Talk:Location of European Union institutions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Location of European Union institutions has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Logant: 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 Logant: 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 Logant: 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)

[edit] On turning the Strasbourg EP building into a university

[edit] 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)

[edit] GA?

Anyone got any new ideas on this? Things we could expand upon? Otherwise I was wondering about putting it up for GA to see how good it rates and if they can poke any holes in it. - J Logan t: 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a small note to the GA reviewer who is currently reviewing this article. As I put this forward, I would deal with anything you bring up. However I will be on an unavoidable wikibreak from tomorrow (28th) till New Year. If it can't wait till then I'm sure there is someone at WP:EU who can help and User:RCS is involved a lot in this page. Thanks for your work.- J Logan t: 09:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I won't be able to review until the second. I look forward to working on this article in the new year. Best regards, Rt. 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I've been made slightly busy in the past few days and unfortunately it continues. I won't be able to review this article after all. Apologies for inconvenience. Best regards, Rt. 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    English is not my native language, so I'm not the right guy to rate the use of this language.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    major aspects: The article shows in detail the discussions and decisions about the places of the European parliament and the European commission. There are two sentences about the courts and the decisions to install and to keep them in Luxembourg. Everything else is pressed into four sentences. Don't misunderstand me. It's ok, to have much more informations about the ongoing quarrel about the European parliament than for excample the European Central Bank, but the decision to choose Frankfurt for the seat of the bank did not happen without the usual problems too. How about the participation of "border regions" as the mediterranian countrys, Scandinavia or the eastern countries?
    focused: There's another problem/the other side of the problem, I was not sure, where to place. First I thought it to be a matter of style (1b), but now I will deal with it as a matter of focus, because it does not seem to be a problem of form, but of the valuation of the topic. While everything else is mentioned in half sentences, the location of the European commission is shown in the part history, together with the European Parliament. Then, there comes a big third chapter, "European Parliament" again. The regulation about the European Parliament is expensive and is complecated, but the problem is solved (in a typical European way). There is to much focus on this topic, if every poll about it is shown, while there's nothing mentioned about the population's thoughts about the other locations. Again, please don't misunderstand me. I think, it's interresting and necessary to show the problems of the location of the European parliament, but this is not the only topic. The single places and institutions can all be handled in a historic development or they can be handled by institution or place, but they should be handled in a common form, although there should be differences in length, depending on the importance and the controversy of the location of the single institutions. In it's current state, this is an article about the location of the European parliament.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    As far as I know, JLogan is an experienced and hard working editor. That's why, instead of choosing fail, I put the article on hold, to give the opportunity to discuss this and to improve the article.
    No improvement, therefore fail.
Shoot! I was away and didn't catch it when I got back. I'll get onto this soon, but to respond to your points: there is emphasis on the Parliament because it is a political issue, none of the others are. Further more the Parliament section deals with the current political issue while the history deals with the history of everything.
Likewise, I have no information on Frankfurt beyond that mentioned in the article regarding Luxembourg. Also, as far as I know there is no competition with other regions as these were decided in the six member era - there is however information about the agencies in other countries.
Thanks for the review though. (and please sign your posts Thw1309) - J Logan t: 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Below suggestions for improvement by Noble Story.
Lead;

"The institutions of the European Union are not concentrated in a single capital city, they are instead based across three cities, Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, with further agencies and other bodies spread further out."

How about a little introduction? Maybe explaining exactly what functions the institutions serve? And, use a semicolon after "city" and a maybe put parentheses around the three cities.

"However Brussels has become the primary seat, hosting a seat, of not the main or only seat, of each major institution and now the European Council."

"Of not the main or only seat..." What does that mean? I really can't tell.

"However a final agreement between member states was reached in 1992 and later attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam."

Comma needed after "However".

"Despite this, the seat of the European Parliament remains an issue to this day (as of 2008). "

1. Didn't you just say it has been a political dispute? 2. If you say "to this day", saying "as of 2008" is redundant.

"Parliament has its work divided between all three major cities, which is seen as a problem due to the large amount of MEPs, staff and documents which need to be moved."

How about saying "The work of the parliament is divided..."? And what are MEPs?

"As the location of the major seats have been enshrined in the treaties of the European Union, Parliament has no right to decide its own seat unlike other national parliaments."

