Talk:Institutional seats of the European Union/Archive 1

This page 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.

Merge oneseat.eu

Add support or oppose here.Paul111 12:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the merger of oneseat.eu or a separate oneseat.eu page, unless the section or page talks in a balanced way about campaigns on both sides, and therefore includes the newly launched pro-polycentrism campaign called "For European Democracy", which argues for Strasbourg not on any selfish Strasbourg-centered argument, but that for the health and vigor of Europe, and to decentralize the EU and reduce its democratic deficit, it is vital that the EU maintain its 3 capitals rather than centralize further. The EU has suffered from a "creeping centralisation" for a while now and Brussels has a horrendous image, while Strasbourg has a positive one, apart from the damage inflicted by the repeated pro-Brussels attacks. See www.democratieeuropeenne.eu for the site of this pro-polycentrism campaign, for the moment only in French and it is not up to date, but the campaign is young and without any means so far, whereas the pro-Brussels centralisers have spent probably hundreds of thousands of Euros, and are very vocal and aggressive, incredibly so, and do not hesitate to lie and mislead as well, which is unethical and should be unacceptable in political debate.

Fundamentally, pro-Brusselers dont seem to have thought deeply of the potentially grave historical implications of their proposal, and are even contradictory with their own political convictions (since the most virulent anti-Strasbourg MEPs ironically are also the most virulent anti-European or anti-centralisation advocates otherwise, which is a total contradiction).

Bottom line: there should be an objective description of arguments on both sides, as befits the principles of Wikipedia. democracyengineer 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Strasbourg/Brussels bias

Look, I've been trying to keep this topic on wikipedia balanced, although the citations on the pages are missing here. Also I don't have citations for any pro-Strasbourg or two seat arguments. I will admit I probably have a pro-Brussels bias as that is what I believe and I only occasionally hear someone arguing for Strasbourg. If pro-Strasbourg editors would like to communicate with me here before either of us continue editing on this topic, we could work out a consensus to bring some stability and reliability to the topic on all articles. Just a few starting points I'd like to table;

No use of "most" - unless it relates to some kind of survey or vote with an absolute majority.
Citation on all arguments and facts - no personal thoughts or ideas - (for historical facts, use ENA).
Better structure of article - division into pro and anti sections for clarity, but not for ring fencing between editors.
Discuss facts here if there is even one rv on it.

Thoughts? - J Logan ^t/_c: 08:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Having lived in Strasbourg, i have personnaly heard (but this is unsourceable) that some MEP's, especially young hip nordic people like Malmström, coming from countries where alcool is expensive, are just fed up of having to spend whole days in a town with a lacklustre nightlife. For all its beauty, Strasbourg is indeed quite sleepy after 10 p.m. RCS 11:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To the previous commenter, if that is the case, then Strasbourg with its famous Winstubs and combining the best of French (wines, including the best white wines allegedly) and German (beers) drinks, should be the best choice ;-)

To J Logan Sorry, but your "balance" is incredibly unbalanced, and it shows how effective the pro-Brussels centralisers have been, when someone claiming balance writes such an incredibly biased anti-Strasbourg piece. Your comment about a "two seat argument" is a giveaway of that deep ingrained bias. The pro-Strasbourg argument is NOT a two seat argument, this is red herring set up by the pro-centralisers who CLAIM falsely and misleadingly that there are 2, or even 3 parliament seats! This is a blatant untruth, and pro-centralisers willfully try to manipulate people by confusing the "seat" with the "working locations". There IS only one seat already, so the oneseat campaign is really based on a false premise, or to be blunt, a propagandistic lie, but any casual observer of politics knows, the bigger the lie, the better it goes through. So if there is any mention of oneseat at all, honesty would require to point out that oneseat itself is based on a false premise, otherwise we are giving credence to a political lie just by mentioning it. Wikipedia should be about the truth, not about propaganda.

Also, I see you deleted some of the changes I made, though they are objectively verifiable, like the fact that the Commissioner Malström was attacked for her signature of the anti-Strasbourg petition because she has a duty of neutrality, and the fact that the petition did not fulfill minimum standards of signature verification and therefore contained fanciful signatures like GW Bush and Mickey Mouse. Your pro-Brussels bias showed through the entire article, which was basically a PR job for pro-centralisers.

