

I agree with Lacrimosus and Tomeasy. The Mercator projection is a really horrible map. While it does show more coastline detail in Scandanavia, it does so at the expense of making Greenland look almost as big as Africa which, in answer to MJDTed's question, is actually one fourteenth of Africa's size and smaller than the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It hardly shows us in a good light to be using a map that was designed to make makes Europe look big and important and the rest of the world small and insignificant (albeit with the exceptions of Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Russia which are all blown up grossly out of proportion). , at a time when Europe was at the height to its dominion over the rest of the world.

I don't think there's any justification for using the Mercator projection as a location map. It's diseducative, misinformative, inaccurate and guilty of exactly the same accusations of bias common to Wikiepdia: systematic bias in favour of wealthy Western nations. Wikipedia's articles on Canada, the United States, Greenland and Russia all use Robinson projection, if it's good enough for them I think it's good enough for us and consistency with those articles is, IMHO, a good enough reason for the use of the Robinson projection in itself. There are in any case other projections that we could use, not to mention Ssolbergj's globe, but I think we should at least begin by agreeing that the Mercator projection is, in a word, out. Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(I've modified my comments. I no longer believe that the Mercator projection was specifically designed to make Africa, southern and central Asia, and South America look small. Of course it did and does have this effect when used for purposes other than for what is was designed, navigation.) Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on, there's no need to bring that kind of discussion. Europeans have already had enough of being told that they were/are evil and oppressors of the world. Let's just stick to the matter of which is the best projection to use. (Nebulousity (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

I am European (and reasonably proud of it). My point was accurate and relevant. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Colonial past has got nothing to do with this. The robinson projection is also very distorting (OMG the selfish africans). The fact is that both projections are mainstream, and both are distorting. If we conduct this discussion in that context, my argument is that the mercator projection's bonus is that it gives a more detailed shoreline for areas at the latitude of Europe. I think most people know that Greenland isn't as big as Africa. The shape of Europe is more interesting in this article. While the robinson map wastes a lot of space, being rounded, the marcator map is square. - SSJ ☎ 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But the slight advantage of showing Norway's coast accurately allows for a very distorted picture of the world. I realise all projections are in some way distorted but the Mercator projection is considerably worse than the others. Both Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia recommend against using the Mercator projection to represent the entire world.

"[The Mercator] projection is widely used for navigation charts, because any straight line on a Mercator-projection map is a line of constant true bearing that enables a navigator to plot a straight-line course. It is less practical for world maps because the scale is distorted; areas farther away from the equator appear disproportionately large. On a Mercator projection, for example, the landmass of Greenland appears to be greater than that of the continent of South America; in actual area, Greenland is smaller than the Arabian Peninsula." ([4])

"Although the Mercator projection is still in common use for navigation, due to its unique properties, cartographers agree that it is not suited to representing the entire world in publications or wall maps due to its distortion of land area. Mercator himself used the equal-area sinusoidal projection to show relative areas. As a result of these criticisms, modern atlases no longer use the Mercator projection for world maps or for areas distant from the equator, preferring other cylindrical projections, or forms of equal-area projection. The Mercator projection is still commonly used for areas near the equator, however, where distortion is minimal." Mercator projection

Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Goode's World Atlas prefers a simple conical projection for reference and regional maps of Europe. I think that a Robinson projection is almost always preferable to a Mercator projection when showing the world. Polar distortion on a Mercator projection is extreme, making it most suitable for detail maps of equatorial reasons. Nonetheless, world Mercator projections are prominent on Wikipedia, and in that light of that, the charges of ethnocentrism are dubious. But thst's not meant to be read as, "Don't improve the maps by replacing the Mercator projections.Synchronism (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"the marcator map is square." No SSJ, it is not - it's a rectangle. Sounds picky? I am so picky, because I want to hint you on something just slightly different. You repeat the point that Mercator does not distort the shape. That is wrong, too. Consider a square with one base in east-west orientation and the other base in north-south orientation, than Mercator distorts this square shape into a rectangle by stretching the base in north-south orientation. I hope we have consensus on this one. Then, what does this mean to the Norwegian shore line? Its orientation appears more north-south than it is in reality. So, your argumentation about a more realistic visualization of the coast line collapses. Observe, not every square is a rectangle. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that mercator projection doesn't distort. I am repeating the fact that both projection types distort, but that the mercator projection distorts areas in the latitude of Europe less. - SSJ ☎ 14:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I apparently overshoot the mark claiming you made such an absolute statement. However, even the relative statement that you have just made is very contentious. How do you measure less distortion? What do you mean by it, while you agree that both do distort? For me it is Mercator that distorts more. Finland appears much larger than Spain! If that is not a significant distortion, then what is?

The map does not only show Europe, so I do not agree to restrict the discussion to the green shaded regions. If the remainder areas were not of interest at all, then why do we show them. When opting to use a world map, we have to consider the implications of a world map globally. The guidelines to this are clear and I would like to follow them.

BTW, are you seriously proposing the globe view?

"the mercator projection distorts areas in the latitude of Europe less" Might be a misunderstanding again, but it sounds very wrong to me. Correct would be to claim that Mercator distorts areas in the latitude of the equator less. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the mercator projection distorts the shape of Europe less. I'm not a cartographer, so I can't give a academic rationale for my claim. What is wrong with the globe? I know it would be unprecedented, but the distortion of a sphere is at least not misleading. - SSJ ☎ 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, I get you:) I did not say it is wrong and did not mean that. Before arguing about it, I just wanted to make sure it was genuine proposal. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of it? BTW does anyone know which projection the BBC is using here? It's something in between the robinson and mercator extremes (still greenland looks huge). - SSJ ☎ 23:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Globe view European Union Flag Presidency insignia Motto: United in diversity[1] Anthem: Ode to Joy[1] (orchestral) Capital Brussels Official languages 12 Membership 27 Establishment • Treaty of Rome 1957	Mercator projection European Union Flag Presidency insignia Motto: United in diversity[1] Anthem: Ode to Joy[1] (orchestral) Capital Brussels Official languages 12 Membership 27 Establishment • Treaty of Rome 1957	Robinson projection European Union Flag Presidency insignia Motto: United in diversity[1] Anthem: Ode to Joy[1] (orchestral) Capital Brussels Official languages 12 Membership 27 Establishment • Treaty of Rome 1957
Here you go, compare. - SSJ ☎ 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at these, I have no strong preference for Robinson over Mercator (althouth the "flatter" shape of Robinsin keeps the infobox smaller which is something of an advantage.) The "globe view" I think is just too big in size, but is the only one that depict Greenland fairly (ie that the islande is more or less square, compared to the distorted triangle shape in both Robinson and Mercator). Altogether very minor preference for Robinson. Arnoutf (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the image sizes can be tweaked, captions aren't necessary in the article, that this robinson image has no margin, and that the infobox is less wide with the globe. - SSJ ☎ 12:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the globe view, because simply it's the most accurate with regard to landmass size, and also it shows Europe in the most detail. (MJDTed (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

I'd still go for the Robinson projection for consistency with other Wikipedia articles (including Greenland), but the globe's a fair compromise. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinking of this article in isolation, I quite like the globe version (because it appears to show most detail of the subject of the article), except that it doesn't really show enough of the Americas. I think it is helpful to see the EU, America and Russia in the geographical context. On the other hand, since it is a matter of locating the EU in relation to other places, I think is important to have some standardization across countries. At a quick glance, it looks to me if the articles for large geographical entities (such as the United States, Australia, Russia) use Robinson; so, on balance, I would tend to go for that. Do the people at WP:WikiProject Countries have anything to say on the matter? --Boson (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume that the reason why the robinson projection (which I've rearly seen outside wikipedia) is so dominant in articles, is that editors haven't had a wide range of projections of SVG world maps (they don't have an alternative with all national borders and islands in fact). I don't see why that hegemony shouldn't be stirred up. It's difficoult to compare Russia, the EU and the US based on a robinson or mercator map, because of the distortion (Russia, US and EU are in different latitudes). - SSJ ☎ 12:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of comparing Russia, the EU and the US on the basis of the map, but more of seeing where each "geo-political entity" (for want of a better term) is in relation to others, which I see as an important purpose of such maps. For instance the globe view shows better that Russia is a neighbour of the US, as well as the EU. The globe view may give a different perspective on the traditional view of the EU's geographical location in relation to other countries.--Boson (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The BBC map is probably a Gall stereographic projection, for which there is unfortunately no Wikipedia article. It should not be confused with the Gall-Peters projection, which is an equal area projection.

From the three examples above, I only dismiss the Mercator projection. To the already mentioned advantages of the Robinson projection, I have nothing to add at this point (less area distortion and therefore suggested by professionals on the subject; uniformity throughout Wikipedia).

The globe view is a very interesting proposal. It creates a global context even though it avoids showing the whole surface. This is specifically helpful for the EU, which is comparatively small in area but, as an international organization, requires a global context. Personally, I like innovations and this could be an innovation for the Wikipedia locator map business. I would like to see its impact on a mid-term basis (readers comments, other articles copying the idea etc). I just asked my partner, who doesn't know about any of the exchanged arguments here, to comment on the three version. The globe view received the best response by virtue of its aesthetics. It's just one opinion, of course, but interesting to me, because myself I am perhaps to focused on the technical details.

As arguments against the globe view, I see the following points: (i) As Arnout mentioned it shows up much larger - too large, as I think as well. Perhaps this can be solved by spanning a little bit less than the full width of the infobox. (ii) Uniformity across Wikipedia. Less a problem to me as this generally holds for innovations. (iii) Do not forget that this view also distorts, however, in a way that is intuitively expected by the spherical shape. Still, I think that the globe view solves the distortion problem best.

I would like to give the globe view a shot, but at least change Mercator to any of the two alternatives. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I previewed the globe on the article and it doesn't increase the sidebar width but does occupy more horizontal vertical space than either the Mercator or Robinson projections. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't width and horizontal space the same thing? - SSJ ☎ 17:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooops... I meant to say vertical space. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would not say that it's fundamentally wrong to dedicate more space in the infobox to the locator map. It's just that we are used to the robinsons and the mercators for the big countries.

Look at the infobox for every EU member state! Their maps are almost square. - SSJ ☎ 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My doubts are about the height, not the width. In my view no infobox should be longer than one screen to be informative and usable. The country infobox is one of the longest infoboxes, therefore my misgiving about high maps. I have protested on this point repeatedly when legends and square maps and miscellaneous nonsense was added to the infobox. Sadly the majority thinks that more (space, overly detailed economic data etc) is better. And yes the new maps are pretty bad, however once someone has gone through all the effort of creating 30+ maps of Europe, in general there is no editor who is sufficiently motivated to discuss that the map should not be used to stop its implementation (this has happended several times in the past).

