Talk:European Union/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Proposed new EU introduction

Proposed Intrdoction

The European Union (or E.U.) is a union of 28 member states located primarily in the Europe. With over 500 million inhabitants it represents 7.3% of the world population, making it the second most populous democracy and first supranational union in the world. The EU is the seventh largest territory by area, extending clockwise direction lies the North, Baltic, Black and Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Sharing a common land border with Norway to the north and Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova to the East. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Albania to the South.

Research demonstrates the area has been inhabited since 40,000 BC. Although modern day Europe can trace a common heritage to ancient Greece and Rome. The present demographic is multicultural and multilingual, with a diverse history of independent states. In the 20th century most European states participated in World War I, World War II and the Cold War. After the devastation of the Second World War, the European leaders called for varying visions of European integration as a means to secure peace and prosperity on the continent.

The efforts to achieve this began with the 1951 Treaty of Brussels between the founding inner six states, forming the European Coal and Steel Community. The subsequent signing of each European treaty and accession of new member states saw the powers and territory of the EU expand, culminating in the 2008 Treaty of Lisbon. Today, as an economic and political union, supranational and intergovernmental decision making is used to implement common policies. EU law has legal supremacy over member states law and some institutions can act independently of member state governments in certain policy areas. In addition, the population share a common citizenship guaranteeing fundamental rights, including the right to exercise the four freedoms.

As the largest economy in the world, the European Union generated in 2012 a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of 16.584 trillion US dollars. Combined the member states have the second largest military budget. Two member states possess nuclear weapons and have permanent membership on the UN Security Council. The majority of member states are members of NATO and among the highest developed in the world. The EU is represented at the United Nations, WTO, G8, G20 and was the recipient of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize.

Reason for proposal

In short: For this page to become a featured article and so starting with the introduction. The lead section could be summarised better by briefly intertwining the geographical, historical and cultural context of the EU.

So i lightly divided the proposed EU introduction like so: Section 1 - Geography, Section 2 - History, Section 3 - Constitution (treaties & institution) and Section 4 - Politics and Economics. Because the EU is more than a simple organisation like the UN or IMF. When comparing the present introduction to say featured articles like Japan, Canada or India. The present introduction lacked a coherent theme and context. For example the EU's birth is a theme of trying to foster peace, prosperity and security on the European continent, in the context a long history of war. Nothing in the introduction mentions this, readers are unaware that many ideas of EU were in response to the World War I and II. Or that the member states were military rivals but now haven't taken up arms against one another and more or less peacefully coexist. Which gives a bit of contextual background to the recent Nobel Peace prize, among it's other achievements.

The reasons for mentioning palaeolithic info like you see in the featured Japan, Canada or India articles. Was to provide the reader valuable information on how rich the area is in history. Although the EU is only 60 years old, Canada for example has an introduction explaining the land has been inhabited long before the modern day state of Canada. Plus it has an added bonus of making it a bit more interesting and varied. As well as giving a chance to explain the present day diversity of the Union in terms of language, ethnicity and so on. Which is a major point that was left out of the present introduction. The EU protects member state languages, even so far as giving money (regional funds I believe) to them to do so. The EU motto is 'diversity in unity' and the member states are of course proud of their national languages and unique heritage. I thought, it was important to have this mentioned too.

When you read the old introduction, I noticed the mentioning of EU institutions a lot, especially at the start. I study politics and for a politics student the introduction reads great! But what about geography, history, military and economics? The EU is more than what is being mentioned in the introduction, it matters historically, geographically, linguistically and so on. But even in terms of politics, the fact that is it the world's first and only supranational democracy was left out. That seems like a major omission, because it would seem good to have the milestones of the EU in a global perspective. It's also the world's second largest democracy, India being the first. The EU having member states with nuclear weapons is as important as mentioning it's the largest economy, because it's providing the reader information on the political and military relevance (and influence) the Union and it's members has. As I stated on this page, the EU is a security alliance. It's stated in the EU treaty that each member state has a responsibility to assist one another in times of armed aggression. The EU has joint military and police operations too. Obviously it's tiny in number, but nevertheless.

--Erzan (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this change is too much to do in one go. The clockwise mentioning of many neighbors is far too much detail for the lede.

Also since the EU is not a country the history really does not go back beyond the founding of the EEC, and I disagree we should look back 40000 yrs, the jump from 40000 yrs ago to WWI is too abrupt, but telling the history (which would require mentioning Roman empire and some of the medieval and early modern empires) is again too much detail for the lede. All in all I think the proposed introduction is actually worse than the previous one (which does has some problems) Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It can be. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? There are multiple its in the lengthy text above and multiple things the undefined it can be (or not). Arnoutf (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally, change is good, more simply written than before. This version is better. But, you right, "The clockwise mentioning of many neighbors is far too much detail for the lede". It will be better if move this sentence to Geography section. When it comes to the matter of "40000 yrs", this is standard in articles, for example (from United States): "Paleo-indians migrated from Asia to what is now the U.S. mainland around 15,000 years ago" but 4 July 1776 is date of create of USA. The same in cases of many other countries and territories. This is norm. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

EU is not a country: True it is not described as one, nevertheless it shares many characteristics of any country. (Uncodified) constitution, common borders, currency (Euro), Central Bank (ECB), federal law (Union law), a legislature (EU parliament), Government (EU Commission), citizenship, anthem (Ode to Joy), national day (May 09) and so on.

Only countries have prehistory: Continents are not a country yet their Wiki pages detail the rich history of the area. This new intro is acknowledging the history of the EU citizens predate WWI. The EU is more than just a international organisation and continent.

Would require mentioning Roman Empire: The lead mentions and links the Rome Empire and Ancient Greece, both widely considered to be the birthplaces of European civilisation.

Clockwise mentioning of many neighbors too much detail: I took a look at featured articles like Japan and thought it wasn't too detailed. But after rereading it in the Geography section, it does seem better suited there. Erzan (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Continents (geographic entities) do have a prehistory, and that it very very relevant to continent articles. However, that would be the Europe article in this case, not the EU article which only refers to part of the continent.

To be honest, for countries I find listing prehistory tricky already, but in these cases the prehistoric cultures are often adopted in national heritage (often in some kind of romanticized ideal nation state). I am not sure that would make sense for the EU, which does refer back to historic Rome and Greece as its common heritage but to my experience not further back. Going back to history, the diverse nation states is perhaps too big a jump between Rome and Greece and WWI. Perhaps add a few lines to fill that gap something like: ".....can trace a common heritage to ancient Greece and Rome. After the decline of the Roman empire, the region that is now the European union became a series of loosely connected independent feudal fiefdoms during the middle ages; which aggregated to larger countries that became predecessors of the modern states in Europe. The area experienced a revival of interest in Greek and Roman history during the renaissance, and gave birth to modern science, enlightenment philosophy. Many wars were fought between the countries, among which the Napoleonic Wars. In the 20th century, most European states...... etc

I would then suggest to move the line " The present demographic is multicultural and multilingual,[15]" to the first paragraph as that is not a history, but a current demography line. Arnoutf (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, in lede there no place to describing the history between ancient Greece/Rome and now. The present sentence: "Research demonstrates the area has been inhabited since 40,000 BC.[14] Although modern day Europe can trace a common heritage to ancient Greece and Rome. The present demographic is multicultural and multilingual[15]" is ok, understandable and short. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is place for 40000BC there should also be place for more relevant info. Also there is apparently place for WWI which affected fewer of the EU states than Napoleonic wars (e.g. non involved in WWI were Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Luxembourg, Netherlands). So again, if there is place for WWI there also should be some place for earlier history between Rome and now. My reason for suggesting the move of demographic information is about relevance in context. It is not a historical but a contemporary fact and should not be in the middle of a history section. Arnoutf (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no need. "40000BC" is the beginning of the population in these area, ancient Greece/Rome is first powerful civilizations in these area (history in only two sentences...) and now ("The present demographic is multicultural and multilingual"). There in no place for IWW or Napoleon (and also Alexander the Great or Adolf Hitler) because this is lede, must be the short.

Whereas sentence about IIWW refers to something else "After the devastation of the Second World War, the European leaders called for varying visions of European integration as a means to secure peace and prosperity on the continent" - refers the present time, present needs and the establishment of the EU. In lede there no place to describing the history between ancient Greece/Rome and now. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The introduction is once again turning into a big chunk of text, with way too much detail. Compare it too the featured articles like Japan, where there is a broad sweeping generalisation to the countries geography, history, politics and so on. Listing the Eurozone, Schengen area and so on is unnecessary because the economic union and political union is already mentioned. Eurozone helps make the Economic Union, Schengen helps make the Political Union. The introduction I mentioned before my edit for example had around 9 cies 'for potentially a superpower'. Erzan (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether info about Eurozone and Schengen should be in lede? let others denounced.

PS. now there is only three sources for superpow., three times less. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay how about my recent edit, with three paragraphs. Kept most of Subtropical edits too. Any better? Erzan (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No more large edits please. This is supposed to be a WP:GOOD ARTICLE. As such, any large change has to have consensus to be implemented. You must open an RfC for the large edit you are attempting. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have preferred a discussion before such a major edit indeed. But I think there is some value to the efforts done now. I go through the proposed paragraphs one by one

First paragraph Looks generally fine to me. Short and to the point; some minor text suggestions:

"The European Union (or EU) is a union of 28 member states located primarily in the Europe.[12] With over 500 million inhabitants, it represents 7.3% of the world population, making it the second most populous democracy[13] and first supranational union in the world. The EU is the seventh largest territory by area, with an area of 4,381,376 square kilometres (1,691,659 sq mi). Research demonstrates tThe area has been inhabited since 40,000 BC.[14] Although mModern day Europe can trace a common heritage to ancient Greece and Rome. The present demographic is multicultural and multilingual.[15]

Second paragraph again, generally looks good. Some suggestions:

After the devastation of the Second World War, the European leaders called for varying visions of European integration as a means to secure peace and prosperity on the continent. These efforts first lead toto achieve this began with the 1951 Treaty of Brussels between the founding inner six states, forming the European Coal and Steel Community. The subsequent signing of each European treaty and accession of new member states saw the powers and territory of the EU expand, culminating in the 2008 Treaty of Lisbon. Today, as an economic and political union, supranational and intergovernmental decision making is used to implement common policies.[16][17] EU law has legal supremacy over member states law[18][19] and some institutions can act independently of member state governments in certain policy areas. In addition, the population share a common citizenship guaranteeing fundamental rights, including the right to exercise the four freedoms.

Third paragraph this one is more problematic. First of all, the word superpower is not an official term and is hopelessly ill defined. This results in a lot of discussion on the superpower article. While it may be mentioned as an aside in the section on international position I think it is both too irrelevant/trivial and too subjective to mention in the lede at all. In any case, as the lede is an introduction things raised in the lede MUST also be discussed in some more detail later on in the article. In other words, if there is no word superpower in the article (which there isn't) it can not be used in the lede. Also we would need to say that the EU military power is very limited. So we need a line there. Finally, the Nobel prize has noting to do with international representation, so that needs to be a separate line (style of writing).

"The EU is considered to be a potential superpower.[20][21][22] As the largest economy in the world, the European Union generated in 2012 a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of 16.584 trillion US dollars. There is no unified Military of the European Union, instead the EU military comprises of those of its member states. Combined the member states have the second largest military budget.[23] Two member states possess nuclear weapons and have permanent membership on the UN Security Council. The majority of member states are members of NATO and among the highest developed in the world. The EU is represented at the United Nations, WTO, G8, G20. The European Union was the recipient of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize." Arnoutf (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find the mention of the prehistory out of place. This is a modern construct, not to be confused with Europe the continent. Therefore mention of 40,000 BC is not warranted. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why has Δρ.Κ. put a warning regarding edit warring on my talk page regarding this wikipedia page? No one is warring. Erzan (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You asked me the same question on my talk and I replied there. It took you five minutes to revert my edit. That was fast and it was edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@ DrK. I agree, prehistory is overdoing it. I would prefer it be removed and reserved for Europe (the continent). Arnoutf (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Erzan. You have been bold, very bold to replace the complete lede of a good article with a new one. As a first step for improvement that can be ok. However, once someone reverts and states it needs to be discussed for WP:BRD (bold-revert-discuss) clearly suggests that once the bold edit is reverted, it should not be put up again before it is discussed in detail, and some kind of agreement is reached. So with the revert by DrK, we should now first reach agreement on this talk before implementing your version. And for such an important article rated as good article I would not take that lightly, so we need to give editors some substantial time to respond before changing things. Arnoutf (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's some excellent advice Arnoutf. I fully agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Drk Undoing your one edit, regardless of speed is not an edit war. It doesn't even meet the criteria set out by wikipedia and it completely ignores the context of this talk page. This was a civil discussion and jumping to warning people on their talk page, before bothering to post a comment isn't helpful.