I suggest you read the website democratieeuropeenne.eu and I can also email you specific citations and arguments from the pro-decentralisation side, from MEPs and others. Please send your email to contact@democratieeuropeenne.eu

technical questions: does ENA refer to http://www.ena.lu/ ? I assume so. But since I do not know the absolute reliability, I cannot accept a blanket condition like this. OK as a working hypothesis but lets stay open to other sources. But since you know ENA, then take a look at this, it seems you did not make much efforts to find a pro-decentralisation argument, since this was in the "Siège" folder of the ENA and directly relates to this issue!

Interview de Jacques F. Poos: les trois lieux de travail du Parlement européen (Sanem, 16 avril 2004). En décrivant les conditions d'aménagement de chacun des trois lieux de travail du Parlement européen, Jacques F. Poos, ancien ministre luxembourgeois des Affaires étrangères et député européen, identifie les partisans et les adversaires de la politique de décentralisation du siège des institutions européennes, qu'il défend pour des raisons historiques.

Interview de Jacques F. Poos / JACQUES F. POOS, Étienne Deschamps, prise de vue : Alexandre Germain.- Sanem: CVCE [Prod.], 16.04.2004. CVCE, Sanem. - (08:36, Couleur, Son original).
Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l'Europe, Château de Sanem, L-4992 Sanem (Luxembourg). www.cvce.lu. http://www.ena.lu?lang=1&doc=15551

what is a "rv"? thanks. democracyengineer 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Belgian beer is allegedly very good, too :-). "Rv" means "revert", meaning going back to the version previous to yours. RCS 13:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, are we including nightlife as an argument here?

Yes I appreciate it is unbalanced, but that is based on everything I've seen. I was against many recent changes as they were uncited and biased from what I saw, at least without anything backing them up - e.g. I haven't seen anything on Wallstrom being attacked for her joining the campaign, if anything I've seen praise - which is why I'd like a citation on something like that. On what I said above, I said pro-Strasbourg OR two seat arguments - I do not see them as the same thing - indeed I would be happy with a Strasbourg seat. And practically speaking there are two seats, whatever you call it both Brussels and Strasbourg are de facto seats of the Parliament. In fact from the terms you are using above are terribly conspiracy theorist about the whole thing which is why I wanted to address it here first rather than in the article.

I am surprised at the lack of precision! there is ONLY one seat, there are not two. There is no room in an institutional battle for the European architecture for "de facto" anything, or at least not when describing facts in wikipedia. This is what pro-centralisers want and have been doing for decades! they confused the issue by pretending and blatantly lying about two seats, after building up Brussels in spite of the fact that it is not the seat, and then later "blame" Strasbourg for travel between both places. It is a very smart and devious strategy led over decades by our British and Dutch friends mostly, and now many young MEPs who forget history have bought into the Brussels argument (also influenced by that famous better nightlife...) And since they make more noise, they have gotten more media attention and influenced many people who never heard the other more thoughtful and historically aware side of the story. Just an example of the incredible irrationality of the pro-centralisers. The MEP Alvaro (on YouTube) defends the famous survey he made, which you quote, and says that 39% is a great sample because allegedly statisticians told him so, implying that his high pro-Brussels figure is scientifically correct. This is of course wrong since the 39% are NOT a random sample. In fact, it is pretty obvious that they are the ones who already are anti-Strasbourg since they all know who Alvaro is and what he wants, and only those who agreed with him answered. So please take off that dishonest survey, or point out the dishonesty and propagandistic behaviour and scientific unsound method, and to make it worse, Alvaro defends such a blatant lie on TV! Either he does not understand statistics at all, or he is willfully dishonest. Dont know which is scariest. At least it is good for honesty and for Strasbourg when its main adversary is so blatantly bad. But notice the journalist never pointed out Alvaro's lie either, and instead congratulated him ! Just mind-boggling to anyone who has a modicum of scientific understanding and respect for the truth.

The reason I said ENA was to avoid history being drawn from campaign sites on either side, history gets skewed by both campaigns. And I 'know' it but have not read the whole thing, I was sticking to the historical outline. On the centralisation argument as a whole, to be honest it doesn't sound very academic. The Parliament being based in a different city doesn't exactly reconnect to the citizens now does it, where ever MEPs meet it is still in one place and in Brussels and Strasbourg, it is a long shot from Helsinki and Nicosia.

sorry, seems history and political psychology is forgotten here. All concentrations of power are dangerous. And 3 capitals are better than one, the latter is basically what the anti-Strasbourg people want de facto. It is (unfortunately) a fact that "Brussels" is a dirty word for Europeans and used like that over and over, and that "Strasbourg" is now used as an independent description for the democratic power of the EU. Like saying "Washington" for the US gov, but here "Strasbourg" is like saying "Congress".

