Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Archive 3

Inclusion of EU (again)
I see that the EU has been inserted again without coming to an agreement here. User:Giandrea initially added the entry on March 23 and is claiming there is consensus for this insertion but I don't see any discussion that came to consensus here. I didn't notice the insertion until today. For internal consistency, I suggest including only those entries in List of countries except those that are already included in another country's figure. Once Wikipedia decides that the EU is a country (i.e. when it is listed in List of countries) then we can include it in this list. --Polaron | Talk 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but whatever you say, there is large consensus that the EU should be in this kind of lists, not ranked, for statistical comparison. Do you want to open another RfC? Is it really needed to open an RfC every two months when someone (almost always from a particular country) decides that the EU should not be in this list, even not ranked? -- giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In all the country lists there is debate but not consensus. Start with List of countries. When the EU is included there then it can be included in other sorted lists of countries. --Polaron | Talk 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it is irrelevant if the EU is on that list or not (and in my opinion, as of now, it should not be on that list), but it is very important for the EU to be in this list, for statistical purposes and comparison. There is vast consensus around Wikipedia that the EU should be included in this ”list of *” articles. -- giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please point to a discussion on the Talk page showing there is consensus? All I see is debate but no agreement. Is the EU considered a country or not? Wikipedia should treat the EU in a consistent manner. If it is not a country, it should not be here. --Polaron | Talk 22:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, you can see that there is vast consensus in the following comments: -- giandrea   22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area
 * Talk:List of countries by population
 * Talk:List of countries by population
 * Talk:List of countries by military expenditures
 * Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)
 * Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)


 * What all these point to are vast amounts of discussion but no definite agreement one way or the other. Certainly not on this particular Talk page. Please stop referring to the existence of large amounts of debate as consensus. --Polaron | Talk 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, there is no agreement between us, whether the EU should be in the list or not. I will set up an RfC if you agree. -- giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Let's try to get as wide an input as possible. --Polaron | Talk 13:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thou shall respect your elderly, gayandrea is a 74 yr old EU scholar and the elected representative of all EU people! because it was relevant to two people, to him and eurohelicopter rider to be there when clearly it was idiotic, he is to be OBEYED. IF HE SAYS THERE IS A CONSENSUS THEN THERE IS!!!!

all hail gaiandrea!

&== Request for Comment: EU inclusion in the list of countries and outlying territories by area ==

There is a dispute about whether the European Union should be included in this list. Its area equals the sum of its member countries. We are discussing if it should be included in the list or not. 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * Include In my opinion the EU should be included because of its statistical relevance. It may not be formally a country, and therefore it should not be ranked, but it should be here for comparison as it is a very important international body and it has many of the characteristics of a country (common currency, european citizenship, no border checks inside its members, a parliament, a superior judiciary, a common market and a central administration) --  giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't include The EU is still made up of sovereign nations.  If the EU were added, it would be the only entry where the area is listed twice (because I am sure no one is advocating removing the names of EU member countries, because they are no doubt countries).  Finally, if the EU is allowed to be added, other editors will see this and start adding their own "pet" entities and next thing you know you have a hodgepodge such as this example here: []  Where do you stop?  Some people believe stopping at the EU is unfair, so it is simpler to just keep out all supranational entities. Malnova 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not include The list only includes clearly defined, inhabited, self-governing territories whose area is not included in some other entry. With the exception of Taiwan, this list matches the UN Demographic Yearbook. Taiwan is only included because it's figure was not included in the figure for China. There are no unranked or overlapped entries in the current list. The territory of the EU is already included in its member countries so even if one considers it to be country like, including it would be double counting. If what you're proposing is putting in the EU and removing the member countries, that might be another thing. But I don't think even the proponents of putting in the EU are willing to do that. Also, as I mentioned above, the EU is not even included in List of countries so why put it in an ordered list of countries? --Polaron | Talk 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Include in order, unnumbered. The EU and other supernational bodies with state-like apparati, such as the African Union and the Union of South American Nations deserve inclusion on the list, however, without "official" placement. The definition of a country is ambiguous, as we can see by entry #79 on the list, the United Kingdom, which itself is composed of, as is explictly stated on the list, four constituent countries. My personal test for true countryhood is when the EU## would be represented by one ambassador at the United Nations, with ONE Security Council vote, which is why I do not feel that the EU can receive a full unconditional listing. Keep in mind that the definition of a statehood is fluid, and is currently based on the circular definition of recognition by other countries. samwaltz 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Include in order, unnumbered. With explanation/comment about the ambiguous categorization of the EU as a country, with a link to the specific article or section (if there's any). Frigo 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Include in order, unnumbered That the EU should be included in the list is out of question. An elected parliament; a common currency (not implemented in all member states, but except the UK and DK, the rest of members must adopt it); an EU government (Commission); a single citizenship; a judicial power; a common market without frontiers of any kind; recognition by other countries... bear in mind that the EU is above member states law and that the highest court for member states is the European Court of Justice! the EU is effectively acting as a government above governments so it must be included in the list.
