Talk:History of the European Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Flag
Someone added:
- The EU Flag with the 12 stars is not for the 12 member states, as there are currently 15 member states. Its 12 and it will remain forever 12, even after the expansion with east-European countries.
I've removed it. The above-linked page makes it clear that there's really no mystery about this - the flag represents Europe, not the EU. This has little to do with the history of the EU anyway. A link to the flag page from European Union is OK, of course, and I'll add one now if there isn't one already. --Camembert
As far as I know this flag had been in use since 1955, when it was adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In that time there were no 12 , but 6 Members, the starting Six (Belgie, Deutschland, France, Italia, Luxembourg en De Nederlanden)
The 12 stars will remain on the flag, no matter how many countries join the European Union. This unchanging number symbolizes perfection and plenitude.
So: the gold stars on the blue flag were never intended to depict the number of member states.
Later, May 26 1986, this flag was officially adopted as a symbol of the European Union on May 26, 1986.
The 12 stars, forming an exact circle, are placed in the positions of the 12 hours on the face of a clock, the 12 months in a year , 12 tables of Roman Law . They represent the union of the peoples and peaopleS of Europa.
[edit] Some sections
The section on the post-Cold War enlargement and the one on associate memberships both seem out of place. They should probably be properly integrated and rewritten in the process. --Shallot 12:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Pre 1945 Origins - Nazi European Confederation
The nazi proposal for a confederated europe has no connection with the present EU. It is a piece of political spin to try to suggest there is a link between the two. By all means mention that it was floated but its nature needs to be clearly set out. User Elizabeth A seems to want to blur the distinction so that the reader would conclude that the EU has Nazi origins. Lumos3 21:18, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree more or less. However, I am not sure it's totally irrelevant or out of scope for this article on the History of the European Union. And in any case, it fits better in this article then in the main article on the European Union. Maybe we should note also the Frankian realm as a predecessor? In my assessment, there are more similarities between the Holy Roman Empire and the EU than between EU and the Nazi concept of a united Europe.
--Ruhrjung 21:34, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
On three occasions in the last three months, ti221110a080-2234.bb.online.no (83.109.136.186), ti221110a080-5341.bb.online.no (83.109.148.221) and ti221110a080-15749.bb.online.no (83.109.189.133) has tried to censor this Nazi reference without discussion and under pretense of NPOV policy. I'm noting this in case they try it again -- which will get them banned but it's obviously a random dialup IP so it may cause too much collateral damage. --Joy [shallot] 10:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] 2004 enlargement
What units are used in the table in this section? Could someone please add them? Lumos3 16:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] opat
Aris Katsaris wrote: ... I don't know what "opat" is supposed to mean.
- I can tell you what it means in a non-English language... it's a word for Christian monks (or something) in my language. I can't remember the direct translation to English. Friar? --Joy [shallot] 10:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Suggesting big structural change
There exist really two issues concerning the history of the European Union, and I feel that their juxtaposition in the text actually helps muddle both of them and is detrimental against expanding either. One of the issues we might call "History of the Enlargement of the European Union" and the other one is "History of European integration" (or perhaps "History of the structures") -- the one involves the expanding borders, the other concerns the structural changes and the various policies (like single currency and so forth). In short the "widening" and the "deepening" of the European Union.
So, would anyone agree to restructuring this article according to those lines? The way I see it, it could be something like this:
- Pre 1945 influences
- Post 1945 impetus and the three communities
- History of the European integration
- History of the enlargement of the European Union
- Current problems
Both 3 and 4 would be subdivided further ofcourse.
So, any comments or thoughts on all of this? Aris Katsaris 21:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm asking again, if someone has huge problems to the concept of such a restructuring? Before I start attempting it. Specific problems can ofcourse be handled at a case-per-case basis but does anyone object to the idea of moving from a sequential order to an order that segregates between enlargement and integration? Aris Katsaris 13:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have no objections to the changes you suggest. I dont like the word problems for the last section. Issues is a better description. Problem makes things sound insoluable. Lumos3 14:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I was not very active when Aris Katsaris made this proposal, but I'm glad he did. Reading the result, I wonder if maybe the order of the sections on integration and enlargement should be switched, so that the enlargement followed immediately after the section on the three communities, and the integration, that is an ongoing process that to large degree is influented by the enlargement, followed. What do you say?
--Ruhrjung 21:25, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Role of Benelux
The role of the Benelux in the beginning of the EU is, in my opinion, completely looked over.
- Well, as a Dutchman I'm inclined to agree with you that we're systematically being ignored (thank god imho =D)
- But realistically speaking, is there really something you deem so crucial it has to be added to an encyclopedia article?
- We were there? That's already in it. :/
- -Kraftwerk 23-03-05-
[edit] ENLARGEMENT
I don't think enlargement history is given enough attention. Sure the enlaragements are mentioned but maybe some more info on the issues surrounding that enlargement would prove helpful. I mean the 2004 enlargement wasn't a clear cut issue that everyone was pleased about.
