Talk:European integration/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

OSCE, Council of Europe not subordinate to European Communities

I reverted the move of one Euler diagram showing Council of Europe, into a section named "European Communities".

I also reverted the removal of the Euler diagram showing the OSCE.

Diffs: move and removal revert

TeraCard (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes you did. There is no need for two images showing the same thing. The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article. TDL (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Euler diagram showing the OSCE? TeraCard (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I explained it pretty clearly directly above, did I not? TDL (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, you did not. OSCE, CIS have their own first level sections in the article, there is consensus that it is within the scope of the article to talk about CIS and OSCE at that level. But still, you keep removing the Euler diagram. You gave no explanation. BRD is not meant for simply reverting, you shall provide a reason. TeraCard (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I have explained my position several times now. If you haven't understood, then I suspect that there might be WP:COMPETENCE#Language_difficulty here. I'll repeat my past comments below, and you can tell me which parts you do not understand:

Your new map is poorly formatted, extremely cluttered, less functional, redundant to the old map, makes the article look like a mess in the layout you insist on with no text wrapped around it, and includes organizations that don't even belong within the scope of this article which focuses on European integration, not global integration. And that's not even getting into all the factual errors your map contains.

I see you are new here, so I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, you've attempted to change the map 3 times now, and 3 times I've reverted you, and provided a clear explanation for why I disagreed with the changes. Wikipedia is a WP:CONSENSUS based project. All changes to articles need to a consensus to be made. As I've explained to you several times now, I object to your change in the map. There is obviously no consensus to make this change. As per WP:BRD, you need to establish a consensus on the talk page before continuing to make the change. Bullying others to try to force your desired changes into the article is not appropriate for a collaborative project. Continuing such behaviour is likely to end in you losing your editing privileges. Please self revert to the long-term, status quo map so that we can discuss the changes you are proposing on the talk page. TDL (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Now let's look at your language competency:

"There is no need for two images showing the same thing. The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article." - They don't show the same thing. Please look up "same" in a dictionary. "The only thing the new image adds" - You already contradict yourself. TeraCard (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"Same: identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned". Unless you are trying to argue that the "European Union" in your image is not "identical" to the "European Union" in the old image, then you are mistaken. Yes, your new image contains more (unrelated) organizations, but clearly both images show the same organizations twice. (That's obviously the "thing" I was referring to.)

As you haven't refuted the points I've raised above, I'll assume you don't have a valid argument. Please don't change the map again until there is a consensus. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion at Template_talk:Supranational European Bodies, seek a WP:30 or start a WP:RFC. Edit warring to force your changes in isn't the appropriate solutuion. TDL (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Since image A shows OSCE and CIS, and image B does not, the statement "There is no need for two images showing the same thing" can be true while at the same time it has no effect on inclusion of image A. Furthermore you didn't link a definition of "need". TeraCard (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't structure my response using mathematical logic (I could have, as I have university level training in the subject.) I was under the impression we were having an informal discussion.

That being said, you've now forgotten about the second sentence of my statement: "The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article." Both parts of my statement are key: a) the new stuff is only tangental to this article, b) it is not helpful to depict the members of the same organization twice.

Since a) is satisfied, this implies that all that is left is repeated organizations. And since "there is no need for two images showing the same thing" (which comes from WP:PERTINENCE), the new image is not helpful. a) argues that there is nothing new of significance in the new image and b) argues that there is no need to depict the old significant stuff twice. a) alone isn't a sufficient condition to argue for removal of the image. Were it not for b) you could have argued that "two images depicting the same organizations are still useful." Hopefully that clears up your confusion so we can go back to talking about "European integration" rather then semantics and logic.