 * Whether if we should include it numbered or unnumbered is a harder question. Member states have given a great portion of their sovereignty, but still most decisions are taken by the Council. Moreover the EU acts as an observer in most international institutions but it usually has no right to vote (with the exception of the World Trade Organization, where the EU is recognized as a single entity due to the common trade policy). Certainly the EU is not yet a single country, though it is close, so I don't think we should replace member states in the list by the EU. Sdnegel 21:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Include. Polaron makes an excellent point; the EU is not included on the list of countries article, so it should not be included in an ordered list of countries. This list is for countries. The EU is not a country. Therefore, the EU does not belong on the list. Anywhere, and in any capacity. What is so hard about that to accept? If you pro-EU POV pushers want to include it, remove all EU member states from the list. Parsecboy 12:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Include in order, unnumbered The EU should be included unranked in the list because it is a state union with many characteristics of an independent state. Including the EU is also an interesting statistical fact.Eurocopter tigre 14:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Include in order, unnumbered, italicized The EU is a large, statelike entity that shares a common customs system (the import-export customs, not the whats accepted and done in polite company customs), currency, paliament, court and travel rights for residents between member states, seems a common system makes it similiar in this list to include directly in this list. - M  ask?  16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Include in order, unnumbered. MikeZ 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As of May 6th, the vote is 7:3 for include, after enough time without new votes or comments. I just inserted the EU entry again, without numbered rank as to the majority of comments. MikeZ 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...yes, and almost every (minus one) person who voted "include" has an EU flag on their User page and are sure to prominently proclaim themselves an "EU citizen" or a speaker of "Europanto". Hmm, I wonder if NPOV still means something.Malnova 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not include. Not a country. Not at all statelike either. Does not have a common currency; parliament has very restricted powers; and most importantly, no one in the EU thinks it is a country. There's no concensus to include. I'm removing it.Grace Note 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * SOrry, but it has an official currency, the euro, a parliament, a judiciary system, elections, common citizenship, and many EU citizens see it so important that it should stay in this list. -- giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 14:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Giandrea, your position is far from compromising. You insist on the entry of an entity that is clearly not a country, and will not compromise on this issue for the good of the list.  Seeing your edits here, the evidence is obvious: You are NOT here for the good of this list, you ARE here to get the EU included on this list (and others).  You have campaigned to change the names of this list to take out the word "countries", written in "explanatory" notes, etc. all for one purpose: including the EU. Malnova 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there something wrong if I think that the inclusion of the EU in the list is of great interest for many people? (as stated above, look how many people want it here as well) I don't want to rank it, so there should really be no problem, in my opinion. -- giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you believe what you have written and if you argue the EU is country-like enough to be listed in some capacity, why are you not editing your position on the List of Countries article? Malnova 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Split list. Have a separate (shorter) list for EU, together with African Union and the Union of South American Nations, etc. --Vsion 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this suggestion has come up a few times. I started reading up on the "supranational entities" and it turns out that the EU's inclusion on a supranational list would also be controversial, and that the EU is more likely to fall into a weaker category, "intergovernmental organization".  Quote: Much of the academic community (including Weiler, below) do not see the European Union as a supranational entity. It is more akin to an intergovernmental organization, as it does not regulate many aspects of the member states, the states themselves vote for bills by Qualified Majority Voting and The European Council controls the legislative agenda. It is more a matter of negotiation between the states than that of blanket policies."  This is from the supranationalism article on Wikipedia.  Another article, supranational union, also doubts the EU, because of similar arguments of the EU using consensus over majorities in decision making.  In other words, another list might be another controversy, and what I have learned seems to further weaken the already weak argument for the EU's inclusion here. Malnova 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I'm suggesting having two lists in the same article, perhaps in a separate section called "List of supranational entities and intergovernmental organizations"? The name is a minor issue. We can include Commonwealth of Independent States and ASEAN as well, together with other region-based organizations. As long as both lists are in the same article and have similar formatting, it is still very easy to compare the statistics. (the main reason cited for inclusion). I believe this is a good compromise. --Vsion 01:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't support this idea, and I will revert back any of such kind of edits if you don't discuss it here first and gain a large consensus. The decision for now is that the EU should stay in the list, unranked. -- giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 10:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:VOTE, anyone? Straw polls are not a substitute for debate. Neither are wiki-popularity contests. 7v4v1 does not a consensus make. On a side note, I don't see what's wrong with Vsion's proposal. Parsecboy 13:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am advocating exactly for a debate, a debate that has not taken place on List of countries by population regarding the same matter (the EU inclusion in the list). So I just wanted to see a discussion here before the User:Vsion edits the article without consensus. -- giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, based on the edit summaries of various editors, they seem to think just because we had a vote that it means consensus. Your previous comment that "The decision for now...list, unranked" doesn't really wash with me. The fact that on the talk page 7 editors supported keeping it in and 4 opposed it means little. Several editors (primarily anons, but also registered accounts) have voted with their edits and removed the listing. Clearly there is no consensus for it to remain, at least in the current spot for which you and other pro-EU editors are pushing. Parsecboy 14:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected The inclusion of the EU in the list is supported by me and many other editors (as you can see from the vote that has been cast here), while it is mainly User:Malnova that keeps reverting back the article. The EU should be in the list because of it's international value and importance. It is not a country, but has many aspects of a country (a common currency, no internal borders, a parliament, a judiciary system, elections, EU citizenship, etc...). It is of statistical value to have it in the list, to compare it to other institutions. -- giandrea   14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I thought for a second your insistence on listing the EU here was for the good of the list, I would consider a compromise. I was willing to consider a compromise actually, for the good of the list, until I realized what a "one issue" editor you are.  If you could guarantee the EU's listing here, your interest in this list would END, and you know it.  I have asked you once or twice why you don't also insist on an "honorary" entry for the EU in the generic "List of countries" article, with no response from you. I therefore must assume it is because the EU doesn't start with an "A" so you can't put it at the top of the list.  And continuing, a vote plurality is not a consensus, as I hope you know.  Almost everyone who "voted" for EU inclusion has a huge .gif of the EU flag on their respective User pages.  Is this the broad-based opinion that was hoped for when this "Request for comment" was started?  I don't think so.  If I had a group of "anti-EU" friends  I could bring in to back me up, I might think about trying out your tactics, Giandrea.  But I don't have such a group of friends, so you have trumped me there I guess. And indeed, to confirm my suspicions, I just went and checked, and you invited all of these "pro-EU editors" to come here and vote, which is called, where I come from, "stacking the deck".  