Misplaced Pages

Talk:European Union

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Superluminary (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 14 July 2010 (→Better map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:25, 14 July 2010 by Superluminary (talk | contribs) (→Better map)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for

this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 45 days

European Union is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

European Union has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 8, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 21, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
May 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 9, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 4, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 23, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 16, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
October 30, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
March 16, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European Union Top‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Europe Top‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Template:Archive box collapsible

Goverment

What form of goverment can the EU be associated with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.108.237 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 April 2010

Depends on what you're talking about. In a word though, none. As the debate is politically charged and there is no academic consensus, that is just what we can say. But if that is a question of curiosity then the following terms could be associated with aspects of the EU's governance: republican, federal, confederal, (developing) parliamentary, semi-presidential, Swiss, supranational, intergovernmental, Hanseatic, liberal, representative democracy, technocratic...- _J.Logan`: 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The best word to describe the EU's form of government would be "dictatorship", since the Heads Of State (due to the byzantine structure, there are at least two "presidents" who qualify as such) are not elected, nor can be removed from office by the citizens- but since they are not hereditary, are not monarchs. The EU deliberately makes itself difficult to describe in conventional language by the strategy, unique in history, of being a country but denying that it is one. It may be worth offering a new term to the lexicon, something like, "Progressivist Dictatorship", since the EU is the realisation of the form of government favoured by those in the political spectrum who currently describe themselves as "Progressive", that is a government which is technocratic, bureaucratic, unrestrained, activist, and in a state of permanent growth, and is not based upon, nor acknowledges, the consent of those over whom it rules.82.71.30.178 (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So by that definition Switzerland is a dictatorship, because the Federal Council is not directly elected? Or, for that matter, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta and the Czech Republic? Didn't know there were so many dictatorships in Europe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.111.59 (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the unveiling of the European Constitution was meant to be the moment when the EU would officially become a country, with a flag, national anthem, "regulations" renamed (correctly) as "laws", and so on. When it ran into difficulty, the elites realised they had come a bit early, and drew back from declaring nationhood, although the practical structures of nationhood- a president, foreign minister, embassies etc were put in place nonetheless. It is a pity, as, had nationhood had been declared, it would have made the EU much easier to describe in terms of governance structure for people writing articles such as this one.82.71.30.178 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is not a forum. If you do not have anything to say on how to improve this article, please refrain from posting. Tomeasy_{T C} 09:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I was discussing the terminological problems the writers of this and similar articles encounter.82.71.30.178 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "federation" or, even better, "confederation": as the matter of fact the way the EU works is very very similar to the way of operating of the Helvetic Confederation, e.g. only the executive arm can initiate a legislative proposal... It's strange, because Swiss people don't want to get in but basically the EU is a bigger replica of the smaller Switzerland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.154.32 (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A despotic dictatorship? Theres no democracy and the police state has radically grown as the various sovereign states that have been swallowed up by this monster become extinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.83.34 (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

some sort of federation. the european union makes laws, but those need to be rectified by all the countries. of course this means all those countries blame the eu for unpopular laws ('i don't want to install this law, the eu makes me do it. please keep voting for me in the next election'), while at the same time taking credit themselves for all the things the eu does good ('good thing we have that new trade-treaty. vote for me'). the european parliament is chosen in direct elections. the assignment of other political offices is a bit more fuzzy and depends largely on 'who you know'. those not-elected oficials are still answerable to elected officials, both from the european parliament and from the member states, making it the same kind of indirect democracy one sees in all functioning democracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.109 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

FA

This article has stabilised a lot since the last FA attempt. How do people rate the chances of success for a retry?- _J.Logan`: 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a chance, but we should avoid the appearance of arguing with reviewers; perhaps we should refer specifically to the FAQ when submitting the article.