Like I said though, citations on arguments, with of course the correct language, and we can work everything into it. On Structure, might I suggest starting off with background - with no arguments either way. Then onto the politics and costs, for and against for the two seats as present. Then for Strasbourg. And for Brussels. A seperate section then for the results of surveys, votes and notable opinions. Rather than all being mixed as present.- J Logan ^t/_c: 17:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Strasbourg : http://www.taurillon.org/Strasbourg-natural-home-of-the - --RCS 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made changes to the page - please fill in Strasbourg arguments under heading, and to restore any info I have removed either just or before but with citation (some I just removed to organise into everything into sections but should be in there once they are organised properly). History also needs cleaning up, will get onto that soon - can I stress that I think it is best to keep arguments with arguments and out of historical events. - J Logan ^t/_c: 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

about night life, of course not, but this argument shows the speciousness of the pro-centralisers. basically the only objective argument they have which is mentionable is the transport issue, but that is getting much better in Strasbourg, with the TGV, a future low cost etc. The other objective Brussels plus is the better nightlife. Think about it, the future of European democracy vs. the nightlife. What a great criteria to decide the fundamental architecture of the European institutional power structures! It makes a mockery of the desire of MEPs to be the sole deciders of this issue, as if it had no impact on anything else. The citizens of EU member states are the only sovereigns and should decide after a well-prepared campaign, the PE is not the parliament of a country and its members think too much of their personal interests instead of the global European interest.

Much better, and good that most of my factual changes remained. Notice that many of my changes are in the history section and that you kept them, which shows that the previous version was undeniably biased, albeit in a very subtle way. Bernd Posselt is the MEP who publicly critiqued the Commissioner and gave a press release about it, I have it but dont know if it is on the web somewhere. What to do in such cases? quote the release and give the date etc.?

here news about creation of pro-Strasbourg group: http://www.bernd-posselt.de/article.php?efxf_artikel=885 and here too http://www.bernd-posselt.de/article.php?efxf_artikel=800

here a debate in the form of a letter exchange between Posselt and a Dutch MEP: http://www.bernd-posselt.de/article.php?efxf_artikel=132

A citation about the names on the petition is in an article in the major paper in Strasbourg, but archived, so again what to do? dont have time to fill in Strasbourg argument now but I may ask the guy who wrote the taurillon article you connect to. Have you read the info on the various sites i give before?? There is there the text of an editorial on the subject http://www.democratieeuropeenne.eu/medias.html

The ENA link i refer to has an English version too I believe, so that is a good balancing link to refer to. And that former MEP can also be quoted. He was a Questor and negotiated the Brussels extensions. Everyone forgets also that the EP had to destroy an entire historical district in Brussels! Why do history and culture-loving people defend the people who destroyed history and culture in Brussels when it was completely unnecessary? and btw, i dont spend much time on this at all, and much prefer communicating by email, but i guess that is anti-wiki spirit. democracyengineer 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a tad biased to claim it is nightlife vs democracy! But as much as I want to continue (I love debating these things) these talk pages are not about discussing the topic in general, we are meant to be improving the article.

I have already acknolweged there is some bias as I had little on the pro-Strasbourg side, and I have done little on this article, more on other articles dealing with the topic. And yes, of course I kept some of your changes, I didn't want to do a blanket revert because most of it was okay, I only had concerns with things I thought needed a citation - and I didn't have info on.