- The 2004 Enlargement is already a large section. If we are to enlarge it any more, it's better to create a new article about it and just leave a synopsis here. Btw, please consider signing your posts in the talk pages and perhaps getting a Wikipedia account as well. Aris Katsaris 18:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Enlargement and .Gif's animation
Can someone make an animation of the European enlargement ? An animation will be clearer than lot of words.Yug
[edit] Greenland comment
I just moved the Greenland comment from the Enlargement page. But I think that its place is neighter here, nor there - it is not a state, so it should be leaved in Special_member_state_territories_and_their_relations_with_the_EU, where it was in the first place.62.204.151.1 21:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Federal Union
In Britain the group known as Federal Union was launched in November 1938, and began advocating a Federal Union of Europe as a post-war aim.
This sounds a little bit odd, given that WW II didn't start before September 1939. It should be clarified when the Federal Union started to have a post-war aim or which war they were referring to (maybe the spanish civil war? That was being fought in 1938) 213.191.70.226 14:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Decimal points/thousand separators
What's Wiki style policy on the use of thousands separators and decimal points? A number of pages authored by Continental Europeans use a point ( . ) for the thousands separator and a comma ( , ) for the decimal marker, e.g. 'twelve thousand point eight-four' is written '12.000,84' (and said, e.g. in German, "Zwölf Tausend komma acht-vier"). English style is, of course, a comma for the thousands separator and a point for the decimal marker, i.e. '12,000.84'. Furthermore, SI style drops the thousands separator (12 000.84).
I haven't seen anything in 'how to edit' guidelines about thousands separators and decimal points. Should an entry be made, indicating which style to use when editing English/European language pages?
What brought this up? I've just edited '80.000' to 'eighty thousand' and '80 000' to remove any source of confusion around the thousands separator.
- See also: Decimal separator
Sentinel75 07:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article Defacement
I noticed that the begining of the article had been deleted and replaced with some offensive text. I removed the bad text, but the begining of this article remains missing. If anyone has an older copy of it, it would be much appreciated if someone could restore the article.
[edit] The EU -- A 'German Ploy'?
This might be worth mentioning in this article: many people in Eastern Europe (and elsewhere [i.e. France, Russia, those Europeans countries that refuse to join, many others]) believe that the European Union is nothing more than a 'German ploy' to 'control' Europe both politically and economically (given that Germany is the most economically powerful and populous member of the EU). They say that the success of the EU obliquely fulfills the Third Reich's burning desire for Germany to become "The Undisputed Masters of Europe." Should this hypothesis be included in the article or simply written off as a deluded conspiracy theory? --152.163.101.6 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The later, unless you can cite someone important saying it. —Nightstallion (?) 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maps
The 2007 map doesn't have Serbia and Montenegro as separate countries. Maybe not a high priority, since they're not joining the EU anyway, but if someone with image editing skills can fix it it'd be a good idea...
It would also be nice if the visible sliver of Greenland was coloured in in the 1973 and 1982 maps. jnestorius(talk) 22:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1993 Section
The section about the copenhagen criteria reads in a somewhat POV / negative towards the EU - specifically the statement about democracy being a requirement. Tholex 06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Structure of Articles
I would like to propose a reorganisation of articles about the EU, including merging and renaming as follows:
- Enlargement of the European Union (EEU): rename to Future Enlargement of the European Union
- List of European Union member states by accession: Merge future info into EEU article, and past info into History of the European Union. keep as a simple list.
Does this sound feasible? AndrewRT - Talk 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am against this. The list article was created to briefly summarise the past and future of enlargements and provide a concentrated collection of dates and information. Keep it as it is. —Nightstallion (?) 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rotating presidency by country
Is there a list of the country-presidencies of the EEC/EU? If there is (or when it is created) could it be linked here and/or to the main EU page. Jackiespeel 18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Presidency of the Council of the European Union. This links into the main Politics and government of the European Union template AndrewRT(Talk) 18:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Splitting the article
The EU only exists since the Treaty of Maastricht. Including its direct predecessors in this article is relevant, but before 1951 it gets problematic. It is not historically accurate to treat past events as part of a present entity, see historiography and anachronism. I therefore propose splitting the article into a pre-1945 and post-1945 version. One article could be titled History of European integration or History of pan-European proposals. The post-1945 article would retain the present title, and begin with the debate in the immediate post-war years (1945-1946).Paul111 12:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the Article History of Zimbabwe it covers the whole span of histroy from ancient times to modern times, notwithstanding the fact that the country was known as Rhodesia prior to 1980. The is similar. The European Union is part of a continuity of organisations. It is right that the article called History of the European Union should deal with all those organisations and should take the name of the current organisation. Of course there is nothing wrong with having additional sub-articles for the pre-45 and post-45 periods. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The continuity of organisations goes back to 1951. Adding anything before the Second World War is Whig history. There is no need for this article to repeat the errors of nationalist historiography, and assume territorial entities existed in the past in their current form.Paul111 19:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