@ Arnoutf I respect that, but undoing one revert is not an edit war and the effort I have gone into discussing this and editing my own work was a demonstration of this. Posting a warning on a talk page after what has been a civil discussion, is an unnecessary escalation of this. You can't ask people to be bold and then freak them off by warning them after they undone one edit. Otherwise it just come across like a tool to be used to scare people off. Erzan (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr K wrote: "I find the mention of the prehistory out of place. This is a modern construct, not to be confused with Europe the continent. Therefore mention of 40,000 BC is not warranted" - this controversies concern of many countries, for example: USA, Australia... United States is a modern construct (created in end 18th century), not to be confused with America the continent. Therefore mention of 15,000 BC is not warranted. But in lede of article of United States exist sentence "Paleo-indians migrated from Asia to what is now the U.S. mainland around 15,000 years ago". Modern USA is former European colony, 99% of population is emigrants, 0% of people is clear ethnic Paleo-indians from 15,000 BC. I do not mind it at Wikipedia. This is standard in articles about countries and territories. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Re 40,000 yrs "- this controversies concern of many countries" The EU is NOT a country. So it would need additional arguments beyond those used in country articles. These additional arguments are not provided.Arnoutf (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf describes accurately the problems with the prehistoric formulation. I agree. The EU is just a 50-year-old modern construct. It is neither a country, nor a nation. It cannot possibly have a prehistory. That's nonsense. It is just an artificial political entity of modern times. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

EU is not country but it does not matter. Absolutely no matter. Nowhere in the rules does not write "such data must relate to a sovereign country". For example, Greenland is not sovereign country, this is part of Denmark but article use words type " last 4,500 years". Samples in WIkipedia are so much, does not make sense to show and analyze them all. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no Greenland Union, so naturally, Greenland's prehistory is covered in Greenland (landmass}. Same goes for Denmark. But there is Europe (continent) which is different from the European Union. So, naturally again, prehistory goes to the continent and does not unnecessarily repeat in the EU article. Such duplication is completely unnecessary and a sure sign of trouble. Trouble with faulty logic that wants to treat an artificial political entity as a continent, even though the continent is a completely separate concept. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, no one argues that "(..) political entity as a continent, even though the continent is a completely separate concept". This is talking about land of EU, not Europe. Land within EU has been inhabited since 40,000 BC. Europe is one thing, here writes about the EU. You mix these two concepts. Reading this article we not interested whole of Europe, only part of Europe which is part of EU. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Subtropical no YOU mix the concepts when using the phrase "- this controversies concern of many countries". While adding history for countries is already controversial for countries (your words), it is even more controversial for non-country entities (my words). So we need arguments above and beyond those for countries (again my words). Reasons for adding pre-formal existence history to countries may be because countries relate to nations (self defined ethno/cultural groups born to countries), which does not apply to the EU (yet). Refusing to even consider this is mixing up concepts. Arnoutf (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. American nation not existed as typical nation (see article of Americans, "Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity, but with citizenship". So, why in article wrote about Paleo-peoples from 15,000 years ago? hypocrisy? also take care of this. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So far I have given you the benefit of the doubt, but your last post is clearly uncivil. This maybe because your level of English is not sufficient to understand the nuance of other's editors comments, but incompetence is not an excuse. Regarding the content of your comment American citizenship is clearly part of self-identifying with a cultural group so fits my previous comment. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"self-identifying with a cultural group" and ethnic group (based on the ancestors and genes) is two different things. Chinese man with new American citizenship who self-identifying as American is not native American, especially as American ethnic group. Your "WP:incompetence"? Returning to the topic: Americans have no connection with Paleo-peoples from 15,000 years ago but article wrote about this. This is very controversial, so. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(1) Was that last comment even English? (2) ethno/cultural in my earlier comment should be read as ethnic and/or cultural group (not to be confused with ethnocultural) (3) Ancestral and genetic ethnicity is a highly disputed and generally as outdated regarded definition of ethnicity. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The perfect excuse. So, according to you Chinese man with new American citizenship who self-identifying as American is American and doubtless has connection with Paleo-peoples from 15,000 years ago. Ok. Ethnocultural is mit, ok.

Dear Arnoutf, current Americans have nothing to do with Paleo-peoples from 15,000 years ago. This is fact. Information in lede of article about Paleo-peoples from 15,000 years ago is in the same class as sentence of "Research demonstrates the area of EU has been inhabited since 40,000 BC". If are the controversies, should be removed both sentences: in United States and European Union articles. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not even trying to see the other side of the discussion. Chinese Americans may relate to both the current country and the history of the nation of the US. This is already debatable for a country as the US (as you yourself mention above). Almost all European citizens however do not associate themselves with the country and nation of the EU anywhere near as strongly as your Chinese American would to the US. So indeed you suggestion would emphasise (once more) that to add prehistoric facts to the EU article we need additional arguments above and beyond those needed for a county. This is all I have asked for and none have been provided. Arnoutf (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh my God! You do not understand. It does not matter. If even not exist European nation, current Americans have nothing to do with Paleo-peoples from 15,000 years ago. This is fact. Even assuming that you are right - both, Europeans (because this is not nation) and Americans (because Americans have nothing to do with Paleo-peoples from 15,000 years ago) are in a similar position: controversial sentence in article. BUT although in practice it does not matter, European is nation or not? "40,000 years" refers to the land (people on EU land, not the nation). And again: if are the controversies, should be removed both sentences: in United States and European Union articles. Please go to bed, you do not think logically, please rest. PS. This is friendly advice, no personal attack. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In short: We should do the same as the US article, even if it makes not much sense in the US article and even less in the EU article. Give me a better reason please.

Bit of friendly advice - slapping someone in the face and stating while doing it, the person is not under attack shows you know you are wrong even when making the attack. Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And here lies the crux of the issue. There are no rules (that I know of) in wikipedia that say only a country or continent can mention prehistory. It is taught in classrooms and universities as not just some economic or political entity, but in a historical and geographical context too. Calling it an 'artificial political entity' is irrelevant, every 'country' is an artificial entity. None of them are natural, they all been created. Just because the EU has existed 'only' for 60 years is irrelevant, South Sudan is barely a few years old. The reference to the prehistory is to the land, to the people. The EU and its citizens occupy a land that has history and to ignore it just doesn't make sense. It's 500 million citizens have been shaped by many different histories, agreed. But there is a common history that has impacted them all. Which is events like WWI, WWII and the Cold War. You could not understand or even appreciate it's reason for existence, if you do not understand it's pre-existence. It exists today because of these key historical events. Erzan (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow. A lot of discussion occurred while I was offline. Obviously I agree with Arnoutf. Having said that, I want to remind everyone that one of my first comments contained the idea of an RfC. It was because I was fully expecting such a disagreement that I proposed the RfC in the first place. It is apparent, at least to me, that there will be no agreement currently regarding the addition of the paleo information in the lead. So, an RfC seems like a good idea. Another point I would like to discuss, if at all possible, would be details about the eurozone, mobility of the citizens and the Schengen area which were proposed to be removed under the revamped lead, but which I think should remain because they are fundamental milestones in the evolution of the EU. The proposed lead is very lacking by not including them, at least imo. I've got to leave now but I'll be back in several hours, just in case anyone wants to reply to me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would agree with Rome and Greece as being formative to European, and hence EU identity. I would also agree that the horrors of WWII have been instrumental in creating the EU. The cold war has affected all EU member states, but this is already trickier as some were in NATO, other in the Warsaw pact and yet others neutral. WWI did not have an equally strong impact on all EU member states as many remained neutral. Prehistoric population is to some extent relevant where people associate with those tribes and monuments. The problem is that much of prehistoric history has been appropriated into national heritage of member states, but not into a national European heritage (e.g Stonehenge is considered central to English culture, but I seriously doubt whether it figures in Estonian culture at all). This makes the prehistory relevant to individual countries, but in my view not to the EU as a whole.

On the other hand Middle Ages (including feudalist successor states of Charlemagne; the Hanseatic league; the foundation of the first European Universities (e.g. Bologna)) the Renaissance and enlightenment and Napoleonic wars did affect almost all current EU states in a similar way and these were core in creating the backbone of the European identity underlying the EU. So if we need to go into history I would rather start at Greco-Roman and add one or two periods instrumental to current EU shared identity than add the prehistory. Arnoutf (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think maintaining mention (but no details as it is a lead) of the eurozone, mobility of the citizens and the Schengen area is a good idea, as these are country-like elements of the EU, which clarifies its position. Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. I also agree with your latest reply just above concerning common European history. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow @ Dr.K that was the shortest several hours, how strange.

EU citizens feel 'European' just as USA citizens feel 'American'. In fact 74% of EU citizens feel European. It's not their fault their 'political entity' is synonymous with their continent. But since the USA occupies majority of North America and the same for the EU in Europe, that is bound to happen. Notice how those that surveyed feel European because of its values, geography, common culture and history. See? no mention of the Euro or the Court of Auditors. So again, the current introduction reads like the EU is still the European Economic Community. To millions of EU citizens, it's moved on from that. Welcome to 2014. Erzan (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid silly comments which imply that I have to be out the door as soon as I announce that I will be busy for some hours. I haven't left yet but that doesn't mean you have to keep a chronometer over my head; that's just petty behaviour. Also avoid sarcastic tripe like Welcome to 2014. From someone reveling in prehistory, it is mighty strange how you wish to ignore EU's real and recent, at least as compared to the paleolithic era, historic milestones such as Schengen, the eurozone etc. Not to mention, that you yourself have already announced, a few hours ago, that you retired, although it appears you are still here. That was a record-setting short retirement. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry but I just don't believe that EU citizens feel 'European' just as (emphasis added) USA citizens feel 'American'. In fact your own source (2010 Eurobarometer) already shows that EU citizens feel European (74%) but even more their own nationality (94%) (and 64% feel citizens of the world.) Secondly, American swear fealty to their national flag, die for their country and see their president as their main leader. None of this is done by inhabitants of the EU (at least not by any large group). Hence while EU citizens may in part identify as Europeans, I seriously doubt that is fully comparable to the sentiment of US citizens towards America.

That said, I fully agree the EU is in transition from a merely economic organization to something different; and public opinion responds to these changes. However I do think that much of this is ongoing and we should be careful not to let wishful thinking overwhelm current states quo.

Also please note that Eurobarometer, being what it is, a sociological closed question survey tool may not have included the Euro as an answering option. So if no question was there, it cannot be listed. But you could put the Euro under common culture, and the Schengen free movement treaties under values. In any case, I fully agree with history and culture being mentioned. But limiting that to prehistory Greek Roman and three 20th century wars, does no justice to history, and does not mention culture.Arnoutf (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an introduction not an essay, you can't do anything real justice. Erzan (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No real justice is different from no mention at all. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand. The introduction still ignores the history of the EU territory, multi cultural and linguistic diversity, being the first supranational union in world history, disregards one of the big reasons why it was even founded and still celebrated till this day, bringing peace between former warring states. Instead it mentions the Court of Auditors.... Erzan (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

These are some worthy additions to the lead. And you can dispense with the auditors. Just go light on the paleolithic and we might go somewhere. By the way, I am back. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That tone of language 'And you can dispense with the auditors. Just go light on the paleolithic and we might go somewhere.' comes across as if you are in charge and whatever edits you agree with is okay but if not, it can't happen. Two editors have disagreed (on some fundamental points my I add) with another two, yet why would it be permissible for you to say 'you can' do this or not. That's not consensus building. Erzan (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no "tone" in my language. Please don't get caught up on semantics. For your convenience let me analyse my response to you. I said: And you can dispense with the auditors. because you said: ...disregards one of the big reasons why it was even founded and still celebrated till this day, bringing peace between former warring states. Instead it mentions the Court of Auditors...., i.e. I agree with you that the auditors are not as important as ...the big reasons why it was even founded and still celebrated till this day, bringing peace between former warring states., so I kindly told you to get rid of the auditors and go for the bigger picture. Now, if you want to get caught on the wrong interpretation of what I told you or play semantic games, this is your problem not mine. As far as "going easy on the paleothilic" that was a gentle reminder that I don't agree with a mention of the paleothilic but I am willing to accept your new arguments. Talking about looking a gift horse in the mouth. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some more emphasis on the big reasons for its foundation could improve the lead, and that we may want to "prune" some of the less relevant details, like the court of auditors. Arnoutf (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation of the old intro - suggestion for restructuring

The current lead has 5 paragraphs, which is fairly much for an intro. As far as I can see the structure is (1) What is EU and its institution (2) History (3) Single market (4) Monetary union (5) Population, economy and nobel price
In my view it would be worthwhile to reduce the list of institutions in the first paragraph, and merge the demographic information into that first paragraph. That would then have the topic (1) What is the EU, and who lives there

The second paragraph on history now starts with the Coal and Steel Union; but that is the very technical history. A somewhat broader intro before that may work. E.g. European culture and identity have a shared heritage in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. After many centuries of warfare between the European countries, after WWII European countries were motivated to form strong treaty unions to prevent future wars. These treaties, the Coal and Steel ....etc. (Also the phrase inner six should be avoided as that is hardly known and largely outdated jargon).

The third paragraph could then mention some of the current working/treaties of the EU where we can merge much of the information of the current paragraps 2 and 3.
The last paragraph (after demographic is taken out) is on international position, I would suggest move this up to 2nd place, and add WTO, UN etc membership to that paragraph

So the new structure would be:

• What is the EU, who lives there

• What is the international economic, political, military position of the EU

• What is the history of the EU

• What are typical treaties in the EU that are (a) Important (b) Typical enough (not country, not international organization) to need mention.

I think this would require a fairly substantial overhaul of the intro, which I don't think can be done stepwise; so I would look for agreement first. Arnoutf (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This makes no sense. My propose introduction covered this, but ignored mentioning more than two treaties for the sake of avoiding to bore the reader with technical history. After opposing the idea that EU citizens and territories have a shared history pre-existing the EU, I take it you now agree with Subtropical-man and myself? Because apart from this, there has generally been opposition. Erzan (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If you would have actually read my comments you may have noted that I was reasonably positive about your suggestions because it cleans up the structure and makes the intro more focused. Indeed I have not opposed the reference to Roman/Greek history, nor to WWII as these are relevant to the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, why has the line 'potential of the EU as a superpower been removed'? it's been there for a lengthy period of time and now it's edited without any consultation? ‎Subtropical-man has already disagreed with it and I disagree with most of the intro.