In terms of your links, perhaps you could fill in the Strasbourg section? As I said before I just did the basics on page changes and as you know on the Strasbourg side I think its best that you, or others, fill that argument in. On the press release, have you tried the MEPs website? Which Commissioner was it? Should be a copy on the net somewhere - just need the info to find it, what date? Oh and there was one thing when I was writing a while back, I was writing about the prefference of Brussels through oneseat etc, and the cost, and remebered that when MEPs were making the point (I think during the rent accusations) the Strasbourg Mayor countered saying it was the Brussels seat costing extra money. I wanted a quote on that but couldn't find it anywhere - you know where it can be found? - J Logan^t: 10:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Emmanuel Vallens to take a stab at it since he wrote the Taurillon article. I made a few additional changes to the rest of the article, subtle things like replacing the unclear "(off.)" by "(seat)" which is clear, and making a live link of the word parliament next to Strasbourg since it was so ONLY next to Brussels, which gives the subtle message that somehow the "legitimate" location of the EP is in Brussels. This subtle bias permeates the article, and I tried to correct it, as when you write that the French government has not accepted the transfer from Strasbourg to Brussels, as if that transfer was legitimate, and they are intransigeant and somehow need to be on the defensive etc. It is as if a journalist wrote about someone attacking a passerby that the passerby did not accept the attack and somehow was pig-headed in doing so. The new text is much more objective as I am sure you will agree. And it is true that the Brussels building is much more expensive! Bernd Posselt explains "The price per square meter in Strasbourg is therefore two thirds cheaper than in Brussels!"

Here the explanatory text that precedes that conclusion: "Notwithstanding the still many unexplained circumstances of these matters (note: he speaks of the repeated fraud and corruption accusations about the Brussels buildings), it is obvious that the money spent on buildings in Brussels was several times the amount spent in Strasbourg, and this, at least at times, in quite non-transparent ways. Just one numerical comparison makes one wonder: in 1999, the Plenary Building “Louise Weiss” was built in Strasbourg, a beautiful, architecturally interesting building symbolizing the whole of European cultural history, for a cost per square meter, that as “Die Welt” commented on then, made German government building masters green with envy. After the French government and Strasbourg financed the building at their own risk and subsidized the buying price by nearly 15%, the representatives of the European people bought the valuable real estate in 2004 for 446,5 Million Euros, which given the location, the quality and the size of the building - it comprises 185 331 square meters, 1138 offices, 38 meeting rooms, the largest Plenary Room in Europe and a car garage with 1200 spaces - was an excellent investment. In comparison, the Brussels Plenary Building “Paul Henri Spaak” with only 80 499 square meter, 573 offices, 22 meeting rooms, a smaller and inferior Plenary Room and only 12 car spaces cost 600,2 Million Euros !" This is excerpted from a press release dated 16 May 2006 (Nine Myths about Strasbourg).

the press release about the critique on the violation of Commissioner Wallström's duty of neutrality as a member of the Commission (and therefore bound to defend the official Treaties no matter what her personal opinion is) was released on 5 September 2006. But I have not yet found a copy on the web. democracyengineer 13:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, with the infobox, if you check the history I moved the Parliament link, for that reason. And it was not there out of bias, it was there because that was the first mention of it. I think you are reading too much into it, TINC so to speak. I also removed the whole (off.) (seat) thing, seat is clearer but I figured neither (off.) or (seat) is attached to any other name in there. So I've got rid of that but kept the (2nd) tags as the others and made second seats italic to empasise that. Oh and btw, I do hope you have other sources beyond that one MEP, after dealing with UKIP I know they can get carried away sometimes. And I'll try to track down that press release now. - J Logan^t: 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't find it, might be my poor German but I can't pick anything up just with his name and "Wallström". His website has his press articles and so on but nothing for the date you said. If you check is articles (my German isn't good enough to read them yet) there might be a reference in the days following? Meanwhile I'm restoring the tag you removed, can't verify the fact without being able to see the press release. Was she criticised by anyone else? - J Logan^t: 14:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I called his office and his releases are not on his site, I asked them to put it on since it seems to be required. They also sent it to me by email, see below. And you cannot compare Posselt to UKIP, he is member of the EPP, largest group in Parliament, and President for nearly 10 years now of the largest branch of the oldest European organisation, the German member organisation of the International Pan-European Union which was at the source of many of the advances in European unity for decades, and he has been in the European Parliament since the first direct elections in 1979, first as spokesman and political assistant to Otto von Habsbourg, a well known and respected figure, and since 1994 as full member of the Parliament. He is a member of the board of the main party in Bavaria, the CSU. So there is no comparison with the UKIP which is a very new and one-issue party.