1. Use singular, not plural. 2. "Enshrined" doesn't seem the right word here. Maybe "set out in the treaties" or something like that. 3. Use a comma after "its own seat".

"The European Central Bank's seat had to symbolise its independence from political control, and thus be located in a city not already hosting a national government or European institution."

Keep the tense consistent.

Sorry for any delay in correcting these, am tad busy. Fixed most but: 2008 is after to this day for MOS reasons, if it was just to this day then if this article is not updated upon its resolution then it is incorrect but "as of 2008" sounds like it has become an issue from then on. Further down, "use singular" - on what word? All seem correct. - J Logan t: 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Locations;

"The treaties of the European Union outline the locations of the following institutions; The European Parliament has its seat in Strasbourg, hosting 12 monthly plenary sessions (including budget session). Brussels would host additional sessions and committees. Luxembourg would host the Secretariat of the European Parliament. The Council of the European Union has its seat in Brussels, except during April, June, and October, when meetings are held in Luxembourg. The European Commission also has its seat in Brussels, although some departments are hosted by Luxembourg. The European Court of Justice, Court of First Instance, and Court of Auditors are based in Luxembourg along with the European Investment Bank. The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions are entirely based in Brussels while the European Central Bank is based in Frankfurt and Europol is the only agency to have its seat fixed by the treaties, in the Hague."

OK, first of all use a colon after "the following institutions". Second of all, the tense is all over the place. Use past, present, future, or something, but keep it consistent. Third, could this be converted into a table, maybe? There's a lot of text here.

Sorted again except for the table, we already something similar linked to the map.- J Logan t: 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Non-fixed seats;

"However some problems have been encountered with this."

"With this" what? Clarify what this is.

"For example; Frontex, the new border agency, has had problems recruiting skilled experts because many do not want to live in the agency's host city, Warsaw, due to its relatively low wages and standard of living."

Use a comma at the beginning, not a semicolon.

Fixed.'- J Logan t: 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
History;

"These institutions later started to concentrate themselves in the latter city."

Can institutions concentrate themselves?

Well kind of, where their decision making elements have the choice to. But fixed.- J Logan t: 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Beginning;

Isn't the beginning section just a summary of the below sections? I think probably it could be deleted.

"The ECSC was founded by the Treaty of Paris (1951), however there was no decision on where to base the institutions of the new community."

Use a semicolon, not a comma.

"The seat was contested with Liège, Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Turin all considered."

Use a comma after "contested"

"While Saarbrücken had a status as a "European city", the ongoing dispute over Saarland made it a problematic choice."

What exactly is a "European city"?

Sorted. Regarding the beginning, that is kind of the point. I keep getting notices saying the top section should be an intro of the information in the subsections.'- J Logan t: 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Provisional agreement;

"On 7 January 1958 it was decided that Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg would again be provisional venues until a final decision."

Use a comma after an introductory phrase.

"The discretion of the exact meeting place of the new Councils was given to the President, in practice this was to be in the Château of Val Duchesse until the autumn of 1958, at which point it move to 2 Rue Ravenstein in Brussels."

Who is the President? Also, this sentence could be split up. It's not very grammatical right now, though.

"Meanwhile the ECSC Council was still based in Luxembourg, where it held its meetings in the Cercle Municipal on Place d’Armes. Its secretariat moved on numerous occasions but between 1955 and 1967 it was housed in the Verlorenkost district of the city."

Comma needed after "meanwhile" and after "occasions" and after "1967". Also, I don't think you should use "where" in this case,

"On 21 June 1958 the Parliamentary Assembly recommended to the Council that the Assembly should have its seat in the same place where the other organisations are based, although plenary sessions might be held elsewhere."

Use a comma after the introductory phrase.

"The provisional arrangement was reiterated on 8 April 1965 with the Decision on the provisional location of certain institutions and departments of the Communities."

Decision on the provisional location of certain institutions and departments of the Communities seems to be a title for something. For what?

"In 1971 the Council and its secretariat moved into the Charlemagne building, next to the Commission's Berlaymont, but the Council rapidly ran out of space and administrative branch of the secretariat moved to a building at 76 Rue Joseph II and during the 1980s the language divisions moved out into the Nerviens, Frère Orban and Guimard buildings."

This sentence is a run-on. Split it up.