The globe has some value for the EU, especially given the very northern position of Europe (between 36 deg (Gibraltar) and 70 deg (Tromso) North) Compared with the US (without Alaska up to 71 degrees) is between about 25 (Miami)-42 (Nothern Main) degrees and Canada between 40 and 82 degrees, Europe is more comparable with Canada than the US for latitude; especially if we take into account that European due to the GulfStream is inhabited to much higher latitudes than Canada (For comparison some important cities: Rome is at Madrid and New York=40 deg; Rome=41 Deg, Toronto=43 Ottawa, Montreal and Bordeaux=45 Paris, Vienna=48 Vancouver=49 London=51 Oslo, Helsinki=60 deg Anchorage=61 Reykjavik=64, Tromso=70 degrees) Arnoutf (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note of this discussion over at WikiProject Maps. We'll see if they have anything to say on the matter. Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would be interesting to hear the opinion of other people, but no existing "policy preference" under their project would automatically apply in this discussion. As with many other things on wikipedia, consensus among the editors of an article is almost always the decisive factor. - SSJ ☎ 19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I see there has been some discussion at Commons: commons:Commons talk:Project Mapmaking Wiki Standards#Choice for the world map projection(s). Depending on requirements, it would seem that the Winkel tripel projection used by National Geographic and the Mollweide projection are being proposed. There is also more discussion at commons:Commons talk:Project Mapmaking Wiki Standards/Archive01#Recommended World map projection.--Boson (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I took part in similar discussions about uniform map regimes a year ago. They probably started when wikipedia was launched, and are likely to go on for all eternity as ordinary editors don't know or care about projection guidelines. There are too few autocratic graphic designers around. Right now everybody is using robinson because that's the only thing available in SVG. No offense, but I don't think we can't wait for that revolution. - SSJ ☎ 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we give the globe a try? The robinson gives a severe squeeze to Europe's shape (the site Tomeasy linked to says that some world map projections have "Pleasant balance of shape and scale distortion". Robinson is not one of them) and it seems like everybody hates the mercator. The fact is that most European countries' articles have a near-square locator map, so why would it be intolerable for the EU. Furthermore it makes the infobox thinner. It's not a given rule that every locator map in e.g. the media has to be a rectangular world map showing every corner of the earth. Locator globes are common. When the response comes, we can reevaluate. If people like it, I'll probably make equivalents for the US etc. - SSJ ☎ 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I admin that the globe uses a lot more space but the infobox, before I changed the location map, already used more than two screen fulls on my computer. Let's try this for a bit and see what feedback we get. In the meantime I'm going to see about proposing a more general policy on map projections. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we have the Robinson map back, please? Lear 21 (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the robinson projection hasn't been used in this article since February. - SSJ ☎ 13:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You want to try Robinson or you want to go back to the one we used before, i.e., Mercator? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please discuss why? - SSJ ☎ 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mercator was tolerable but Robinson seems to be standard and for my eyes the most commonly known map. 85.179.3.103 (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ehm yes the robinson is common on wikipedia. And that's not very strange, taking into consideration that the robinson projection has always been the only SVG world map projection available on commons. I have personally rearly seen robinson outside wikiprojects. IMO we should focus on what's the most suitable map projection, not what's the quasi-standard today. - SSJ ☎ 13:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could you post your comments in one shot, please ;-)

I agree that the current quasi-standard should not bother us too much. It's the area distortion that makes Mercator impossible. The Mercator projection is available for the world on commons, yet nobody prefers its use over the Robinson projection. My guess, this is because the use of Mercator is discouraged for political correctness reasons.

The current globe view with 220px appears very good to me. However, we should keep in mind that comments to the article content are most likely critical. Open question, how could we get an unbiased glimpse of the readers impression? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who introduced the mercator projection on commons in February. I've only used it a few times. - SSJ ☎ 14:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's of course good of you that you uploaded it, but that does not matter much to my argumentation. The file has not been used by other editors to visualize other countries' location with a Mercator projection. That's what I wanted to say. Why that is? Because it has been uploaded by you in February or because its use is discouraged - well I stated my opinion above. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was that the mercator projection hasn't been around very long. Never mind. SSJ ☎ 15:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, 8 months is neither a very short nor a very long time. Anyway, which one is your favorite and which one is certainly not. I feel you are strongly against Robinson (why?), and perhaps more for the globe view than Mercator (is that right?). If it was your personal page, which one would you post and why? Tomeasy _{T C} 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I've rearly seen the robinson outside Wikipedia, and the projection gives a severe squeeze to Europe. I've felt that the mercator projection distorts Europe less - but its distortion of Greenland etc. is obviously ludicrous (but I don't think people are fooled by that). The distortion of a 3D globe is however unequivocal and unsuggestive. It's not a given rule that every locator map in e.g. the media has to be a rectangular world map showing every corner of the earth. Locator globes are common. And I think a globe looks nicer aesthetically. - SSJ ☎ 20:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! Tomeasy _{T C} 08:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please install a decent world map as soon as possible. thanks Lear 21 (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be constructive and take part in the debate, instead of demanding things. Thank you. - SSJ ☎ 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Can we have the Robinson map back, please?" I am still wondering which one you want back. We were having Mercator in place and not Robinson. Or perhaps, you just want any of the two as long as it is a flat map. Please let us know what you think, and I mean more to the point than just dismissing the globe view for being not decent. That's very vague and could mean anything. To me, it means that you do not feel comfortable with it. What I would like to know is, why? Tomeasy _{T C} 12:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First priority should be a "flat" map, the current is almost not acceptable. The Robinson map resembles most to what I consider is most common. I checked my school atlas and weather mapsof CNN, BBC and German national TV stations. That does not mean Mercator is wrong. I don´t have strong stance on that.... Lear 21 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you think a globe is "almost not acceptable"? I claim that the robinson projection is very uncommon. - SSJ ☎ 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think it would be interesting to go into detail and analyze why the globe view is almost not acceptable or not decent. Those statements are very "flat" in terms of being arguments. I agree that it is very uncommon, as anything innovative inherently is.

I also had to think twice to make up my opinion, which is to give it a try. I also understand Arnout's reasoning that it occupies too much space. However, from you, I do not understand more than that you simply do not like it, and this will not be sufficient to convince anyone here.

BTW, I am not happy with the decision to having installed the locator map while we are still discussing the issue. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercator projection: arbitrary break 1

Both you (Tomeasy) and Ssolbergj had said that you thought trying the locator/globe map for a while, and since no one had expressed outright opposition to map I decided to go ahead and give it a try for a bit. I thought that represented consensus. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that decision. Several people have voiced more or less support towards giving the globe a try. No one has written specific objections to the globe so far, other than it's height. - SSJ ☎ 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to make this an issue, but there were objections raised against the globe view before it was installed on the article. These objections had not been redacted. Anyway, they did not come from me and therefore I would like to drop this sub-thread that I, unfortunately, brought up.

Rather I would like to hear what substantial concerns can be raised against trying the glob view. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I quite like the globe projection, it does have disadvantages as a locator map because it only shows half of the world. So if you want to know "Where is the EU in relation to me?" it is less helpful if you live on the wrong side of the world. For an infobox I think it would be useful for all major geopolitical entities to use a similar map, with different bits highlighted. --Boson (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand that argument. I just don't think wikipedia readers online need to be reminded how the entire earth looks like on every map. From what I have seen in media etc., locator globes are perfectly common, ergo a legitimate choice of projection. Perhaps I'd agree that a "flat", full-world map would have been better, had the subject been an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. But I don't believe people (in the case of the EU) need to see South America and Australia at the same time.

We have been talking alot about distortion. The fact that the globe has a latitude/longitude grid makes it easier to understand the distortion. With a flat (ergo a heavily distorted map), comparing distances and sizes isn't unproblematic. - SSJ ☎ 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Or think of the locator maps of most European countries. They show Europe and not much more, the world is only inserted as a small feature in one corner. I think these maps serve well the purpose of locating the countries even though most readers will not take a look at the small world map in the corner. The globe on the other hand conveys the world wide perspective even much more, which I think is justified because the EU is more of a global player than its member states. I am sure the globe view serves the purpose to locate the EU for every reader who could extract this information from the world map.

A problem might be what you (Boson) said earlier. The relative positions EU-USA-Russia-EU might be less clear. To this end, however, the usual flat world maps are also erroneous as they are centered arbitrarily. Consequently, the reader is mislead in a way to only consider connection inside the map and not those over its connected borders. The globe view remedies this limitation nicely. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that projection map looks stunning, besides it's not like the world doesn't know where Europe is, the map is merely representative, so a projection map works perfectly, and from the aesthetics point of view, it really gives a nice plus to the article. Supaman89 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I know the reason for the new globe map: Norway is at the center, haha!But seriously, I´m surprised that the funny map survived more than a couple of hours.There are no advantages compared to the older ones. Instead, the EU (almost covering a continent) is not put in a global perspective. Neither South America or Australia can be seen. Users, who want to a precise larger map will be able to find a map in the Member states section. So please, with sugar on the top, change to Mercator or Robinson. Norway still rulez.... Lear 21 (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

When did you get so sarcastic? Essentially, the only thing you pointed now was that you think the globe doesn't show enough of the earth ("Neither South America or Australia can be seen"). My counterargument to that, specifically, can be found four messages above this. - SSJ ☎ 15:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

May I give an opinion as a Wiki-mapmaker? If I think, in our modern world, that the Mercator projection should be left far behind in world maps (we aren't anymore in the Middle Ages!), may be you could also consider the Winkel tripel projection as other option instead the Robinson one which has been discarded by the National Geographic Society 10 years ago for the Winkel tripel one, as it preserves better the general shapes of the land. This projection hasn't specific properties (neither has the Robinson) but it's not the point here for general maps, what imports here is the best possible shape. Sting-fr (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it - not only because I am an early on opponent of Mercator ;-) Do you also have something to say about the globe view? Tomeasy _{T C} 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I like very much the orthographic projection too as it's the most realistic one (Earth seen from outer space – or a globe seen at an usual distance). It is used by the UN as locator map for their maps, but as it has been said up here, you don't have a global vision of the Earth. If you want to show all the territories of the EU (the Falklands, Tahiti, etc.), this will be a problem. Furthermore, you will have to create a new map (new projection parameters) for each region, the Winkel tripel (or any other ”flat” map) being a bit more easy to handle. A choice between both ? Sorry for staying out of this discussion, but I think this choice must be yours, together with the equivalent projects, I just came here to give you some pros and cons about the projections. Sting-fr (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your valuable comments. You have raised my technical interest. Now, I am wondering whether SSJ uses an orthographic projection or a perspective view of the globe. BTW, Tahiti and the Falklands are not part of the EU. Still, the mentioned problem might exists for Martinique and Reunion. On the other hand they would not show up anyway due to their limited size. Not even Malta is shown, which is clearly in the focus and one complete member state. I know from earlier discussions that people do not consider it essential to show these details. From my side, this is a reason to favor the Robinson alternative. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It is an orthographic projection. Not even the 280px wide robinson shows a single Maltese pixel. BTW I can add Malta on the globe. - SSJ ☎ 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

But if one clicks on it—and that's what people do when they want to see more details—one will see that the stains at Malta's location are blue, provided one knows where Malta is located. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I still favour the comprehensive world map. Lear 21 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive? So you favor the globe view now... Tomeasy _{T C} 12:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant either of the "flat" maps. I could also have said cake tastes better that jelly, not that I think it would have been a very convincing or relevant argument in itself. - SSJ ☎ 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I love the new orthographic maps, they get around the annoying what-projection-is-more-accurate debate and look damn good. However there is the problem of it showing the whole world or not. Could we perhaps have a flat world map in a small box in the corner like we have when we have a zoomed in map and the larger one to the side? Sorry if the reason we can't do that has been explained before but I'm sure as hell not reading through the entire discussion right now when I barely have time to post.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could, in a typical EU compromise, have all three: a large aesthetically pleasing globe (centered on the subject of the article) and two smaller maps for clicking on: a Mercator projection of the region and a locator map of the whole world (preferably Winkel tripel projection). Something like this:

|

--Boson (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The globe also fits in with our "corporate identity" (reminiscent of the Wikipedia logo).--Boson (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment on the notion that one needs to see the whole world on the map is here. Aren't the roles of these three maps partly overlapping? The globe is semi-whole-world and shows the accurate details of the shorelines, the blue closeup would not show much more detail than the globe when cramped into an infobox (other than member states' internal borders). The robinson displaying all the special territories has a reasonable purpose (like what's in the French infobox). Can we try the three map-solution within an infobox here on the talk page? It could also be a possibility to have only the globe, but with "(special territories)" link in the caption. - SSJ ☎ 19:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My first impression of the global view was... unpleasant (I don't generally like change). However, after looking at the additional maps posted, USA, Russia, etc, I think this would make a valuable innovation across wikipedia. While there are still problems (where's Reunion?), it does show information that is usually missing from the standard flat maps. An example would be the relationship to neighbouring countries. Consider the distance between Russia and Canada on the Russian map, and compare that to the flat maps, where the nations are at opposite ends of the world. Of the flat maps, I'd say: Winkel, Robinson, Mercator, however, the global projection does seem more accurate to the subject at hand (the country/region). As to the argument that someone would look at the map and be confused because they're in Australia or Brazil, and so they wouldn't know where the EU is... if they didn't recognize the shape of the continents, then they probably wouldn't recognize the little squiggly lines the articles are written in either. I don't think expecting a literate person to have the absolutely most basic level of geography is unusual. If someone want's to try to make a wikipedia article on the EU for illiterates (who I'm not disparaging) I'd recommend using all four maps, and a lot of other pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Multi-map solution sounds good. though I agree that they overlap too much. As we can't show all the territories on the globe, I say we have the globe and a world map showing the territories. Loose the up close one as that is under member states section in great detail and size anyway. Perhaps on the world one, we could also show those tied closely into the EU as well (I'm thinking EEA and candidates here).