Now, I could go through the history of this page and find everyone who has ever deleted the EU from this and other lists, and "invite" them to come here and "comment" and swing the vote towards "no EU inclusion".  If you keep insisting on having some sort of "majority mandate" then I will copy your tactics, and scour for votes just as you did.  -- Moving on, I have put a lot of work into this list in the past, switching it over to UN figures originally, revising the original listing system, and a host of other additions, and I won't let your insistence on "advertising" the EU here compromise the list. -- And while I am running on, I want to reiterate that I think the EU is a wonderful and unprecendented institution, entity and idea in our world.  I don't reject it out of any anti-EU sentiment.  I have consistently edited out non-sovereign countries or entities since I began editing here. Malnova 22:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are accusing me of collusion, you are accusing me of defrauding the RfC, and you are accusing me of being a "one issue" editor. I contribute to many wikipedia articles, and while I am European, as many other people that voted for the inclusion of the EU in the list, I'm not blindly biased. I really think that the EU should be listed in the article for the good of the community. The EU is internationally important. I am not pushing it in this article because it is at the top of the list. I support it in other articles where it is not at the top too. It's just that people (especially people with american anonymous IPs) don't remove the EU from lists where it is at the top (by this I mean, surpassing or close to the USA). I am not advertising the EU, it doesn't need that, but your arguments are offensive and weak. -- giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have made your point about not only trying to get the EU included on lists where it is at the top. As for the rest:  A simple question: Did you or did you not invite people who you knew to be pro-EU to come to this page to "comment" on the inclusion of the EU.  And after that, did you or did you not claim to have a consensus (even though a majority is not a consensus) that gave you a mandate for your inclusion?  --  Also, you claim that anonymous US IPs are responsible for removing the EU from these lists, I wouldn't doubt it, as the US contains the largest number of native English speakers in the world.  How many IPs that are EU-based have added the EU to these lists? -- I see from your recent editing at other similar lists that you are still trying to get the names of these lists changed to something like "list of countries AND territories".  Why?  For the good of that list?  No.  You do it for the specific purpose of trying to legitimize the validity of the EU as an entry there.  While we are on accusations, you have accused me of being a vandal (though have not reported me as one, I hope and assume), a wall, and anti-EU.  I am none of these.  Your arguments are, to coin a phrase, "weak and offensive" and textbook POV. Malnova 00:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to start a flame here, anyway the article name change was proposed by an admin to solve the controversy regarding the EU, and at the time, people were agreeing about that proposal. So I just supported the opinion and proposed it elsewhere to solve the impasse. I accused you of vandalism because you did not want to discuss here on the talk page about the EU inclusion, to find a compromise (that's why I think you are a wall). If you still don't want a compromise, I guess that the article will stay blocked forever. I'm open to discussion, as I've always been. -- giandrea   17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've disabled the editprotected request. There's absolutely no way I'm (or any other admin) is going to willingly step into this edit war. Editprotected requests are generally for minor changes (typos, glaring errors, etc.). This page was protected very recently, it needs some time to cool off. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * editprotected I completely understand your point of not wanting to be drawn into the recent edit war. — Unfortunately, with the current situation in the article at least the admin Trebor has already taken side. With preserving the article in the current state (without the EU entry) he is in fact very efficiently supporting the case of the "reverting" users. But let me propose a compromise for the good of this whole issue: How about at least adding the former EU line into the table on position 7, without number, and without the area and other details of the former entry, and having everything in italics if needed. Have a short sentence written in that line that the current inclusion of the EU line is in discussion on the talk page. This way, additional users will find their way into the discussion and we can base the whole consensus on a broader base. I still find it quite unfair that the "revertionists" didn't respect the voting result, but I'm really fuming that "their version" of the article got persisted by an admin. So, how about this compromise? MikeZ 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Disabled editprotected. See bottom of page for details. --MZMcBride 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to assert Trebor has taken any sides just yet. I would think it's general practice to exclude controversial information from articles during a content dispute that requires edit protection. There's nothing wrong with what Trebor's action. As far as the vote goes, remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes are not used to reach decisions, they are a means towards discussion that creates consensus. There is no consensus. Likewise, there is no need to put the EU back on the page for other editors to join the discussion. There already is an RfC posted. You could just as easily put that sentence about the EU's inclusion in a bullet in the notes section at the top of the page. Parsecboy 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, do we want to discuss about the EU inclusion? I want to see it listed not ranked, so, strictly speaking, it doesn't belong to the list, but people can see it and compare it to other countries. What's your view? Or is it better for you if we don't reach a consensus so you can push your POV and not having the EU listed here? --  giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Who says I'm POV pushing? There's nothing wrong with the proposal to create a separate table for the EU and other non-state entities. What's your opposition to that? Parsecboy 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Include in order, unnumbered - that is the best solution. EU is not a country, but it is a territory. It cannot be included with a number since every its member is in the list anyway, but inclusion as unnumbered entry with italicized name is useful for comparison. Garret Beaumain 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not include Not a country. Joelito (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The EU is not a county, and despite what giandrea claims, it does not have a currency, it has several legal currencies. Try spending Euros in UK or Hungary. It has no common language, social policy, politics, defence, tax gathering, speed limits or even which side of the road to drive. Autodidactyl 19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the Euro is the official currency of the EU, and sooner or later all EU countries have to switch to it. See the Euro article on Wikipedia. About languages, social policies and what else: that's not what defines a state, and anyway I'm not saying that the EU is a state, I'm just saying that it is important enough to be in the list with other countries. -- giandrea  [[Image:European_stars.svg|11px]] 19:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Include unranked or split list - I see no problem at all with including it as a comparison without being ranked. Whether or not EU is technically a country is irrelevant (IMO, EU isn't a country). The same is being done in List of countries by GDP (nominal), while List of countries by population has a split list. As a side-note, it is better if this discussion remains technical and be freed from name-calling or unnecessary personal attacks. Questioning the nationality of voters in a consensus and yet claiming to be NPOV is absurd. 143.89.91.10 06:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on how to include the EU
Please comment on Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Temp below. (--MZMcBride 04:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)) Here are several suggestions as to how we might get around this impasse. Please use this as a starting point for discussions. Please feel free to suggest other possible solutions.


 * 1) Mention the EU in the introductory text only stating what it is and its area figure and exclude it from main table, e.g. "The European Union is a ____ with characteristics similar to a country. It has a total area of x".
 * 2) Create a separate table of supranational organizations similar to List of countries by population where the EU and other currently existing organizations can be included.
 * 3) Include any currently existing supranational organization unranked and in italics. Do not include defunct ones.
 * 4) Remove EU member states from the list and include the EU with rank as a regular table entry.
