User talk:Simonclamb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Most important achievements of the EU.

Once again I visit. On the EU chat page you stated your view that the list of main achievements by the EU in an intro version by Arnoutf were more significant than the list in the previous consensus intro. I posted a response there, but I thought I should repeat it here. Comparing the two version, that means you feel:

• it is more important it was named in 1995 then that it creates a single market?
• It is more important that it had 6 members when it started than that it creates 4 freedoms of movement of goods, capital, people and services?
• It is more important that it is more powerfull than previously, than that it has a security role, agricultural policy, fisheries, development, etc?
• It is more important that it is about to change than to say it currently has a commission, council, parliament?

On the whole, the intro versions we are arguing about have the same content, just a diffeent running order. The style guide says the intro should list the most important things first, with the thought that a reader might only bother reading the first paragraph. It also says the intro as a whole should similarly encapsulate the most important facts about the subject, and I am not sure we do that, but it is important to consider whether the intro works as an article just by itself.

The point I have the most difficulty with is that the revisions leave out explicit explanation of 'supranational' and 'intergovernmental'. My own intinct was that is is not acceptable to use these terms without explanation when they will not be properly understood. Since Lear has encourgaed me to read the style gude, I see it is in fact written into it that an intro should not use technical terms unless they are also briefly explained (not merely linked). Do you feel we should accept this point from the style guide, or go against it? Sandpiper (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome back. I think if we're talking about the EU, it is pretty important to stress that the thing itself was only born in 1993 or whatever. To me the EC is a far different in nature to the EU, though obviously over time they have become intertwined. The absence of the pillar system diagram on the main page is regrettable actually I think.

On the second one, ok, no, I would not mean to say that, if my position has meant that I'm saying that, then I'm not meaning to do so. The four freedoms to me are the most important thing - however this is not a universally held view I don't think.

On the third one, in my opinion, yes. Means we can avoid going into detail.

On the fourth one, hmm, not sure, but I dunno, the Commission-Council-Parliament to me represent the EC, whereas when it comes to the two other pillars (or at least one, I've no idea), I always thought the EU was mainly intergovernmental and therefore the other two bodies were less important. The fact that the Reform Treaty is going to come into play to me is significant yes.

And on the style guide - the key word is guide. We don't necessarily have to follow it so I don't buy Lear's arguments in this respect! --Simonski (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, carefull, nothing so important as being created in 1995, Lears version only says it got that name in 1995. I presume he does not make these language errors on purpose, but then it becomes doubly difficult to disentangle the mistaken meaning from what he intended, from what others might choose. That version of the intro rather implies the EU existed previously, under a different name, and does not explain at all any further significance of maastricht.

Then on three, we disagree. My home town football club may be becoming more powerfull, but I am confident it will not beat my favourite club, because I happen to know it is in a completely different league, so is insignificant. My knowledge of what it is in more detail, makes the knowledge that it is improving either usefull, or worthless. Thus I need to first know something about what it is. Ok, if there really is no space to describe it, then perhaps you make a better point, but we do also give some detail about what it is. The fourth point is really the same. Unless you know what something is, what is the point of knowing it is about to change? How can that be helpfull? Re style guide, I'm afraid I love people misquoting sources. I know perfectly well that anyone liking a rule will quote it, and anyone disliking it will dismiss it. The issue is not whether we are able to dismiss wiki rules, but whether they have merit. I find that a good rule for all laws. See above, response about average joes. pointless choosing to ignore rules which make sense. Sandpiper (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, there would be an article on the EC itself, which could then be linked to at the start to make things clearer, but alas. Hmm, maybe there is. I'll just check if theres an article on the first pillar. Ah there is. That will make life much easier I think. --Simonski (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I would be glad to comment...

...on the article you talked about, but i can't seem to find it :) I am not sure they could have been more wrong if they tried. Lwxrm (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, i was being dull Lwxrm (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)