All sorted.- J Logan t: 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Edinburgh agreement;

"The Decision on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities outlined that the Parliament shall be based in Strasbourg, where it must hold "twelve periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session". However, additional sessions may be held in Brussels, which is where committees must also meet while the secretariat must remain in Luxembourg."

Put the tense in the past.

"However this agreement dropped the provision from the 1965 decision which gave priority to Luxembourg for any new judicial and financial bodies."

Put a comma after "However" and after "decision".

Sorted.- J Logan t: 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Central bank;

"Frankfurt had to compete with numerous other cities, including London, Paris, Amsterdam, Luxembourg, Lyon, Barcelona and even Basel (in Switzerland, outside even the European Union)."

Why do you need a reference right after Paris? Also, change the text in the parentheses to "which was outside the European Union".

"The advantages of hosting the Bank were in dispute."

Use "also" here. And who or what were disputing the advantages?

There is a reference after Paris because it is not covered by the reference at the end. Rest is sorted.- J Logan t: 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Recent history;

"However its staff was still increasing so it continued to rent Frère Orban building to house the Finnish and Swedish language divisions, later it started to rent further buildings in Brussels."

Use a comma after "However" and "increasing", and a semicolon after "divisions".

Sorted. Thanks for the very thorough grilling there! - J Logan t: 22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Lead;

"As the location of the major seats have been enshrined in the treaties of the European Union, Parliament has no right to decide its own seat, unlike other national parliaments."

The sentence basically says "the location...have been enshrined." The verb should be singular.

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Non-fixed seats;

"However some problems have been encountered with basing agencies in the eastern states. "

Comma after "however".

"In addition, plans to place the headquarters of Galileo in Prague has met with opposition over security concerns that the city would not be safe enough for such a sensitive agency."

I think you should use past tense.

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
History;

"Two further communities were created in 1957 and again a provisional agreement laid out that the Assembly would meet in Strasbourg, the Courts in Luxembourg but the Commissions and Councils were split between Luxembourg and Brussels."

Put a comma after "Luxembourg". Also, I think maybe it would be best grammatically to say "a provisional agreement laid out that the Assembly would meet in Strasbourg, the Courts would meet in Luxembourg, and the Commissions and Councils would be split between Luxembourg and Brussels."

"As various agreements were reached, activities in Luxembourg gradually shifted to Brussels and the Parliament, although bound to remain in Strasbourg, also started to work in Brussels while the courts remained in Luxembourg"

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What was "bound to remain in Strasbourg" and what "also started to work in Brussels"?

Read again: "and the Parliament, although bound to remain in Strasbourg, also started to work in Brussels"- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"In 2002 the European Council, having previously rotated between different cities, decided to base itself in Brussels."

Put a comma after the year.

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Beginning;

"The ECSC was founded by the Treaty of Paris (1951); however there was no decision on where to base the institutions of the new community.'

Comma after "however".

"The treaties allowed for the seat(s) to be decided by common accord of governments and at a conference of the ECSC members on 23 July 1952 no permanent seat was decided."

Put a comma after "governments".

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Provisional agreement;

"Strasbourg would retain the Assembly, Luxembourg the Court and both Brussels and Luxembourg would host meetings of the Councils and Commissions (or High Authority).'

Put a comma after "Court'.

But you don't put a comma before an and in a list unless you're using the US system.- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"In practice this was to be in the Château of Val Duchesse until the autumn of 1958, at which point it move to 2 Rue Ravenstein in Brussels."

Put a comma after "practice', and say "it would move..."

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, the ECSC Council was still based in Luxembourg, it held its meetings in the Cercle Municipal on Place d’Armes.'

Put a conjuction between the two clauses.

I just changed it to holding if that works.- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Its secretariat moved on numerous occasions, but between 1955 and 1967, it was housed in the Verlorenkost district of the city."

What city was it?

Clarified- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"On 21 June 1958, the Parliamentary Assembly recommended to the Council that the Assembly should have its seat in the same place where the other organisations are based, although plenary sessions might be held elsewhere.'

Keep the tense consistent (past tense).

They are, the latter is their recommendation - not a separate comment.- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Assembly also nominated three cities to be the seat of the institutions; Brussels, Strasbourg and Milan. However, no permanent agreement was reached."

Maybe you should put the cities in parentheses and then combine the sentences.