Secondly, I have read your comments, take a look at them:

telling the history (which would require mentioning Roman empire and some of the medieval and early modern empires) is again too much detail for the lede.

All in all I think the proposed introduction is actually worse than the previous one (which does has some problems)

if there is place for WWI there also should be some place for earlier history between Rome and now

Calling my proposal 'worst than the previous one' is in not what I consider 'reasonably positive'. Erzan (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The superpower bit was removed because it's what some people think the EU might become in the future. A more balanced version would be: "Some commentators believe the EU may become a soft-power superpower while others believe the EU may fall apart." Along with a section in the article text listing and comparing the view points.

As to the Greek and Roman stuff, it's very wishy-washy and would make the article read like propaganda. And why exclude the Celts, Saxons and Vikings? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ezran: Thanks for taking my comments out of context.

Re: Worse than the previous version, that is because of several unresolved issues in the (first version of the) proposed new version; and should be read in the context of the rest of that specific comment, which opens with: "I think this change is too much to do in one go.". If you change an existing section (that has problems), the new version which is posted in article space must have fewer problems (even the first iteration of that). If you would have taken the time to discuss first before boldly changing it would probably have been a different issue.

Re: Too much detail: This is upon repeated insistence that it seems fairly random that Prehistory -Roman Greek history - WWI and WWII were to be mentioned but that there was not enough space to mention anything else. My response to that was indeed, either we do it right and focus on the topics central to European identity (and omit topics not central to that like prehistory and WWI), or not do it all - following the argument (not by me), that there is not enough space to discuss.

@Blue Haired Lawyer. I am open to the suggestion to show in the introduction that the EU is founded on a shared heritage that could be captured under shared European identity. We need to be careful that it covers all of Europe though. Lots of European history is based on Greco-Roman culture. The new testament was written in Greek and both Bible books were used in Latin in the Latin church rites dominant all over Europe, and Latin was the lingua franca for medieval science. This would warrant the special position for Greek-Roman as part of shared EU identity over Celtic-Saxon-Viking cultures (that in addition has most impact in North Western Europe and not in the whole region. Arnoutf (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Blue Haired Lawyer how is it okay to edit and delete sections or sentences, which have been there for a lengthy period backed up by sources, without seeking agreement from editors who have actively disagreed on the talk page. But every edit, small or large changed by those same editors has been reverted and any attempt to undo the revert has been given edit warring warnings on talk pages. This is not conducive to fair and balanced editing, certainly not helpful to build consensus either.

@Arnoutf Hi, lets get some agreeing and understanding here. I don't think it is random, when the USA, UK and Japan do not ignore their prehistory too. Regardless of their existence. It just makes a very interesting read to acknowledge, however briefly, the history of this place in question. From historical and geographical perspective. Please note, I fully agree the EU is in its very early stages of forming any kind of 'nationality', 'identity', 'statehood' or whatever word one wants to use, it's after all a very unique construct and this will make any edits of EU pages very hard as it evolves, but not impossible. But there is forming, however slowly, a supranational EU identity. What is being taught in classrooms and universities today, are not just the EU treaties and institutions. The EU is more than Schengen or the Euro, it's also European culture, history and values. This is what I hear from people, this is what I hear on the TV and read from surveys and books. So please understand my position has good intentions. Thanks.Erzan (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Try to understand what I am saying, rather than interpreting everything from an assumption of bad faith. What is random is not so much the addition of history, but the selection of topics. In my view important topics for European identity underlying the current EU can be grouped into several priorities. Priority 1 and central to European identity: Greece antiquity, Roman Empire, Feudal Middle ages, Renaissance and enlightenment philosophy science and art, Napoleonic wars, WWII. Priority 2 because not central to all EU countries in the same way: Prehistoric cultures, WWI (and others we can think of later). What I call random is that two topics that I have (repeatedly) argued are less important than others are selected instead of topics more important for European identity.

I fully agree (and said so above) that Europe is indeed in transition. However, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we have to adopt mainstream accepted position, which will tend to be somewhat conservative rather than progressive. That I or other editors would personally like the EU project would go forward in a clear way towards some state cannot matter in the focus we put in the article. Writing a neutral position is also (or even especially) important even you disagree with that position.

Regarding superpower. The sourcing is not the issue, but having reliable sources is no sufficient reason for inclusion. The reason for exclusion at this stage is the WP:LEAD guideline that has in its second paragraph the line: significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. As there is no further mention of superpower anywhere else in the article it should also not be in the lead. That alone is already sufficient (albeit technical) reason for removal. (I would object adding superpower on other grounds as well - most prominently because it is an ill defined term, which is inconsistently used by commentators and has largely fallen out of use since the end of the cold war.) Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with leaving out the superpower info. As far as history I think we should only include in the lead a brief account of the historical events that primarily contributed to the formation of the EU and its immediate predecessors such as the Common Market etc. Any other historical information, such as Greco-Roman, Vikings etc., should not be placed in the lead. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think we should then limit it to WWII as that was a strong motivator for the union and its predecessors. How about something along the lines: "After WWII there was a strong motivation to create European collaboration that would help Europe recover from the last and prevent future wars." And take it from there with Coal and Steel EEC etc. Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Landscape pictures

Why do editors feel the environment section needs a gallery of images? Such a thing falls afoul of WP:MOSIMAGES, in addition to adding absolutely nothing for the reader. CMD (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the images appear to be purely decorative without adding anything in the way of useful information. Seems to be a case of 'I like it', unless a reasonable rationale can be provided. RashersTierney (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, either we find a range of topics relevant to the article and select pictures to reflect that, or we keep it at 1 or 2 images maz.

The current images show 2 easter Mediterranean coasts, a Baltic coastal area, a forested/wet natural reserve and an animal. What is the story?

If we want to do something I would think to capture the variation in Europe we would need (1) A coastal example (2) Mountains (3) Forests (4) Wetlands / meadows

Alternatively we could go for extremely notable examples but in that case I would limit it to examples that are featured on the UNSECO list. There are several dozens of those in Europe, so we still would need to chose (e.g. between different Northern coastal monuments such as Giant's Causeway Wadden Sea. and the currently included Curonian Spit)

In any case I do agree with both editors above that the current practice of "I like it so I add it" is not a good idea. Arnoutf (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The current images also greatly overflow into the next section. It'd be good to have a picture related to wildlife legislation of the European Commission's biodiversity policy, but for the moment the European Bison fits the pan-European ideals that banknotes have. CMD (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree overflow is an issue.

I like the idea of creating pictures that show pan-European ideals, although that is not as easy as it seems. E.g. the wisent would relate mainly to central Europe (see its article). It would be nice to add some other pictures as well (e.g. the white stork might do.

Alternatively we could go for multi-country spanning environmental landmarks (if we do not want to limit ourselves to animals). Then we could consider Wadden Sea (NL, GE, DK), or the Alps (Fr, AU, Sl, It, Ge). But still, whatever we do some countries will receive some more attention than others. Arnoutf (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a problem if in the end some countries will be shown in the picture and some won't. It's impossible to avoid. What is a problem is the focus on showing a certain country or countries. The picture should be chosen for reasons other than the country it originates in. The Alps would be a good one actually, as it's quite a prominent part of European geography, and the EU has legislated on their conservation. CMD (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree nationalist sentiment should not play a role. However it often appears to do, so I would like to make my point of view explicit that (1) We should choose topics relevant to EU as a whole and not let that choice be coloured by national sentiments (2) This will inevitably lead to some countries / landscapes receiving little attention which we just should accept (even if our own country is not selected).

Even looking at all relevant environment types would already lead to an overwhelming collection of pictures (mountains, deserts, arctic fields, wetlands, sand and cliff coasts, islands, hills, forests, grasslands, etc.....). So even there we should make a selection. Personally I think two pictures one of a mountain range and one of a coastal area would be nice and suffice. Open to other ideas. Arnoutf (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If there's going to be two pictures, I think it'd be better to have one landscape, one showing wildlife. A wider topic spread, so to speak. Not sure about landscapes, but the red squirrel may make a good (if a bit boring some may say) wildlife photo, being quite cosmopolitan in Europe and under threat in some areas. CMD (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer the white stork instead of the squirrel. Similar animal, common in many places, but recovering from very rare after conservation effort in Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden (so some related to EU environmental protection effort of EU countries). The wisent is not so bad either as that was brought back from extinction in the wild in 1927 to merely vulnerable today. (although together with the Alps it might over-emphasize central Europe a bit) Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I support the idea of one landscape, one wildlife. Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm, considering the pictures higher up in the article at European_Union#Geography the alps or coastline might not be such a good idea. Any other suggestions? Arnoutf (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of the section is about addressing environmental pollution. How about an historic image of forest damage due to 'acid rain' , or something along that line? Perhaps the dilemma of wind farms such as in this image RashersTierney (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, although the acid rain is indeed historic. I like the windfarm. We could also consider melting glaciers (global warming). The Stork/Wisent still fits in my view, as the recovery of these animals show potential positive outcomes. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A windfarm may be useful as it would provide a link to renewable energy, which is a big environmental issue quite prominent in Europe. As for animals, any here would do really. CMD (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I am open to many animals, as long as they have some appeal (mosquito.... probably not) and is related to European mainland (no kangaroos).

Proposal: Windfarm + Wisent. We can always discuss changes in individual images later once we reached agreement we should limit to two. I suggest to wait a few days so others can give their point of view and then change per this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A windfarm strikes me as being more related to Energy policy. I'd go with one landscape and one animal, but make it EU related like one picture of a protected habitat and one of a protected species. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

About the Environment. Until someone creates a section about Tourism the pictures that are now in the Environment should remain there. And by that I mean: ; ; ; ; . After the creation of section about Tourism pictures of Navagio, Greece and Golden Cape, Croatia should be moved to the Tourism section with a picture form or of Paris added to that section. We really need a section about tourism. After that my suggestion is that we put only two pictures in the Environment section and the most appropriate by my thinking are two pictures of the two oldest Natural World Heritage Sites in Europe: Plitvice Lakes National Park and Białowieża Forest. So we would have one picture of a protected habitat and one of a protected species like suggested before. Picture of a protected habitat for Plitvice Lakes and picture of a protected species for Białowieża Forest. Tuvixer (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure. That an arbitrary selection of pictures would look pretty and nice for tourism is not a reason to keep them. CMD (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but if we must make a tourism section I think Kinderdijk, Royal Palace of Amsterdam, Naarden, Wadden Sea, Zaanse Schans and Efteling obviously should be added before we start adding random beaches. Or would that selection be arbitrary too ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible images

A place to list suggested images along with a reason which preferably should be something more that "it looks pretty", but add whatever you like. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Viru Bog in Lahemaa National Park in Estonia, a protected habitat under the Habitats Directive
• 
  The Black Stork, a Annex A protected species under Regulation (EC) No. 338/97

Support the idea of adding a wetland natural reserve. For animal there are many animals listed for protection in the Habitatis directive that are more connected to EU identity. Among other the wolf, alpine marmot and the wisent. [1]. The shyness and relative rarity in Eruope compared to Asia makes the Black Stork a less relevant choice in my opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative selection (I moved from Estonia to avoid 2 northern countries. I would agree with an wild EU wolf (instead of caged German one)

• 
  Gray wolves, protected species under Regulation (EC) No. 338/97, are recovering in Europe in the wild.
• 
  Lake Amvrakia, Greece, a protected Natura 2000 protected habitat.

What do you think? Arnoutf (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The linking to specific directives is great. Personally I find the wetland picture prettier than the Amvrakia picture, and I think a wildlife photo showing an animal not in a cage would be preferable, but frankly anything along the lines both of you posted above are good. CMD (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the caged wolf is not ideal. I am happy to go with wetland-stork as well. Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I also think that wolf is the best option. But what do you say that we change the second picture, of a protected habitat, every month or every week. First month/week a picture of a national park in Austria, second a national park in Belgium, third a national park in Bulgaria, and so on... Tuvixer (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That'd be a great deal of micromanagement for no tangible benefit. We could, if we really wanted, set up a system where a reader receives a random image from a selection when the load the page, but it'd be much easier to find one high quality picture with a caption showing its connection to the European Union, as the proposed images above do. CMD (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think every six months or every year would be more realistic. Good quality, relevant, free pictures are hard to come by. I think a picture of a wild animal in captivity misses the point. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikicommons does indeed not have a picture of a wolf that is identifyable inside EU and not in captivity, at least no high quality and none that I could find. The captive wolf (missing the point indeed) is a case in point of the difficulty of finding the free, high quality picture. But if anyone has one.... That is why I would support the stork/wetland combi.

Tuvixers comment raises an important point. Let's agree that we want a protected habitat and a protected wildlife and nothing more in the section; and be strict at keeping it at that. Let's be more flexible in allowing changes in pictures when editors bring up relevant high quality alternative (as long as they are protected habitats/wildlife and only 2 for the whole section). Arnoutf (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, although any new proposed images should be as high quality, and come with an equally relevant caption. If it's even higher quality, it should replace it. The alternative I raised above, with multiple pictures possible, can be seen at India#Economy, if anyone is interested, although again, quality and relevance should trump considerations of national balance. CMD (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I take the week of silence since the last post, and the lack of opposition to this proposal as a clear indication of consensus to limit images to 2, having clear reference to EU protection. I have changed the article accordingly. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

EU redirect Comment

User:BD2412 is changing the current EU redirect on hundreds of articles with the comment "change unstable title to direct link". Not sure what that means - why is it "unstable"? Is it being done in preparation for scrapping the redirect to this article and pointing it at the dab page or somewhere else. I don't see it being openly discussed anywhere though. Does it need to be? --Bermicourt (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• I made the changes because the page history of "EU" shows that there is clearly some disagreement about where it should point. I don't know whether it may be changed in the future, but "European Union" is a more stable title. Also, I wanted to make sure that there were no links to "EU" that were intended for other senses of the term (although I didn't find any). bd2412 T 15:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction under the topic "Economy"

Topic : Economy

Old Text : "17 member states have also joined a monetary union known as the eurozone, which uses the Euro as a single currency."