 * 5) Mention the EU area as a footnote in each of the EU member state entries, e.g. "France is part of the European Union with a total area of x".

--Polaron | Talk 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Number 1 is the old consensus and what was there before, number 2 is what was done on List of countries by population, but I don't favour that because you can't compare the items anymore, number 3 is what has been done for List of countries by military expenditures, number 4 is totally out of question, number 5 would add the same info 27 times, and is not optimal. I would say I'm for number 1 or 3, at the very last number 2. -- giandrea   17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Number 1 may have been the obtaining version on the "list by population" article, but I don't remember it being used for any length of time here -either way I don't like it. It looks like an apology for including an unrelated entity and the previous version on the "list by pop" page took up half of the entry. Number 3 won't work, it's been done before, and next thing you know, you have a hodgepodge with no cohesiveness. This is one of the reasons I oppose the EU entry in the first place because it opens the floodgates. Number 4, as Giandrea said, is unacceptable. The constituent nations still have recognition as sovereign nations wordwide, and a wide degree of autonomy. On the other hand Number 2 is workable. With the table at the top, everyone can see that "regional orgs" are listed. It is a nice, informative, comparative addition. Number 5 is also good, the EU countries are part of a powerful organization to which they cede some authority, and it really should be mentioned in their footnotes, just as such relevant info is listed in the footnotes of other countries or self-governing territories.Malnova 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Number 2, of course. It's the best solution: (1) no data is removed, (2) more appropriate grouping of entities (3) greater flexibility which allows inclusion of AU, ASEAN, etc, hence promotes global perspective. (4) From the practical standpoint, it is a "stable" compromise. I can't see how any editor can revert in good-faith once the 2nd table is added. --Vsion 00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think number 2 is the best way to go, for the reasons stated by Malnova and Vsion. The ability to compare figures is not lost; one must merely scroll up and down a bit to compare the numbers with similar sized entities. Parsecboy 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Number 3 is clearly my favorite. With a separate table a direct comparison for the different entries (countries, outlying territories, and other entities) is lacking. A scroll-up-and-try-to-do-the-sorting-yourself in two different tables would be really cumbersome to the reader. Have the entry of "other entities" in the proper position of the table, without numbered ranking and even in italics, but provide for the direct comparison in just one table. Cheers, MikeZ 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * MikeZ, does having 2 separate tables really take much away from the ability to compare? It's not hard to look at the EU and see the figure and say "Hmm, the EU has about 4.4 million square kilometers, lets scroll up to see what's comparable. Oh, it's larger than India, but smaller than Australia." Is that really so bad? I don't see how that's cumbersome. Parsecboy 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never like two tables on one page as many time people only see the first table (usually the longer one) and never see the second as it is way down on the bottom of the page.-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There will be a table of content to indicate that there are two sections, like in List of countries by population. You can't miss it. --Vsion 22:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Number 3 alternative is incomplete and needs clarification. Is "supranational organization" well-defined and how many such organization are there? My understanding is that the edit war was about which organizations to include in the first list. Do you want to revert when some editors come along and add AU, ASEAN, Arab League, CIS, Mercosur, SAARC, Unasur, UN, WTO, APEC, NATO, G8, or G6, to the first list? Of course, Number 2 solution raises similar questions, but it won't be contentious because it doesn't affect the first list and the 2nd list can be more "accommodating". --Vsion 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted a message to MZMcBride that I had put up an alternate page on the sandbox he provided and invited him to take a look. He replied: "I'd be happy to merge the /temp article and the actual article and reduce once there's demonstrable consensus for the change. Right now, I'm not sure there is. Cheers." So can we move forward? A number of people seem happy with the compromise of the alternate page. Isn't the page better off this way than left in limbo? Some continuing dialog, at the very least, is needed. Malnova 02:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the temp page version. I'd support merging it into the main article. Parsecboy 12:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I generally disapprove of having two tables in one article named "list of something". Additionally, I still think that the proposed splitting of countries vs. "regional organizations" is wrong for the EU entry. The EU is really sui generis and in my opinion much more country-like than "regional organization"-like. Maybe I'll find some time to bring my complete thoughts down here for discussion. Otherwise, if I should be the only one opposing, I would agree to take the temp page version in the main article as an interim update, given that we go on with the discussion and really find a consensus. Cheers, MikeZ 18:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In regard to the EU being "more country-like than regional organizationl-like", almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Parsecboy 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, (assuming MZMcBride takes a look here once in a while) he is not impressed enough by what he sees here to make any move to unprotect this article. Giandrea, would you like to chime in?Malnova 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
There are basically two options: a separate table below the main table listing the EU and other supranational organizations, or, keeping the EU and other supranational organizations in-line, but unranked. Please support which option you prefer below. Only support votes are needed; oppose votes will be disregarded. This poll is being implemented to gain consensus so that this page can be unprotected and everyone can move forward. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Why only two options? I believe we should include a third option. Leave off the list altogether. Joelito (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's an option, however, the two options listed are the ones that have been discussed and seem to have the broadest support. If you feel there should be a third option, feel free to add it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

An outright poll is divisive. Why not list *all* possible options you can think of and let editors vote not outright support or oppose but something along the lines of "acceptable", "preferred", "not acceptable". Another way might be for editors to rank the options. --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

EU entry
The EU is now added to the list. Unranked because of its sui generis status.Lear 21 12:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Lear 21, you do not own this page, you have to discuss an issue before you make a change. You cannot simply state the above (which is exactly what you've been saying in your edit summaries) and make a unilateral edit. Parsecboy 12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of the EU entry is based on following arguments:
 * a) Country like entity: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice, common currency Euro, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate ,-Anthem, EU-Citizenship, one voice in WTO
 * b) already ranked in several other media and statistics like CIA WorldFactBook, IMF data sheet, Wikipedia List of countries by GDP (PPP) etc.
 * c) several other entries are included with unclear state or country definition like the souvereignityOverseas territories, Vatican and many others
 * d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its sui generis status and can not advocate the inclusion of Opec, Nato, African Union and others. The degree of a state like entity and its characteristics make this a singular case.