Though I am also wondering what level of technology we are able to use here. I'm probably getting ahead of myself, I was just thinking about a turnable globe (in the same manner as google earth) or a world map you can zoom in on or alter the projection - though just on the globe, how about an animated gif that will show the globe turning every minute or so to show the territories?- _J.Logan`^t: 11:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It´s getting fuzzier every day. There is no reason for multiple maps in the infobox. The infobox´s purpose is to provide a quick overview. All specific information can be addressed in the sections.The territory of the EU countries is big enough to be shown on a complete "World map"! I see no reason why the current globe and its cutout is superior. Instead it hides the global geographical context. The specific EU map can be seen in "Member states" that should be sufficient. Lear 21 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is no call for a zoomed in map- this all seems to just be a spill over from the projection debate. The globe solves that point but looses the rest of the world as a result. Hence having two has the best of both worlds (so long as we don't then argue over what projection to use on the non-globe version).- _J.Logan`^t: 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think having one map is better than two, but couldn't there be a text link underneath to the planar map? (Nebulousity (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

I haven't participated in this debate even though I've been aware of it since Mercator was introduced, but in case anyone wants an outsiders opinion on the orthographic maps Ssolbergj (talk · contribs) has been making, I actually kind of like them. I wouldn't support them if their only purpose is to try to avoid the distortions inherent in flat projections, but I will support them if they have educational value.

Displaying Mexico in orthographic, where only the American continent is really shown, is not useful as displaying Russia or the EU, where much of Afro-Eurasia and North America are visible from a perspective you can't get in a flap map. Russia is one country big enough where such a map may be appropriate. At the very least it might get people to start thinking of the world as a globe when trying to visualize countries' proximity to one another. I know I'm not the only one who has heard the following "How is Russia close to Alaska? I thought Alaska was close to Canada?" Apparently some people think "a large ocean" is "on the other side" of the Mercator map.

The orthographic projections, while certainly not common, are arguably far more educational in these limited instances. I do have one request though: in the EU and Russia orthographic maps, there should be a link in "Other Versions" to the more common flat projection. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

EU- The European UnionDefinition: A club designed by politicians for politicians and bureaucrats for their own benefit.Formed with the intention of creating a unified labour market large enough to compete in the future world economy and strong enough to stand alongside the other major economies.But diverged into a dictatorship increasing taxation and controlling the European electorate by installing an undemocratic state. Has become obsessed with controlling the population with petty regulations made up by Brussels bureaucrats who are not part of the democratic process.Shows complete disregard for democratic principles and continues to thrive within a corrupt and fraudulent systemMaximusAridimus (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there something you would like to change in the article or did you just want to tell us your opinion about the EU? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that this is NOT a forum but a place to discuss possible improvements to the article? I fail to spot a suggestion in your mis-guided comments. 86.147.244.244 (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Flag of the EU has been replaced with the Nazi flag. This has affected numerous pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.110.1 (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This should have be solved at image:Flag of Europe.svg not here. Arnoutf (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

When I hoover over a wikilink, my preferences are such that I will see a small preview of the page popping up from the link. Now, when doing so on the "European Union" link in the lead of the Maastricht Treaty article, I get the first few sentences of the lead and right next to it also an image. This image contains in deed a swastika. I do not think this can be solved at the talk page of the EU flag, as the EU flag does not make any trouble. However, I am sure that this problem needs to be solved! Unfortunately, I do not know how. Please, try it out yourself and report here, whether you also see the swastika instead of something related to the EU. Who can tell where the problem sits? Tomeasy _{T C} 16:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange... now it's gone. I see the EU flag when hoovering over the mentioned link. Anyone has any idea what I am experiencing? Tomeasy _{T C} 16:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I like this orthographic projection map, both here and at the other articles that use it. But there's a difference between this and those - those other maps are of countries, which the EU isn't. Therefore, the boundaries of the states that comprise it should be shown. Either that, or not show the boundaries of any states. Currently, the boundaries of non-EU states are shown, but not those of EU member states. ðarkuncoll 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The purpose of the locator map in the infobox is to locate the EU in the world. The internal borders between member states are shown in the member states section. I think it makes sense to show the EU as a unit in the locator map. - SSJ ☎ 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Tharky. Afterall, the maps at United Nations & NATO (for example) are shown with the members borders. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN covers virtually all countries in the world, so why wouldn't it show national berders. NATO is a strictly intergovernmental treaty organisation of nation states near the Nort-Atlantic ocean (loose geographic criteria for membership). European countries are relatively small; to see some ultrathin white stripes upon the green would not make article more informative IMO. The EU's internal national borders are already shown further down in the article. England and Scotland are countries, but their borders are not shown in the UK's infobox (because it would be meaningless). - SSJ ☎ 08:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, why are borders in the rest of the world shown? To apply your argument consistently, those should be removed as well - if, indeed, the purpose is simply to show where the EU is in the world. The current map implies that it's some sort of sovereign state, equivalent to the other states delineated. ðarkuncoll 09:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to show internal borders on the locator map. In my opinion, not showing internal borders does not, in this context, imply anything about sovereignty. The EU is a geographical entity with external borders. Countries are different sorts of geographical entities with external borders. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations Organization are (as the names imply) primarily organizations, but the EU, in the context of a locator map is primarily a geographical entity. You might say "I am going to work in the EU" or "I am doing a survey of people living in the EU", but you wouldn't say "I'm going to work in the UNO" or "I am doing a survey of people living in the NATO". In the context of the section on member states, obviously, the borders of those states is important (and should be shown there). --Boson (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So why, then, are borders of non-EU states shown? They are even less relevant. This is the central point of my argument - a simple need for consistency. As you say, "Countries are different sorts of geographical entities with external borders." ðarkuncoll 12:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because the purpose of the locator map is to show where the subject of the article is in relation to other geographical entities (such as other countries). As the subject of the article it is treated as a unit. The purpose of showing where the member states are is fulfilled by the other map. --Boson (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

the point of the change was the projection, not getting rid of the boundaries. The previous map had them, and everyone was fine with that. The EU is not a country, and it makes sense for the locator map to indicate that. Also, the Mercator projection is far from "doomed". Google maps is using it, for one thing. It is simply the best choice if you want to show the entire world. It isn't an evil conspiracy motivated by Greenlandish or Antarctic hubris, as some would have you believe (sheesh). Orthographic projection is fine if you want to show less than, say, a quarter of the globe. For any larger area of interest, the distortion at the margin is just too severe. --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW that orange mercator map has never been used in this article. - SSJ ☎ 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

well, it should be. I don't care about which projection is used, but I repeat the point that the national borders need to be shown. --dab (𒁳) 19:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The map that was installed here for a very long time (Mercator), does not show the internal borders. This has never been a problem by then. Is it a problem now?

If it is, we would have to start the good old sui generis discussion once again. Are you ready for that? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.224.134 (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is the population not in the infobox?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 00:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Why not..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.213.231 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Languages (2006) table is badly sourced and misleading. For instance, Portuguese language has more 50% speakers in the EU than Swedish, and it has not less speakers than Greek or Hungarian. These sites show what I am saying here: [5] ; [6] - so, let's fix the table by adding accurate information or someone should remove it because it's very wrong. Lusci (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you trying to say? "Portuguese language has more 50% speakers in the EU than Swedish"

As I already mentioned in my edit summary, your source [6] is crappy and outdated. The other source [5] is fine, but also outdated, i.e., does not comprise the entire union as of today.

After adding the worst quality sources yourself, it seems more than questionable that you put a verify template on this section. I will remove both soon, unless I see a thorough argumentation that they are needed.

What is your objection with the source that we are using for the table? Tomeasy _{T C} 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What I am trying to say, for those who did not understand yet, is that the table is wrong and, as it stands by now, I will delete it. There are more Portuguese speakers in the EU than Swedish speakers. Greek or Hungarian speaking populations are not larger than the Portuguese speaking population in the EU. The table provides a false picture of reality and is unsourced because the reference provided says nothing about the percentages of Portuguese language or Swedish, among other flaws. Lusci (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The larger document does give these numbers, deletion is therefore not acceptable. An alternative reference (eu 25) might be [7]. Your reference 6 is indeed a mess as Tomeasy says (sources EU websites and others??????), reference 5 is better, but similar to the other reference the 3% for portugal is based on a smaller EU, so in EU 27 that number will be lower. And why do you add comments in a non-english language on this talk page? Dat helpt de discussie helemaal niet verder want als we allemaal in onze moedertaal gaan spreken dan communiceren we niet meer. Arnoutf (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah? OK, give me the page number. According to all references - including this http://www.intersolinc.com/newsletters/newsletter_37.htm - the number of Portuguese speakers is always larger than the number of Swedish speakers, and not very different from the numbers for Czech and Hungarian. It is enough to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of your table. Here I am bilingual when I feel that my text could be misunderstood. I am doing this extra translation effort in order to avoid misunderstandings in future arguments. It could help. Lusci (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste your efforts for irrelevant translations of your own statements. Here, it matters what you say in English. If you are more confident in Portuguese, it might be most efficient to focus your attention to the Portuguese Wikipedia. Of course, you are welcome here as well, as I can see you are acting in good faith. However, please stop blowing up the talk page of this article with redundancies.

Ok, one more source regarding the EU25. I cite Arnout's source "Keep in mind that estimating the number of native speakers is a very difficult task, therefore these numbers and percentages should be considered approximations." I believe this is true and we should keep it in mind. Perhaps then we can discuss less ardently about the issue.

The table that you object reports for native speakers in Portugal and Sweden 2%. This is backed up by the given source on pp. 141-142. The sources you showed said 3% Portuguese in times of a EU15. This is outdated, but if you think carefully does not contradict the 2% at all.

Your main point is that there are more Portuguese native speakers then Swedish. Neither the table nor the source claim the opposite. They report both with 2%. Keep in mind that both source only round for one digit, i.e., the resolution is a percent. We are talking about 5 million people when we mean 1% of the EU. So it can well be that the same percentage is reported while the absolute underlying values are 2 millions apart.