New Text: "18 member states have also joined a monetary union known as the eurozone, which uses the Euro as a single currency."

Explanation: Latvia joined as the 18th member in 2014.

122.252.237.34 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the notification. Arnoutf (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

initiators of European unification

In the history section of the article "European Union", I find the sentence, "The originators and supporters of the Community include Alcide De Gasperi, Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, and Paul-Henri Spaak." I feel that Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of West Germany, should be included in that list. Adenauer has closely worked with De Gaulle, Schuman, and the other statesmen mentioned here, in order to further European unification. He was one of the originators, and certainly an ardent supporter of the Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.128.77 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2014

In 1985, the Schengen Agreement should be changed to In 1995, the Schengen Agreement 109.232.208.230 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The Schengen Agreement was signed on 14 June 1985, the Schengen Area came into existence in 1995 - Arjayay (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Currencies

There are a number of currencies used within the EU. I think we should either list all of them in the infobox (possibly in a collapsed list), or none of them, as oppose to just the Euro.

Euro (EUR)
Lev (BGN)
Kuna (HRK)
Koruna (CZK)
Krone (DKK)
Forint (HUF)
Litas (LTL)
Złoty (PLN)
Leu (RON)
Krona (SEK)
Pound sterling (GBP)
[Gibraltar pound (GIP)]
[Swiss franc (CHF)]
[United States dollar (USD)]

Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 13:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Euro should be visible in the infobox. But listing the other currencies visibly would take up too much space in the infobox.

Either the current compromise, or a collapsed list labelled "Euro and others" (or similar) could do.

Also note that all EU members (with the exception of UK and Denmark who negotiated an exception) have committed to change to the Euro as soon as all conditions are met. So the Euro does have a special status in the EU even for those countries that have not yet adopted it.

Finally be aware that your list is not an exhaustive list of currencies legal tender within the EU as (e.g.) Swiss Frank is legal in Campione d'Italia; and the US dollar in Bonaire. Arnoutf (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the extent of the EU. Is all of the French Republic part of the EU (CFP franc)? I know that Gibraltar is part of the EU, but I don't think any other British territories are.

I agree with the collapsed list idea, possibly formatted as:

Euro (EUR) (Eurozone)
[number] others [show]

Any idea what other currencies there are?

Rob (talk | contribs) 14:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't exactly know, but we have had the Swiss Franc dispute before. My view would be that we only list currency governed by national/EU banks to avoid endless lists and all kinds of discussion in a gray area (nb this would limit the list to those you mentioned before). Arnoutf (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 19:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Member states

This is a small thing but at the beginning of the article it says, "It is currently composed of 18 member states that use the euro as their legal tender."

To me that's an awkward statement. And perhaps a little confusing. Should it not perhaps be worded something like, It is currently composed of 28 member states and (x) number use the euro as their legal tender. Or even something like, composed of 28 member states and all but the UK (and whoever else doesn't use the euro as legal tender) use the euro as legal tender.

I was under the impression that there were 28 member states and the majority used the euro maybe with the exception of the UK. Am I misinformed?

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that the statement at the beginning of the article sounds awkward and maybe even a bit misleading to me. It sounds like there are only 18 member states and they use the euro or that 18 out of 28 member states use the euro. To me confusing.

99.250.171.205 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Armin

The sentence in question is about the monetary union (aka the euro area), which, indeed, is composed of 18 member states. These are the countries that are both part of the EU and use the euro as currency. It reads find within its own passage "The monetary union was established in 1999 and came into full force in 2002. It is currently composed of 18 member states that use the euro as their legal tender." The monetary union is a vital part of the EU. The article makes it clear in the very first sentence that the EU has 28 member states. I hope the explanation was useful. --Laveol ^T 08:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Lower house, upper house

Though the EU has two main actors in the legislative process and could thus be regarded as having a bicameral legislature, it does not have an upper and a lower house. As far as I know, all actors are careful to avoid use of these incorrect terms, even though those associated with some EU institutions might have an interest in their use. There are politically sensitive POV issues involved because of the implications of the terms "upper house" and "lower house" in European parliamentary democracies and the "power struggle" between the supranational elements (in particular the Commission and the Parliament) and the intergovernmental elements (in particular the Council of the EU, the European Council, and the governments of the member states). For these reasons, I think it is appropriate to avoid use of the incorrect terms in the infobox and simply link to Legislature of the European Union, where there is more room for a proper explanation. --Boson (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree. The council has changing memberships depending on topic so that is really a weird thing making democratic control (even indirect) extremely difficult. Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

While I don't disagree per se, the EP and the Council should still be explicitly linked (perhaps with no label or an alternative label like "Elected body" & "Intergovernmental body"). I would also like to make the point that (as far as I know) the term upper and lower houses are never used officially but are rather descriptive terms. For example, the Bundesrat of Germany also consists of (regional) governments but it is still often regarded as the upper house of a bicameral legislature. So you can certainly say the EU also has an lower and upper house, but it's obviously more debatable because of the unique nature of the EU. SPQRobin (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Without "re-progamming" the template, we could write:

legislature: The Legislature of the European Union comprises the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

--Boson (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Or simply:

[deleted]

Thoughts?

Rob (talk | contribs) 15:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Rob (talk | contribs) 16:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

See edit. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. --Boson (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Largest city

London is the largest city by city area, but city areas are not representative of the real size of the city. Urban areas are better representations (although not perfect) of the size of a city. Paris has the largest urban area in the EU. Additionally, London doesn't actually have a city area. There's a region in England called 'London', which may be considered by sources as the city's city area, but it has no designated city area. I don't think stating the 'largest city' in the EU is appropriate however. Paris and London are almost the same size, and both far larger then any other cities within the EU. Instead, as the infobox allows us to change 'Largest city' to 'Largest cities', I think we should list both. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Make a mountain out of a molehill. London core (City of London with a population of 7,375) is not regarded by the world as a city. Whole London (Greater London, administrative area and county) regarded by the world as a city and metropolis. Also, most of sources (about urban/metropolitan areas and agglomerations) show London as bigger than Paris, maybe two sources show Paris area as bigger than London area. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the City of London has to do with anything. The London region, or Great London administrative area is not the designated city area (also called 'city proper') of London, hence why it has its own article. London has no city area (possibly because it's not a designated city, but that's irrelevant). So claiming London's city area is the Great London administrative area are therefore larger then Paris (which does have a city area) is not accurate. The Great London administrative area does function similarly to a city area, but it isn't designated as such. Regardless, I fail to see how it is informative to suggest that London is the largest city in the EU, if this is dependent on the source. We can simply list both. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Since different countries deal differently with splitting cities into smaller municipalities/cities proper etc. straightforward comparison is not possible across countries. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's just misleading. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That is why we use Larger Urban Zone in demographics, which is a measure created by Eurostat to be comparable across Europe (albeit it not a city proper in the traditional sense) Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rob, it's complicated. Cities in different countries have different rights, different composition (districts in parts of cities have the rights of commune/municipality) and also some cities (within the administrative boundaries) include whole urban area (eg. Baku), or more (eg. Moscow) or only small part of urban area (eg. Barcelona). Administrative boundaries is artificial creation, misleading. But London is good matter, this is largest city and metropolitan area according to the most sources. Do not need to change anything. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely urban area is the most representative measure? And by most sources, Paris has a larger urban area. Metropolitan area often includes entirely separate settlements. I know urban area isn't always representative either, but surely it's more representative then metropolitan area? Rob (talk | contribs) 17:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Surely urban area is the most representative measure - it is debatable; "And by most sources, Paris has a larger urban area" - most? one-two sources are most? hmmm Besides, metropolitan area colloquially means a metropolis (in terms of area and demographics) and more suitable for determining the largest metropolis. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how exactly? From my experience, satellite settlements of London and Paris are not considered part of the cities, while settlements attached to cities are. I will do an RfC if we can not agree on this.

Contrary to what the name suggests, a metropolis is an urban area, not a metropolitan area.

Right now the article is simply misleading readers. It's not clear that London is the largest city in the EU, so we shouldn't state that it is.

Rob (talk | contribs) 19:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"It's not clear that London is the largest city in the EU" - maybe for you. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the area has to do with it. Doesn't everybody think of the size of a city as measured by its population, at least when dealing with infoboxes and similar tables of salient data?. It would be very odd if most articles that use this template were based on population and there were odd exceptions that used area. --Boson (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You need an area, to work out the population. There is three basic concepts used to define the size of a city, and therefore it's population. You have city proper, which is the area contained within the city's administrative limits, urban area, which is the urban core city, plus the area of high population density connected to this, and metropolitan area, which is the urban area, plus satellite settlements that are socio-economically connected to the urban core city. Subtropical-man claims that metropolitan area is a better measure then urban area, and since London has a larger metropolitan area, it is clearly the largest city in the EU. I contend this based on the fact that Paris has a larger urban area by some sources, and that I think urban area is a more correct measure of the size of a city. And I therefore believe stating London is the largest city in the EU is simply misleading. I have suggested we change 'Largest city' to 'Largest cities' (in the info box) and list both, as these are both far larger then any other city within the EU. There's no clear answer to whether urban area or metropolitan area are more accurate measures, however in general, satellite settlements are not conventionally regarded as part of the cities of which they form part of the metropolitan area of. Can we really say London is larger then Paris because it has more satellite settlements? I don't think so. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I was a little confused by your "London is the largest city by city area".

I would have thought we should use the data in the Eurostat regional yearbook: Focus on European cities and give that as a source. --Boson (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This all sound hopelessly like original research or at least original synthesis to me. Why would area mean anything? (The largest city in the Netherlands would be Apeldoorn 340 sq km compare Amsterdam 220 sq km). We really really really need reliable sources to make such calls for us. Arnoutf (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Area means everything. Population is how we define the size of the city, however this is entirely dependent on what we define as the area of the city. You are unlikely to find a reliable secondary source stating the largest city in the EU, because there is no universally accepted definition to what the size of a city is and therefore most sources state what is the largest 'city proper', 'urban area' or 'metropolitan area' to be clear.
According to Eurostat's larger urban zone concept, a consistent definition of metropolitan area, London has the largest metropolitan area population.
According to Demographia's World Urban Areas report, which uses a consistent definition of urban area, Paris has the largest urban area population.
These are certainly the two best sources for metropolitan area and urban area respectively, as they use consistent definitions, as oppose to complying multiple sources as most lists do. As far as I'm aware, these are the only two sources which use consistent definitions.
So, which is the larger city? Looking at the differences between metropolitan and urban area, I think it's pretty clear:

Urban Areas Contrasted with Metropolitan Areas:
An urban area (built-up urban area or urban agglomeration) is different from a metropolitan area. A metropolitan area is a labor market and includes substantial rural (non-urban) territory or area of discontinuous urban development (beyond the developed urban fringe). Urban areas draw employees from a labor market area larger than the area of continuous development.
–Demographia's World Urban Areas report.

Metropolitan areas includes rural areas, urban areas don't. Rural areas are obviously not part of a city. Subtropical-man, can you explain how metropolitan area is a better measure, or provide a source that says so? Rob (talk | contribs) 11:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I just don't understand how we can say London is the largest city in the EU simply because the countryside around London is more populated then the countryside around Paris. That says far more about the density of England and France then the size of London and Paris. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok so the source is the Demographia report - looking at that it does indeed list Paris as slightly larger than London. However, this raises a question. Demographia is a website from a public consultancy firm. Its methods are not easily found; and it is apparently not notable enough for Wikipedia to write an article about. In short I am not convinced that Demographia is as reliable a source as Eurostat which is the official statistics agency of the EU, and from which you should fairly easily get their methods for estimating populations. In other words this does not really convince me. Arnoutf (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

First: Demographia is not reliable source according to consensus in Wikipedia [2][3]. I was personally opposed to this consensus (I support this source but consensus is consensus). So, main source for Paris on Wikipedia not exist - can not be used.

Second: London is greater than Paris in both: city and metropolitan area. Of course, Rob make a mountain out of a molehill, but City of London with a population of 7,375 is not regarded by the world as a city, whole London (Greater London, administrative area and county) regarded by the world as a city and metropolis. Thousands of sources show whole London (Greater London) as simply "London", metropolis of global importance. Sorry Rob, but London has a population of 8,416,535, Paris only 2,243,833. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So for London we should use greater London (including suburbs) and not the city of London, while for Paris we SHOULD use the municipality of Paris but NOT greater Paris (including banlieus), that sounds rather arbitrary. Either we use the cities (which would be ridiculous for London) or we use the larger area (this is a good example why straightforward comparison across countries does not work). Arnoutf (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

London is metropolis, large city with a population of around 8 million. "City of London" (this is only official name) is small part of London. London (not "City of London") is a leading global city (with New York), London metropolitan area has a population of 13 million, this is not "City of London metropolitan area", London (not "City of London") is a world cultural capital. London (metropolis) and "City of London" is two different things. If the press, politicians, tourists, etc. etc. say or write word "London", they say/write about the metropolis because word of "London" means large city. But if someone writes about the core with a population of 7,375, they say/write the name of the "City of London" because this is official name of central part of London. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a fair point about Demographia.