We should also first do an unofficial review and make some changes here first, to take account of likely issues. --Boson (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial "review" kickoff

Here are a few potential issues that I noticed:

change "ensuring" to "intended to ensure", since the former implies success (which would probably be construed as POV).
There are a number of faulty links (deadlinks, access denied, redirects, etc.)
"area of freedom, security and justice" should probably be in inverted commas or italics; otherwise it sounds like meaningless PR.
Do the images in the Geography section (particularly the coast of Crete) really illustrate the text?
There are flags such as "citation-needed" and "who?".
Words like "micromanage" are POV.
I'm not sure if most people would understand the Legal section. For instance would a reader understand the specialist meaning of "regulation" in an EU context (e.g. that a so-called (Council) regulation is equivalent to a law).
The "even" in "may even invalidate EU legislation" sounds a little "surprised" (of course fundamental rights take precedence over normal legislation!).
Improve references to include more books to supplement or replace many of the europa.eu sources (europa.eu is OK for many things like legislation, official statements, policy and statistics but should be checked).
I'm not sure if the text 'In negotiations on the Treaty of Lisbon, French President Nicolas Sarkozy succeeded in removing the words "free and undistorted competition" from the treaties. However, the requirement is maintained in an annex and it is unclear whether this will have any practical effect on EU policy.' is OK (i.e. supported by the reference and the treaties).

--Boson (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for going through that. Lets see;

I think you're over reacting on ensuring, the usual use of the word in this contact doesn't imply success I think. Out of context it does but reading it it sounds perfectly natural in terms of what we need. Changing it all to intended to ensure all over the place would sound weird so I'd be against that unless it is raised as an issue by an FA reviewer.
Working on that, I'll flag up dead links I can't fix here.
Done
I agree, they're there like many for decoration but removal is bound to be opposed my the fairies.
Done (I think)
Where is micromanage?
Hard to judge what is understandable to average Joe. If there is anyone reading this who has no background on the EU, please read that section and tell us if you understand it.
Well it is a bit surprising, it isn't just a foregone conclusion in a lot of jurisdictions and hasn't always been the case here.
Not sure what you mean is the problem on that last one.- _J.Logan`: 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the hyphen: The treaties micro-manage the EU's powers, indicating different ways of adopting legislation for different policy areas and for different areas within the same policy areas. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean (apart from what is already stated); I would remove it.

I think the phrase "free and undistorted competition" was removed from the preamble, but I don't think anything like it was added to an annex (possibly to a later protocol, but I didn't see anything in the reference at first glance). --Boson (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorted micromanage. Is the protocol they added number 27? If so I'm not sure it says anything at all!- _J.Logan`: 08:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I've found it now; it is on page 192 of the ToL PDF, so it is in the annex:

PROTOCOL ON THE INTERNAL MARKET AND COMPETITION

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

CONSIDERING that the internal market as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union

includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted,

HAVE AGREED that:

to this end, the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Whatever that means. --Boson (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's 27 in the consolidated treaties. I think is its basically someone underlining or putting in bold a section of the treaties in an effort to make it more important without explicitly doing so. So....where on earth does that leave us?- _J.Logan`: 11:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would delete the paragraph. I don't think it's important enough to belong in the EU article, especially since the whole affair probably doesn't change anything. If it belongs anywhere, it should be in the sub-article. --Boson (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Limited impact.- _J.Logan`: 21:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

One further point that might be worth remembering is that there was a complaint from one FA reviewer (completely incorrectly in my view) that we used EU sources too often on this page. Is this not likely to come up again, even though it just shouldnt be a problem at all? Simonski (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this way:
<<...The EU has legal personality, and guarantees a European area of freedom, security and justice by enacting legislation in judicial and home affairs...>> ?
It's all right? It sounds good to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.131.24 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can write that the EU "guarantees a European area of freedom, security and justice" (unless perhaps in inverted commas). It's PR-speak. Nobody can guarantee freedom, security and justice, so "European area of freedom, security and justice" is really just a name.--Boson (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

review in this way: ...The EU has legal personality and constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice by enacting legislation in judicial and home affairs...

According to what the T.F.E.U. declares:

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union/Title V: Area of Freedom, Security and Justice|TFEU: Title V: Area of Freedom, Security and Justice,

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 67 (ex Article 61 TEC and ex Article 29 TEU)

1. The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. --Insilvis (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2010 (CET)

Constitute implies success even more strongly. Whether it guarantees or seeks to, I think the problem lies in whether FSJ is a description or just a name. I think putting it in speech marks is a good compromise as I can't think of any term to put in its place without being incredibly long winded. I think <<seeks to guarantee an "area of....>> is best.- _J.Logan`: 14:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the verb "guarantee" were sober, but I discovered that my view was not 100% shared... So I took the Treaty and I put the exact verb the Treaty uses, i.e. "constitute", which sounds unsmooth to me... But the Treaty uses this verb, thus "constitute" is appropriate at least, becase it is consistent with the Treaty. --Insilvis (talk) 1:18, 16 June 2010 (CET)