 * e) Because of the sui generis status, the 27 member states will remain as single entry and the EU becomes unranked between 6th and 7th position. Lear 21 15:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I can rebut all of your arguments with one single reply: It's not a country. Therefore, it does not belong on a list of countries. The other non-state entries should probably also be removed (i.e., the French overseas departments that are already included in the France entry). Here's a hypothetical situation for you: Say there's a Wikipedia article List of wines. Say someone repeatedly attempted to include beer to this list, based on the arguments that "it's an alcoholic beverage" or "it's closer to wine than water is". What if that person had a "I love beer" template on his/her user page? (Yes, I am implying that you're not impartial here. Every single person who's tried to force the EU on this and other "List of countries" articles has an EU flag prominently on their user page. No coincidence.) Would you accept the inclusion of "beer"? Or would you say "Now wait just a minute here..."? Parsecboy 15:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * @User:Parsecboy There is no evidence yet, that you are able to analyze what characteristcs include a country. The opposite is the case, you start disqualifying yourself using unbased allegations right from the beginning. I assume your statements won´t improve in the future, so just leave there. Lear 21 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I state again: if the EU is a country, then England isn't. Easy as that. Parsecboy 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See e) Lear 21 20:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, we are led to my first conclusion. The EU is not a country, and therefore, does not belong on this list. You're making this too easy. Parsecboy 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go round the mulberry bush again. I worked hard to get a compromise on this issue and made up a "list of regional entities" to be put at the bottom for everyone's approval. But nothing happened. And I won't belabor why I think this happened. Moving on: I would feel a lot more at ease about the people who think EU should be on the list if every single one of them didn't have an EU Contribs list longer than my arm. Put another way, if the people advocating the EU were here for the good of the list and not for the explicit purpose of getting the EU on the list and checking back every three days to make sure it's still there - period (or full stop, as you prefer). Anyway, I am not anti-EU. The EU is an example I hope is emulated all over the world; it's just not a country. Your arguments Lear, have been repeated ad nauseum in the archives here, and the opposing arguments as well. I have to agree with Parsecboy on your last e) point. If the EU is a single entry, you have to take out it's component states.  The same reason that you (nor I) would probably never agree to taking off all those countries is the same reason the EU should not be on the list, unranked or otherwise.  Your insistence on an honorable mention would be fine if this were the place for honorable mentions.  It's not. Malnova 22:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

@User:Malnova Same case as Parsecboy: You start discrediting the introduction without even tackling one contentbased argument. The list already contains multiple non-countries : c). The list names itself including exceptions 'List of countries and outlying territories by total area' ! I won´t start speculate about the motivation from the two sceptical editors, like they did. The pro statements are based on knowledge about the EU structure, which is diplayed openly at the userpage. This knowledge leads inevitably to the conclusions which are stated here. Lear 21 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your introduction and content based argument has been argued and counter-argued ad naseum in what has been left of the page here, and even much more voluminiously in the archives above. Listing all those points a) to e) is possibly for you a very stimulating mental exercise, but the two Users who have chosen to answer you so far have been around that mulberry bush too many times.  If there were a point you had brought up that hadn't been well-covered multiple times already, I would have addressed it (or even acceded to it, if it was a convincing arguement) but we've been through all of these.  Your point about the other non-country entities is the one that has been belabored the least: I have deleted all the non-country entities before and the argument for keeping them from other Users was that these entities have a degree of autonomy from the country that has nominal authority over them, and that their area is NOT included in the area of the countries that nominally control them.  Your addition of the EU would mean that the entire area of the EU is listed twice (an argument and counter argument that has also been "well-covered" in the archives).  But if the other non-country entities were to be deleted by a well-meaning User, I would not fight such an edit. Malnova 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This list is supposed to be an ordered version of List of countries. The only entries not included here that are included in that list are those whose areas are already included in another entry's official figure. Since the EU is not in the List of countries, and no one is even advocating for its inclusion there, there is no basis for its inclusion here. Furthermore, the principal source of the list (the UN Demographic Yearbook) does not list a figure for the EU. The UN Common Database does not list EU in its list of countries whereas all the rest of the entries are. For internal consistency, you should get the EU included in the primary list of countries before including it in ordered lists of countries. --Polaron | Talk 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

@User:Malnova see a), b), e) @User:Polaron For internal consistency see b) (last point) Lear 21 13:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only included in GDP lists beacuse it is listed by the IMF, which is one of the primary sources for figures. Otherwise, it is not. --Polaron | Talk 13:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Lear, did you listen to what Malnova said? Or is it just easier to say "see a), b), e)" instead of make actual arguments? I'll say it again for you. This issue has been beat to death long before you showed up here. The simple fact remains that the EU is not a country, and therefore, does not belong on this list. Why don't you drop this issue, and return when the EU actually has unified into a single country? We'll be happy to add the EU and remove the member states then.