I am confident of having convinced you that there is no obvious error in our source or table, apart from the difficulty to measure these numbers in the first place. All source you, the article, or Arnout have cited agree very well and are consistently reported in the table. Therefore, I hope you will delete the double mentioning of Portugal in the table as well as the unjustified template. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And anyway my reference to the newsletter supports the claim there are more Portuguese (10.1 M = 2% (2.48% rounded down)) than Czech (10.0 M = 2 % (2.46 rounded down) or Swedish (7.8 M = 2% (1.92% rounded up); and indeed only marginally less than Hungarian (10.9 M = 3% (2.68 rounded up). So I really don't see your problem, as that source agrees with your claims. Arnoutf (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As I had said before, there are not references about most of the table's numbers in the external source which is used in the article. However, Portugal has 10,617,575 inhabitants of whom about 332,137 are legal immigrants (according to Statistics Portugal). There are over 1.2 million Portuguese migrants outside Portugal living and working in other EU member states. In addition, there are a huge and growing Brazilian community in the EU - they are native Portuguese speakers. The external source provided by you states that there are 578,000 Greek speakers which sounds strange for me, and ruined the credibility of the document http://www.intersolinc.com/newsletters/newsletter_37.htm . The table should be built with accurate data copied from an updated and comprehensive reference. It should have the exact numbers and percentages for every language cited in the table, including Swedish, Greek, Czech, Hungarian and Portuguese. It is obvious to me that Portuguese should be rounded up to the same digit as Hungarian, Greek, and Czech. Swedish should not have the same values as more widely spoken languages like Portuguese. That is the main point here, and is precisely what I have said since the beginning of this discussion. And of course the lack of a consistent source is another objection. In short, there are some countries that saw their numbers inflated and another countries that saw their actual numbers cut out. And this was possible because there is not a single credible and definitive reference. Lusci (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Greek at 500k is a bit weird, probably a typo as other sources place it at 5M; but we do not use the source, so no problem. In any case as you say yourself, we do need a single source listing all languages as different methods give different estimates; only a single source can prevent this, hence a special source for Portugal is not acceptable. The Eurobarometer is a highly reliable instrument and, in the absence of other sources, should in principle be taken as a reliable source. If you disagree, you will have to do one of two things (a) provide a better source listing all EU countries/native languages (b) achieve consensus that the Eurobarometer data is not applicable for this statement.

Re rounding. Do you know what rounding is. Your suggestion about roudnig to your liking is not merely strange, it is absurd. Everything between 1.50 and 2.4999999999 rounds to 2; hence it can be the case that a language at 2,499,999 speakers is rounded to 2 Million; just as a language with 1,500,000 (in spite of the difference of 999,999), while a language with just one speaker more at 2,500,000 speakers is rounded to 3 Million. That is just how rounding work (1st grade high school level maths, or perhaps even primary school level). You will just have to live with that. Arnoutf (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That would work fine if there was a single good reference. Even using your first grade high school knowledge. The point is that there are not accurate data (numbers) for some languages, which are precisely those where we have doubts. Without numbers, there are not roundings. Lusci (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good reference. What'ts unclear there? I do not see anything, and that's why we use it. BTW this refers to EU27, so your last edit will have to be reverted if you do not correct yourself. We do not use any of the outdated or erroneous references you are discussing here, and hence, we do not have a consistency problem. You may have a problem that the Swedish language appears as big as your native language in the table (due to rounding). As long as this is the only problem, as Arnout said, you will have to live with that. Tomeasy _{T C} 01:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way Tomeasy, the document is fairly tough to read and has many tables, could you provide a pagenumber; to be sure we are discussing the same numbers. I found a table under D48a at pp 141-143 PDF document count, not official number as it is in the appendix, which has no pagenumbers. Is this the table you refer to? Arnoutf (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, several corrections to what I said before. (1) I mentioned the table on pp. 141-142, what I meant was pp. 141-143 (PDF counter). (2) The data refers to EU25 and not EU27 as I claimed before. (3) The Wikipedia table has at least one flaw. Following the source we have to state 12% for French native speakers not 13%.

Still, those were my mistakes (or of the authors of the tabel). The source appears very consistent to me, and what we should do is to follow it more correctly. That is,mention it refers to EU25 and change the French data (and others, if there are more mistakes). Tomeasy _{T C} 11:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, according to EUROBAROMETER 64.3 (Terrain/Fieldwork : 11/2005 - D48a What is your mother tongue? (SPONTANEOUS – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)) French is 12% not 13%; Hungarian is 2% not 3%; Romanian is 0% (so it definitely is a EU-25 table regardless wether it was based in the EU-27 survey or not). Russian, Danish, Slovenian and Finnish are also elegible in the table column. Accuracy and consistency is the problem, not the way I should live. The total numbers for Portuguese speakers in the EU is underestimated and using that basis all the work is flawed. I think it is better we use a detailed name for the table referring to the method and scope of this particular survey. Lusci (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

French is 12 not 13%. TomEasy noticed that, I think we can easily change it; the same for Hungarian

Romanian is 0%, again, TomEasy acknowledged it is a EU 25 list, not an EU27 list.

Danish, Slovenian and Finnish are EU 25 languages, so indeed they should be there. Perhaps they were left out as they round down to 0%. But I am happy if these were added.

So far there seems only minor issues, and everyone involved seems happy to correct those. Besides that the table seems accurate and consistent.

Russian, in my opinion is an other issues as this language, while an important native language for many, especially in the Baltic states, it is no language of the EU. If we start additional languages, officially accepted minority languages (Frisian, Basque) should be added, rather than an accidental foreign language (in which case we could also add Turkish, Maroccan, and Papiamento). So I disagree there

The rest of your argument I do not agree (or sometimes understand). What do you mean with "not the way I should live"? I don't understand this statement at all.

Thereafter you state "The total numbers for Portuguese speakers in the EU is underestimated". Since Eurobarometer is a reliable source, you will have to provide a source of at least the same level to support that claim. I have not seen such; and can only take your personal opinion as support of this claim (which is hence not verifiable).

Thus your conclusion "and using that basis all the work is flawed" is not supported. Please provide evidence for such a bold statement invalidating a scientific instrument.

I see something in a slightly more comprehensive table name. Perhaps: Native language (2005 self report) Does the trick? Arnoutf (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arnout, Lusci was trying to hit us back for lecturing him that he has to live with that. That's what he meant. Sorry Lusci, it was not the best tone we were using.

Back to the subject. You (Lusci) have shown some mistakes in the translation of the source data to the Wikipedia table. Once they are corrected, do you still have objections?

I am starting to correct the two column table that we had in the article, that we have now here on the talk page. I have changed the header, corrected French and Hungarian first column entries, and deleted Romanian and Bulgarian. There is still more to do: Add other official EU25 languages, take a look on the second column. Perhaps we can all collaborate on this? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Remains the Danish,Finnish etc issue. As far as I see we have now collapsed all languages that round down to 0% in the header "Other EU25 languages = 6%". Do we want that, or do we want to mention all languages, even if we would get the weird 0% score. I have no strong ideas here, what do you guys think? Arnoutf (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed prefer to subsume them into one compounded figure, for two reasons: People tend to understand 0% as not existant rather than [0-0.5)%; the list would become very long.

I adjusted the header to your suggestion, Arnout. However, perhaps I should have asked before, why the change to 2005? The report was published in 2006 and that's what one means when referring to a report, rather than the period of time during which the survey was conducted. Or am I wrong with this? Also, why is self report so important? I would rather mention EU25 in the header. To me, this seems to be very important information when reading the table.

I updated the table by adding all official EU languages (is Catalan official?) that show up with at least 1% for the first column. The second column requires still editing. Also, the two bottom rows are not correct right now. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

1st - What is the number of the page with the second column's information? 2nd - Now I am getting confused, I can't understand the criteria that you used to place Portuguese (L1: 2% ; Total: 2%) in a better place than Czech (L1: 2% ; Total: 3%) and Swedish (L1: 2% ; Total: 3%), since this Eurobarometer survey doesn't provide information about the actual number of speakers for each different language. And yes, EU25 in the header is very important. Lusci (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with collapsing the 0's into a supergroup for exactly the reasons by Tomeasy. Both 2005 and 2006 would be ok with me, the question is whether we take the date of the data-collection (ie the moment of the snapshot) or the moment of publication (few months later). Self report says something about the value of the data, I added it to respond (in part) to Lusci's question about the validity of the numbers (ie if Brasilians migrants self-report their language as Brasilian, that would not show up in the Portuguese numbers of self reported native language). The self-rerort hence adds a social construct to the data. For example, Basque people might report both Spanish or Basque; Frisian: Dutch and Frisian and Irish Irish and English; this maybe only partially related to the language they were raised in, and may have much more to do with (sub)nationalistic sentiment. However, if we agree this is too much detail, I would be happy to omit from header (perhaps add in the footnote though).

Re Lusci, the 2nd languages is a much more focal point in the main report, and that specific table is somewhere in an early chapter (don't know be heart) page numbers would be helpful though. Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not noticed Lusci, but I am working on the table every time I write a comment here, and every time I said that column two still needs to be worked on. So instead of complaining that there is an inconsistency you could have solved it. I imagined this to be collaborative work. The second column is derived from the data published on pp. 152-154. The numbers are added to the numbers stated in the first column, which makes the second column data to the question Which languages do you speak well enough in order to be able to have a conversation'?'

Now I understand self report. Before, I misunderstood it. I think it should just be a footnote. I think it is a better rational to refer to a report by the publishing date, because this is unambiguous. The term during which a survey was taken is not. Compare to scientific publication and the reserach conducted.

I changed again the table header. I updated the second column values. Still to be done: The footnote that data relies on self reports. The last three rows of the table are wrong or not well written. We could add two references, one for each column, so that we can specify the page numbers our columns rely on. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, my two cents are that the double table was better, I mean the one which gives L1 and L2. Just thought it was a better table. Not such a fan of the L1 only one that at the time of writing is in use. --Simonski (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you like you can add some more cents and help us finish the two column table. Please, read my above comment to see what still needs to be done. Then we will re-insert it in the article again. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have worked on the table again. I ranked the languages according to the 2nd column value. If this value is the same for multiple entries, then the first column entry decides. If this one is also equal, the ranking is defined by alphabetic ordering. The ranking scheme is open for recall (but I am afraid interest in this thread is fading out). However, I propose to rework the last two rows of the table and perhaps put individual references to the two columns in order to provide the page number as well. Then I would like to re-insert the table into the article. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am giving what I consider the last touch now. Since everybody seems to have lost interest, it would be nice to get at least an approval from one or the other, to make sure that this table is the current consensus. It wight change of course when Eurobarometer publishes a new survey.

I have removed the two rows that I dis not understand, so that the table merely presents what is stated in the two Eurobarometer tables. I also included two reference, so that we can specify the page numbers where the data can be found. I do this because it had turned out during this discussion that people do not easily find what they are looking for in this hughe pdf file. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my approval for your edits, Tomeasy. I followed the whole thread here and commend you on your editing efforts. Only thing I would add is to change the header from 'L1' to 'Native'. In my experience teaching stats, people generally don't understand table headings as easily as people who work with tables do. Since wikipedia is for the general public I thought this change might make the table a little more straight forward. I changed the table as such. Please feel free to revert back if you see otherwise, and let me know your reason here. Thanks, Dkriegls (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for commenting on this thread. I was a little bit disappointed that after a long partly controversial discussion, the final solution was not approved by anyone. With regards top the header, I completely agree with you. L1 is coded slang, while native is very descriptive for what is meant and intuitively understood by our readers. After all that's what we aim for. Thanks again. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw the Czech Presidency logo the other day for the first time, and dearie me its terrible isnt it. As far as we're concerned here though it also re-raises the minor, but arguably important point about the infobox flag. The French Presidency logo made clear with the French flag forming part of it that France had the Presidency, whereas the Czech one will not. I therefore would re-raise my argument that the Council entry in the infobox should have the country's flag beside it to assist the understanding that the Council = the intergovernmental institution of the EU. I'll drop this if nobody else agrees but have a look at the Czech logo first before commenting! --Simonski (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Czech Presidency insignia

(I quite like it, actually!)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, redflag.