Just to be clear, I think the word "guarantee" by itself is perfectly sober. It just means something different and that alters the implied meaning of the rest of the sentence. My main concern was that the term "area of freedom, security and justice" is used in the treaty in a special meaning that is different from the normal meaning of the individual words in context. That is adequately addressed by putting it in quotation marks. Similarly the TEU talks of a Union "in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail" but Misplaced Pages should not, using that as a reference, state that the EU is an area where tolerance, solidarity, and equality between men and women prevail. In both cases, the wording is (perhaps) appropriate for a treaty but not for an encyclopedia. --Boson (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Boson, the "area" in the (Treaty) context is rather meant as an overarching aim or title. It is not a specific policy or institutions and tends, in the context of the EU introduction, to sound like propaganda, even if unintentionally. It does´nt help to raise the credibility. Sorry, it should stay outside the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.148.27 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bilderberg Group pushed through the idea of the EU in 1955

This is going to be hard to source evidence for but I think it deserves a chance...

The Bilderberg Group as found on wikipedia, are known to have come to private decision on many matters that push general policy across US, UK and European since the group was formed in the 1950s.

I read alternative media sites (with a healthy pinch of salt) and came across the claim that Bilderberg was fundamental to the creation of the European Union.

In a report from Bilderberg held Sept 23-25 in 1955 held at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbihl in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany the following is quoted;

“Pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market.”

The document also outlines the plan, “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”

Just two years later, in 1957, the first incarnation of the European Economic Community (EEC) was born, which comprised of a single market between Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The EEC gradually enlarged over the next few decades until it became the European Community, one of the three pillars of the European Union, which was officially created in 1993.

The 1955 Bilderberg summary outlines a consensus that, “It might be better to proceed through the development of a common market by treaty rather than by the creation of new high authorities.” The EEC was duly created via the Treaty of Rome, which was signed on 25 March 1957.

Bilderberg 1955 report: http://wikileaks.info/Bilderberg_meeting_report_Garmisch-Patenkirchen,_1955/index.html

Excerpts lifted from PrisonPlanet.com http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-nato-secretary-general-admits-bilderberg-sets-global-policy.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.165.244 (talk) 2010-06-08 (UTC)
Moved from article to talk.--Boson (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all surprising that European integration was discussed during the Bilderberg meetings; where political leaders attended. Note that it was timed between the treaties of Paris and Rome, at a time when the actual process of founding the EU was well underway, but also was the "talk of the day" in political circles.

Hence the appearance of this topic in Bilderberg group files is liukely to be caused by this political dynamic, but on the other hand the influence of the Bilderberg group on the actual formation of the EU remains unshown. Therefor inclusions seems unwarrantee Arnoutf (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation - and hence does not equal relevance without evidence.- _J.Logan`: 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything special about the Bilderberg consensus. What about the European Movement in 1953 or Winston Churchill in 1946?--Boson (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think given that the page has always bordered on exceeding the advised length of an article on Misplaced Pages that this information should probably just stay left out, otherwise it would seem only logical that we go into all the other influences. Simonski (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it's probably true that the bilderberg-group has talked about the creation of some kind of european union (since the goal of those meeting was to form informal alliances and exchange ideas). but because of the 'no-press-allowed' tradition (needed to keep it informal) it's probably difficult to find any kind of reliable source. and including it seems unnecesarry anyway: of course there has been some negotiation behind closed doors, but it's not like the 'real' public conferences were just puppet-shows (as the conspiracy-theorists think). i agree with simonclab that this is more something for a seperate list with all the historical influences leading to the founding of the eu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.109 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised the anon ip reads "this information should probably just stay left out" as: there should be a "seperate list with all the historical influences leading to the founding of the eu". Arnoutf (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox lacks major institutions, lists presidents instead

The infobox does mention European Council, Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers but links to their respective "leaders".

There should be a section added that links from the infobox directly to these and NOT to their leaders, especially when it comes to a thing like a parliament in general. And as for the European Parliament it can be only mandatory that it is properly linked in that infobox. The link as it is now misled me: It says "European Parliament" not "President of the European Parliament", thus I was very surprised about the latter.