According to the INSEE, Paris's 'unité urbaine' had a population of 10,516,110 in 2010.

According to the ONS, London's 'built-up area' had a population of 9,787,426 in 2011.

These are both measures of urban area.

The definitions used by the INSEE and ONS area almost identical:

The notion of urban unit is based on the continuity of built up land mass and the number of inhabitants. We call urban unity a municipality or a group of municipalities which includes a continuously built up zone (no cut of more than 200 meters between two constructions) and at least 2,000 inhabitants.
–INSEE

...the definition follows a ‘bricks and mortar’ approach, with areas defined as built-up land with a minimum area of 20 hectares (200,000 m2), while settlements within 200 metres of each other are linked. Built-up area sub-divisions are also identified to provide greater detail in the data, especially in the larger conurbations.
–ONS

Almost.

Claiming Paris, the largest urban area in the EU, has a population of 2,243,833, is laughable. The municipality of Paris has a population of 2,243,833. It would be entirely misleading for Wikipedia to claim Paris was the 5th largest city in the EU. I thought we had already established that the administrative limits of a city are not representative of its size...

Can we agree urban area is the most representative measure of the size of a city, even if we cannot find a reliable consistent source?

Rob (talk | contribs) 15:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision Monday, July 14, 2014; 11:36:31 AM:

2011 urban agglomeration population
Paris: 10,620,000
London: 9,005,000

Not sure about reliability.

Rob (talk | contribs) 15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

can not be compared INSEE's Paris's unité urbaine and ONS's London's built-up area but this is two various sources who showing two various (somewhat similar) things. Furthermore, one source - Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (even if is reliable) - not enough to define Paris as the largest city. London is largest metropolis with a population of 8 million and largest metropolitan area according to most sources. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree London has a larger metropolitan area, but metropolitan areas include rural settlements. I repeat, how can we claim London is larger then Paris because it has higher population within its satellite settlements? Do villages surrounding London's urban area make London a larger city? Really? No. They don't. Urban area is clearly a more accurate representation of the size of a city then both city proper and metropolitan area.

'Furthermore, one source - Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (even if is reliable) - not enough to define Paris as the largest city.' Can you provide a source that disputes this? Otherwise, it is enough to define Paris as having the largest urban area, and therefore as the largest city.

Rob (talk | contribs) 16:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

To put it simply, London is not the Greater London administrative area, nor is it the London metropolitan area. It is however, an urban area. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly: again, London is largest metropolis with a population of 8 million AND largest metropolitan area according to most sources. BOTH! BOTH! BOTH! Not only metropolitan area.

Secondly: Paris there are no reliable sources, one source is not enough.

Thirdly: there is no consensus for your new change. Please do not push own version without consensus. Also, according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE, all (this type) your controversial changes will be automatically reverted. Discussion is still ongoing and you try to do what you want. If you want new change - ok, first discussion with other users and consensus.

Fourthly: you can have a different opinion on a topic, you can be the opposite to the administrative limits and metropolitan areas and you can support urban area because Paris has larger urban area but this is only your opinion. Other users have a different opinion than you. In all infoboxes there is largest city, regardless of the size of agglomeration.

Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

People, this is going nowhere. If I can summarise: Eurostat lists London as slightly larger than Paris (11.9 M vs 11.5 M) United Nations does the opposite listing as Paris somewhat larger than London (10.6 M vs 10.3M).
Such differences may easily be the consequence of differences between countries, e.g. how urban planning etc is done. The urban area has some room for differences in definition, and it is not to us to decide which definition of a reliable source is better.

Eurostat seems somewhat more inclusive which favours London. Note that the difference is extremely small (that 0.3 and 0.4 M or about 5%) and may easily be within the margin for error.

In any case, what IS interesting is that in all cases London and Paris are almost equally large and twice the size of the next city (Madrid in the Eurostat list at 5.8 M).

From my point I can see several solutions:

(1) We remove largest city from infobox altogether

(2) We list both as the difference is "too small to matter"

(3) We list London as Eurostat is the EU's official statistics agency, and the UN is not. There really seems to be no reason to give UN preference over Eurostat.

Personally I think the last option is least suitable. Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

In all infoboxes there is "largest city", regardless of the size of urban area, agglomeration or metropolitan area. Rob came here and make a mess. London is largest metropolis with a population of 8 million. Urban area or agglomeration or metropolita areas is another matter. Largest city of Italy is Rome, infobox show Rome, largest urban area and metropolitan area of Italy is Milan, so? Nothing. Another example: largest city of Germany is Berlin, infobox show Berlin, largest urban area and metropolitan area of Germany is Ruhr area, so? Nothing. We will not change of standards of Wikipedia for... user:Rob984. Sorry. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

My view has always been that the difference is too insignificant to draw a conclusion as bold as either being the 'largest city'.

Arnoutf, please keep in mind that urban area (UN figures) is a different concept to metropolitan area (Eurostat figures). Metropolitan areas include rural areas and therefore by fact, include more then just city, as a city is urban by definition.

Subtropical-man, can you provide a source that claims London is a larger metropolis? A metropolis is a type of city or urban area, not a representation of it's size.

Rob (talk | contribs) 17:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference here is that there is no definition to what 'London' is. You are defining London as Greater London. London has no 'city proper' unlike Paris, Rome, Berlin, etc. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

at Subtropical Chimpanzee infobox does not have largest city. (neither does United Nations).

I have not seen the 8 Million number before, so a reliable source would be welcome; as well as justification that it is comparable to similar estimates for Paris.

"Mess up" - is clear violation of assumption of good faith. In my view Rob is rather blunt in his suggestions, but so are you (Subtropical). I have no doubt both of you want the best for the project, but what you are doing now is harming it.

at Both - Since different countries deal differently with cities we need a measure that makes comparisons possible. This measure will ALWAYS be imperfect. Either it excludes suburbs (and you would get the city of London which is a good example, as I hope you all agree listing London (city proper) at below 8000 inhabitants would be ridiculous), or it may include some rural areas. There is no single right solutions here. Arnoutf (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Greater London includes rural areas and villages that are most definitely not consider part of the capital. In regards to the Ruhr, it has multiple distinct cities within one urban area. If you divided the urban area up between the distinct cities, none would be larger then Berlin. In regards to Milan, I think that may have the same issue that we have here, however Milan and Rome do have 'city proper's to compare. London does not. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Greater London includes rural areas? Warsaw city in Poland also. Many cities includes rural areas (fields, forests) within administrative boundaries. So? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

some time ago Eurostat show London as largest city (Eurostat do not use the word metropolis, but the city), but now is dead link. Data by Eurostat exist in article of Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits. Users have to look for this source again. There are many other sources, for example: [4], [5], [6]. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

My first thought was that the content of this field should be consistent for all uses of the infobox and therefore discuss it at WikiProject countries.

There they say

• "If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country."

This is also a special case, in that this is really a different infobox that re-uses the country infobox because we largely want the same fields. Because of the issues involved with cross-country comparisons, data based on different years etc, after some reflection and reviewing the arguments made, I come to the conclusion that we should remove the field completely. It is now clear to me that "largest city" has a different meaning (similar to "capital") when talking about a single country (which is what the infobox was designed for). Ideally, we should change the template to reject the parameter for geopolitical organisations (i.e. depending on what infobox name is invoked), in order to avoid the drama that might result when some well-meaning editor sees that the parameter exists and thinks it would be helpful to fill in all the parameters. --Boson (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Another option is both: London and Paris in infobox. But sources show London as largest city of European Union, so - there is no need to remove or used double option "London & Paris". Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

One reliable source by the UNEP, published in 2005. As this is population, that's out of date. I'm sure there's many unreliable sources which claim the population of London is the population of the Greater London administrative area, but this isn't common by reliable sources, which will almost always state 'administrative limits' (or in London's case, 'Greater London') or 'urban area'.

I support removing the entry from the infobox. Comparing the administrative limits of cities in different countries is not helpful. I think the largest city should be determined by urban area, however you have a point that this isn't done at Italy's article, and possibly others.

Rob (talk | contribs) 18:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

except UNEP, also Eurostat (reliable source) show London as largest city. Need to find a new link because is dead. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Subtropical and Rob please stop editing and commenting on this article for a week. This is going nowhere and the amount of discussion between the two of you covers any suggestion by any other editor under a layer of bickering. Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

[[

File:Greater London UK location map.svg|x250px]]

Subtropical, as you can probably see from these maps contrasting the urban areas with the administrative divisions, the Paris department is more comparable to the City of London, or Inner London, then to the Greater London administrative area. And the Greater London administrative area is more comparable to the Ile-de-France region (also referred to as the Paris region in France). The departments of Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis and Val-de-Marne (the three surrounding the Paris department) have populations of around 1.5 million each, but are not cities in there own right. There inhabitants are very much Parisians.
As Arnoutf points out, cities administrative limits are not internationally comparable in any meaningful way. I would argue they are not even comparable within a country. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Rob984, the Greater London administrative area does not look as Ile-de-France region, half of area of Ile-de-France region is rural area, while Greater London has small part of rural/forest area on the edges, many cities in Europe and world has the same. Besides - we not interested your own original research, see Wikipedia:No original research. Such posts cluttering the discussion. By the way, calm down. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We do indeed need a reliable secondary source comparing Ile the France to Greater London (or department Paris to city of London) otherwise it would be original research. Rob - you can find separate bits of description that are individually reliably sourced but putting them together to arrive at a new conclusion is synthesis wp:synth, which is a form of original research - we really can not use that. Arnoutf (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Eurostat's new grid system (valid, I think, from 2011) is designed for comparability, so I would say we should (theoretically) use the figures for Greater London (UK001K2) and Greater Paris (FR001K1). The problem is that the figures for Paris do not seem to be available yet.

Alternatively, we could use the figures for the larger urban zones of Paris (FR001L1) and London (UK001L2), and provide an appropriate footnote.

--Boson (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest Eurostat data

Since the old link is dead, here are the results of a database query (database last updated 11 July 2014).

For the "larger urban zone", there are figures for both Paris and London for 2011. For the "greater city", the last figures for Paris are for 2006. I don't think we should use 2006 figures.

	Larger urban zone	Greater city	Greater city	City
Year	2011	2011	2006	2006
Paris	11,755.918	n/a	6,507.783 (estimated)	2,181.374
London	12,100.598	8,173,941	7,546.600	n/a

PS: We should not confuse the City of London with the city of London. --Boson (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As regards the comparability of figures, the Eurostat Methodological Manual on City Statistics (MS Word file) states:

Until recently, there was no harmonised definition of a city for European and OECD countries. This undermined the comparability, and thus also the credibility, of international comparative analysis of cities. To resolve this problem, the OECD and the European Commission developed a new definition of a city and its commuting zone in 2011. This new OECD-EC definition identified more than 800 cities with an urban centre of at least 50 000 inhabitants in the EU, Switzerland, Croatia, Iceland and Norway. Each city is part of its own commuting zone or a polycentric commuting zone covering multiple cities. These commuting zones are significant, especially for larger cities. The cities and commuting zones together are called Larger Urban Zones. For more than 30 urban centres stretching far beyond the city, a 'greater city' level was created to improve international comparability.

The Methodological Manual actually has maps showing Greater Paris and Greater London and the corresponding LUZs. --Boson (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm only going to repeat myself for the purpose of clarity, but... I don't think we can say London is larger then Paris based there commuter zones population because this includes, villages and other, separate rural settlements, which are clearly not part of London or Paris. This isn't original research. It's common sense. We do have a reliable, consistent, and somewhat accurate source for London and Paris's estimated urban area (ie, commuter zone, excluding rural settlements), UNDESA.

Eurostat's 'Greater City' concept looks ideal as it is described as a measure of the size of the city.

My opinion is, until there's a up-to-date Greater City figure for Paris, we have no source for the largest city. So remove the field. Alternatively, we continue debating what we think is the best source, regardless of the fact that they don't actually claim to measure the size of the cities.

Rob (talk | contribs) 18:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Common sense is at best original research, at worst it is pushing a personal point of view regardless of all evidence. That phrase is simply not one we can take serious in the discussion. The whole we think discussion is utterly irrelevant as any outcome of such discussion would be based in violation of several central Wikipedia policies.

There is a source in Eurostat, and while imperfect it seems the best we have to date. Please read, understand, accept and internalize WP:TRUTH and WP:OR before continuing this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How can you accuse me of not following those policies, while you continue to claim that we should use LUZ to estimate the size of the city, when the source states clearly that LUZ is the city AND its commuting zone?. I was making a point to counteract other editors original research, not to counteract a reliable source, or add anything to the article. I went on the state that we should not include anything without a clear source defining the size of these cities. You are the one suggesting we add original research to the article. There is no source for the size of these cities at present. Therefore we have no source for the largest city. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And there goes WP:AGF. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Rob, your problem is not understanding the topic. City is not synonym of area with 100% urbanization. The city does not mean the house next to the house, city is funcional entity. LUZ is good, well determine how big is the area and Eurostat is ideal source. In Australia also do not use term of "urban in 100%", cities in Australia are metropolitan areas. For example, Sydney is city with a population of 4,757,083 but really number this concerns metropolitan area (yes, with rural areas, forests etc). Do not change the fact that Sydney is city with a population of 4.7 million. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The source is pretty clear in that the 'Greater City' concept is a measure of the size of the city, while the LUZ concept is a measure of the city and commuting zone together. If anything, the source implies that LUZ is not a measure of the size of the city. I'm not saying a city is entirely urbanised. But the source clearly implies its 'Greater City' concept is a measure of the size of a 'city'. No other source claims this. You have no source for the size of both of these cities. You simply don't. You need a source that implies London is a larger city then Paris, not that London has a larger combined city and commuting zone. All the larger LUZ implies is that London has a larger combined city and commuting zone. See WP:SYNTHESIS. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So we now come to the conclusion there are no reliable sources that give city sizes based on comparable definition. If we agree on that we cannot even claim either Paris or London is larger than let's say Corleone; and hence the only outcome can then be to remove the largest city entry altogether. I can live with that. Arnoutf (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, don't worry, Rob's opinion is not the general opinion. Rob presented own opinion - ok, rest of users does not have to agree with it. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR clearly states 'Wikipedia articles must not contain original research'. Consensus is irrelevant here. The source contradicts your use of the data provided. You simply cannot compare the size of two cities using a concept that does not measure the size of cities. I'm failing to see how that is difficult to understand? Rob (talk | contribs) 22:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that black and white. Since we can – if necessary – alter the field heading and/or provide additional text or footnotes, there should be no problem providing information that is

• correct
• verifiable
• reliably sourced
• not original research.

