Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/European Union/1

Delisting as Good Article
I propose to delist the article as a Good Article. This notification allows other editors to improve the article, see Good article review.

1. Structure is not clear and not yet logical, and EU structure itself, its values, it policies, and political controversies about those, are mixed in with each other. Headers do not always match section content, politics section for instance is more about structural issues. Article needs to be read twice to understand it. Too much about the location of EU institutions rather than what they do.

2. Some dubious claims (EU largest economy, EU prevents war) are not sourced.

3. Coverage of values, European identity, and future orientation is weak, and not stable either. List of largest cities is listcruft and does not belong here, associated images even less so.

4. Neutrality is undermined by the concentration on legal aspects, the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance, but you would not guess that from the article. History section has too much Whig history.

5. Article is certainly not stable.Paul111 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A good idea, Paul111, on each of these grounds. Perhaps the shock of de-listing will focus minds. Countersubject 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if using the "nuclear option" is really the right solution. You may launch an edit war by resorting to such a radical solution.

Concerning your comments: 1) structure may not be perfectly clear, but somehow you're the only one really annoyed about it;

2) sources for these claims can easily be found, I'm sure, as these claims are quite common (also: the EU did prevent war between member states since it was founded - or can you prove the contrary???);

3)Values, identity, etc. are obviously vague since the EU means different things to different people and member states. The largest cities list is not really necessary, I agree with that, but that's not really a reason to delist this article.

4) I would dispute the argument that "the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance". Can you source that? As I see it, the EU is first of all an economic entity; the political aspects are secondary. Internationally, the EU has a rather low profile, internally, however, it is the major source of legislation for the member states nowadays. The (rather small) history section just lists the major steps of the EU (with a disproportionate emphasis on the Constitution, IMO), in how far has it too much Whig history???

5)Well, haven't you considered that you may be one reason for its instability? Luis rib 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very disappointed, Luis, that your fifth point seems to be coming close to the kind of personal abuse that has marred discussion of this article (though it is put in you unfailingly polite manner). When you appear to disagree with fellow editors about the subject of an article, and when that subject is a matter of intense political and constitutional debate, then you need to think carefully before suggesting their edits are destabilising the article.  It not only looks like a discourtesy, but will also distract editors from the discussion of Paul's observations and suggestions that you've begun.  Now I'm going to go and deal with supper before it burns.  That will also give me a chance to think about the substantive points that you've both made. Countersubject 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If my comment above was seen as a personal attack on Paul111, then I apologise. What I meant by my rash and unfortunate wording in point 5 was that the current instability is the consequence of the discussions that we are having here on the talk page. Obviously, as long as some points are hotly debated, the contents in the article concerning these points will change and evolve. Paul111 naturally has the right to propose changes, but Lear21 (to name just one contender) also has the right to challenge these proposals. So while such an issue is discussed, the article will be unstable - yet the instability will be caused by both editors, as they modify the contended wordings to and fro. So blaming the instability of article just on one part of the editors (and this is what I suppose that Paul111 was meaning by his above comment in point 5))is not correct. Furthermore: threatening to challenge the status of Good Article based on the instability of the article - which has been caused by both sides - is IMO unfair as it aims at stopping discussion and imposing the view of just a parts of the editors. Luis rib 20:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding point 4 which deals with the called Atlantic alliance, also commonly known as NATO or OTAN, I would suggest to read the (British) Economist: “But France has always believed that in the long run the EU must assert its independence of NATO, an organization it regards as ultimately an instrument of American foreign policy. Without an independent European defense force, the French believe there can be no independent European foreign policy. Michel Barnier, a Frenchman who recently chaired a working group on defense at the EU's current constitutional convention, says he wants Europe to foster a relationship with the United States “based on alliance, not allegiance”.” In other words, European nations would like to take back the control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)