Back on topic, what is "wrong" with the {{Supranational European Bodies}}? I understand you don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. TDL (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1) You fail again: I have not forgotten "The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article." 2) You show no proof that I ever was confused in the discussion here. TeraCard (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to discuss the map or not? If you are just here to attack other users, then there is not much use in having a discussion. TDL (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning fails again: "If you are just here to attack other users" - you know I am not, my intro in the section refers to OSCE. And who started: "Now let's look at your language competency"? Oh, yes, it was /not me/, but the only other party that takes part in the discussion here so far. TeraCard (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if you took offence to my statement about your language difficulties. It was certainly not meant as a criticism, just a statement of fact. You've repeatedly misunderstood or misinterpreted what I've written, making it rather frustrating to communicate with you. Now instead of telling me how much I "fail", can we go back to talking about the map? TDL (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've changed "Mints euros" to "Monetary Agreement with the EU" to address your concerns. TDL (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. UNMIK flag is still wrong. I don't see any further error. But the flags are not standard, the widely used ones are: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_sovereign_state_flags . Now one more "statement of fact": If you write things that are wrong, and I understand them that way, then it is not me misunderstanding any correct thought of you, but it is you writing wrong things and later claiming to have meant correct things. If you rank higher in a language proficiency test for the English language than me, then that does not mean that your statements are free of errors or that if there are errors, I am not able to detect them. TeraCard (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the flag of Kosovo to the UN flag. In the future, such issues should be raised at Template_talk:Supranational_European_Bodies or File_talk:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg rather than simply removing the image here.

As for the rest of your commentary, while it is entirely true that I can make mistakes in my typing, in every case that you've accused me of "failing" or using flawed logic, there was nothing incorrect with my statements. You've interpreted my statements in quite peculiar ways, but that doesn't make my statements "wrong" as you claim. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but it seemed rather obvious to me that, for example, when I spoke of the "same thing" I was not suggesting that the two images were exactly the same in every conceivable manner (which is the assumption that you made) as this was quite visibly not the case, but rather that they depicted the same organizations twice. Neither interpretation is wrong, but contextual clues should have made my meaning clear. TDL (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As stated 21:01, 9 July 2013, they didn't even show the same organisations, you failed again? TeraCard (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, you really should learn how to compose a proper sentence in English before telling others that they "fail". I've tried to be polite and wade through your garbled use of the language and reliance on logical fallacies, but this latest gem of a comment by you is oh so hypocritical I actually laughed out loud. It looks more like Engrish to me. Here's a hint: learning English via internet memes was probably not a wise choice.

Anyways, us adults are busy building an encyclopedia. If you'd like to discuss the content of the article, then I'd be happy to engage with you, but I won't be responding to your juvenile taunts any longer. TDL (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European integration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Membership possible

What's the principle behind this map?

For instance, why it does not indicate that membership is possible for Russia and Kazakhstan, two countries that have some area in Europe?--Reciprocist (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European integration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European integration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on European integration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge with 'United States of Europe' and 'Federalisation of the European Union' articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Each of the 3 articles covers largely the same content, managing a single article would be more efficient.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.40.102 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. If material is replicated, it should be removed per WP:FORK
- United States of Europe is essentially speculative fiction, disconnected from reality. It is not about the real world today or anytime soon.
- Federalisation of the European Union is about the EU, but again describes opinions about the way that the EU is developing. The EU itself (meaning the Heads of national governments) say it is not a federation and only a very small minority of countries wish it to become one. IMO, there is a strong case for that article to be deleted outright because it is a conspiracy theory.
- European integration again is not about the EU but much of it is so in fact. In principle it should only describe real integration that has happened, like the CAP, CFP, the Single Market (EU+), Schengen (EU- and +) etc (is there a cetera?). Any WP:CRYSTAL material should be deleted.

That is my 2c worth. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Snowball closure please, sick of seeing this kind of nonsense merge requests. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6447:A3BC:35B5:A746 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing obvious Eurasianist/Duginist propaganda