For instance, in my opinion, without violating policy:

1. we can omit the information altogether in the infobox
2. we can state that London is (as of 2011) the largest "larger urban zone" (sourced to a single Eurostat database); and we can also give the actual population
3. we can state that London is/was (as of 2006) the largest "greater city" (sourced to a single Eurostat database); and we can also give the actual population
4. we can state that London and Paris are the two largest (greater) cities (slightly less well sourced and with more fuzziness and interpretation); we would need a footnote explaining that we are not using the new Eurostat definition of city (formerly "core city")
5. we can state that London and Paris are the two largest "larger urban zones".
6. we can state that Berlin is the largest city (as opposed to "greater city" or "larger urban zone")

So it comes down to editorial judgement and consensus. Editorial judgement should be informed by the preference for information that

• is consistent (with similar articles)
• is up-to-date
• is clear, unambiguous, and precise
• provides the information that the user expects.

--Boson (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with your summary here Boson. Actually your list of options gives my order of preference for this - Removing altogether seems to me the best way out of this mess and since other international political organisations (like UN) also do not list a largest city it should not be altogether unexpected to users. The latter options 4-6 bring in much more editorial judgement than the first 3, so I would be limit the discussion to the first 3 options, but that is my opinion Arnoutf (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, wow?!? Comparing the EU to the UN? EU is not organisation, EU operates on the principle of a federation of EU states, EU is closer to the countries eg. USA than to any organisations. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

EU may be disorganized, but it is an supranational organization. The EU is definitely not a federation (yet), although it has some elements of a confederation. While everybody agrees that the EU is unique in being somewhere between a country (esp a federal country like the US) or closer to an international organization like the UN the discussion whether it should be considered as either is long going and is not clear cut at all. Arnoutf (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no such thing as "or closer to an international organization like the UN". Also there is no such thing as 2+2=5. UN is international organization, EU not. EU has area, population, boundaries, parliament, citizenship and more, UN not. EU (political/economic entity) and UN (organisation) are two completely different things, different type. However, this is not a topic for this conversation. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed UN and EU are the same, but EU and a traditional country are also different (a country has embassies and provides legal support to its citizens when abroad, levies taxes, has a standing army, has a single customs system, etc etc). That is why the EU is somewhere in between a country and an international organization. But indeed this is not for here as there is already an endless discussion to this effect somewhere in the archives of this page. Arnoutf (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. First or second is good. Field can be modified to say 'Largest LUZ' or 'Largest larger urban zone'. 3rd option is too dated in my opinion. Cities can double in size in that time. Rob (talk | contribs) 10:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• I support 2nd and/or 3rd option. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 13:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• On balance, I slightly prefer option 1 (omit), but would also find option 2 (largest LUZ) quite acceptable. In either case, I would probably prefer to use to use Eurostat greater city data if and when Paris data for 2011 becomes available and shows one greater city being at least, say, 2.5% more populous than the other. If we don't omit the field, I think we would need a footnote or something to explain the definitions; sourcing is a bit problematic (I'm not too happy about linking to a Word document in an article or specifying how to navigate the database, so the reference would probably be a bit imprecise). --Boson (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

Moldova wants to join the European Union. One of the official EU candidate for joining = Moldova

also Ukraine wish to join European Union because they have the conflict between russia over Crimea and Euromaiden Roy Tripp (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But i want Ukraine and Moldova to join the European Union because i don't like Russia and Moldova and ukraine will do better with EU ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Tripp (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 October 2014‎ (UTC)

There is no place for speculation in the article. Countries can only be listed as candidates for membership if reliable sources are reporting on it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ranking issues

The right-most frame contains some rankings (GDP, and so on) considering the UE as a single entity. However, those rankings are twisted, because they contain Germany, Luxemburg, and other countries from the UE. For instance, if you have : 1. USA 2. Germany 3. France 4. UE UE should be 2nd because Germany and France belong to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.160.132 (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not completely sure what you mean; or what the abbreviation FAC stands for. GDP for example does give EU higher than Germany/France (either 1st or 2nd not lower). Per capita makes on the other sense that it is lower than many of its members, as that averages out the per capita GDP across different countries (so some will by definition higher than the average). As the EU is no country the comparisons are somewhat speculative, and we use sources that list both EU and its members separately as far as I know. Arnoutf (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant that in GDP comparisons, UE should not appear below one of its members. But I checked again, it appears that you must be right.

Criticism

I notice that the UN page has a criticism section and yet the EU page doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.237.107 (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Criticism sections --Boson (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Also see the frequently asked questions for this page (see the link near the top of this talk page). Arnoutf (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

finland is NOT in the european union 72.213.134.87 (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Joined in 1995. Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The map and its symbols

Hi, am I the only one who finds the map under section Geography, subsection Member states a bit un-pedagogic? Or rather, not so much the map itself as the symbols used to represent the countries. These are presented in the form of small coats of arms, but not all EU member states do actually have an official coat of arms from what I can gather (e.g. France) and in some cases it seems a bit fuzzy as to what it really represents (e.g. Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom). Perhaps it would be more pedagogical to replace them with little flags or something? Any ideas? Also, I noticed that the typeface used is different from the rest of the article, and while this is more or less a question of taste, it disturbs my sense of order ;) Yakikaki (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Yakikaki, this map is quite inappropriate. In the first place coats of arms are ill-suited to represent countries, and the physical map is too fuzzy for this subject. Also, Spain's coat of arms is wrong, the pillars of Hercules are missing, so the I suspect the whole map is also not correct at all. I'd rather change it for a different figure, much simpler. Iagocasabiell (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I cant personally understand why the arms are being used. Just a map with the states named would be clear and easier to read. Murry1975 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, so let's replace it. Is anyone here handy with the graphics part of Wikipedia? I can do it if I can find the time, but it would be better if someone who has more experience of working with images could help out. All I can do is put a plain map there, without any fancy stuff like clickable country names. Yakikaki (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Rob984 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this was really necessary to be honest. Most countries of the EU have some form of Arms (be they official or semi-official) and I thought it was an attractive and unique way of displaying the countries within the boundaries of the European Union. It looks rather bland and boring now. - H (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "coats of arms are ill-suited to represent countries"? Most passports depic coats of arms, and heraldry has been much longer than flags for symbolising European countries. The typeface is irrelevant, and headlines have serifs e.g.- Ssolbergj (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not restore the old map. It makes the EU look like an island, the borders aren't clearly visable (eg Ireland–UK, Spain–Portugal, France–Italy), and it shows historical symbols of countries (eg the Arms of the Kingdom of France, and the Kingdom of Italy). It also doesn't conform to the 2012 location map convention, widely used across Wikipedia. Adding flags or other contempoary symbols to the current map is possible. Rob984 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the new map is an improvement in any way. Template:Heraldic map of the European Union should be restored IMO. Any grown up person would understand that EU isn't an island, and that neighbouring countries simply are omitted (i.e. prioritising space for the EU itself instead of the Atlantic Ocean and Russia). This is exactly the same format as used for the long-standing map seen in the article of Germany (left hand side). All the coats of arms shown are contemporary, and no, those are of course not the arms of the French and Italian monarchies. Topographic details as shown in the heraldic map is a clear advantage IMO. I haven't heard of a rule saying that all maps on Wikipedia need follow a specific convention, and please cite this rule if it exists. In fact Template:German Federal States and Template:Oblasts of Ukraine are two of several examples of heraldic maps on wikipedia. Outside Wikipedia, heraldic maps (from Carta Marina to present day) represent a European cartographic tradition. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how removing context on a map is helpful. Border clarity is an issue. Italy doesn't have a coat of arms. The only coat of arms of the French Republic hasn't been seen in what, 50 years? Is that really a recongnisable symbol of France? I don't feel like it represents my country.

WP:ICONDECORATION states:

"Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. Where icons are used for layout purposes only, consider using bullet points as an alternative."

There is a relief map that is far more suitable then the one used in the old map. I don't really see the need however. This article is about a politico-economic union. I stuggle to see the relevence of the topography of its member states. There is an article on the Geography of Europe...

I removed the huge map of Germany adjacent to Yakikaki's comment per talk page guidelines. If you want to discuss an image, link to it or insert it into your own comment.

Rob984 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Rob984 and all those above supporting the current map. The point of the map is to inform readers about the geographic location of the member states of the EU, not to decorate. The heraldic map does a much poorer job informing due to the reasons listed above (lack of visible borders/no geographical context/distracting usage of rarely used symbols that will not be recognized by most readers/including topology). Such a map might be appropriate on an article such as Coats of arms of Europe, but not here. TDL (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe the coat of arms map is ill suited as an illustration mainly because several EU countries do not have a coat of arms, e.g. France and Italy. In the case of France, the "emblem" on the map is purely non-official. In the case of the UK, you will furthermore notice that there are different versions of the coat of arms in Scotland and the rest of the country, and formally it is the coat of arms of the queen, not the country. In other words, using coats of arms can certainly be a beautiful way of representing a country but never a very straightforward one. In this context, it would create a mix of symbols of quite different status, which should then need some explanation. In this case I therefore argue that it would be better to opt for the simpler version. The coats of arms, emblems and other symbols of EU countries are better placed elsewhere, where they can be given a proper context. Yakikaki (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Overseas map

I just wanted to leave these two links as examples of possible better maps of EU overseas holdings if someone decides to add one into the article again:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EU_OCT_and_OMR_map_en.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ZEE-UE.svg

I prefer the first one. I would like to see such a map in the infobox, cause i think it is important to display the overseas territories. Anyway i dont know if other editors agree. In the US page there is a map of their territories. User:Barjimoa — Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Both maps present the EU as a colonial empire, while in fact the overseas territories represent an almost negligible part of the EU in terms of inhabitants, surface area and economic relevance.

In addition, why should we picture overseas territories that are NOT part of the EU in the EU infobox. Those few overseas territories that are indeed part of the EU are already coloured on the current map. So I do not see any benefits of either map.

Finally the second map has French captions which need to be translated before it can be used here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look here: http://eeas.europa.eu/oct/index_en.htm

And take a look here: http://www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/europe/activities/overseas/

So the EU actually includes Outermost regions (full part of the EU) and has special relationship with its Associated Overseas countries and territories that are Overseas territories of four of his member states.

Finally this image is from a wiki page about it:

[[

File:EU OCT and OMR map en.png|thumb|center|800px|Map of the European Union in the world (with overseas countries and territories (OCT) and outermost regions (OMR)).]]

I think it is important to include that in the infobox. User:Barjimoa. — Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Outermost regions are already shown on the map. Associated areas are NOT part of the EU. Maybe worthwhile to depict somewhere but definitely NOT in the infobox which should summarise only things of key importance. Regions NOT part of the EU can be definition not be of key importance to the topic. Arnoutf (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The EU has no own territory as it is no sovereign state. So it cannot be said simply, that some specific area is "part or not part of the EU". The EU is a legal construct made of various treaties. There is only a territorial scope of the Treaties of the EU, which have different applicability in different areas. And this is what the map shows. --Alexrk2 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

it cannot be said simply, that some specific area is "part or not part of the EU"

Yes it can. The EU has a clearly definied territorial extent:

The Overseas countries and territories are areas under the sovereignty of a member state that are not part of the EU, as specified in the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community.

The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not part of the EU, as specified in the Treaty of Accession 2003.

The Faroe Islands are not part of the EU, as specified in the Treaty establishing the European Community.

All the territory under the sovereignty of a member state is considered part of the EU, unless a treaty specifies otherwise.