Furthermore, I have no idea if she was criticised by others, I am sure she was, but if anyone got "carried away", it was Wallström, not Posselt. Your comment proves once more how biased you are, and how it seems the truth counts no more, only how loud some people are. Reminds me how the US press artificially creates doubt about global warming because in the sake of "fairness" it gives the same amount of space to the 5% or so of skeptical scientists as it does to the 95% of scientists who are convinced global warming is scientifically proven (and caused by man).

Just think about it objectively for a moment instead of through the prism of how many people said something: Wallström is a EU Commissioner, who by oath has to defend the EU Treaties, which clearly state Strasbourg is the seat of the EP. And when she breaks her solemn and legal duty and someone calls her on it, you disparage that person because he may be the only one who had the desire or courage to do so? what a strange way to try to find objectivity and truth. If that standard is applied (truth value depends on how many people say something), we can say goodbye to civilisation and welcome back to mob rule. Hardly a standard which a wikipedia contributor should even contemplate. Incredible really that the "more than one source" argument is invoked, which must be the worst argument of all times to justify mentioning anything.

I may of course unknowingly contradict here some wikipedia rule, since i am a newbie, but that if were the rule, it really would be a very very bad rule, and a major flaw in the wikipedia structural foundations. BTW, nothing here is personal but it is frustrating to encounter so much pro-centralisation bias everywhere, when history teaches us over and over again the huge dangers of centralised political power. When will people ever learn???

Presseerklärung Posselt (CSU) weist Wallström-Attacke auf Strasburg zurück 5. 9. 2006

Strasburg. Der CSU-Europaabgeordnete Bernd Posselt hat die Attacken der schwedischen EU-Kommissarin Wallström auf Strasburg als Parlamentssitz kritisiert. Die Kommission sei Hüterin der Verträge, und im EU-Vertrag sei Strasburg als einziger Sitz des Europäischen Parlamentes festgelegt. Wallströms Aktion sei der Versuch, "Europas Volksvertretung nach Brüssel in den Schatten von Bürokratie und Lobbies zu zerren". Nicht Strasburg, das demokratische Gesicht Europas, sei zum Negativsymbol geworden, wie Wallström behaupte, sondern einige Kommissare seien dabei, Brüssel zum Negativsymbol für Bürokratismus und Zentralismus zu machen.

Was die Kostenfrage betrifft, erneuerte Posselt seinen Vorschlag, die Parlamentsarbeit in Strasburg zu konzentrieren "und die teuren Mini-Plenarsitzungen in Brüssel abzuschaffen."

Büro Bernd Posselt MdEP, T 10.021, Tel. 75232, Fax 79232, bernd.posselt@europarl.europa.eu, www.bernd-posselt.de

democracyengineer 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Everyone can be compared to UKIP. 2. How many other people besides Posselt has made the criticism, if it is so hard getting this information then does it fulfil the notoriety needed for Wikipedia? Has it appeared in the media at all? I am in fact trying the opposite of what you accused me of, if there are no other sources for this information then it would be unfair to give such coverage to such a small view, just like doubt over global warming. -To clarify, I am not trying to push this off the article because I do not like it, if you can show that there is more support for this then it is fine. If not then it should be at least reworded to show clearly it was just a single MEP.

And this is not a forum for debating the issue, only the article. No point in making the case against Wallström, Wikipedia does not allow original research or opinions.

3. Personal request, slightly sorter messages please! :) - J Logan ^t: 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On turning the Strasbourg EP building into a university

Daniel Cohn-Bendit : http://conventioneuropeenne.sciences-po.fr/documents/communique_education.pdf
Bronislaw Geremek : http://www.taurillon.org/Pour-une-Universite-de-l-Europe-a - RCS 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New map

While the new map is an improvement, I fear it is too large and a full detail of agencies probably isn't required considering this is about institutions first and foremost - it rather overwhelms those which are central to the article. Also, I am having viewing problems on both Safari and Firefox (haven't tested others yet) as the following paras flow under the image/table obscuring information. Might I suggest we just have the p.8 institutions listed in the top right and maybe have the new map further down in text under the summary or something with the list to the right of it so it forms a more detailed chart? - J Logan ^t: 07:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Strasbourg is also the seat of the European Ombudsman and of the Eurocorps, dare i remind you ? RCS 08:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I remove the map until it has been corrected - can't do it myself, sorry. Even if Strasbourg is mostly Council of Europe, the EU is not represented by its sole Parliament there. RCS 08:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pssp, Eurocorps is outside the EU structures! :) (I've put back the old map for now so there is something). On a similar topic, it looks like our friend above isn't going to be writing on Strasbourg after all, do you have any information on it? - J Logan ^t: 08:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pssp, why is it in Category:European Union security then ? RCS 09:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea about what the other fellow is up to and no, i've got no new infos about the Strasbourg seat. Yesterday, the Parliament approved the creation of a European Institute of technology but there was no mention of a seat made, afaik. RCS 09:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it is kind of looking after EU security, but it is not an EU body. I wouldn't rely on WP categories as a source for the EU! :). - J Logan ^t: 09:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What's Wikipedia anyway ? RCS 09:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

