Talk:European integration

Criticism
This side should also include critical voices of the union. Otherwise this information will be biased. The idea of the European project has been considerably challenged over the past few years due to severe financial problems in different countries. EU is a top-down political project and true integration cannot be supported by the citizens in general when the leaders does not support the idea that true power comes from the people instead of vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.68.230.163 (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

'Common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok' describes 2010 situation
The subsection is obsolete. Russia has attacked Ukraine in 2014 and fights a big war since February. Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole subsection is based on one text by Putin. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed those pieces XA1dUXvugi (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless if it is "highly unlikely" (and I agree with you on that), it was still discussed as a proposed concept. Rather then blanket deletion, it would serve greater purpose if the section was updated to reflect recent events. Perhaps placing an "update section" template is a more rational approach for now. Archives908 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Meta: Lots of European integration articles
There are lots of articles concerning European integration: Enhanced cooperation, Differentiated integration, Multi-speed Europe, International organisations in Europe, this one, etc.

Are we sure these all need to be a separate article? Are we sure that each of those articles cover its own subject, and doesn't duplicate anything from the others? It seems like a lot.

XA1dUXvugi (talk) XA1dUXvugi (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Answered in Talk:Differentiated integration XA1dUXvugi (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "we are", but I am sure your removal of verified content from Wikipedia is not helping the mission of Wikimedia. 77.11.165.249 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * XA1dUXvugi, you did it again, disguising the edit as correction 77.191.148.102 (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You have reverted all my edits for no reason. Most of them were replacing the PNG images with identical SVG images.
 * And you are introducing errors into the page. "In fact, many EU member states are among the 28 NATO members.". That is wrong. I corrected that, but now you're adding it back.
 * You have also reverted the justified changing of links in the see also section (such as for renamed pages) and the addition of new ones.
 * @Archives908, @John Maynard Friedman, I relatively new to Wikipedia. I don't want to just revert this person's edits again. How do I deal with this? XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming that you are new. Please read the editing guidelines. Don't mass-remove content without consensus. Your "the article is too long" has been addressed below. You can re-apply your small corrections, but stop mass-removing tables, sections etc. 77.191.148.102 (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit you're reverting did not mass remove content. It removed the table, replacing it with a link to one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_membership_in_international_organisations. If you disagree with that part of the edit, then revert it. But, no discussion was held to add the table, so I don't see why any discussion is needed to remove it. And, it was fine, until you decided to revert the edit.
 * The rest of that edit did not remove anything. It simply replaced the PNG images with SVG images. SVG images that were added were of higher quality, and were editable, which is what makes the SVG format more attractive. They depicted the same thing as the PNGs. Again, why would there need to be consensus for this?
 * And now, instead of reverting that table deletion, you revert all my edits. And, you are now trying to add back the corrections I made, correction by correction. I had already done, why are you redoing it, but in a worse way?
 * Perhaps if you cared to actually read my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&diff=prev&oldid=1153921346, you would see that the changes you're trying make right now to correct what I highlighted about the NATO countries were already made by me. You could at least have copied that.
 * This isn't my article, but it isn't yours either. It's everyone's. So, please don't revert the entirety of my good faith edit to replace PNGs with SVGs and correct outdated information about NATO's role in Europe. I have reverted the page to my edit, with the table intact. I don't see what your issue can possibly be with this, as it involves no mass content deletion. If you're still unhappy, please discuss it, rather than reverting my work again. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&diff=prev&oldid=1154463795 seriously? What are the issues? This is practically a non-change. All you're doing at this point is removing all the SVGs. What's wrong with them? XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And now you're readding all the SVGs I added, but as your own edits? I don't even understand what the motivation behind this is anymore. It's not taking credit, because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. So what is it?
 * @Archives908 and @John Maynard Friedman: it seems you were both involved in four discussions with this IP-user already on this page, to no avail. What do we do about it? Request article protection? Ignore it? XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for revealing the nature of your intention on the talk : ad hominem without interest in listening. The diff is now - clearly visible your controversial edits. It's not only me but also Archives908 that rejects your "Main|International organisations in Europe"  77.191.148.102 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi XA1dUXvugi, thanks for your ping. I'm trying to follow this thread according to WP:BRD. According to that policy, it seems you made a bold edit- which is perfectly acceptable. It was then reverted by the unknown IP- which is also acceptable. However, from that point, the two of you should have discussed any issues here/try to seek consensus before any more reversions took place. I thank you for starting the discussion, and for not contributing to an edit war. In terms of the content, I do not have a preference between your updates, or the last stable version which the IP restored. The IP is correct that generally speaking, blanket deletions (especially when there's sourced info) is something that should have been discussed prior. But, you and I already discussed that in the thread below. For this particular matter, I will not oppose your version or maintaining the last stable version. You may revert to your last edit, if you genuinely feel that it was an improvement. However, I highly recommend that you start a new thread and list your proposal(s) first. This way, should the IP have concerns or feedback, then the two of you (and whoever else) can engage civilly and constructively. The last thing we want is an edit war to clog up the edit history! I hope this helps you both :) Archives908 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I only see the talk after 17:14, 12 May 2023 after my edits. RE "So, please don't revert the entirety of my good faith edit to replace PNGs with SVGs" - well, that was the result of restoring. I re-added several of your SVG, but using " " instead of "_" between words. And at least once I decided to use another file. Also the NATO text I adjusted to your version, I think, even without reading your text here. I made a diff between your version and the prior consensus version, to see your mass-edits. 77.191.148.102 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues
Some parts of this article are problematic in my opinion. Consensus as to what to do with them would be nice

The Aviation, Energy, Standardisation, and Research parts of the European Union category are essentially just lists. As far as I know, this article isn't intended to be a list. Should these sections be removed? Reworked? Kept like they are?

The Beyond Europe section is kind of in the wrong place, being part of a European integration article. In my opinion, it should be removed. This article is already very long, maybe even, too long, and a section whose whole purpose is not being part of the actual article's title is a bit too much in my opinion. What do you think?

XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As no activity seems to be taking place on this discussion, or within the article itself, I will simply go ahead with the removal of the Beyond Europe section. Either this will be accepted, or it will hopefully spur discussion, and something else can be done going forward. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Explain your position. What policy violation does the inclusion of this section break? Archives908 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I did explain my position; the article is relatively long and in-depth about integration within Europe, and its titled *European* integration. As such, I see a whole section dedicated precisely to integration taking place *beyond* Europe as not being relevant to this specific article. I would argue its contents are better fit for Foreign relations of the European Union or Eurosphere.
 * If this is not the view shared by others, I'm okay with that. I understand that consensus is required to make changes to pages on a collaborative encyclopedia. But for that to be possible, it also requires participation of others. I see you reverted my edit, and I will not undo that, but, it would be much appreciated if there could be some form of resolution of this debate, either definitively in favour, or against, the removal of this section. I reiterate my position: this section is a better fit for those two articles, not this one. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your more detailed explanation. Because "the article is too long" in your opinion, does not justify or warrant a complete blanket deletion. The "Beyond Europe" section would not fit in Foreign relations of the European Union or Eurosphere because it does not discuss direct political relations/association with the EU. It merely highlights other forms of integration occurring on the fringes of Europe, which makes this article more suitable for it. In fact, some of the organizations like the CIS for example, have nothing to do with the EU at all. So, why would we include them in articles that are centered on the EU? I think in this scenario, the status quo should be maintained. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Schengen map outdated
The Schengen map needs an update, Romania and Bulgaria joined Schengen end of March this year.--Stefan040780 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It comes from Wikimedia Commons so I have asked the editor there (who last updated it) if they would please roll it forward. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)