There are two things to say: I vividly remember the discussion we had, and the decision not to have the flag at the next to the council presidency was not based on the condition that the presidency insignia clearly displays the country. We were in deed talking about this very detail but, as I remember, the rational was that the insignia in itself merits the intergovernmental facet of this institution, because it is designed by only one country and refers to only one country. So, the actual design, as we concluded by then, was irrelevant. Back by then we had all already come across the Slovenian insignia, which did not disclose which country holds the presidency. So, it would not be new if an insignia hides the country of tenure.

The second point is that, in contrast to Simon's claim, the Czech insignia will show quite obviously the country of tenure. The top level domain .cz refers to nothing else than the Czech republic.

Therefore, I see no reason to revive the discussion based on the upcoming design of the insignia, or any upcoming design in the future. Having said that, I would also like to re-state my personal opinion, which is I would like to introduce the flag icon to the infobox entry of the council presidency. However, if Simon and I are still alone with this, then it is of no use to restart the discussion. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if anybody else will even comment on any of these recent issues! This page is dead these days! A far cry from what was going on this time last year! --Simonski (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I still watch the page...I just have nothing to say on the current "issues". I know nothing of languages, I am not particularly concerned by the maps and my position on the flag in the info box remains the same as the last discussion: moderately opposed. Just to show I have not disappeared I thought I would reply here. Lwxrm (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the change made by Snowded, The Republic of Ireland should be listed as the Republic of Ireland in the members list. This is not to avoid confusion with the (island) of Ireland, but because two countries make up that Island. On the map next to it is simply labelled Ireland (which is reasonable) but the actual list should be very clear that the Republic of Ireland is a member. This situation does not compare with Germany. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted in error, Ireland is the correct term. --Snowded TALK 12:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The name of the country is Ireland, as simple as that. Like Germany is Germany, even though the full form is Federal Republic of Germany. Nevertheless, we do use the Republic of in case it is needed to avoid confusion with the island. This is clearly not the case in the list of member states of the EU, because it is more than intuitive that this list talks about states rather than islands. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As i said before my concern is that anyone looking on that page with no knowledge will think that the whole of Ireland is a single state like it looks on the map which is not the case. The Island of Ireland is made up of two countries, The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately both joined the EU in the same year. I agree the problem is not worthy of redoing an entire map, but i dont see the problem with including the term Republic of Ireland in the members list as thats the page it gets directed to anyway. The German example is completly different BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are getting into the bad habit of wandering into controversial subjects without briefing yourself on existing discussions and evidence. FYI the EU (along with the UN and others) all designate the country as Ireland, something established by citation elsewhere. The name of the state is Ireland, not ROI. --Snowded TALK 13:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with use of the term Ireland to describe the republic of Ireland throughout this article or on the EU member states page(as full titles are listed in the table). My problem and concern is the fact the members list is next to a map which shows the name of every member state but just has Ireland over the island of Ireland which makes it look like a single state. Had the UK / Ireland joined different years then there would be no problem. International organisations use the term Ireland to describe the ROI, but on maps they show the border between NI / ROI making it clear they are two separate countries.

Ofcourse this problem doesnt justify a complete re doing of tha map which could also solve the problem, but i dont see the big problem with including the term Republic of Ireland, so it isnt identical to the map. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If that is your concern, a missing border between the UK and Ireland, than I do not see the problem. In contrast to your claim, the map in the member states section shows this border as clearly as it shows all the other borders between the member states. This applies to the time before 1973, to 1973, and to the time thereafter. Can it be you just did not look properly?? Tomeasy _{T C} 14:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The map has the faint white border but it is hardly visable for most people unless they zoom in, something not everyone is capable of doing and even on the expanded version clickable it is difficult as Ireland is small. Had the borders been in black then it would be very clear, but like i said i agree this doesnt warrant a redo of the map. I accept all other countries borders are done in the same colour, but the other countries are not in the same possition as the UK and Ireland. It looks like one Island is the UK and the other is Ireland which is backed up when people see just Ireland in the list next to it, If it said Republic of Ireland there atleast would be some difference and thats what the page is called anyway. Unlike all 26 other memberstates whos country names are their article name as well.BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway i only mentioned this because i saw the change snowded made get undone, for reasons i disagree with. As he has said the alteration was an error, i can cope with the way it is now as clearly nobody else has a problem with it so i dont want to waste anyone elses time on this issue, including my own :) so i take back my comments on wanting anything changed. Sorry BritishWatcher (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in knowing the facts look up the CIA World Factook - the official legal name of the Irish state is just "Ireland", not Republic of Ireland. Thats also the only name the EU uses. Thats the legal position. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo - Below is a Kosovo Factsheet that at least one User says is a source to back up a claim that "There are three official candidate countries, Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia, and Turkey. The western Balkan countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia are officially recognised as potential candidates.[23] The disputed region of Kosovo has been granted similar status."

Where does it say in this Factsheet that Kosovo is a potential candidate Member State? Where does it say that Kosovo is even a State (note its careful references to the "Kosovo authorities" (not Government of Kosovo or Republic of Kosovo). How could it currently be classified a "potential candidate Member State" if it is not yet recognised as even a State (by the EU). Kosovo may well be a potential candidate or candidate some day but for now, the Article should simply be accurate. I have removed the claim re Kosovo in the Article. Please provide sources if you believe I am incorrect. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• This newsletter by the European Commission lists Kosovo as a potential candidate. Shall we use this source instead? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, from the looks of it the source is already used. Amending the article accordingly! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Newsletter" source you point to does not simply list Kosovo as a potential candidate in the same way it lists other countries. It says Kosovo - Under UNSCR 1244/1999. That UN Security Council Resolution (which you can read here: [8]) regards Kosovo as part of Serbia (then called Yugoslavia). To simply list "Kosovo" as a potential candidate without qualification would be misleading. I will amend the Article to try to make it more accurate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Kosovo is also listed by the European Commission as a potential candidate but where it is listed Kosovo is designated "under UNSCR 1244/1999" because the EU has no agreed position concerning recognition of its independence[24][25]"

This is an awfully formulated text added to the article by Redking to emphasize the problem discussed further above. Here is why: also is not sound, because the Commission and listed as are not added as qualifiers to the aforementioned candidates. In the sequel of the same sentence it says but where it is listed ... is simply very bad style. The use of the word because is speculative. Redking might also review the sense of punctuation. recognition of its independence is ambiguous as it might refer to the EU as well as to Kosovo. Last but not least the references are in the wrong place. I tried to copy edit the passage by writing:

"Kosovo is a potential candidate under the designation of the UN security council resolution 1244/1999.[24][25] The EU has no common position concerning the recognition of Kosovo's independence."

I was blatantly reverted with the comment that my formulation would not make sense at all. I am open for criticism and more than willing to improve my writing style. However, since the criticism is coming from the author of the first excerpt (Redking), which I believe is itself of poor quality, I am wondering whether I should receive this criticism seriously.

I look forward to seeing an improved formulation stating that the EU mentions the UN resolution when referring to Kosovo. However, for the time being I am upset that Redking's original formulation is restored as he did not accept anything from my copy edit. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Talking about UN Security Council is messy, unnecessary and as enlightening as a being stabbed in the eye. We here to explain not obfuscate. The reason it's mentioned on the EU's website is to avoid suggestion any partiality on the Commission's part on the Kosovo debate. Referring to the Resolution is deliberately vague as it could referring to either UN administration or supervised independence, both of which are based on the same Resolution. The only thing which actually needs to be mentioned here is that not all member states recognise Kosovo's declared independence. The implication being that its potential candidate status is either as a part of Serbia or as a separate entity. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Btw saying that "not all member states recognise Kosovo's independence", implies they are independent but that some states deny it. In as far as possible we should try to walk a middle line. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

This, is the current wording:

Kosovo is also listed by the European Commission as a potential candidate although not all member states recognise it as an independent entity, separate from Serbia.

What is wrong with the wording is that it:

• says that the Commission simply lists "Kosovo" - That is not accurate - "Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/1999" is what is listed. There is an enormous difference;
• implies that the European Commission has recognised "Kosovo" even though all member states have not - when that is not accurate either.

Do you understand those points? If not, tell me, and I will try to explain further. This was my wording:

Kosovo is also listed by the European Commission as a potential candidate but where it is listed Kosovo is designated "under UN Security Council Resolution 1244/1999". This is because the EU has no agreed position concerning recognition of Kosovo's independence.^[1][2]

It appears my wording is unpopular so what way should the current wording be changed. I only want the article to be accurate. Accuracy is really important. Other Users might suggest a new wording. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This semanticism rather misses the overall picture. In the newsletter the heading Kosovo is accompanied by a footnote with reads "under UN Security Council Resolution 1244/1999". Kososo, regardless of how its entry is qualified, is listed as a potential candidate by the European Commission. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are either following a low standard as regards accuracy or else you did not understand my points above (which I put as clearly as I could). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is what? Is it your position that Kosovo is not listed as a candidate even though it actually is and we have an official source on it? Not very clear where your beef is. --alchaemia (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a geography section. I dont think the material should be hard to find.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

European_Union#Geography? --Boson (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the Treaties Timeline, the EU does not exist. (Its founding date is given as "2009?".) According to Maastricht Treaty, it was established in 1993. Am I not following something, or is this an old uncorrected error? kwami (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. The timeline is nearly illegible, so I marked the founding dates of the EC and EU. kwami (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a thick, blue border around the pillars, representing the EU. It it isn't necessarily very easy to understand. The evolvement of the pre-EU bodies is very complex. A paranthesis saying "Created the EC" can be very misleading. There are many ECs. Therefore perhaps the template in itself shouldn't be in this article. I added this diagram in this article last spring. It illustrates how the pillars currently look. It was removed when the timeline was added. - SSJ ☎ 03:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I did always like that diagram but can understand if more people wanted the timeline, then so be it. I wouldnt be bothered if the diagram found its way back into the article as I think its a really useful visual aid for readers. --Simonski (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There weren't any vote on whether to use the diagram or the timeline. The timeline is also pretty compact, so I guess it was inserted because it's more informative. For people who sincerely want to know how the EU has evolved, knowing the difference between the European Community, the European Economic Community and the European Communities, is very important, but I'm not sure whether the history section at top of the main EU article needs that much detail. The text isn't nearly as specific. - SSJ ☎ 19:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT a relaunch of the "is the EU a country or an organisation?" debate. I'm questioning the claim in the introduction that the "The EU operates through a hybrid system of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism". It sounds like a very professional and wonderful sentence, but it's IMO oversimplified and misleading. Firstly, when one talks about how "the EU operates", one should point out out that the EU in this case means the union-level institutions. It is impossible to say which EU institutions are 'supranational' or not. Dictionary.com: Supranational=outside or beyond the authority of one national government(...). The use of this extremely vague word (which only POVishly hints to some 'faceless and unelected super elite behind closed doors') in this article is in my opinion totally oversimplified. The interests of national governments influence much, but it is both legally and de facto impossible to brand or categorise e.g. the Council as 'intergovernmental' or otherwise. It's impossible and meaningless to divide "the EU's" way of functioning into power type A and B. The article needs smarter and more informed sentences, not vague language. Let's stick to legal and neutral facts about how the European institutions work; another heated debate about "what the EU is" is not needed. - SSJ ☎ 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Suprenational" and "intergovernmental" are commonly used to describe the EU. By using these terms we are essentially parroting the academic literature. I think this is the least POVish, we can be. We are not just describing the institutions, but the member states cooperating together as well. The Council mirrors the Union in some ways and can be seen both as a supranational institution and as an intergovernmental forum for national governments to sort out the issues of the day between themselves. I don't think we're saying anything controversial here. And I certainly don't think we should try to to reinvent the wheel as far as describing the EU is concerned. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think the word 'supranational' is suggestive, inaccurate and misleading when it comes to characterising 'one element' of the EU system. Too vague, and it screams "unaccountable elite". The word is certainly not alien when it comes to describing the EU, but I think we could and should write something more accurate. - SSJ ☎ 16:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Supranational is one of the less controversal terms and has clear academic usage. I see no problem in its accuracy. Be greatful for the present description, the situation could be much worse. (sorry from total absence of contributions the past lord-knows-how-long, have been rather tied down - have a stack of useful articles to add stuff in on top of all the other work I meant to do)- _J.Logan`^t: 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see this needing changed either. The current intro has followed endless discussion by numerous editors and I don't think anything has changed in the last six months to warrant re-opening the discussion. To try to go into any more detail would end up with us having produced an intro flavoured with our own opinions, as there is no Europe-wide consensus on the SN/IG debate. Merry Christmas all! --Simonski (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Right now I don´t see any problems with the term "supranational" or "intergovernmental" either.Somebody, who reads (hopefully) the whole intro, does not get the impression of a suggestive wording which focuses only one element. The para afterwards names all the institutions mentioning also the citizens electing the parliament. I think its balanced. Merry Christmas and Frohe Weihnachten.Oh Du Fröhliche Lear 21 (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not acute, but I still think it's a weakness of the article that its introduction treats the "functioning of the EU" as if it comprised "supranationalism and intergovermentalism" as if they were two extremes, simply two separate ways of doing politics, set in stone. It might also be trendy to use the phrase "democratic deficit", but the use of the phrase in academic texts doesn't mean it always should be considered a concrete and "encyclopedic" phrase. The academic usage of a word is not an excuse for ignoring the vagueness or suggetive nature of the word. Neither is a clarifying section half an article further down.