The entire section on "Future of European integration" needs either to be removed entirely or substantially rewritten in lights of events in recent times. There is zero prospects now of Russia being part of any European integration. Wikipedia should not be peddling obvious Duginist Eurasianist propaganda like "EU-Russia Common Spaces". Anything called for by Putin and his puppet Medvedyev is now to be considered obsolete and outdated. I will remove, at the very least, the sections "Common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok" and "Concept of a single legal space for the CIS and Europe" unless anyone has a decent argue why they should be retained? DojoIrl (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for the obvious reason that Putin did in fact say this. Of course actions speak louder than words, so either he didn't mean it or he had a dream of a pan-European Union lead by the Glorious Vladimir the Impaler. It should stay on the record. The problem with it as it stands is that there is no off-setting material. Nothing about his opposition to any sovereign decision by Georgia or Ukraine to apply to join the EU. Nothing about his 'persuading' Viktor Yanukovych that Ukraine really should apply to join the Commonwealth of Independent States instead. And of course finally his decision to wage war on Ukraine and thus destroy the prospect of any Russian alliance with the rest of Europe for the foreseeable future. So yes you are correct that the idea is dead in the water but no, you are not correct to try to do a Nineteen Eighty-Four job on the historical reality. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Most integrated countries" section

92.224.214.174, this is not your personal article, it is not for you to decide what it should or should not say.

The term "group" in a European context has particular connotations. The intersection set of countries that meet the arbitrary test of eurozone ∩ NATO is simply a "list", nothing more.
1. In particular, a Wikipedia article should not include material on editors' assessment of what qualifies a state for membership of a Wikipedia list
It is self-evident that the US and Canada are not European countries; to mention them is just background clutter
That four eurozone countries are not members of NATO is no more (or no less) significant that there are ten (?) european members of NATO that are not eurozone countries. More clutter.
per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia covers what is, not what might be. The plans of Croatia, Bulgaria and Finland are just that: plans. When they are realised, they can be added. Not before.
whether a state has "drive on the left" or "drive on the right" is utter trivia unless (as was the case many years ago at the Norway/Sweden border) drivers must cross to the other side at the border.
whether or not a state uses the Latin alphabet is also trivia. The variety of languages is far more significant.

Wikipedia operates on consensus. It is not acceptable to arbitrarily discard other editors' contributions without discussion. No-one wp:OWNs any article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Where are the sources to the above claims? Please respect WP:NPA. 92.224.214.174 (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed this section as it seemed like mostly trivia/OR and any encyclopedic information was already covered elsewhere in the article, especially the table "Multi-speed Europe". (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of section Most integrated countries

This section exists since almost a decade. Without any talk user:Buidhe removed it [1]. I strongly object to this process.

I also object the way the removal was presented "mainly trivia, see talk", there was nothing at the talk about "mainly trivia". 77.188.28.121 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Multi-speed Europe

I restored the article Multi-speed Europe. User:Micga merged it here. The topics are related, but Multi-speed Europe is a clearly restricted to processes after 1945 and centered around the EU. Also, the overview tables at Multi-speed Europe are readable, but the very large table at European integration hardly is usable at all, two of the flaws:

It does not fit horizontally nor vertically on FHD screens.
Some columns mix different agreements.

77.188.28.121 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Restore version of 2022-09-04

I restored the version as of 2022-09-04 [2] replacing the version as of 2022-11-02 21:35 [3]. The edit summary: restore article to state before massive undiscussed changes, including merging in other articles, removal of decade old content etc. 08:23, 4 September 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&action=edit&oldid=1108418896

It's not only the massive changes, but also

adding a hardly usable table called "Multi-speed Europe", cf. Talk section above.
adding unexplained terms e.g. "General pan-European integration" (listing three organisations e.g. "Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe") and "Specialised pan-European integration" (listing fields of work)

Also, if there is "pan" vs. "regional" - what is "Multi-speed Europe" doing outside this? In contrast, the 2022-09-04 version had a section "Geographic scope" clearly indicating one aspect of the integration and addressing it. 77.188.28.121 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no consent for such arbitrary rollbacks. The section titles were indeed not clear enough. But they are just a detail. You could have simply modified them.Micga (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't point your finger at the IP for calling you out. You alone have conducted hundreads of edits without zero explanation, including content removal, unexplained additions, unsourced additions, and plenty of WP:OR additions. This is generally speaking, non-constructive behavior, contrary to Wikipedia ethos. You could have sought consensus for such a major overhaul, or, at the very least provided reliable WP:RS for your numerous additions and/or edit summaries. Archives908 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

[edit conflict] @Micga: There was no discussion, let alone consent, for the massive changes you made. See WP:BRD. You made a very bold change; it has been reverted; now you produce a case for why it should be included. Without the unsourced editorialising for starters. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I restored Multi-speed Europe to its 17 October 2022 version as there was no consensus to merge that to here. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Visa Waiver Program

User:Micga removed the Visa Waiver Program from the section "Common membership of all EU member states" [4].