I wanted to change that myself but I couldn't because that infobox is not directly accessible - why? That shouldn't be that way in a wiki (for example, US infobox does show up!). 88.134.130.91 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved here by P. D. Cook 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason you couldn't edit it is because the article actually references Template:Infobox European Union. So you'd have to go there to edit it. I'm not a part of this project, nor do I know anything about it, so be sure any changes you make aren't controversial and/or discuss them first. Regards, P. D. Cook 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes don't list the institutions, but if you look at the blue politics box further down you will see a great deal of detailed links there.- _J.Logan`: 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Better map

What happened to the better map which showed the borders between the different independent nations..? 85.165.198.52 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's because this is the article about the EU and not about "States of EU". Tomeasy_{T C} 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, EU is exactly that, a union built by different nations, just like the UN, WTO, NATO etc. Its not "one nation". 85.165.198.52 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not what Tomeasy said. He said that the article was about the EU as a whole, not about the member states.Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody's trying to say that the EU were one nation or a sovereign state. The use of the locator map simply is to show where the EU is located, and NOT: which states it comprises, or where its major cities are, or what the largest river is, or the highest mountain. There are many things one could add have added, but the current map takes the minimalistic approach. Tomeasy_{T C} 10:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The map showing the member states is under the heading "Member states".--Boson (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the prior locator map in the infobox, with internal borders. If memory serves, this was discussed some time ago, without compelling reason in support of the change. The locator is no less functional with the internal borders, and the fact that ONE colour is used to indicate the EU already signifies they are unified. Members are sine qua non of the EU. Importantly, it is misleading to exhibit the EU sans borders of its constituent sovereign members amidst surrounding sovereign states, since it gives the impression that it is on par with them. There also appears to be no recent discussion on this or that page supporting the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.124.5 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Which change do you mean? I just see you changing the map today. After the discussion here has started! So, I propose that you content yourself until this discussion has come to a conclusion.

I see a good argument on your side, i.e., the borders do not harm much the purpose of the map. This is worth discussing, I find. But then, wouldn't we have to provide borders as well on continent articles like here? I do not entirely follow your argument that not showing borders is misleading. Can you explain this idea in more detail?

And of course, for the time being, I reinstall the map as it was before this discussion started. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, I am restoring the prior map. It was changed previously without any peep on the talk page (see that template), and then you have defenders that pipe in once an anon IP (not me) points out on this page and questions why, and then I change it. Why? So, I propose that you content yourself with discussing and garnering a consensus before changing it again.

To clarify: it is misleading to show a map of the EU without its constituent sovereign states, yet surrounded by them. There have apparently been issues on this page about the state-yet-not-state like nature of the EU, and so a map without internal borders implies that it is one. Like with like. As for the map at Europe, I would be fine with country borders on that map (c.f. Africa, North America). Which, begs the question, why is the map at Europe devoid of country borders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.124.5 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is probably something for that page. But I guess adding borders would make Russia a problem, as after adding borders you imply that you shows countries on the continent, but Russia is on Asia for a large part; so you can't have your cake (borders and colors identifying countries) and eat it (limit yourself to Europe).

In any case the relevant question by Tomeasy "why is it misleading to omit country borders" has not been answered. Arnoutf (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I for one favour the non-border version. As has been argued above, this is about the EU as a whole and indeed we have a large map right below with the member state borders shown and the names linked. There certainly isn't a need to show member states in the above box and you can barely make out the borders anyway; it simply makes it look a bit more messy that's all. So that's one map with borders, one without. No harm in that, it looks a lot better.- _J.Logan`: 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, A., you can have your cake and eat it too. Well, the Asians seem to not have similar issues as the Europeans, at least as far as maps with country borders are concerned.

And, we should be able to have our cake and eat it too re: this issue. Not answered? I'm unsure I need to further explain the need for balance. The map exhibits the EU surrounded by sovereign states; ergo, someone may think that the EU is one, or at the same level. Members are the sine qua non of the EU, hence it being a union. Thus, it is misleading. I actually may not have too much of an issue if the EU was exhibited with the borders of regional/continental blocs surrounding it, but that isn't the case and it would not be useful. Accordingly, none of you have satisfactorily explained why the EU's intranational borders should be omitted, or pointed out the clear consensus for the change. So ...

