Talk:Pan-European identity

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pan-European identity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Pan-European identity received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europimp has begun a very interesting article here about nascent Europatriotism. I've gone through and smoothed out some issues with typos, style, grammar, and wikification, but there are still some parts of this article that seem to have some NPOV problems. I haven't done much modification to content; would like to see some discussion of it in the talk page if possible.  :: Salvo (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some NPOV? This entire article is POV, definitely in support of EU federalism or whatnot. As much as I am in favor of the EU, this article is horrible and possibly original research. Note: I added an NPOV tag. - Rudykog 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research, much is based upon work by various philosophers, magaines and news sources. See for example "Europa, Europa - The mixed-up debate over the new European patriotism" by Jefferson Chase, BBC's news on the item of "Do patriotism and Europe mix?", Café babel - European current affairs magazine on the "Europatriot Tribe", and more importantly by works of the philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, among which "Europa, Europa" and "Philosophy in a Time of Terror" and a critique on that "The mixed-up debate over the new European patriotism" by Jefferson Chase.Kind of typical that a Texan is disputing the validity of something like "europatriotism". I am joking a little here ofcourse, no offense. I do agree that the article is pretty much not done, and partly this is because the notion of "europatriotism" is not entirely astablished. But it is an emerging phenomena and I think it definately deserves a place on Wikipedia. The phenomena has never been specifically documented online, nor are most articles (they were published in influencial newspapers in Gemany and France though. The term itself is being used in online articles though, once again another reason to add it to Wikipedia. Claiming original research is not very helpful: the phenomena exists, and adding useful info to the article helps more than disputing it. Also, the NPOV is a bit of a paradox here. Since patriotism by itself is kind of not very NPOV by nature. (And I do know, since I live in the US of A eventhoug I am European) I think the article is ok, but if you feel the article is written in a style too much in favor of the EU, feel free to restyle it, neutralize it. The core of the subject "europatriotism" is however about something very not neutral. It's Europatriotic Europimp 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eventhoug anti-americanism does strengthen europatriotism, I don't think that anti-americanism is part of the definition of europatriotism. Probably might want to remove that from the definition and move it into another section. Europimp 04:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was "European Miracle" added to the "See Also" section? The term does not link to an existing Wikipedia page. Europimp 04:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a relevant entry but in its current form it is more of a debate article arguing for the European cause than an entry in an encyclopeadia. Questions that remain unanswered include: How the concept relate to similar entries like Pro-European, Europeanist, Europhile, Eurooptimism? What makes it different? What IS Europatriotism, rather than why it should be? --Drdan 11:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be a good idea to combine some of the above entries into one? I have not been able to find reasons to keep them separate. --Drdan 11:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid questions. I think the answer lies in the fact that Europatriotism is not neccesarily economic, political or whatsoever. It's a culural phenomena. It does not deel with how the EU should be, operate, or whatsoever. It deals with the effect that the existence of the European Union delivers; it emerges from euro-culture, resulting in the so much desired emotional connection which then again is seen as a requirement for a healthy democracy. Europimp 02:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)::[reply]

many Brittons argue that Churchill was using in his speech "Europe" as "Continental Europe" (Exlcudiding the UK). It's a common Britno-centrish mistake to call something "Europe" and then excluding yourself from that. However, both speeches were abroad, not in the UK. It's to be doubt that a politician like Churchill would not have been aware of the very pricair understanding of "Europe" when doing such imacting speeches outside of the UK. Eventhough there is a documet at EuroKnow that claims Churchill used to say Europe wheras he mans Continental Europe - it's undocumented. Also it's not likely to make such a mistake twice (In Zurich and late ron again, in Amsterdam).