I think it should be possible to point out which parts of the EU's functioning are supranational (or not), if the word 'supranational' is to be used in the article. I'm not an EU expert, but I know that it is in fact not just oversimplistic, but misleading to divide the EU's way of working into power type A and B (as I've said earlier). Therefore I think we shouldn't use this alledged shortcut to describing the EU, not even in the intro. Check out Wikipedia:Let the facts speak for themselves. To say that "Hitler was a bad man" is an unencyclopedic claim. The claim that "The EU's way of working is partly supranational" is not much better IMO. - SSJ ☎ 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To use intergovernmentalism and supranationalism are simplifications for sure but I think they are not oversimplifications (particularly for the introduction). They raise an important issue on how governance operates within the EU and illustrate the different interests at stake. Supranationalism, to me at least, does not suggest an unelected super elite. In fact I would point to the European Parliament as a supranational organisation which is the only directly elected part of the EU (hardly unelected super elite). Pointing out the individual parts which operate supranationally is too detailed for the introduction (and arguably the rest of the article). Just as some examples the EP, the ECJ, the ECB, the Commission when using the Comitology procedure, the Council when acting by QMV. On the other hand intergovernmentalism can be found in Pillars 2 and 3, the European Council, the Council when operating under unanimity, the Council when controlling the Comitology procedure. The intro clearly says it is a hybrid system, not that they are two extremes which operate wholly independently. I don't really have a problem with the current intro wording and think it encapsulates the debate quite nicely without overly complicating things. Lwxrm (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I won't fight to death over this issue, but it is (from what I've seen) a fact that mainstream UK eurosceptisism often includes the notion that the bad thing about the EU is the supranational "element" (often combined with assertions about unaccountable elites). That type of usage of the word isn't a valid reason for branding the word "unecyclopedic", but the word has in fact some de facto connotations in certain biased circles. - SSJ ☎ 02:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This inquiry is in regards to the "Population of the 5 largest cities in the EU" table within the Demographics section. Not that I don't like seeing Berlin at the top of the table (being one of my favorite cities), but why is this table listed alphabetically instead of by population size? Listing by size would seem to be par for such a listing. In addition, the title of the article states a focus of size, which to me suggests a listing order by size. Similarly, the United States demographics section lists the largest cites by size.Thanks, Dkriegls (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed in the past. The problem is that different member states treat their cities differently. Some countries merge all suburbs into the city, creating a huge city in an only marginally larger urban area (e.g. London city limits = 7.5M; London urban area=9.3); on the other hand some countries divide large cities in many municipalities/cities (e.g. Paris city limits = 2.1M; Urban area = 9.9). In other words if we accept city limit as size criterion Paris is the smalles of the 5, if we take urban area it is the largest. This has lead to some fierce discussion and this has been the reason to settle on alphabetic order, which is at least non-dependent on fairly subjective choice of population counts. Not perfect, I agree, but acceptable for all. Arnoutf (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, figured there had been a discussion on that. Thanks,Dkriegls (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for the 2009 Culture section. It might be useful to change the image during the next year because we have 2 EU cities in this programme. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Any idea why we should state one and not the other in the infobox? Is there any solid information already who will preside the European Council? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC says Klaus will be the president. "Eurosceptic becomes EU President " --Turkish Flame ^☎ 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The government (not the president) will control the presidency. That BBC article is inaccurate. [9] - SSJ ☎ 23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That picture is a symbol of the nation holding the presidency, not of the actual one wielding the power of the council (because that doesn't even make sense). It could just as well be replaced by a flag or a coat of arms. I personally think it's good to have Klaus, he's the only EU head of state who's an outspoken eurosceptic. Variety being the spice of life and all. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Klaus' euro-skepticism has nothing to do with this question. Moreover, your comment shows that you are driven by an agenda, which will not help to sort this out. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Klaus is head of state but he is not the head of government. Notwithstanding outward appearances he role is largely ceremonial. Topolánek is the one who's going to chair European Council meetings. Klaus will just hold some drinks receptions of something. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Tommy, an agenda to further the article. All this stuff is irrelevant, there is no rule that we have to put the 'leader' up there (as if there was such a role). All Sarkozy symbolised was France, and the French leadership of the EU. If you really can't tolerate Klaus I voice my support for Prague Castle as the seat of the Czech administration. Plus it's pretty. Or is that an agenda too? :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC) PS: Bit of a communications break-down I just realised, I was responding to SSJ's problems with the photograph of Klaus in the article, which he in the edit history referred to talk, I was not talking about the infobox. Topolánek should be in the infobox as the effective head of government. But that doesn't mean Klaus shouldn't be in the image further down illustrating the Czech presidency. You'll have to forgive me for this communications faux pas, it's very very late and quite hot here. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly could tolerate Klaus, if he was the President of the European Council. The reason I initiated this talk page section was to clarify whether this position is currently held by him or by Tolopanek. BTW, I did so after Klaus was added to the infobox. The only thing I could not tolerate was your argument "I personally think it's good to have Klaus, he's the only EU head of state who's an outspoken eurosceptic." Apart from that, it is not always 100% clear from the beginning who is going to preside the council. So, for me Klaus could have been very well the result of this discussion, if appropriate.

About the image in the governance section: The castle would not do the job, I think. We decided some months back that we would always show two persons to represent the governance of the EU. That is the Commission President and the European Council President. Therefore, the subject of the photograph will coincide with the person mentioned in the infobox. The rational behind was to show the most important persons for the supranational and the intergovernmental element of the union. (People engaged in the discussion Supranationalism and intergovermentalism in "the EU" might excuse that I used these terms here so bluntly). Tomeasy _{T C} 15:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Touché, I was not aware of the previous picture consensus. Very well, those two images are in accordance with it. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this was never proposed in the past. Change intro from "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of ....."in to "The European Union (EU) is a supranational union of ....". Whats your thoughts?--217.112.178.115 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I find political and economical better because they are descriptive. Staring to explain the EU with the term supranational union is more vague, I find. The reader will immediately wonder "and what is this now"? Sure they can follow the link, but the article behind is not very descriptive either. Moreover, it uses the EU as an example to explain itself. This short circuit will certainly not be well received by the reader. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The date of establishment of the EU in the intro gets repeatedly changed between 1992 (when the Maastricht Treaty was signed) and 1993 (when the treaty came into force). The date of signature seems to be often given as the date of establishment, but this raises the issue of what happens when a treaty establishing something never comes into force. Using the date of signature would imply some sort of subsequent disestablishment on non-ratification. For this reason, I propose to change the text to state that the EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht and give the years it was signed and came into force, respectively.--Boson (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I realise it's reverted all the time but the signature date really does mean nothing. Giving both date may confuse people. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, there are a couple of normally reliable sources that use or imply the 1992 date; so it is quite reasonable for people to alter the date in good faith. Perhaps, to reduce the prominence of the date of signature, we could write something like "established in 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty (which was signed in 1992 and came into force in 1993)". Personally I would prefer a footnote, but I'm not sure any editors changing the date would read it. I suppose a comment for editors would be another alternative. --Boson (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that stating both dates is not more confusing than the reality. We should tell the reader this detail, the many good faith edits show this. It is interesting and important to know that a summit and its results are not affective without ratification. This is only conveyed by talking about both dates. And it is best conveyed by some sort of hierarchy like putting the less important fact in parenthesis. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the end treaties come into force when they are ratified according to their terms. I think the question we should ask ourselves is if we can categorically state when the EU was founded. If we can state this, we should. Giving two dates unavoidably creates ambiguity. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Even appearing to give the signature date significance

The catch being that we create ambiguity by citing both dates. I'd really prefer to be authoritative above all else. The EU was founded on 1 November 1993. We should at least clearly state when the establishment date of the EU was.— Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What about: The EU was founded on 1 November 1993, when the treaty (negotiated in 1992 in Maastricht) was fully ratified. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

EU in the presentation is descripted as " an economical and political....".NO!EU is a political (and so economical)entity.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 12:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a political and economic union, with its roots in an economic union. Not all political entities (e.g. UN) are economic. Arnoutf (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree that political and economical are redundant, because one would include the other. The UN is a good example and the Council of Europe is similarly very little involved in economic matters. This aspect, which distinguishes the the EU from those organization, is expressed by the additional branding as economic.

BTW, your argumentation also contains a logical error. You say "EU is a political" and you explain that political contains economical. Based on these definitions it is equivalent to say "the EU is an economical and political...". So, from your line of argumentation you cannot say "NO" to this statement, deeming it wrong. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

NO ,if you have studied papers EU "is a political...." simlpy.For the same reason you should write also miltary or social for istance.Policy has in its idea all the things.EU is growing more and more and is the first power in the world so it's time to give it a right dimension otherwise your writings are fading away by history of our days.Many people find this site on EU very partial and euroskeptikal so not trustable.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What papers are you referring to? There are many papers and treaties that agree that EU is a political union. There are even more about economics. Social and military are (at this moment) very minor issues compared to Economics (there is no EU army of any relevance).

The EU is growing more and more and is the first power in the world.... We cannot make statements about what will be, only what is now; and the EU is not as homogenous (esp in foreign policy) as many would like (see Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Somalia, Gaza, etc etc).

There is a balance to be found between Euroskeptical and Pro-EU. Neither has a place on Wikipedia. If you think this article should be pro-EU that would not fit with the aims of Wikipedia asking for (as neutral as possible) an article. By the way who are these "many people" you refer to??? Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are all kind of treaties about all matters.So you are very partial when you add economic.The EU is political.Do you know the meaning of political in latin and today?Read it.If you know the meaning you'd know that the term political is more than sufficient to describe it.If you don't understand it means that the site has ignorant writers or not in good faith controllers.I think the article is agaist EU and in EU the will of powers elected in democrcy voted it.The supporters of non EU can't be rapresented because they rapresent something that doesn't exist.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just asked the papers you refer to; as I want to follow your argument. Only the modern English meaning of political has any meaning here. The latin meaning or the meaning of the word in any other language is completely irrelevant on English Wiki. Considering the very assymmetric emphasis on economy within the Union I disagree politics capture that (ie the huge influence of economics) and warrants explicit mentioning. You are free to disagree but calling other people bad faith editors, or ignorant because they disagree with you is against two important WP policies WP:civil and WP:agf.