EU Article

The EU article Reute, Cles and Amstetten as political centers but there is no mention of them in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.209.139 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguments in favour of the two parliament system

As it is, the article doesn't seem to have much on this. As far as I can make out, the only support comes from people in Strasbourg and France in general who see it as giving prestige to the area. Given how completely absurd and pointless it all seems I was wondering if anyone had anything better to justify the present system. If there was, I think it would make an important subsection Woscafrench (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:European Parliament in Brussels.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:European Parliament in Brussels.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Location of European Union institutions → Seat of the European Union –

Disputed move: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Undiscussed page move. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 06:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Looking at the subject of the article it is really about "the seat of the European Union", and the fact that there is no specific location. Apteva (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Support revert back to Location of European Union institutions as it is clearly what the article is about, certainly does not describe "Seat of the European Union" as far as I can tell the article says that EU does not have a seat so the title is clearly ambigious. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Agree with MilborneOne. There is no official "Seat of the the EU" so that title is misleading and potentially controversial. The article should stay at it's original title of "Location of European Union institutions". Perhaps an alternative compromise is Seats of European Union Institutions? TDL (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment wouldn't that be Seats of the European Union? (there's more than one) ... though either plural or singular could be confused with seats at the European Parliament, or seats on the European Commission. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
No, that would be a list article, and only work if the structure of the EU was different. Apteva (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose – Since EU institutions are in three different locations (at least), the title doesn't make sense. --Article editor (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Personally I agree that Seat of the European Union is the best title for this article, but it would be better to discuss that here rather than just moving it back and forth to Location of European Union institutions. Apteva (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree Seat of the European Union is shorter and it's easier. --Felisopus (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Europol

Wester has been attempting to add Europol to the caption of the main image. This does not make sense as Europol is not an institution and is not pictured in the image. Are there other opinions on this? TDL (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that Eurocorps should be added as well, and why isn't the European Ombudsman an institution? --Insert coins (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Eurocorps and the Ombudsman are not institutions because they are not defined to be one in the Treaties. The institutions are defined in Article 13 of the TEU: s:Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union/Title_III:_Provisions_on_the_Institutions. As this article is about EU Institutions, these are the organizations that we should list. TDL (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Institutional seats of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Institutional seats of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090920222548/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/1993/11/18/bank_0.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/11/18/bank_0.php

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Institutional seats of the European Union. 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) 17:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Institutional seats of the European Union. 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) 09:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Institutional seats of the European Union. 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) 05:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Institutional seats of the European Union. 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) 11:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Map image

Regarding the change just now, as the CoA's are a lot smaller on the new, bigger map, it now looks a bit messy in that the CoA both covers a large area (so you can't see the exact location - the borders of Belgium and Luxembourg are totally obscured and Frankfurt looks closer to Cologne) yet the CoA is too small to see the detail clearly. Dots would be better now. I would do it myself but I know you are quite attached to CoAs so if you object that's fine, but in that case we should zoom in a bit to shows the location more clearly.

Related to that, I was wondering a few weeks back that if we are to have an EU-wide map showing it might be good to convey more information by it. I'm thinking population density or transport links. Reason being that Brussels et al aren't in the geographic centre of Europe but in terms of the population concentration, they are. It could be good to show that.- J.Logan: 16:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I agree, I've added dots instead. I'm not sure where you would add population density or transport links? - Ssolbergj (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean using a base map like this or this. Not sure if we have a blank svg map that shows internal borders that align with NUTS regions though, or if there is a suitable transport map that isn't too busy.- J.Logan: 22:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Institutional seats of the European Union. 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) 03:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This page 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.