Talk:Western European Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	Europe Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The opening paragraph looks rather alarmist for an organisation that in reality is generally believed to be defunct and irrelevant. "...an obvious remilitarisation of Europe"? "...a military takeover"? For NPOV, any conspiracy theories about the WEU ought to be later on in the article if at all, rather than forming the introduction.

I couldn't agree more. There is a lot of conspiracy theory amongst Javier Solana as the antichrist about the WEU and some 10 horn prophecy. I removed the first paragraph, and will sniff around the article a bit more. I have removed the neutrality notice but will put it back on if i think the article is still not neutral. --SqueakBox 03:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cumbey wrote the controversial bits, and I have now reverted it; it was some of her worst writing; shame noone else spotted and reverted, which is what our friend 131.111.193.22should have done. Well spotted! --SqueakBox 03:33, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

No reason to merge the treatu of Brussels with the WEU in my opinion, two different topics heavy enough to get own articles. Theodore W. 19:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Theodore Itake 15:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my merge suggestion, then, and await with pleasure some robust and accurate content in both separate articles from Theodore W. and Itake. If the articles are not improved after a month or two, justifying their separate existence, I'll just merge them anyway. --Wetman 02:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Distracting blank spaces 2 Extinct 3 Denmark 4 Fair use rationale for Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg

[edit] Distracting blank spaces

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 19:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extinct

I think this organisation is now defunct. I will check. Chelsea Tory 12:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, still active: http://www.makfax.com.mk/look/agencija/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=2&NrArticle=48094&NrIssue=223&NrSection=10 It's really time they merged it into the European Union, though. —Nightstallion (?) 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denmark

The part of the article dealing with the Observer countries says "Observer countries are members of the European Union, but not of NATO.". Well unfortunately this is wrong because Denmark is in NATO (and indeed a founding member), so that will have to be reworded, or Denmark put into a different category or something. --Hibernian 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg

Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)