You say the article is against EU, I disagree, I think it is reasonably neutral showing somoe good and some bad point. Your phrase "in EU the will of powers elected in democrcy voted it." makes no sense, I truly have no idea what you mean. I agree the supporters of non-EU (or perhaps we should call them Eurosceptics) should not be represented; but neither should be the fans of the EU.

PS interestingly a similar discussion has been going on for a while with a lot of anti-EU people saying that this article was nothing more than cheap EU promotion materials. We did not change the article at that time (because we disagreed); and similarly I think we should not change it now. Arnoutf (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You set on the same line who recognizes an instituion and who doesn't recognize an institution and this is already a mistake.You can't write things that don't exist or describe them partially.The anti-EU people rapresente a minority part in EU so they rapresent nobody.The EU exists and as institution you must respect it also in describing .Economical is a term that is already comprehended in political.Political is the complete term to describe it rightly.If you had studied the real meaning in latin or in greek you'd haven't mistaken.If you don't change it means that there is ignorance or not good faith.(as i can see this site is Us(propagand of Usa is good,but not real situation of decadence) and they don't like EU as people know;you are loosing trust in people).Thanks.

I think, we all do understand that politics includes very many topics (e.g., economics, military). So, it is to some extend redundant to say political and economicaleconomic and political. However, it is not at all wrong as you are trying to proof.

The emphasize of EU politics is on economical affairs, even though the EU acts more broad than only economically. This is precisely what we are trying to convey with the present wording. I do not see the connection to anti-EU propaganda and personally, I do not identify myself with this accusation at all. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you add at Usa "economical"?Political is complete.You set economical also before than political.In latin policy comprehends all public matters just like EU follows.You can't decide for EU willing.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 11:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am more than a little confused by the argument. The EU on its intro to the Union describes it as "a unique economic and political partnership". http://europa.eu/abc/panorama/index_en.htm This article merely mirrors what the EU (it would be difficult to show that the EU is anti-EU ;)) says. I see no "negative" connotation of using the term economic in the lead. It is accurate Lwxrm (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lwxrm, Arnoutf and Tom are all correct, and I suspect are quite qualified to make their comments, despite what somebody implied. I would disagree with Campi and his proposal. The EU is an economic and political union under the current pillars system quite clearly. --Simonski (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Treaty of Maastricht decides that EU is a political institution.Political means that it follows all matters.Do you know the meaning of political and its origins?The term economical is unuseful and posted in a wrong place that tries to describe EU in a low profile.To be sure check official site of EU and you will see it follows ALL matters directly.I repeat why don't you add at Usa the term to describe them "economical" (it's normal they are simply political).This means that the controls on the site are done with ignorance or not good faith.Somedbody is defending positions no more credible.I hope that for a your more credible position you make a deep reflection and a deeper study.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 01:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Tom, Arnoutf, etc.: the union is correctly described as being of an economic and political nature, and is so described by the organs of the European Union themselves. To use the term "political union" by itself introduces a further complication: in the combination "economic and political union" it is clear that we are talking about a situation of an economic and political nature; without the "economic", political union could be understood as the compound noun describing the situation when two countries unite to become a single sovereign state (e.g. the UK). On another linguistic issue, whether the EU is economical (as opposed to "economic") is a different matter; so perhaps we could avoid that word.

Please do not accuse fellow editors of lack of good faith; it is clearly not appropriate here, as are the claims of ignorance. --Boson (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

With all respect to you Campi, you are not dealing with the arguments here. You are simply repeating the same thing, telling us to examine the meaning of "political". I would imagine a strict examination of the term is both redundant and pointless. A political scientist would have a hard time expressing exactly what that term means in a technical sense (which is what you want us to do). We are using the term in the CONTEXT (which is almost always not entirely consistent with a strict technical term) of the EU. I want to know how you explain the EU's own use of the term "economic" when describing itself (see my note above) and the express mention of economic union within the text of the Treaty itself (Article 2 EC and the whole of Title VII). The only change I would support to the lead would be perhaps changing the word economic to "partial economic" given that all stages of EMU have not been achieved by all Member States (a small digression, apologies but I did not notice until now).

On the USA point, quite honestly, I don't care what is on that wiki. I am not interested in it. I am not an expert on US integration (not that I am an EU "expert" but my knowledge is greater than for US). My feeling would be there is no need to change the USA wiki to match the EU (or vice versa) because they are not the same. In terms of composition, history of integration etc, they are very different. Not to open old wounds but one MAJOR difference is the USA is a nation state, the EU isn't.... Lwxrm (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, any discussions about the USA should be at the talk page of the USA article, not here.

Also please note that the origin of the word political is not relevant; the modern meaning in English alone should be guiding (no implictit or explicit meaning of the wod in any other language that has a version of the word matters here). Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that many people here have no idea about the real meaning of words and of their origins.May be you haven't studied sufficiently latin or greek or you haven't a good faith all together.You set the term economic before than political when it it is unuseful.It seems you don't want to change because it'd be an ammission of your huge mistake.Why don't you set the term economic near Usa?EU isn't Nafta,it's a political institution and follows all matters.I think many of you are non supporters of EU so not to be trusted.Many of you i think aren't neither EU citizens and have no idea of Maastricht Treaty.What people declares many times to be is not true in their presentation.I realized it from writings.Anyway the description of EU is totally wrong with "economic" and give a low profile of EU.This make of Wikipedia a very low level encyclopedia as many people from all over the world tell me.Try to better it!Thanks.policy=guiding what bycicle?I think a territory about all matters! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok let's assume we do not know what politics means - please provide a comprehensive definition of the modern English use backed up by high quality sources in political science and we will happily adopt your explanation. (the origin of the word is utterly irrelevant so stop repeating that argument it only makes you sound stupid).

The most obvious demonstration of lack of good faith in this discussion has been your unfounded accusation of lack of good faith in others.

Why we don't place economic near USA has been answered above - This is not the USA article; such arguments should be made there (please read good faith response before repeating your ideas)

EU is a political institution - We all agree. But it DOES NOT follow all matters. It's military and foreign policy is underdeveloped, its economical side is most strongly developed.

I am a strong supporter of the EU, but even if I were against the EU that does not make me untrustworthy (another show of assuming bad faith). On the other hand, strong supporters are equally likely to be untrustworthy (as they cannot accept critisism). Your argument is at best a two edged blade.

You have indeed many times declared we are wrong without any new arguments; while we have provided different arguments by different people. You may wonder who is the person repeating the same argument over and over again without it becoming true.

And please mention who all these people are. In any scientific writing course you will learn that claiming the opinion of unmentioned people is generally a very strong indication that the actual argument is weak, or even non-existent. Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your arguments are getting a little personal and you are still not dealing with the issues, which is unfortunate. I am a supporter of the EU, I am an EU citizen. I have a Masters degree (with distinction) in European Union legal studies. I am currently studying for a PhD in European Union law (the law of the internal market). I also teach undergraduates EU law part-time in a top UK university. None of this is relevant, I realise, but please do not accuse others of ignorance and bad faith when you have no idea of their background. We have attempted to deal with your arguments in a clear way, backed up by the evidence of the EU itself (Treaty and its own literature). If you like we could start exchanging citation of academic literature which supports the view that the EU is indeed an economic and political union. Whilst this is easy to do (it is in abundance), I am not willing to waste my time unless you start producing evidence of your argument which extends beyond a reference to some shady and uncertain "people". Lwxrm (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

EU Parliament and EU Commission decide about all matters of policy.Policy coprehends economy,foreigner affairs,social problems,defense and so on .Economic in front of political is making smile all people that studied international law.That's why i tell you "why don't you set the same term economic in front of definition of Usa or India?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You are bringing no new arguments, and no new reasoning. Everything you say here has already been sayd by you AND refuted by several others. Either bring new arguments or accept consensus. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

according to wikipedia Political union :"A political union is a type of state which is composed of or created out of smaller states....". also Economic union redirects at single market. So saying that the "EU is a political and economic union", is dubious at multiple levels. If i rewrite it, by replacing in the following definitions we could read "EU is a state which is composed of smaller states and it's also a single market" :) ridiculous if you ask me.--217.112.186.208 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The PROBLEM is that these several others have not studied sufficiently.It's unuseful correct defth or ignorant guys that behave like false professors.That's all.Rest in your bad faith or deep ignorance!Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 09:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your translation of the phrase could also sound something like "EU consists of a number of states with a common market; the EU has state like properties" (which is not that far off the mark). Arnoutf (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I intimated above, there is an important linguistic difference between "economic and political union" and "political union". The latter, in isolation can be understood as a compound noun, with the meaning given in the Wikipedia article Political union. If one were to add the attribute "economic" to this we would write "economic political union" rather than "economic and political union", which clearly means a non-specific union of an economic and political nature (i.e. we are not using the compound noun "political union", which can have a very specific meaning). In the same way, a "peaceful and civil union" would not have anything to do with the concept described in the Wikipedia aricle on civil union. The European can legitimately be described as "an economic an political union". It cannot legitimately be described as "an economic union and a political union". It cannot be described as "a political union" without making clear that the compound noun "political union", as described in the Wikipedia article, is not intended. The EU can legitimately be described by the compound noun "economic union" (though not without reservations; the IMF calls the economic union "a work in progress").--Boson (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The PROBLEM is that there're in this discussion a lot of false professors who are in bad faith or in deep ignorance.Anyway it's always better to check the Official site of EU instead of Wikipedia site where important things are left to a too personal interpretaions.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"What is the European Union?" A unique economic and political partnership between 27 democratic European countries.

http://europa.eu/abc/panorama/index_en.htm This is FROM the official site of the EU. First link in the left menu of the main page. I posted this in a previous post and you did not respond to it. Lwxrm (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more quotes from reliable sources:

• the OECD definition of "economic union":
  • OECD. "Economic Union". Retrieved 2009-01-18. Definition: An economic union is a common market with provisions for the harmonisation of certain economic policies, particularly macroeconomic and regulatory. The European Union is an example of an economic union.
• the IMF's comments
  • Martin Čihák, IMF European Department. "Euro Marks Milestone As Currency Union Faces Slowdown". IMF. Retrieved 2009-01-18. But the IMF's Executive Directors also emphasized that economic union remains a work in progress: {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• IMF describes the EU as an economic and political union
  • IMF. "European Economic Unity". IMF. Retrieved 2009-01-18. the European Union is dedicated to creating an ever closer political and economic union among the peoples of Europe.

See also: Google Books

--Boson (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You must write as EU describes itself in the official site and in the official papers.If you write EU first of all in the web you find the right definition of EU and not your inventions.Treaties papers talk.Read EU OFFICIAL SITE MY FALSE PROFESSORS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are literally thousands and thousands official papers; referring to them without making explicit which exact version, of which exact paper is needed is impossible. As you want to introduce these papers YOU will have to provide them. Until you do so we can ignore your reference to an unnamed paper.

Leaves the official site (http://europa.eu)

Quote:

What is the European Union?

A unique economic and political partnership between 27 democratic European countries.

Source: http://europa.eu/abc/panorama/index_en.htm (the official site).

This proves beyond any doubt that the official site confirms our majority point of view; it seems your disagreeing view is the invention, not our proven claim. Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be clear. I'm leaving this discussion until Campi Lorenzo (talk • contribs) shows some sign of engaging in meaningful debate. --Boson (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But noes! We musts reads the OFFICIAL SITES! DAMN US FALSED PROFESSORS! ALL OUR COUNTRIES ARE BELONG TO HIM!