The section name and the content [5] do still not match, since the facts listed are not only memberships. So, what was the motivation behind the removal? 77.188.28.121 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s pretty easy to check that four EU countries do not participate in the Visa Waiver Programme. Thus, you misplaced it.Micga (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Micga - can you use the edit summary field in the future to make clear why you reverted something? Looking at Visa Waiver Program I now see Romania and Bulgaria are not included, so yes, I made a mistake. Which are the other two? 77.11.87.107 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Revert of cautious changes 2022-11-04

user:Archives908 "Out of control editing pattern- these changes require consensus." [6] - please explain and make sure you respect WP:BRD. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

user:Archives908 has been notified at their talk page [7] and s/he decided to revert the edit that placed the notification [8]. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You're funny, dear IP. My talk page isn't the place to discuss changes to THIS article. Archives908 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

user:Archives908 will you explain and make sure you respect WP:BRD? 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Reinsertion of bugs 2022-11-04

user:Archives908 please explain why you re-insert the same bugs twice. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Cautious changes 2022-11-04

user:Archives908, user:John Maynard Friedman, user:Micga, user:WeifengYang - starting from the restored version 2022-09-04 and the changes by WeifengYang today, I moved some sections and applied little fixes. Do you agree with these changes? There is probably more to do, but to have a common ground I would like get your input. I also put them into one edit by restoring WeifengYang's version and then undoing this [9], so you can see the kB changes too. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP user- while I appreciate your WP:GF edits, there has been major disruptions on this article recently and your rapid editing style is not helping. Some of the wording in your edits were also not proper in terms of phrase and grammar. I have restored the last stable version accordingly. Feel free to propose any changes you see beneficial here for us all to review/reach consensus rather than clogging up the edit history. Thanks. Archives908 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"there has been major disruptions on this article recently" - that's why I restored and applied cautious changes
"your rapid editing style is not helping" - please explain, I only made very few edits, only
1. moved text
2. fixed obvious bugs
3. add very limited amount of text
4. changed the section names inside Geographic scope
5. ... if you see anything else please tell, and if so, say if you disagree
"Some of the wording in your edits were also not proper in terms of phrase and grammar." - well, then fix that, it's a wiki, see WP:OWN, or at least point out what was wrong and why
"Feel free to propose any changes you see beneficial here" - The proposal is in the article history. You can use the diff function.

77.11.87.107 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not here to fix your mistakes. It is because of your rapid editing that you are missing your own faults. If you actually take the time to REVIEW your grammar/prose then others wouldn't have to clean up your mess. I have asked you politely to propose potential changes to the article beforehand, yet you seem to have an issue with that. Therefore, I ask again, any major changes should be discussed here given the recent turbulent editing on this article. Archives908 (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There was nothing rapid. Respect WP:NPA. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

[edit conflict] 77.11.87.107, WP:BRD says that User:Archives908 was entirely within policy. You made a Bold edit, Archives908 Reverted it, so now we Discuss it. Given the recent history of rapid-fire edits to this article with disruptive effect, the reversion was justified. So explain what changes you want to make and why you believe that they need to be made. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

𝕁𝕄𝔽 please read WP:BRD again. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for edit warring, as there is no consensus (at least not yet) for the edits they are repeatedly making. Given their persistent block evasion, please feel free to let me know if there is further disruption to this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As the block evasion has now extended to the article itself, I have temporarily semiprotected it. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Kinu ^t/_c for taking swift action to protect this page, which has seen an awful lot of disturbances as of late. We shall keep you appraised should such disruptions continue following the expiry of the page protection. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Open for discussion