Rob984 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, some treaties of the European Union apply to areas not indicated on that map, such as Turkey, Norway and Iceland. Rob984 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Infact, there is not a single part of the EU that is not visable on the current map. Rob984 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is, that we cannot make "that" one map of the EU territory in the same way as a map of a sovereign state. Cause their is no such thing like a "sovereign territory" of the EU. So if we want to map the extend of the EU, we have to be careful what we are showing on the map and what definition we use. It is not that simple. For example Saint-Martin is under the scope of the Article 355 (Treaty on European Union) but since 2007 no more an integral part of France. So, if you want, Saint-Martin is "part of the EU", but it is not shown on any official map of the EU commission. --Alexrk2 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: on the current map in the infobox it is not really clear, what areas are highlighted. I think that might be OK. But I would suggest to add a more detailed map inside the articel, that uses inset maps for the overseas areas. Like: this or this --Alexrk2 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Saint-Martin is still an integral part of French Republic, and still part of the EU. It's not shown in some EU commission documentation because its status was previously unclear. This has been clarified since I believe. Doesn't really imply that the EU's extent is unclear. Not really suprising that the change in the status of a territory of a state would lead to some confusion. Rob984 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Azores and Madeira lack any special status and the Canaries have VAT exception (as do other regions within Europe). I'm not sure why these need emphasising. The French territory could be added as inserts on European Union.svg, with labels added. Rob984 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly adjust the map under #Member states to show the Azores, Madeira and the Canaries, and add inserts with the French territories? Rob984 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Saint-Martin is no more an integral part of France (as a Départements et régions d’outre-mer) since the referendum of independence in 2007. Along with Saint-Barthélemy it switches its status to a Collectivité d’outre-mer. Saint-Barthélemy becomes an OCT (Council Decision 2012/0024) but Saint-Martin stays to its former EU-status. On the other hand Mayotte becomes an Départements et régions d’outre-mer in 2011 (added to EU maps since that time), but becomes an EU outer most region not until 2014. The maps mentioned above show the same as the maps from the EU commission (I think this is equal to areas with an EU NUTS code) - means: "EU territory" as integral parts of EU member states. Which is not necessarily the same as the scope of Article 355. The both maps mentioned above are up to date and we (TUBS and me) usually trying to keep them up to date. --Alexrk2 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no French territory that isn't an integral part of France. Regardless, I don't like those maps. The Azores, Madeira, and Canaries do not need to be shown like that. And those maps make the outermost regions look like seperate member states. Rob984 (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is, that Saint-Martin as a Collectivité d’outre-mer has a autonomous status compared to a Départements of France. The map we used today in de:Wiki is the result of various discussions. As I said, I know, that there might be different views. But I think, that a complete map of the EU should represent these outer areas. As a map of the United States should also show Hawaii. Yes maybe it should be noted on the insets to which countries these areas belong. --Alexrk2 (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Before we continue with this discussion about the quality of this specific map, I think we should first think where in the article the map (if at all) should be placed. The relevance/quality of an image/map can only be decided in the context of its usage. There are some sections with maps:

1. Introduction/infobox. The proposed map is unsuitable for the introbox as such a map should be readable in small format (about 200 px) and this map cannot be shrunk to that size while being anything close to useful.

2. History. This is an animated map showing expansion in Europe; it would not be useful there in my opinion

3. Geography / Member states. I can imagine that this sections showsoverseas areas. However recognisability of each member state is essential. The map in that section is already big. Replacing it with the current map would make the member states unrecognizable, so we would to add adding this one, which in my view would bloat the section unrealistically.

4. Economy. Another place where a map with overseas areas may fit. But since that section discusses subnational regions, the map should have sufficient detail within Europe to make it readable.

5. Eurozone. That map is small, and more illustrative than comprehensive. So I would not change that.

So my main question is: Where in the article would this go, and what map would it replace? Arnoutf (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We do not need another map to show 6 French territories. The map under Member states could be modified to show the rest of Portugal and Spain, plus the French territories in inserts. Rob984 (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should not add more maps. Also indeed the member states map seems the best candidate. Can we please not pollute it with coats of arms, flags or other visual distraction? Arnoutf (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

First of all, sorry if i am not able to speak a fluent and correct english.

1) I would like to change or delete this part: If it were a country the EU would come first in GDP. It is true that The EU is not a country and therefore a "sui generis entity". But it is also true that the EU actually HAS the largest economy in the world among the world's economies. The EU has its own economy because it has a single market, a single economic union etc.. That's why the IMF calculates its GDP, even if this economy cannot be considered a national economy. Also The European Union "is" an economy because it has an economic Union, a big difference between the EU and simple international organizations or continents etc...

2)In the section "FORMATION" in the Infobox there are five treaties or something. There should be only Two treaties: The Treaties of the EU: The Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Maastricht. That's because the first one founded the European community, which is considered by the Treaty of Lisbon to be fully replaced and succeeded by the EU. And the Treaty of Maastricht gives the current name to the European Union and founded it. In addition they are both the treaties used and valid. The treaty of lisbon amended those two fundamental treaties. The treaty of Paris is not the original beginning of the European Union (the European coal and steel community is over and was not succeded by the EU). The EC, not the ESC or Euratom, anticipates and was succeded and replaced by the EU according to the treaty of Lisbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogurto (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Largest City in the table

London and PARIS????

Every Union-European knows that:

• the largest city for population are
  • 1) London (8,5 mil)
  • 2) Berlin (3,6 mil)
  • 3) Madrid (3,3 mil)
  • 4) Rome (2,9 mil)
  • 5) Paris (2,2 mil)

• the largest city for areas are:
  • 1) London (1.572 kmq)
  • 2) Rome (1.285 kmq)
  • 3) Berlin (892 kmq)
  • 4) Madrid (607 kmq)

• the largest city for population of urban area are

• • 1) London (14 mil)
  • 2) Paris (10 mil)
  • 3) Madrid (6,2 mil)
  • 4) Milan (5,3 mil)
  • 5) Barcelona (4,7 mil)

• the largest city for population of metropolitan region are:

• • 1) Greater London Authority (21 mill),
  • 2) Paris (12 mil.)
  • 3) Rihne-Ruhr (12 mil)
  • 4) Milan (9 mill)
  • 5) Randstad (7 mill)
  • 6) Madrid (6,5/7 mil)

--8Sirlo6 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the past discussion first. You can not compare cities across EU countries as the division is different every where. In fact Greater London is not a city but a county / administrative area. The CITY of London only has about 7000 inhabitants. That is why we decided, based on a number of formal EU sources to use Larger Urban Zones a measure specifically designed to make cities comparable across countries. This will all become clear to you if you take the time to read the past discussion on this topic on this talk page and its archives.

In addition, the claim everyone knows is definitely NOT a reliable source. If you can provide an high quality source that (1) reports inhabitants for major cities across Europe (2) Adequately controls for institutional differences between countries in subdividing larger conurbations in multiple municipalities/cities, we can discuss. Without such source your proposal has no value whatsoever. Do your homework before barging in on a carefully constructed consensus.Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ok, the question is another also: only London is first in every type of ranking, while the other cities are in high positions, who for population of metropolitan area, who for city proper population, who for area… could we addeds other cities inserting: Largest cities: London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Rome, Milan, Barcelona, Naples, Athens, Lisbon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8Sirlo6 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but between Londyn, Paris and the rest of the cities there is an abyss. Londyn and Paris are the only megacities in EU. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ok, if we speak about megacity (over 10 million people in the urban area) only London and Paris (like in the USA only New York and Los Angeles). But if we consider the extension of area of urban areas, Paris with all its urban area is more small than Rome, Madrid and Berlin. I have been in all these cities, Paris is more populous but is more small. According to me, we could adds 5 cities in total: London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin and Rome.--8Sirlo6 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Largest population centres in the European Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8Sirlo6 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Paris urban area has a population of 11 million, Rome - 3.8 million, Madrid 6.2 million, Berlin 4 million, so. Paris metropolitan area has area of 12,012 km2. I do not see any arguments to put Berlin, Rome, Madrid in the same basket as London and Paris. You compare the German Shepherd with a dachshund. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

According Eurostat Rome has a metropolitan area of 4,5/5 million and about 5.500 km2, Berlin 5,1 million and Madrid 6,5 million..and here we talk about City (comune, authority, land, ville, ayutamineto + urban area) and NOT metropolitan area. but it is not a problem!--8Sirlo6 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

8Sirlo6, to size of metropolis never counted the area, always by population. There is no doubt: London and Paris are two clearly the largest metropolises in EU. We do not add rest cities (i.e. Berlin, Madrid etc) to infobox. Please stop wasting time other users. The discussion can only relate to the removal of Paris as a continuation of the previous discussion: Talk:European_Union#Largest_city. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In my coutry "largest city" are the metropolis 1) for population 2) for administrative area (km2) 3)for agglomeration population and area 4) for metropolitan region population and area 5)for economic, cultural and religious influence. as it regards these cities, Westminister is London (administrativly Greater London), and Versailles is Versailles and not Paris (Paris is Paris and Ile de France is Ile de France). Then if we want to climb us on the mirrors, and to take then every data type it'ok, but the city of Paris is not the "villes" of its urban crown. However I have already said that it's not a problem, for me you are able to leave the page in this way, and however if you don't want "to waste time", you can take another choice: that of not to answer (nobody forces yourself to answer to me). Salut--8Sirlo6 (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of the EU

We should not call the EU a "confederation" as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. It is not supported by the sources given, and a confederation is not a supercategory but a category distinct from a federal state and distinct from other associations of states. The landmark decision by the German Constitutional Court calls it a Staatenverbund (association of states) as distinct from a Staatenbund (confederation of states) and a Bundesstaat (federal state). The EU itself appears to carefully avoid the term, preferring words like "union" or "community", though there is at least one resolution by the European Parliament (admittedly pre-Lisbon) specifically stating in the preamble that the EU is not a confederation. For consensus and a long list of previous discussions, see Talk:European Union/Archive 27#Definition of the European Union. I have partially reverted. --Boson (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boson here, "confederation" is a sensitive word in this context. The EU itself simply uses "union", which I think could be used with a note pointing towards the discussion later in the article on the constitutional nature of the EU. Yakikaki (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014

Grey side box: Largest cities are London and Berlin (not London and Paris)

78.55.168.133 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read above description why this is due to definition of city scope and not actual size of what is colloquially considered a city. And if we want to stick to strict definitions of cities, the city of London only has about 7000 inhabitants (greater London is not even a city according to UK definition and has been granted a special position). Arnoutf (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per comment above. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Largest cities

I am just wondering why both Paris and London are listed as the largest cities. According to Wikipedia, the population of Paris in 2013 was 2,273,305 and London 8,615,246. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisome (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Read above discussion. France and the UK deal differently with the conurbation around their capitol making the sizes of these cities incomparable (in fact the status of London is rather ambiguous as the "city" of London has only population 7000 and greater London consists of multiple population centers). Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I knew about Greater London but wasn't aware of the ambiguity with Paris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.96.75 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

France has opted for Paris like Greece for Athens to keep the city relatively small with many semi-independent suburbs. Italian and German governments have added such suburbs to the city proper. London is a special case as it is somewhere in the middle. The suburbs are neither really independent, nor are they formally included in the city; in that London is the only truly ambiguous situations. In any case the different approaches make comparisons as good as impossible. Arnoutf (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Leaders

The leaders of EU are two (commision and council) of the seven presidents. See EU representatives in G7. --IM-yb (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

[7] RArchiv (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Sam ^Sing! 12:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The lead states the EU is a "union of 28 member states". Isn't "member" redundant? Ie, does "union of 28 states" not convey the same amount of information? Or "union of 28 sovereign states"? A union by definition is composed of "members" right? Rob984 (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I see your point but, to me, "member" adds something, because "states" could be understood as federated or constituent states or "sovereign states"; "member" conveys something in-between, the states being independent members of an international organization, though their sovereignty is "pooled" (but not to the same extent as constituent states of a federal state, which are not internationally recognized sovereign states). --Boson (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Boson; also, the term "member state" is used so frequently in both political and academic contexts that there may be a point in itself in using the term like this, to so to speak signal this usage. It is for the same reason I usually object to describing the EU in the lead as a "federation" or "confederation" and so on; these terms have a bit of an independent life within an EU context and may signify a political statement. In the case of "member state" though, I think its reasonably uncontroversial and a good way of using the common nomenclature. Yakikaki (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it comparable to saying "a federation of 28 federated states"? I realise "member states" is a common term but given the context I would prefer "union of 28 sovereign states"; which is also clearer on the sovereignty of the states as well. Rob984 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we have a couple of problems within the lead section.

1)Actually he term "Member state" can be considered very controversial as well as "state" because it is used for members of normal international organisation. (E.G. Member states of the UN). In fact As a consequence, most wikipedia articles (not centred on the EU) consider the EU an international organization such as the Council of Europe or NATO or ASEAN. I think we may resolve the problem By saying "The EU is a political union consisting of 28 member states primarily located in Europe."

2)The term "politico-economic union" is weird. I think that The EU can be simply described as a political union. The term Political union implies an economic union. The official website of the EU describes the Treaty of Maastricht as a move "From Economic to Political Union". What exactly is a politico-economic union? Every political union (a state or a federation or a confederation) has within it a total or partial economic union. Also saying only political union is much better because the EU lies between a federation and a confederation, and both federations and confederations can be simply described as political unions. Yogurto (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm not entirely sure about what the addition of "consisting" clarifies, I support the suggestions by Yogurto. As for "political" I think it is better than "politico-economic", but the main reason I would argue is because not all member states are part of the eurozone. (I would argue that the EU is less than a confederation and nowhere near a federation, but I still think one has to consider the EU to be a political union first and foremost.) Yakikaki (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Using Consisting (or a similar term) gives to me the idea that we are talking about a political entity that exists because it is composed by states. It is like saying that the basic unit of the EU is the state, not the EU itself. It clarifies that the EU, being a state-like entity is not a unitary state-like entity but a federal state-like entity (or even as Yakikaki (talk) suggests a confederation-like entity.) I have noticed that the term "consisting" is used in the US page. If we do this, we can keep using the term 'member states" which is usually used for pure and simple international organizations. In this sense "consisting of" gives the idea of something supranational, while "member states" gives the idea of something intergovernmental. Or Maybe it's just me :D

BTW I reaffirm the idea to use "Political Union" instead of a very technical and long term such as "Politico-economic union". Political union is a very general term, used in the website of the EU and that we can use to describe the EU correctly without any doubt.

Yogurto (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The statement

• "Political union is a very general term, used in the website of the EU . . ."

is somewhat misleading.