J., it is perhaps unsurprising that you support a non-border map -- after all, YOU changed the template without any comment or discussion to begin with. And, messy? Are you kidding? This is far messier than what is a simple map. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the shape of Russia looks extremely weird on the Asia map. They should remove the borders as they now falsely imply that a country exists that is only the Asian part of Russia (and Turkey, although Turkeys European bit is rather small).

You do have a point that it is weird to have borders for sovereign states outside the EU, but none withing. However my solution would be to propose a map without any borders (even less messy ;-); but I can see your objection about having no internal borders, but having other borders there.

The argument "it was there in the past, hence consensus forever" is not at all helpful as this would block all progress. Arnoutf (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because Russia is so big and the map projection. But, otherwise, the locator map for Asia is no different than for many other maps, online and in print, which exhibit the continent and split Russia in the usual way. There's nothing unusual there, and lack of borders may prompt the question: what is where?

Thanks for acknowledging my concerns about balance re: borders. My argument is not at all about the perpetuity of consensus, though there is some validity to that, but about the rationale and validity of change. Is this a change for the better? No, IMO. Was it discussed and consistent with process? No, as pointed out. So ... 76.66.124.5 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Globe view omitting all national borders

Can the map to the right be accepted by everybody as a solution to our issue? Tomeasy_{T C} 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate the map which has just been proposed. It shows the EU as too small and I hate showing maps on a globe. A map should be 2D and make no attempt to be 3D.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Some may prefer maps without borders, and they are certainly advantageous in some instances, but in the current instance we are dealing with political entities that have borders, internal and external. The EU is a political entity, comprised of others sine qua non and surrounded by them. So, I do not see the utility of the borderless map: this is, after all, not the United States of Europe. I think the use of orthographic maps, as opposed to planar ones, is another issue and the topic of wider discussion. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to treat Lucy's opinion in another talk section, if at all. Otherwise this discussion here gets messy. Both objections are completely independent.

To the IP (why not register?), now I understand that your previous point was not really your point. So your concern is not that showing the EU without national border while showing countries outside the EU with national border would mislead readers thinking that the EU itself was a nation.

Rather you want to add details to a map that we try to keep as simple as possible. And the detail that you want to add shall prove a WP:POINT (i.e., EU is not USE) that you want to make. Here, I disagree. I do not think that this point needs to be proven in the locator map already. As pointed out before, the article does not hide this point at all.

Nota bene: If you feel that others do not understand your Latin phrase (why do you repeat it three times?), you might use the English language to make yourself understood or provide a translation. Tomeasy_{T C} 07:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

...or provide a translation - Wiktionary is good for this. You can link words and phrases like this: ] renders as "sine qua non". TFOWR 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, my concerns are both of balance and the point of not implying that the EU is not a state amidst others -- both are related. I frankly do not know WHY there is resistance to exhibiting borders on the locator map, particularly a political locator map. I frankly don't know how or if to deal with criticism that adding (actually, restoring) borders to the map nonsensically complicates it. The map also harks of others used in Misplaced Pages (e.g., continents, EU countries and others). One could just as easily argue that not rendering borders seeks to render the EU as something that it is not. Can you point out another map for an international organisation that does not render the borders of its constituents parts? If presented with the option of a map with all national borders, and one without, I choose the former. I reject attempts to insinuate a map of the EU without intranational borders, while exhibiting those of surrounding states.

Thirdly, re: Latin, but it was intentional: without the EU's members states, it would not be. The locator map can just as easily exhibit th. As may editors seem to want to use 'sui generis' to describe the EU. Anyhow, the map was changed before (i.e., recently) without any comment or discussion. So, I was justified in reverting that change.

Lastly, I choose not to register as yet, nor do I need to. But, I may reconsider. Superluminary (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tomeasy. I like the borderless map.
Re projection This was chosen as people argued before thatFrench Guiana (the green patch on the lower left side), which is part of France should be pictured. Alternative projections made EU even smaller. Arnoutf (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason I preferred the map sans borders, but couldn't remember the previous discussion. Thanks, Arnoutf! OK, casting my !vote for the borderless map, mostly per Arnoutf, partly per Tomeasy. (Disclaimer: I seem to recall being an agitator for orthographic maps across various blocs, continents, etc) TFOWR 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)