I concur with all that has been said, this discussion brings nothing new to the table. If anything, Maastricht re-enforces the fact that its a political AND economic union. How anybody can dispute that is beyond me. --Simonski (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to archieve tomorrow. Any objections? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The word primarily is out of place and anomolous. How could the European Union be located anywhere except Europe?! The word primarily just creates confusion. Cyprus is not in Asia or Africa. It is geographically and historically a part of Europe.--jeanne (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to give one example that justifies the wording: Think of French Guyana. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is French Guyana a EU member?!!!!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have just had a read of the article. While it says that it's part of the EU, by dint of being a French overseas department, and uses the euro currency, does it have a representative in the European Parliament?--jeanne (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, they do. It's all on Wikipedia. Just follow the link. It even answers followup questions that might interest you. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I never realised French Guyana was technically a part of the EU nor that it has members in Parliament. As I have marvelled before, one learns something new on Wikipedia everyday. Thanks for pointing that fact out to me. Now I can see that primarily is used correctly in this article.--jeanne (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of writing Nato in presentation you should write that TODAY EU is the first economical-political being in the world.I suggest you to check Wikipedia gdp lists nominal.We can't be in contraddiction with oursevels.Those ones are true datas.So instead of Nato citation you must write the EU leadership in the world.If you check Wickipedia lists by size you can see also that EU countries linked by military agreements(PESC-PESD) have the biggest conventional arsenal of weapons . You must write some EU countries have officially (other not officially) nuclear weapons (check NPT Treaty Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why NATO is relevant in this topic, so let's not go there.

That leave two topics: Economic power and military power, that have been discussed before. GDP is determined at country level. The EU is not a country, hence its GDP is indicative at best and no conclusions can be made regarding being first. That is why we do not use ranking.

Military, basically the same. Military is a national thing, the EU is not a country, hence we can, and should, not add up military of the member states. Arnoutf (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The list ogf GDP in Wikipedia.Easy!EU 100% (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

EU 100%, could you please preview your comments before posting? Changing comments after someone has replied is extremely poor form, as it potentially misrepresents their reply. Constant changes to your comments also means that this article is constantly popping up on my watchlist for every minor change, which is incredibly distracting. Remembering to sign your comments would also be good, as this page pops up again on my watchlist when SineBot signs for you. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is enough trolling for now. I'd ask everyone to ignore any further comments EU100% (or his other guises) makes on this talk page or any other talk page. They are constructive and distract for useful discussion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think EU100% is right because you aren't able to distinguish between the meaning of a "political being" and a "Nation" ,not all political beings are nations. The EU is the most important political being in the world as it is a "voluntary" amalgamation of Nations who have expressed a desire to work together for their common good, unlike other large nations consisting of many states who have been forced together sometimes through armed conflict not of their own free will!

Please refer to this page from the EU website which tells you what the EU is and its objectiveshttp://europa.eu/abc/panorama/index_it.htmI think this may clear up any misunderstandings about the construction,objective and aims of the EU! It is clearly a unique entity of sovereign states working together in many fields including political,defence,finance,social responsability and many other areas....this is not disputable!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.19.227 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing between nation and political being (which is not an official term and has no meaning) is just what you do. Also we do use the EU approach to objectives from its page, so your comment adds nothing to what is already in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He added a lot.First of all the official web site of EU that confirms the EU political being.To be political being isn't obligatory to be a nation.EU is THE example.So EU has so huge numbers that no nation can join EU.I'm sorry but you miss to write that EU is the first economical power as political being in the world.That's the evidence.I thank 79.13.19.227 to have discovered the liars and the euroskepticals that monopolize this site of EU.Setting the official web site of EU their novels will be easily destroyed.The problem is that if today i've flue may be tomorrow it's passed but if some people have ignorance (or in bad faith)tomorrow it'll remain.Thanks again!EU 100% (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, this page was reviewed a while back, after being put forward to be a Featured Article - one of the key reasons it was rejected was because a number of reviewers felt we used too many sources directly from EU publications/websites. Whilst I believe they were wrong, I think to an extent they may have a point, particularly on matters such as the one being discussed. I don't think therefore this discussion adds anything useful to the page. --Simonski (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been added a lot.EU is the FIRST POLITICAL BEING for economy in the world.This is the only truth that you must add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy to add; only waiting untill you provide a high quality reference. Arnoutf (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The GDP list of Wikipedia is the right source.Easy!EU 100% (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can't use other Wikipedia articles as references: WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror Wikipedia - "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources." Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what he's driving at is that the EU has a higher GDP than the US, making it the biggest economy in the world, if you compare it against countries. This is supported by a variety of sources, and I think (for once) I agree with EU 100%, this should be mentioned in the article. TastyCakes (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And I think he's talking about this article. TastyCakes (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the GDP articles very carefully do not rank the EU. The problem here is that GDP is calculated on country basis; for example G8 includes 4 EU countries (and the EU as observer). If the EU is a single economy France, Germany, Italy and UK have no place in G8 and should yield their seat to a single EU representative. Simply put, even the richest EU countries do not accept the EU as a single economy; so we can't either. Arnoutf (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Got it. That wasn't as easy as was claimed ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of most of that, I have read the economy section of the article and it already has a sentence like the one I mentioned above: "Considered as a single economy, the EU generated an estimated nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of US$16.83 trillion in 2007, amounting to 31% of the world's total economic output, which makes it the largest economy in the world by nominal GDP and the second largest trade bloc economy in the world by PPP valuation of GDP". TastyCakes (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what's the issue here? Adding a rank of "1" to the infobox? Because I'd be unhappy with that (and I'd guess that Arnoutf would be too...) The article is clear and factual (and I don't suppose any of us have a problem with it), but changing the infobox's GDP rank would result in two articles claiming 1st position, since one article (presumably the US) would claim 1st since on the list it's first, and the EU would claim 1st because - taken as a bloc - it's higher than the US. The problem is that we can't cite the claim that the EU is first, since the various reports don't rank the EU. I'd suggest, by the way, that EU 100%'s gripe is not with us, but with the IMF, World Bank and CIA... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree, putting a one in the infobox would not be appropriate. I think the article is fine as it is when it comes to this issue, perhaps EU 100% didn't realise it already more or less said what he was driving at in the Economy section? TastyCakes (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

EU is THE first POLITICAL BEING for economy in the world in the Wikipedia official GDP list.If you don't consider true Wikipedia it means that you deny Wikipedia and what Wikipedia officially considers true.A non sense action.EU 100% (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does not help that EU100% is not even trying to understand arguments against his case, even if they are fairly discussed. Without understanding opposite opinion there is obviously no way you can convince someone he/seh maybe wrong. Without at least an effort to do so, it is even becoming disruptive for the project. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

EU 100%, could you provide a link to the "Wikipedia official GDP list"? At the moment I'm assuming you mean the one or more of the three lists on the article referenced by Tasty Cakes, above. None of these lists rank the EU as 1st, so I have to believe there's a further "Wikipedia official GDP list" somewhere which the rest of us mere mortals don't yet know about. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The IMF and CIA lists set at the top EU.We are talking about POLITICAL BEING and not only nations that are political beings too.Are you able to read the lists?Who follow this talking thinks not very well of you otherwise.Thanks.It's an easy action!EU 100% (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the same list referred to by Tasty Cakes? If not, can you provide a link? Because, as noted before, the IMF and CIA lists linked to by Tasty Cakes do not rank the EU at number 1 - indeed, they do not rank the EU at all. I continue to assume good faith, and presume you are referring to a different list - hence my need for a link - a link that people can click on so that there can be absolutely no more confusion as to what it is, exactly, that you're talking about. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

EU hasn't a number in the ranking because isn't a nation It's a political being anyway like all nations.It means that EU has the biggest economy in the world as political being.Now also a CHILD would have undertand.If you ask me again you make me think you are in bad faith!EU 100% (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

...and that's exactly what this article currently states (as noted above): "Considered as a single economy, the EU generated an estimated nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of US$16.83 trillion in 2007, amounting to 31% of the world's total economic output, which makes it the largest economy in the world by nominal GDP and the second largest trade bloc economy in the world by PPP valuation of GDP". So what is your issue here? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Nominal GDP list EU of Wikipedia is the first political being in economy.If you want to add (EU with the 31% of mondial gdp is the first political being in the world) it as well is good otherwise your ideas will be overtaken by today history.I live all the same even if you don't change and also if you leave EU Wikipedia website at very low level.Bye!EU 100% (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's listed first, it isn't ranked first - this is why the article explains the situation in so much detail. Beyond that, I don't really know what to say - it isn't clear what you want (I'm guessing that you want us to pretend that the EU is ranked 1st, and list it as such in the infobox - but I'm only guessing: it would help if you explained what you wanted rather than making us guess). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

EU isn't ranked first because isn't anation.All nations are political beings like EU but EU isn't a nation.EU as political being is the first in the list (as you can see) because of the biggest nominal GDP in the world.Have you understand?The ranking it's only for nation,but as political being EU is the first in the world for economy.Have you ever stuidied?In my opinion it' s enough of your ignorance and the low level of this website.BYE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. So, this is the state of play: (a) the article goes into great detail as to the EU's god-like stature amongst the World's nations; (b) the infobox lists the EU's total and per capita GDP - but doesn't rank the EU because, as you so eloquently and politely pointed out, the EU isn't a nation (and the sources consequently don't rank the EU). Agree so far? Now - I repeat - what is it you want? What is it that's missing - in your view - from the article or infobox that you demand be added? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You miss writing in the presentation (when you write EU has the 31% of mondial gdp)that EU is the first poltical being for nominal GDP in the world.Is it clear?Bye.EU 100% (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. OK, now we're getting somewhere. Wikipedia works on references quoting reliable sources. As you'll have seen on the Wikipedia article mentioned earlier, the sources quoted - the IMF and the CIA - don't rank the EU. This means that we also can't rank the EU. In fact, if we did it would confuse the issue immensely because people would observe that both the IMF and the CIA actually ranked a nation 1st, and not the EU. That's why the article goes into so much detail, and why neither the infobox nor the article itself rank the EU. I mentioned above that your problem is not with Wikipedia - it's with the IMF and the CIA. I'd suggest you write a strongly-worded letter of condemnation to both organisations, complaining that they don't rank the EU. Until they do, though, or an alternative and similarly reliable source is found, this article won't - indeed, can't - rank the EU. We'd by pretending the referenced sources said something they didn't. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

EU 100%, did you miss where it said: the largest economy in the world by nominal GDP and the second largest trade bloc economy in the world by PPP valuation of GDP" ? TastyCakes (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

EU is the first political being for economy in the world must be written in the presentation,not in the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making clear you are not looking for consensus or any form of collaborative improvement of Wikipedia by making above statement. Or perhaps in language you may understand: "You not listen, us not do" Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are ignorant.You don't know latin and you want to talk about EU!Don't disturb!GAME OVER.EU 100% (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

EU 100%, sadly you are the one who is truly ignorant! You do not know English. Now please go away. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of english words are from latin,but no latin words are from english my ignorant euroskepticals!EU 100% (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of English words (like Troll) are from Viking languages; no Viking language words are from English dear non-English speaking, non communicating colleague editor. Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

EU 100%, if you keep up your inflammatory, aggressive language and personal attacks you are going to get banned. TastyCakes (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As this discussion is, and has been, going around in circles for a while; and it is going nowhere since there is a clear absence of reliable reference, I suggest to close this discussion and archive it (feel free to restart after a reliable reference has been provided). Arnoutf (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that. --Boson (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No argument here. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)