The term "potitical union" is used in two senses

1. as a compound noun with an indefinite article, as in "the EU is a political union" or "towards a political union"
2. without an indefinite article, with the abstract noun "union" expressing a process (similar in meaning to "unification"), modified by an adjective expressing the nature of that process, as in "further political union"

As I understand it, the EU on its Web site (and until now Wikipedia in this article) has avoided using "political union" in the first sense to describe the current situation. :It has used it in the first sense to describe a goal, and in the second sense to describe a process (further political union).

It is possible to hold the view that the EU is already a political union, if one does not define a political union as one in which substantially only one internationally recognized sovereign polity remains, but this does require both negating that definition and asserting that the EU has achieved the status required by an alternative definition. Though this viewpoint is valid, it is not, in my opinion, a neutral view that can permissibly be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Stating that the EU has achieved a degree of political union is a completely different use of the word.

--Boson (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Rob984 is right. Better without word of "member". Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

My english is horrible but i am going to describe better what i meant. It is true that generally the Web site avoids to define the EU. Anyway i have seen the term "political union" being used, while the term Politico-economic union does not appear in any occasion (intsead of it i have seen one time the term Political and economic partnership). Here it is what appears in the web site (quoting): "From economic to political union: What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organisation spanning policy areas, from development aid to environment. A name change from the EEC to the European Union (EU) in 1993 reflected this."

Right Now in wiki we are Saying "The EU is a Politico-economic union". This basically means "The EU is a political and economic union". What i am suggesting is to remove the "economic" part because an economic union is included in a political union. This is truer in the EU because the Single market, etc... are part of the polity of the EU and are subject to Law (the EU law). As the Web site says, the EU began as an economic union but has evolved into a political union. This does not mean that the EU is necessarly a supranational union or a federation or a confederation. It just means that the EU is a political entity (particularly a political union of course) etc...

Also The "Further political union" used in the web site accepts the idea that right now there is a political union. But again, even the current lead accepts the idea that the EU is a political union. I just want to remove the word "economic " and leave the more general term "political union". Also the economic union has different stages of integration very clear to see, so britain is not in the same degree of economic union as germany but surely it is in the same political union. Britain may not have the Euro but it has to be part of the European Council for example. Britain may not be in the Schengen area but the Commission is the commission of the entire Union including Britain. Yogurto (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In the political discourse, sometimes it is true that politicians or analysts may say "We want the EU to become a political union", but i am pretty sure that whay they mean is "federation" or "supranational union" and not simply political union, because the EU already is a political entity. Yogurto (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best is "European Union (EU) is a politico-economic entity that are located primarily in Europe". Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is really tricky. Boson's point about that a political union is the goal of the EU is worth taking into consideration. If we are to avoid the term "political union" on that ground, that would then, logically and as Yogurto points out, rule out also the use of "politico-economic" as it implies political as well as economic union. The question is then of course with what to replace it... I'm not sure, "entity" may be a solution, as Subtropical-man suggests? "Partnership" sounds really weird in any case. I'm not sure, but I have the impression that the buzzword sui generis was used in the wiki definition at some point; there may perhaps be something to it? ("A sui generis union of 28 member states" or something along those lines?) Yakikaki (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The map and table

Someone did something to the map and table that I don't understand and now it looks quite bad on my screen: the map is to the left, still, but the table is not next to it but under it and to the right and in between there's a large white space. It looks bad, can someone with more editing skills than me fix it? Thanks, Yakikaki (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I've now reverted the edit that caused it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Now reverted back again - awaiting some explanation from Subtropical-man. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Map and table in one line is too wide, display correctly only in high resolutions. I checked specifically, bad displays in 1280 and below, the table good displays from resolution of 1360px. This is not acceptable, map and table in one line too wide. Map and table below is better. Yakikaki, I correct it - now table is to the left, as map above (previously was a mistake: map on left and table below on right). Alternatively, the table can be reduced by removing the column of "capital" and "accession", this data exist in Member state of the European Union and in main article is unnecessary. Removal of these two columns is smaller width of the table, so - is also an option. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! It looks decent enough now, I think. Yakikaki (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Largest economic union?

In the lead of the article it states that the EU As of 2014 the EU has the largest economy in the world, generating a GDP bigger than any other economic union or country. The stated GDP in the Infobox is $18.399 Trillion in 2014. NAFTA however has a listed GDP of $20.162 trillion in 2013. Unless this article is claiming that NAFTA took a almost $2 Trillion hit in 2014 the idea that it is bigger than any other economic union seems to be wrong. Comparing it to countries in this case seems inappropriate since the EU is not a country so it seems like this brag point should be removed entirely. Drewder (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(1) NAFTA is a trade block and not an integrated economic union like the EU (2) The EU has properties of a countries (e.g. free trade and free labour) which makes comparisons to countries at least somewhat relevant. We have been over this many, many times. Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

By that logic is there any economic union in the world other than the EU? If not than the term has no meaning.Drewder (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is the only union listed on GDP by IMF and world bank, so it probably is the only non-nation state economic union in the world right now. Why that has no meaning is unclear to me though. As far as I know Japan is the only empire ruled by an emperor right now, that does not say the term emperor of Japan has no meaning. Arnoutf (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason it has no meaning is saying it is the largest member of a group of one is meaningless. It is also the smallest member, the most democratic, the most fascist, the most peace loving, the most warlike, et cetera. A bit like saying the sun is the largest star in the solar system. --Drewder (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It does not say it is the largest economic union, it says it is the largest economy. There are more economies (e.g. the US economy) - so we are not talking about a group of 1. (PS this has been discussed in depth many many many times before and every time the discussion was somewhat like now, always ending with the decision to keep it in) Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Malta

Malta is one of the member states of EU. All member states of EU used standard Europe/EU map. Currently there is discussion about change map for infobox of Malta, from standard map to Southern Europe-Africa map. Discuss is here. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WTF

I think there's a mistake at largest cities.

Berlin is much bigger than Paris ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.110.228 (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And London only has about 7500 inhabitants. This is coming up many, many times. City sizes are not comparable across the EU as different government deal differently with subdividing large cities (all suburbs of Berlin are part of Berlin, all suburbs of Paris are independent, almost all of London (except for the medieval city) is a separate municipality). Therefore we use alternative, comparable, numbers proposed by Eurostat. Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there even a need to put the two largest cities, rather than simply the largest city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.11.181 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Year the EU was founded

Under the "Environment" section, the first sentence leads off with "In 1957, when the EU was founded, ...." The Wikipedia article, "Treaty of Rome" tells us that this document, establishing the European Economic Community, was signed 25 March 1957 and effective 1 January 1958. This article itself uses the date 1 January 1958 as one of the dates of formation (the Treaty of Maastricht being the other). Wouldn't it be more consistent to change this year in the Environment section to 1958?

Emerald Evergreen 20:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Beck (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2015

I noticed an error in this document under the Culture section:

Acropolis and Colosseum, symbols of the Graeco-Roman world. Athens (Greece) and Florence (Italy) were the first European Capitals of Culture.

The Colosseum is not in Florence it is Rome.

198.200.113.240 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Mm. The picture caption read "Acropolis and Colosseum, symbols of the Graeco-Roman world. Athens (Greece) and Florence (Italy) were the first European Capitals of Culture." So that didn't explicitly state that the Colosseum is in Florence, but it certainly gave that impression. I've removed the second sentence.

Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070423082000/http://www.cfr.ro:80/JF/engleza/0304/ten-t.htm to http://www.cfr.ro/jf/engleza/0304/ten-t.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070217070732/http://www.mercator-central.org:80/newsletter/newsletter29.htm to http://www.mercator-central.org/newsletter/newsletter29.htm#2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080405065450/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/europe/eu-celebrates-its-50th-birthday--with-a-row-about-religion-440976.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/eu-celebrates-its-50th-birthday--with-a-row-about-religion-440976.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091219175535/http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/emblems/emblemes.asp to http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/emblems/emblemes.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead section: use of bullet points

The lead section of this article is quite densely written. I propose re-formatting the first paragraph to list the 7 key institutions with bullet points, rather than contiguous prose, as I think this will make the section easier to read.

Another editor has stated that "Bulleted list in the lead paragraph isn't appropriate", but I note the following guidance from the Manual of Style: "Bullet points should be minimized in the body and lead of the article, if they are used at all; however, a bulleted list may be useful to break up what would otherwise be a large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers."

I therefore welcome other editors' views on this point. (Pinging recent editors: @Rob984, Barjimoa, Mightymights, Dailycare, Danlaycock, Omnisome, and Arnoutf:)

Slugfilm (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the lead paragraph is not ideal, but I don't think a bullet list is a good solution. I think the main issue is that we explain how the union is governed, before even conveying what it is. Instead, I think the 7 institutions should mentioned in a new paragraph with a some explanation of their functions, and the lead and second paragraph should cover the elements of the EU, such as the single market, customs union, monetary union, common citizenship, etc. The third paragh could cover governance (7 institutions, etc), fourth history, and last could remain the same, but with the addition of foreign policy. This would largely just require reordering existing content. Rob984 (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree a new lead is needed. Here is my proposal. Something like this.

The European Union (EU) is a political union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe. It covers an area of 4,324,782 km, with an estimated 508,191,116 million inhabitants. The EU is a multinational and multicultural union, with Brussels serving as its the de facto capital and 24 languages being recognised as official. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State is also a European Citizen and has additional rights such as the possibility to vote in European Parliament elections and the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the Union.

The EU operates through a system of supranational institutions and intergovernmental-negotiated decisions by the member states. The institutions are: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the Court of Auditors. The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens, etc.. etc.

In my opinion the third paragraph is the paragraph where we can include informations about the economic union, the customs union and the single market. The fourth paragraph could be about history. Another idea is to have history in the third paragraph and informations about economic, union, single market etc.. in the fourth paragraph.

The last paragraph is ok as it is now. But the beginning would be Representing 7.3% of the world population. In fact, it is better to include the information about 508 million inhabitants at the beginning of the article and not at the end of it. Barjimoa (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with your general idea, having the lead paragraph as a summary of the characteristics of the union as a single entity. But I don't know where you going with "multinational and multicultural union" and "Every person holding the nationality of a Member State is also a European Citizen and has additional rights...". The latter is essentially just describing the single market. Rob984 (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean "something like this" without including exaclty the same words. I think that the following things should be in the first paragraph: population, area, Brussels as the de facto capital, the official languages, the existence of the EU law and European citizenship. Since the European Court of justice described the common citizenship as " the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States" i think it is appropriate to include the European citizenship in the first paragraph. In relation to this, my idea is to rapidly quote not only free movement rights but also political rights afforded by the citizenship (e.g. right to vote). My idea is to have another paragraph covering the EU as an economic Union/single market/customs union while the first one covers the general aspects of the European Union. By doing this, we can also eliminate the word economic from "The European Union is a political and Economic Union", and leave only "The European Union is a political Union...". Because a political union is obviously also an economic union but also many other things. Rob984, what is your idea for the first paragraph and for the following paragraphs?Barjimoa (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, what I will say is: I don't think the aims and principles of the union are what we should be conveying. It has existed for nearly 60 years. I think we should convey what is, in practice, the European Union.

You raise a good point, a political union is an economic union. "political union" alone is problematic as this usually refers to forming a state. It could be argued that is what the EU now is, but to be clear, we should probably refer to it as a "multinational political union" or similar.

That said, I still think the lead paragraph should principally refer to, and briefly describe, the economic elements of the EU. The EU was originally only an economic union, and is still primarily focused on economic issues. I propose something like:

The European Union (EU) is a multinational political union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe. It covers an area of 4,324,782 km², with an estimated 508,191,116 million inhabitants. The EU allows for the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital, the enactment of legislation in justice and home affairs, and the development of common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries, and regional development. It operates through a system of supranational institutions in which decisions are negotiated by the member states; and a standardised system of laws that apply in all member states is used to implement policies through directives and regulations. 19 member states also form a monetary union, using the euro as their legal tender.

The institutions are: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the Court of Auditors. The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens. [further detail on institutions]...

Rob984 (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Accession column in member state table does not sort properly

Seems to be sorting alphabetically, not by date. Some suggestions at Help:Sorting#Date_sorting_problems - Rod57 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the option. But the listing as Founder seems to play havoc. We might be able to trick the sorting by adding non visible rank order (01----) etc. Arnoutf (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it working, albeit using a workaround. I added the invisible code <span style="display:none">19950101</span> to all relevant cells. Which includes a date stamp that uniquely increases with date by combining YYYYMMDD. This works even with the FOUNDER text and Germany footnote. A more elegant solution would be great; so feel free. Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Budget

Hello, just edited the Budget section to correct the incorrect claim that the EU accounts haven't been signed off since 1993. In fact the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has signed them off every year since 2007 so I've edited accordingly and referenced the European Commission and the ECA itself as sources. Antonine (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove Paris from 'Largest Cities'

I would like to strongly suggest that Paris is removed from the 'Largest Cities' slot on the info-pane at the head of the page. It is not customary to have two 'Largest Cities' listed on pages such as this. London has a larger city population, and metro population than Paris. Whilst Paris has a slightly larger urban population, London's city and metropolitan populations dwarf Paris in comparison.

Many thanks, Johnxsmith (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times. The problems are (in brief) that the way countries deal with cities and municipalites is incomparable which is why we tend to emphasise LUZ (larger urban population) as that is the only measure that is consistently measured across the EU. An illustration of the oddity involved: the city of London has only about 7000 inhabitants, larger London is even with the English context an exceptional case (and not a city at all) without comparison even within the own country - so how would you compare such an oddity to a city in another country? It cannot be done and we agreed to list both London and Paris as a compromise. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)