With the disruption caused by IP users now being reverted, I am open to any serious and consensus-building discussion on the subject. I by no means consider myself exempt from criticism or immune to challenges against contents, though it is the parties contesting someone else’s legitimate contributions that have to make their case in the discussion as firsts, and not the opposite way. Regardless of that, the reckless support practiced recently by some editors for the kind of disruptive behavior that we saw being caused by an IP user, has to cease, once and for all.Micga (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Putting all the blame of "reckless editing" on the IP user is unjust, as most editors have had concerns with your editing tactics. Not sure why you would reinstate your edits before seeking consensus, as you have already been advised to do. Nonetheless, since you, and you alone, seem to be hellbent on maintaining your version of this article, you should present your suggestions/recommendations here. I personally see nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo. Archives908 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I shall try to be as specific and precise as possible:

1. Prior to the fuss created by the IP users User:92.224.214.174 and User:77.11.87.107 you altered on numerous occasions my contributions and I neither opposed it nor engaged in edit war; I do not have a problem with that at all, as opposed to the indiscriminate rollback
2. the IP user was the one that rolled back my edits instead of making changes, while the present problem has been caused by the fact that when I undid the IP’s rollback, it was reinstated by user JMF without providing any grounds, encouraging the IP user to abandon aby restraints and subsequently to engage in edit wars also with both of you
3.Only when the latter occured, you both reported the IP user to have him blocked, but then again, the article was rolled again back (this time by you) to the version prior to my edits, again without providing justification or at least attempting to discuss it
4. both you and JMF throw around claims of POV, ADVOCACY, OR etc, but do not feel conpelled at all to deliver further on these claims;
5. moreover, both you and JMF brand the edits as „undiscussed” but at the same time you along with JMF feel both exempted from discussing yours; edits of both of you are also often contradictory , e.g. JMF deleted the section on most integrated countries but now it is restored though the rollback
6 your ostensible will to engage in consensus building can be accurately depicted by the fact that I asked you several specific questions in the ANI in regard to the contents and got no explanations; you both simply feel exempt from the very actions that you demand from others
7 altogether, my impression is that you want in practice to hold a hearing rather than a discussion, or putting it in different words, you demand in fact from others to seek your prior approval for all their contribs rather than to have a consensus-building discussion; otherwise you would challenge here some specific parts, contribs etc and pehaps revert them, as you did unopposed by me prior to arrival of the IP user, instead of doing an indiscriminate and entirely unexplained rollback
8 finally , it would be quite hard for me to discuss an indiscriminate rollback of numerous contribs. But most important, I do not see why I should be the one to explain myself for every edit. Such demand amounts in fact to turning the cat by the tail, as it is principle the rollback that is the origin of the problem and that has to be justified as first,
9 The article should thus be reverted to the version prior to the IP, later remaining of course available for your potential amendments. Doing otherwise is simply an act of arrogance and lack of respect for someone else’s work .Micga (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

All I see here is you continuing to deflect, deflect, deflect. While completely avoiding discussing your proposals for this article, after being asked to do so. Myself, 𝕁𝕄𝔽, Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2), among other editors have had to warn you of your non-constructive editing tactics on the recent ANI discussion regarding your edits. As discussed at the ANI, all of your edits were unexplained, vastly unsourced and lacking any WP:RS, and contained concerning amounts of WP:OR. Therefore, you have failed to garner WP:CON to reinstate your version of the article. Further, you have ignored all warnings, including at Multi-speed Europe where you continue to push blanking/redirecting the article after myself and AngusW🐶🐶F have had to restore the article due to zero consensus. Please cease this disruptive pattern of editing. Archives908 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m not deflecting. I just expect you to justify the rollback with anything else than general impressions and you fail to do so, as you also did when asked specific questions in ANI. The passages contested by JMF were in the article or in articles merged into it already before my edits, while those branded by you as OR were a tiny percentage of the entire body and in no way justified an indiscriminate rollback, not to say that you could simply have marked them as such, in order to make me deliver the sourcing. There were no other contesting parties, except for the IPs.Micga (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You made hundreds of edits with zero edit summaries and zero reliable sources. And now, to your own admission, you included OR content. It's not my responsibility to chase down sources from you or decipher what is your OR and what could potentially be backed up by reliable sources. That's not how Wikipedia works. Archives908 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I admit failing to source in some rare cases few passages properly, not inserting OR. Again, this may justify a revert, not an outright rollback.Micga (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