 * As for your claim that the CIA WFB has an entry for it, yes, it does, but that's not the whole story, now is it? In the drop down menu titled "Select a country or location", the EU isn't listed. Neither is the EU flag in the "Flags of the world" section. So while the CIA does have an entry for it, it's not in the context of it being a country, or even country like, opposed to the many outlying territories that are included in the above mentioned lists. Parsecboy 13:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So my friends, this has an end now. Editors ask for a discussion and they have got credible, various arguments. In total they havent been addressed or are refused to be addressed. This list is based on the UN? Fine. The EU entry is based on 27 member states of the UN. The inclusion of the entry has been demanded many times on this site, for a reason. To compare the unique entity EU it is necessary to include it in this list. UNRANKED, so it can respect the UN list or any imagined list. Be sure that the inclusion will happen this time for longer. If you are in doubt about the nature of the EU, read EU ! If you are in doubt about Wikipedia and majority votings, read | Wikipedia is not a democracy ! all the best Lear 21 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Be sure that the inclusion will happen this time for longer." I don't get this line, not that I am really expecting an explanation.  Malnova 14:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You say that your arguments haven't been addressed. Read the above discussions on the talk page as well as archives, and you'll see our responses to arguments identical to yours. However, you've largely avoided our arguments as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Who said anything about having a vote, anyways? Parsecboy 14:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the List of countries and federations by military expenditures. The EU should be listed here exactly how is listed there. --Eurocopter tigre 08:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion reflects a general problem of this article. Parsecboy i right, the EU is no state. We can discuss about the other elements of statutory definition, but the EU has no territory of it´s own, because all the possible territory is already occupied by other existing states. On the other side, many of the entries of the list share this problem, because they lack elements of statutory definition too. To use the fine excample: If you allow whisky and mead on a list of vine, you have to allow beer too. On the other side, for excample the Arabian league, the states of the USA or the French départements could be added with the same right, in case of the départements even better right, because the oversea départements with the same legal construction are listed. This list wants to compare the size of independent nations. To allow other political structures would make the list useless. Therefore I think, this article should be redirected to List of countries total area. There it can be restricted to the only practicable limitation, the existence of a state, recognized by the United Nations. Although I share the opignion of Parsecboy, that organizations like the EU should not be listed here, but with the current state of this list, with so many entries, which do not belong here, I do not think, there is a logic reason to stop this entry. We should make rules, which content should be allowed, but we should not make different decisions on the base of individual cases because then Wikipedia will loose all encyclopedic standard. --Thw1309 09:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Several other country listings already including the EU entry. So will this one. The aim of this list is comparison of relevant data and not to judge on 'country' status. Because of the highly varying degree of country definitions the EU entry is justified. One example, focusing sovereignty : If the EU is not included in terms of country-like sovereignty, then 27 member states can be removed as well because many policies a) are enacted commonly. Lear 21 11:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's bogus, and you know it. Any state that is a member of the EU can leave any time it wants; it's not a country, where such an act would be secession similar to the American Civil War. The difference between the article that Eurocopter points out (which I helped work towards the compromise as it stands now) and this is that the EU does have it's own military force, while it does not occupy any territory, as Thw1309 points out. If they EU had it's own city state, like the Vatican or San Marino that it had total control over, I would have no problem listing it here, but, only for that territory, not the territory of sovereign member states. In some articles, like per capita PPP, the EU is relevant. Here it is not. Parsecboy 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy, EU is not listed in the List of countries by military expenditures for its minor rapid intervention force. The EU entry in that list represents the added military expenditures of all the member states. Here, the EU entry should represent the added total area of the member states. --Eurocopter tigre 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You also know I disagree with that fact, and feel that only the funding for the specifically EU controlled force should be listed, but that's for that talk page, not this one. Parsecboy 15:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * However... I still don't understand why you don't agree with the compromise - adding the EU unranked for comparisons. You are still making a wiki-career from arguing on this kind of talk-pages, if EU should/shouldn't be included in the lists. Looks like your scope here on Wikipedia is to always exclude the European Union from such lists. I wonder why 70% of the users who support the exclusion of the EU are americans?? --Eurocopter tigre 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with that article is that the EU does not control the militaries of the separate states, only the ERRF, so only the funding for what is controlled totally by the EU should be listed, again, that's for that talk page, not here. I'd say that's a vast mischaracterization of my contributions to Wikipedia to say that I have a "career" of arguing to exclude the EU. I may not be a Perfect Tutnum, but I've got a couple thousand edits under my belt, and less than a hundred of them are concerned with any of these lists. Note that I never argued to exclude the EU on the military funding page, just that accurate funding of what the EU actually controls should be used. In the same vein, seeing as that the EU does not control any territory, it has no basis for inclusion on this list. I just as easily wonder why 100% of the users who insist on including the EU on lists it shouldn't really be on are supporters of the EU. Parsecboy 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about militaries here Parsecboy, we are talking generally. You are an ultra-nationalist american user who always support the removal of the EU. Your "couple thousand" edits are actually 2.200, and 10% of them are made on such discussion pages like this.

Just give me a good reason why EU should not be listed there unranked for comparisons... --Eurocopter tigre 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 2,230 (now 2,231) to be exact. I've got 70 edits at Talk:List of countries and federations by military expenditures and now 21 edits here. Hardly 10%. Less than 5%, if you want to get technical. However, I don't see why I'm under such scrutiny. I feel I've been more than objective. As for an "ultra-nationalist American user", that's probably the funniest thing I've ever heard. If I'm so ultra nationalist, why is it that I would make comments such as this, stating something to the effect that "American soldiers in the Pacific in WWII murdered surrendering and wounded Japanese soldiers in cold blood and committed mass rapes"? Moreover, my edit history shows far more non-American articles, or international articles that happen to include America (such as WWII). In short, don't say shit about me, because you don't fucking know me. I will not continue to discuss the article about Military Funding, because you have shown time and time again that you're not there for the good of the article; you're only here to make sure the EU is prominently displayed all over Wikipedia. As for this article, as I and others have repeatedly stated, THE EU IS NOT A COUNTRY. IT CONTROLS NO TERRITORY. THEREFORE, IT HAS NO LOGICAL BASIS FOR INCLUSION ON THIS LIST. Did you hear me that time? Parsecboy 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you thought it was a good idea to label me as a ultranationalist American, and then when the obvious facts from my edit history, and what I very obviously state on my user page are presented, you conveniently forget you ever made the comments, and then not apologize. Way to be a grown up. Parsecboy 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you're wondering why you didn't get a reply at 19:55 GMT, it's probably because that's 12:55 EST, to 9:55 Pacific, most people are at work. And you're one to condescend about a record on Wikipedia. You've been here what, 5 months? Parsecboy 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

