This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Under the "Comparison with other Regional Blocks" economically, it seems that the AU (African Union) is missing?68.98.236.175 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Chinese GDP(PPP) goes in EU. after four years. Will you be true? If I continue an anual rate of 10% growth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.146.220.31 (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Part of the process of building a national identity for the European Union will be to produce a history of Europe that justifies the EU's existence.
How about "millenia of war"? Is that justification enough for a peaceful union?Stassa 14:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The Lithuania link on the Economic Variation section of the main article is displayed in Chinese characters! (Mozilla 2.0/ UTF 8.0 encoding)
Isn't it a bit odd to show French Guiana on the map of EU counties, even though it is technically part of France.
Why is the whole "Institutions and legal framework" section removed currently?!?!? Alinor 13:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This unaccredited institute has been putting articles on subjects like Welfare Economics, European Union, and related. I have tried to find about them online, to no avail. It is a breach of NPOV to use wikipedia for self-promotion and advance of private agendas.
I dont think mentioning anything prior to European Coal and Steal Industry is necessary. I have many academic books charting the history of the EU and none of the content pre-dates the 20th centuary. Alex Lickorish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.5.42.1 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
I think the article is still a bit too long. Don't you think there are some things we could take out ot possibly shorten it? Things that belong more in subarticles. I think it's important to keep articles a good length. Any ideas anyone? Brainboy109 December 12, 2006 16:36 (UTC)
I figure we should have a new map ready for when Romania and Bulgaria join. Zazaban 19:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Reconfirm your strategy 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)File:EU 2007 map.png
There is an excellent official one at http://www.europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm
© European Communities, 1995-2006 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.
EU can surpass America’s global leadership in near future. This article needs to expand this idea. --Reconfirm your strategy 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
USA and EU don't need to rival each other Somethingoranother 19:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The EU cannot surpass the US. The US economy is growing much faster. The only reason why the EU is keeping up is due to the fact that they keep tacking on little countries. This notion cannot even be considered until and if this organisation becomes a nation.
Any possibility of a political union between the US and the EU?
This may be true, but they are also very close in lots of ways - capitalist system, shabby, corrupt, debased self-serving governments and extreme disparities between rich and poor. However, going on current world trends, it seems more likely that China will end up taking over both. No need then for a merger. :-) MarkThomas 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
We should get ready for the new states Romania and Bulgaria joining on January 1st. Somethingoranother 19:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It is already 2007 in Romania and Bulgaria, thus they have already joined. Please update accordingly. 1.618033989 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
We could do with a new map for this section. Somethingoranother 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is the NPOV tag listed at the bottom in the categories section and this article is also listed on the Category:NPOV disputes page? I don't see the tag on the actual page so I'm thinking this is a bug? Strawberry Island 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
--J intela 02:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
From the EU's own website, http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/emblem/index_en.htm, "The number of stars has nothing to do with the number of Member States. There are twelve stars because the number twelve is traditionally the symbol of perfection, completeness and unity. The flag therefore remains unchanged regardless of EU enlargements." - Arctic Wolf
In the Common Agricultural Policy section the amounts are in British Pounds. It would be more appropriate if these were converted to Euro.
--80.126.175.197 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that the Latin Motto "In varietate concordia" is not translated into English, Shouldn't it be? I was going to edit in the Translation "Unity in diversity", but there are so many warnings on that info box that I decided to ask here before proceeding. Is there some kind of consensus that it shouldn't be translated? The way I see it is, this is the English Language Wikipedia and surely everything should be translated into that language. Thoughts? --Hibernian 11:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I've got to say I have no idea what the actual Latin means (I'm no linguist), I just got the "Unity in diversity" translation from the Wiki article about European Symbols (specifically the motto section). I didn't know there was any debate about the translation or any political POV in it, I just assume that was the standard English translation, and so I thought it would be logical to have it there. But what I really want to know here is, whether there is any objection to it being translated for any reason. I ask because it would seem obvious to provide a translation but it doesn't seem to have been done so far, is there any reason for that or has it simply been overlooked? --Hibernian 02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Countersubject, I see you've edited out any translation and have changed the translation on the European symbols page to "concord in diversity", but where did you get this translation from? It was translated as either "Unity in diversity" or "United in diversity" on all the EU pages, and everywhere else. So why have you now suddenly changed it to "concord"? (Isn’t that a bit of OR). Like I said, I don't know much about Latin, but I assume the people at the EU do, so if that is their translation, then surely we should stick with it. You've also changed it to "An EU motto" instead of "The European motto", its debatable about the use of the terms EU and Europe, but why "An"? Is there more than one Motto, which we don't know about? Anyway I still think that if we're going to have a Latin motto on the page it should be translated into English. --Hibernian 14:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There have been some unsigned changes to the France part of the table of GDP figures today, which checking up on I see lead only to further confusion. For example, the comments above the table state that the data set is for 2007 and the source information below that the primary data is the CIA World Fact Book, which typically only has 2005 estimates; and the IMF website data tables, which are 2007 estimates, but not for population. Therefore I presume that we need to change the comments and also recalculate the first column to be a calculation based on the IMF data multiplied by the most recent population data. The unsigned figure given today for France is wrong on these criteria, but so was the previous one! The remaining question if we do this (for example I am willing to do the calculations) is which set of population data to use? I propose the official EU website figures. MarkThomas 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Can I please suggest that the current issues header be merged with the criticisms header down below on the EU article? I would be happy to do this, because they both cover (excellently explained) similar, overlapping ground. Thoughts? Wikidea 07:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The European history website indicates as I have said.
The CIA factbook does not mention Bulgarian and Romanian as forthcoming languages (mid-December update) Jackiespeel 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)