To be even clearer, per WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It is not our job to chase down and verify every one of your dozens of updates. Your past editing record is such as to make rollback of a block of unexplained edits the only rational response. It is for you to show that they are WP:DUE, satisfy WP:NPOV and are not WP:OR. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so to start with: the structure. In its current form it is an utter chaos lacking any logic e.g. some non-governmental associations (e.g. European Broadcasting Union) have been given unjustied prominence. Various types of organizations are mixed up. The section on EU contains plenty of bodies unrelated to it, in particular in the subsections dealing with specific areas or economy branches, while the European Community, clearly belonging to the history of EU as its direct predecessor, has its own distinct section. Further, the section on the future is at the bottom, but the organizations focused on it have an own one at the top… etc

I attempted to sort that through making sections: one dealt with the general integration (unspecialised initiatives and bodies, unrelated to a specific field or economy branch, also unrestricted to a particular part of Europe, with CoE, OSCE and the EU being the principal bodies), another section dealt with specialised integration (initiatives and bodies focused on a specific area or economy branch and unrestricted to a particular part of Europe, both those related and unrelated to EU), while a third one dealt with initiatives and bodies restricted to a certain part of the continent, both general or specialized ones. What was wrong with that? Is the structure of the current version in any way better and more logical than the previous one? Micga (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear users Archives908 and JMF, we can now witness exactly the kind of constructive and insightful remarks in the discussion that I have expected from you. Remember that you are the only ones left to discuss with, as both IP users involved have been blocked.Micga (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If you took a minute to read my first reply attentively, you would have seen that I already made my position very clear. For the second time, I see nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo. Whether the structure of the article is more or less "logical" then the current version is completely relative based on perspective. What is clear, however, is that your proposal(s) have not garnered any support from a single other editor. My concern is that you will again make hundreds of rapid edits, without any edit summaries. Thus, making it extremely difficult for other editors to review changes. Which is the same concern others have already warned you about following your edits at European Union. My second and primary concern is the fact that your proposals are lacking any credible sources to back up your statements. Your word or opinion does not count as a WP:RS. Finally, based on your last comment, remember that editors have WP:BUSY lives outside Wikipedia and you can not expect/demand immediate responses. Wikipedia is a WP:VOLUNTEER project. Archives908 (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please focus on the subject instead of producing personal observations? I try to do that and to discuss my edits cases by case. To start, I have now raised some specific issues concerning the structure. As for the support, it sadly seems there is scarcity of editors interested in the topic. Micga (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm very focused. No WP:PA's have been made here- only valid concerns which continue to be ignored. Archives908 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Now, this is deflecting. I ask you above all to reply here to the following part of my post: „Some non-governmental associations (e.g. European Broadcasting Union) have been given unjustied prominence. Various types of organizations are mixed up. The section on EU contains plenty of bodies unrelated to it, in particular in the subsections dealing with specific areas or economy branches, while the European Community, clearly belonging to the history of EU as its direct predecessor, has its own distinct section. Further, the section on the future is at the bottom, but the organizations focused on it have an own one at the top… etc.” The respective wikilinks already embedded in the body of the article demonstrate it clearly. If you find that any part of the fragment above is wrong or requires additional sources, please indicate it. As of now, you mostly concentrate on rapidity of my edits and lack of their edit summaries, carefully avoiding at the same time to discuss the essence. Micga (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

No deflecting- only expressing concern. Mixing and mashing your proposals without much detail is making it hard to understand what exactly is your end goal. To avoid an incoherent discussion, please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. For instance, about the EBU, how does the respective section violate WP:DUE. Please specify how it violates policy and what exactly you propose to fix the policy violation. Archives908 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

here you are:

I propose the hierarchical sorting of sections and organisations as in my version:

1History

2Theories of integration

2.1Proto-integration period (1940s)

2.2Explaining integration, 1948 onwards

2.3Second phase: analyzing governance, 1980s onwards

2.4Third phase: constructing, expanding and consolidating the EU, 1990s onwards

3General European integration <— That is: intergovernmental initiatives and bodies restricted neither to a specific part of Europe nor to a specific subject

3.1Council of Europe

3.2Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

3.3European Union

4Specialised European integration <— That is: initiatives and bodies unrestricted to a specific part of Europe, though devoted only to a specific subject; both the intergovernmental ones as well as some established non-governmental ones if standard-setting or crucial for a certain industry branch

4.1Trade

4.2Aviation

4.3Energy

4.4Telecommunications

4.5Standardisation

4.6Education

4.7Research

4.8Health

4.9Defence

4.10Space

5Local integration initiatives in Europe <— That is: intergovernmental initiatives and bodies restricted to a specific part of Europe

5.1Low Countries region (Benelux)

5.2British Isles

5.3Nordic countries

5.4Central and Eastern Europe

5.5Black Sea region

5.6Baltic Sea region

6Multi-speed Europe

6.1Concept

6.2EU inner framework

6.3Outer European environment of the EU

6.4Summary of European integration uniformity and progress

6.5Common membership of all EU member states

6.6Core Europe: uniformity and non-uniformity

6.7Overlap of membership in various agreements

6.8EU exclusive mandate

7Beyond Europe

7.1Europe-centered organisations extending outside

7.2EU and other regions and countries in the world

7.3Commonwealth of Independent States and the Eurasian Union

7.4Collective Security Treaty Organisation

7.5Organisations related to European languages in the world

7.6World integration

8Future of European integration

8.1Extent

8.2Depth

8.3European identity and diversity

8.4Advocacy and opposition

instead of the current:

1History

2Theories of integration

2.1Proto-integration period

2.2First phase: explaining integration, 1960s onwards

2.3Second phase: analyzing governance, 1980s onwards

2.4Third phase: constructing the EU, 1990s onwards

3Citizens' organisations calling for further integration

4Overlap of membership in various agreements

4.1Common membership of member states of the European Union

4.2Most integrated countries

5Geographic scope

5.1Beyond geographic Europe

5.2Limited to regions within geographic Europe

5.2.1Nordic countries

5.2.2Baltic Sea region

5.2.3Nordic-Baltic Eight

5.2.4Low Countries region (Benelux)

5.2.5Black Sea region

5.2.6United Kingdom and Ireland

5.2.7Central Europe

5.2.8Eastern Europe

5.2.9Danube region

5.2.10Balkans

6Council of Europe

7Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

8European Free Trade Association

9European Broadcasting Union

10European Patent Convention

11European Communities

12European Union

12.1Competences

12.2Economic integration

12.2.1Free trade area

12.2.2Customs union

12.2.3European Single Market

12.2.4Eurozone

12.2.5Fiscal union

12.2.6Aviation

12.2.7Energy

12.2.8Standardisation

12.3Social and political integration

12.3.1Education

12.3.2Research

12.3.3Health

12.3.4Charter of Fundamental Rights

12.3.5Right to vote

12.3.6Schengen zone

12.3.7Visa policy in EU

12.4Defence

12.5Space

12.6Membership in European Union agreements

13Future of European integration

13.1European Security Treaty

13.2Common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok

13.3Concept of a single legal space for the CIS and Europe

14Beyond Europe

14.1Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

14.1.1Ties with partners

14.2Commonwealth of Independent States

14.3Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations

14.4EU and other regions and countries in the world

14.5Other organisations in world

14.6European languages in the world

14.7World integration

15See also

16Notes

17References

18Further reading

Justification as stated above:

Various types of organizations are mixed up.
the European Community, clearly belonging to the history of EU as its direct predecessor, has its own distinct primary section
meanwhile, the section on EU contains plenty of bodies not originating from, subordinate to or dependent on it, in particular in the subsections dealing with specific areas or economy branches (e.g. Eurocontrol, European Civil Aviation Conference, Energy Charter Treaty, European Space Agency, European Telecommunications Standards Institute, European Committee for Standardization, European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements etc. etc.) - therefore, I propose taking these subject-specific subsections out of the EU section and grouping them into a section dealing with specialized integration in Europe in general (That is: initiatives and bodies unrestricted to a specific part of Europe, but devoted to a specific subject, both governmental or some established or standards-setting non-governmental ones, important for a certain industry) and not only within EU framework, so that the existing contents are compatible with the title of section
Some non-governmental associations (e.g. European Broadcasting Union) have been given disproportionately high prominence without justification while some important intergovernmental bodies are barely mentioned, if at all (As for the invoked EBU, it should stay of course, but only as a part of telecommunications subsection of specialized integration section, and not as a primary-level section equal in prominence to the one of the EU; I make this statement naturally under the assumption that I do not have to explain obvious and basic things such as the difference in significance between EBU and EU, do I?)
disproportionate attention is given to several incidental and ephemeral Eurasianist proposals, in spite of none of them being taken up up anywhere else in Europe; this applies specifically to the current subsections 13.1European Security Treaty, 13.2Common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, 13.3Concept of a single legal space for the CIS and Europe); I changed the name of the first subsection from an over-detailed one focused on a specific past event concerning an incidental proposal for “European Security Treaty” to a more general and persistent one of “relations with the Collective Security Treaty Organization”; whereas the remaining two subsections describe some remarks which were not only incidental but also made in each case by a single obscure Russian scholar, both of these concepts failing to make it into the mainstream European political discourse or to reverberate in any other way throughout Europe, thus lacking notability, and therefore, I removed these two passages, the only instance of me doing so in the entire article; In general, the six Eastern Partnership countries plus Turkey have been at least since 2014 the only states east of the EU border with more or less remote prospects of joining the EU if they desire to do so, retaining them mostly only due to persistent and unambiguous pressure exerted by the new EU countries on the original ones; in contrast, there have been no serious discussions or expectations related to any future increased commitment of Russia and Kazakhstan to the European integration, while after February 2022 any such future prospects have been explicitly ruled out by consensus among EU members
the section on the future is at the bottom, but the organizations focused on it have an own one at the top

Micga (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have reviewed your concerns/proposals, however, I still believe that the current state of the article is more than acceptable. Granted, as with most articles, there could be some minor improvements done but I do not think such a massive overhaul is critically necessary. I have asked you to provide which wikipolicies are in violation with the current state of the article. Yet you have been unable to specify which policies are in direct violation. For example, with regards to the order of the table of contents; please specify which policies are in violation. Furthermore, some of your justifications appear to be WP:OR. Making claims which are not backed up by any WP:RS is not acceptable. This is something you have been advised of before, yet I do not see any sources provided alongside any of your justifications above. Therefore, I'm quite perplexed how you expect other editors to agree to such a massive re-write. Perhaps that is why your proposal has not been able to garner a consensus thus far. I will kindly ask a second time if you can specify which policies are being violated and explain how your amendments will rectify those violations, while providing credible sources to back up your justifications listed above. You may also request a WP:RFC and see what other uninvolved editors/Admins think of your proposal. Archives908 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the layout, it is incompatible with WP:ACCESSIBILITY, MOS:BODY and WP:UPFRONT.
The passages „the European Community, clearly belonging to the history of EU as its direct predecessor, has its own distinct primary section”, „the section on EU contains plenty of bodies not originating from, subordinate to or dependent on it, in particular in the subsections dealing with specific areas or economy branches (e.g. Eurocontrol, European Civil Aviation Conference, Energy Charter Treaty, European Space Agency, European Telecommunications Standards Institute, European Committee for Standardization, European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements etc. etc.)” and „EBU should not have a primary-level section equal in prominence to the one of the EU” do not require sourcing as they are easily verifiable simply by the sourced contents of the respective articles describing these bodies.
The sections on Eurasianist proposals violate WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:FORUM.
Which parts of the justification do you consider WP:OR? Indicate these, please. Micga (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)