b) The EU is listed in List of countries by population, List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by exports, List of countries and federations by military expenditures, List of countries by population density and in the French and German version of this list. There is no justification to be an exception here. Lear 21 12:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since when is Wikipedia a source? Just because the Germans and French do something doesn't mean we have to as well. The EU shouldn't be listed at most of those pages anyways, because it's redundant over the populations of individual countries, exports, etc. Only aspects that are explicitly controlled solely by the EU should be included in lists of these kinds. Parsecboy 12:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed take offense at the characterization made in a very recent edit that people who are trying to protect the integrity of this list are "US ultranationalists". Polaron and I, and to a lesser extent Parsec, have put significant man hours into this list over the past two years, possibly more. Lear comes in and puts in his/her EU edit, because he wants the EU on the list, not for the good of the list. When he can't get what he wants, he makes a cryptic comment that reads, "Be sure that the inclusion will happen this time for longer." and calls in his task force-who is so far embodied by the User by the name of "Eurocoptre", another User who has been here before who has never made any kind of edit to this list except to add the EU. Eurocoptre then proceeds to say he will bring in 4-5 more pro-EU users to counteract "US ultra-nationalists". You are most decidedly pro-EU, and most decidedly only want the EU on this list for the sake of the EU, not for the sake of the list. I am here for the good of the list and always have been. I am in no way anti-EU, and sadly, for your theory, I am not American, nor ultranationalist. If I ever do, for some reason, become anti-EU, I will be sure to take inspiration from your example and change my User name to "Anti-EU Commando" and find a big "Anti-EU" gif to put on my User page. The statements you have made prove that you are not one to debate with, because you are not here to debate and be convinced one way or the other, you are here to get the EU on the list whatever the cost, and forward your EU ultra-supranationalism.Malnova 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I take it back, the User name is Eurocopter tigre, an even more apt name for an ultra-EU commando squad leader. I can almost hear the helicopter blades thwip thwip thwipping as you zoom in to free this list from tyranny, by force if necessary; where have seen such tactics before? Hmmm..... Malnova 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, let's calm down a bit. Malnova, I know that you are one of the major editors of the article and I respect that. I know that the EU is not a state and controls no territory, but why we can't include it unranked with a good notice for comparisons and statistical purposes? It seems fair for me to bring 4-5 pro-EU users, as you currently act like 3-4 anti-EU users group. I am here to debate this subject with you forever if you want, because the discussion will become endless, and a compromise such the one in the List of countries by military expenditures will be needed. I am sure that the quality of the article won't be damaged if the EU is/isn't included. --Eurocopter tigre 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If the quality of the article won't be damaged if the EU isn't included, what's the big deal? Why not go on your merry way and say "well, the EU doesn't have any territory, so it doesn't need to be included"? Parsecboy 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I am an inclusionist, and I also support the EU. --Eurocopter tigre 21:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So basically, you think the EU is great, and needs to be in every article possible? Parsecboy 21:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessary, but it should be included in such lists, because its presence would be interesting for the readers (as the EU has also many characteristics as a state). --Eurocopter tigre 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is at the heart of the issue here, as I see it, anyways. You support the EU as a concept, so you're pushing to have it included in these lists. That's called editing with a POV, which is not allowed. Yes, everyone does it from time to time (I know I've done it occasionally), but when you're called on it, be mature enough to say "You know what? You're right. Let's work this out objectively" instead of digging your heels in and falsely labeling people as "ultra-nationalists" etc.
 * To be completely honest, I have no problem with the EU; I actually think it's a good thing for Europe to unify. The problem I have is this: it's not a country yet, so it doesn't belong on this list. Yet. Come back when the member states have surrendered their sovereignty to a EU government, and I'll have no problem agreeing to include it on this, or any other list for that matter. However, I think it's incredibly intellectually dishonest (not to mention a violation of WP:AGF) to label Malnova, Polaron and myself as being "anti-EU crusaders" when it's clearly not the case. Parsecboy 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you mischaracterize people here (people here for the list, not the people "brought in") I am not anti-EU to your pro-EU, I am anti any entry that doesn't belong here. I have consistently edited out such extraneous entities, as I had to to years back with this sad example [], to give this list some integrity.Malnova 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See, even in that "sad example" the EU was listed in unranked. However, I still don't understand why you insist that it should be removed. --Eurocopter tigre 21:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly "understand" why you want the EU listed here, Eurocopter. Even if you did "understand" why I/we don't want extraneous entries on the list, would that stop you from putting your namesake on the list?  Of course not. BTW, I was forced to revert Lear's latest EU entry right away, because he/she put the EU first, above Russia.  It's understandable though, he was probably in a hurry. Malnova 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Things are going too far. Tit for tat here is fine, but the asinine antics going on on the page itself need to stop. I see now that Lear was just escalating a fight Parsec started by putting the EU last (on a list by AREA). Can we keep the scrapping on the talk page please? Malnova 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As I'm leaving tomorow in holiday, I will probably not been further involved in this discussions. You should make a compromise and take the best decision for the article. Take care guys, --Eurocopter tigre 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the EU should be in the list (for its sui generis status), however, I also agree that the EU should stay unranked, for it is not (yet) a country. So EU in teh list=yes, ranked=no. --Robster1983 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion is already over, and it will remain as it is now (the EU in a note, not in the table). I have one question though. Can an editor who's pushing to get the EU in lists of these kinds describe it without using the words "sui generis"? It sounds like a broken record. How about just "unique"? There are synonyms, after all. Parsecboy 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can. It is a confederation or federation. Unrecognised as such but recognised in it's authority which amounts to such an entity. Yes, s/g is a broken record. -  J Logan t: 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The EU is not a country