"The Commission would first be based on Avenue de la Joyeuse Entrée/Blijde Inkomstlaan, before moving to the Breydel building on the Schuman roundabout, and then its present location in the Berlaymont building."

Keep the tense consistent (past tense).

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Edinburgh agreement;

"However, additional sessions may be held in Brussels, which is where committees must also meet while the secretariat must remain in Luxembourg."

Keep the tense consistent with the rest of the paragraph.

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Central Bank;

"Frankfurt meanwhile was criticised as symbolising German dominance, although the Deutsche Bundesbank had effectively been running the Communities currencies for the previous years, while Luxembourg has a banking tradition that wasn't so careful."

I think you can eliminate "meanwhile".

"Others, such as the former head of the Bundesbank Karl Otto Pöhl, favoured a small country with a stable country."

"Small country with a stable country?"

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Recent history;

"Furthermore, a building next to Justus Lipsius, Résidence Palace, is currently being renovated as the future seat of the Council and European Council.[2] The Council will occupy the new building from 2013."

Maybe you can combine these sentences.

"In 2007, the new situation became a source of contention with the European Council wanting to sign the Treaty of Lisbon in Lisbon."

Put a comma after "contention".

Done- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"The idea, mirrored with the "travelling circus" of the European Parliament..."

First of all, traveling only has one l. In any case, describing the Parliament as a "traveling circus" would seem to be just a POV.

No, its two (UK spelling, which is used here). Travelling circus is the label applied to the situation with the Parliament, see the sections below, hence the quotation marks.- J Logan t: 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
European Parliament;

"He, along with Green co-leader Monica Frassoni, called for a debate on the issue which was being blocked by President Hans-Gert Pöttering."

Put a comma afert "issue". Also, use past tense.

Done- J Logan t: 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"The trips between the cities are seen by the public as "a money-wasting junket hugely enjoyed by journalists, MEPs and researchers" when in fact it is "a money-wasting junket loathed by journalists, MEPs and researchers" according to Gary Titley, MEP (PES)..."

You're a very general statement (the trips are seen by the public) yet only quoting one person. I think you need more references than just one person talking, or delete it.

The fact they are seen that way by the public is in a quotation attributed to him, it is not claimed to be universal fact in the article itself based on one man.- J Logan t: 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Strasbourg as a single workplace;

"They also argue that Strasbourg offers more independence for Parliament, away from the other institutions and lobby groups in Brussels."

Who are they? Unclear pronoun reference here.

Done- J Logan t: 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"The news media would also no longer be able to use shortcuts such as "Brussels decided..." rather than discuss the detail of the decision markers. Media would also have to be based in Strasbourg and hence might provide better coverage of the Council of Europe."

Say "If the Parliament is located in Strasbourg, then the new media...".

Done with light adjustment- J Logan t: 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Brussels as a single workplace;

"Third party organisations are also based in the city, including NGOs, trade unions, employers' organisations and the highest concentration of journalists in the world—also due to the presence of NATO in the city in addition to the large presence of Union institutions."

Put a comma after "employers' organisations. Also, say "and Brussels has the highest concentration..."

Again, not UK grammar, no comma before the final and in the list. Plus, I don't seen why Brussels needs to be repeated again there.- J Logan t: 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"One signatory to the petition was Commission Vice President Margot Wallström; she supported the campaign stating that "something that was once a very positive symbol of the EU reuniting France and Germany has now become a negative symbol—of wasting money, bureaucracy and the insanity of the Brussels institutions"."

Put a comma after "campaign".

Done- J Logan t: 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Action;

"All the same, the government has stated that the issue might be addressed if France was offered something of equal value."

All the same is rather informal. Use some other introduction.

Also, I think that Actions and Opinions can probably be combined.

Done- J Logan t: 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Alternative uses for buildings;

"The year before, the proposed European Institute of Technology had been touted as a university to take over the building."

Say "the university".

"The Institute could also be merged with European Research Council and be based there."


That seems like a suggestion. Maybe, "It has been proposed that the Institude be merged..."?

Done- J Logan t: 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, I hope everything is in order now.- J Logan t: 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final GA Review

Review of Location of European Union institutions

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

After the necessary cleanup, this article is now a GA. Noble Story (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and thorough attention, it is much appreciated.- J Logan t: 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)