That is the basic reason for why many oppose including the European Union here. An ordered list of countries, such as this one, should be based on Wikipedia's List of countries, which was hashed out with tons of discussions several years ago. Seeing as the European Union is not there nor is there even any push for its inclusion there, I don't see the point of including it in these ordered lists. Note that neither the ISO nor the UN list the EU in their lists of countries. It may be appropriate in some lists, such as GDP, where the primary source for the data tabulates the value for the European Union. Here, it is not. In general, we should avoid having unranked entries in a ranked list. If a territory listed in List of countries is already included in another figure, it is simply not included in the list. A note may be added if needed in such cases. Some people argue that there are already entries that are "not countries" (actually referring to sovereign states). That is true but, again, the ISO, the UN, and Wikipedia's own List of countries all have a broader definition of 'country' and include self-governing dependent territories in their lists. As Malnova explained already above, the opposition for the inclusion of the EU is not about anti-EU sentiment, but about maintaining the integrity of the list. --Polaron | Talk 22:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The integrity is secured now. The new design draws orientation from the mentioned Wikipedia country lists. Note that this article already includes many sources other than ISO, UN most notably CIA WorldFactBook. Lear 21 23:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Like we've been stating this whole time, the EU is not a country, nor does it control any territory. It is not sovereign over the territory of the EU member states. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it does not belong on this list. It has no more right to be here than the AU, the Roman Empire, Greater China, or any other entry on the old version Malnova linked to above. Parsecboy 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The CIA Factbook was only used where UN figures were not listed in the Demographic Yearbook. I will, in time, find national census authority figures for the handful of entries that use the CIA Factbook. --Polaron | Talk 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unwillingness to compromise
I feel Polaron and I have made a good effort to compromise with Polaron's suggestion to place the EU in initial text of the article, not in the actual table. Lear has reverted this twice, without much of an explanation. Lear, if you're truly here for the good of the article, why will you not compromise? Likewise, why will you not even explain your objection to this compromise? I find this disturbing. Parsecboy 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Constant reverting of EU entry
The unranked EU entry for comparative reasons has been demanded multiple times on this talk page. Endless serious arguments have been stated with no result. It is highly likely to go on forever especially with incoming new Njet - Editors. Therefore I´m prepared to reinsert the EU entry on a daily bases the next years. all the best Lear 21 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This unwillingness to compromise is very disturbing. You are explicitly stating your intent to continually edit-war, which is totally unacceptable. If this is your goal, then perhaps you have no place in Wikipedia. If you continue in this path, I see no other option but to report you for disruptive editing and have you banned from this article. Please stop this. The inclusion of the EU has also been argued against multiple times on this talk page. What's your point? Parsecboy 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, the inclusion hasn´t been argued. The inclusion has been blocked, reverted and vandalized by ideologists. This is totally unacceptable! Lear 21 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is laughable. Have you even bothered to read our arguments? Let alone the reams of text in the archives on this very subject? Apparently not. I say again, if you do not back down from this position, (of intending to revert war, not of support for the EU's inclusion) I see no other alternative to reporting you for disruptive editing. I have no desire to see you blocked in any way, but I likewise have no desire to see this article disrupted by your stubborn refusal to compromise. Parsecboy 23:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You obviously missed this Talk:List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area. Read it, if you think it hasn't been argued to death. And that's on this page here, not on an archive. Parsecboy 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This one too. Parsecboy 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There won´t be disruptive editing unless editors stop withholding useful unranked! data. If this is not guaranteed there is no other choice to constantly uphold the right set of information. Lear 21 23:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you did not revert the compromise put forward by Polaron in your most recent edit. Does this mean you're fine with the article as it stands? If that's the case, then we can consider this issue resolved (at least as far as Polaron, myself, and presumably you, are concerned. I cannot speak for Malnova or Eurocopter, whom I believe is taking a short vacation.) Parsecboy 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The EU does not belong in a list of countries. This is not my opinion, it is an established fact; the EU is a group of countries, not a country. (I say this as someone who lives in an EU country.) Although it has some features of a sovereign state, to label it as such violates WP:NOR and WP:V; no reliable sources will be found to support labelling it as a country, because it simply isn't. On the other hand, I would not object to the inclusion of the EU in the list as an unranked, separate entry for comparative purposes. WaltonOne 15:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In point of fact, looking at the page at present, the current situation is fine. There is no need to change it. WaltonOne 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So we appear to have a consensus that the article as it stands is suitable. I take that Lear's and Malnova's silence on the issue indicate that they're fine with it. Eurocopter is on a short vacation, so we probably won't hear from him for a little while. Regardless, this seems to have resolved the issue. Parsecboy 15:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was getting fed up with the whole thing and took this talk page off my watchlist for a while. Anyway, as someone who is pro-List, I don't think it's the best choice having the EU in the introductory text, but I can live with it, mostly because it has actually shown the pro-EU people are actually willing to make a compromise by allowing it to stay there.  I was reading a comment by Eurocopter above which says, "why are 70% of people who delete the EU from the US?"  I don't know about this statistic, but I ask what percentage of people who ADD the EU are in/from Europe?  Every single user who I have seen add the EU has an "EU supporter" .gif on their user page and the only edit they have ever made here is to add the EU or changing parameters to try to increase the validity of a EU entry.  So the number of people who add the EU, who are pro-EU is near 100 percent.  Malnova 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. New to this discussion, but as it's not on the List of Countries, I don't see how it can be here. Plus it would mean double-counting land as both in a country and somehow associated with the EU. The compromise makes (some) sense if we need to have it on the page at all. DSuser 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, 'Sui generis' just means 'different' (literally 'not generic'). That can mean 'different and even less like a country'. Or it can mean 'different but still nothing like a country' (which is the correct use in this case). The EU is not on our List of countries. The EU has no legal personality, no ability to make international agreements and no constitution (please see Montevideo Convention to confirm that the EU is not a state). If the EU goes in then the Commonwealth goes in as well; in fact as a large number of Commonwealth member states are in personal union with each other, with the same person as Head of State, the Commonwealth is more clearly a candidate for this list than the EU. Happy to go either way, but we need to be consistent: both or neither. DSuser 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sui generis does *not* mean "not generic", it means "of its own kind", "of its own category", i.e. "does not fit in any category together with others". The EU is fundamentally different from the Commonwealth, as has been discussed elsewhere. Including ASEAN or the African Union makes sense, including the Commonwealth doesn't. — Nightstallion 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, you can not compare the EU to any other organisation, it is closer to a country, albeit one not recognised as such. But If we are talking about recognition it's authority is recognised by more than most entries on the list (e.g. Taiwan) - and all countries are recognised in their authority - the US is recognised not to have authority held by its states, same as with the EU. I won't clog up the discussion with my arguments here, see User:JLogan/Spade. My point is (as you can read from afore mentioned link) the EU is close to a country, and would not cause others to be included. I say it should be on the list, but I am not saying it should be ranked. I would also like to clarify that I do not support edit wars on this topic from either side. -  J Logan t: 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)