So far it's nowehere documented that Churchill meant: A united Europe - without the UK. Europimp 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is it documented that Churchill means Europe with - or without - the UK, in the quoted passages from his speeches. One is, however, faced with the facts as to how the English people use their language when speaking the word "Europe" - see continental Europe for this. One can perhaps be certain that the definition of Europe Churchill implied for his speech did not include Russia; which, after all, is a historically and (partly) geographically European country. Neither did Churchill imply inclusion of, perhaps, Iceland, or Georgia, or Finland. The point being is that Churchills speech was a pitch for a concept of an unspecified form of European unity that would deliver the future avoidance of wars of the sort that engulfed Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Therefore, for anybody to take Churchills speeches out of this context and use them for the purposes of furthering a federal EU based superstate cannot stand without putting the context back. Churchills passion on this subject was for peace and liberty, and for finding the mechanisms to further these ends. He was not professing the sort of EU driven Europe that some today seem to wish put in place: indeed perhaps he would not have favoured this sort of Europe, or perhaps he would have - but, either way, there is no documented evidence of his thoughts on this issue at the time that these speeches were made. For too long have Churchills "United States of Europe" speeches have been hijacked by proponents of an EU based federalist state: just as such people have blurred the meaning of the word Europe in peoples minds so that Europe is taken to mean the same as the EU. Europe is not the EU. There are other trade and political organisations in Europe, such as EFTA and the CIS block. Blurring issues gets peoples backs up - witness the EU constitution treaty rejection. Churchills quotes should be provided with the contextual clarity they deserve. --jrleighton 06:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. However it's not just the Brittons that have their own ideas about what Europe is. Continental Europeans do a similar thing. They take pretty much all of Europe minus all former soviet states and see it as "Europe". Countries partly in Europe such as Russia and Turkey are regarded as not European. This was the same back in the days when Churchill was giving his speeches. Don't tell me that Churchill was not aware of that - he wasn't that ignorant. Your statement is a complete Britton-centric argument that doe snot make sence in international politics Europimp 08:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill undeniably did not believe in "europatriotism" or any other such nonesense, and said so himself:

"We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us in the words that were used of old, 'Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Captain of the Host?', we should reply with the Shunamite woman 'Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people'"

- Sir W. Churchill

I find it highly disingenous that his words appear to be being used in this article, out of context, to promote views that by all accounts he would have despised, but I have not editted it as yet. 88.105.251.236 17:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Churchill meant to exclude Britain then he would have expressly said so, he did call for a united europe however I highly doubt that the institution we have today was what he had in mind. AngryAfghan^{(Are you talking to me?)}

A "united Europe" at that time meant united in spirit in the way of mutual support between sovereign states. Churchill clearly said on many occassions that he did not support a European superstate. At the time he was alive, such a thing would be almost unthinkable. 88.105.244.99 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not even matter at this point what Churchill really tried to say. Whatever he said, he said that 50 years ago. just think of the American constitution, it was far from perfect, hence al lthe ammandments, but it is still a valid and solid base for whatever America stands for. Its about the greater idea, the spirit, it's a matter of both inspiration and interpretation. In the world of 2006 we are shifting towards a post nation-state era and the words of Churchill are a solid base for europatriotism, eventhough they were spoken at a time when the zeitgeist could not think of a post-nation state era. Europimp 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainyl does matter what he meant to say n that he is being misrepresented. Churchill wanted to see some kind of European "consciousness" in the sense that European nations would feel more affinity to other European nations than to, say, Asian nations. He explicitly stated many times that he opposed the idea of a "united Europe" in the sense that you mean (that being political union and the abolishion of the nation-state) and using his remarks to try to support yuor case (and judging by your username you are very heavily biased to trying to push these views) when his remarks do not, in fact, support your case unless selectively editted has no place in an encyclopedia. 217.206.86.146 10:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are free to interpret Churchill's words as we like. Re-interpretations are something of all times. The majority of Christians are not reading the Bible exactly as it was written 2000 years either. Also are you serious? Churchill said that to make us Europeans feel more European than Asian? you must be kidding.212.83.71.69

Europimp is right, what he menat in these comments is less important than the meanings people have derived from them in terms of culture, if this where the article about winston i would agree with the objector however, the truth is that many people see those speaches as the beginings of a movement to european intergtratinalisuma nad so are worthy of inclusion, even if he didnt mean that himself

• http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1589971&C=europe
• http://euobserver.com/9/20998

Noone should add this to the article yet, seeing as it's not decided; but it should be watched, and is definitely interesting to those of us who want a united Europe. Joffeloff 10:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurofood: In recent years the ethnic Turkish in Europe, have successfully hooked up every single European country.

That is untrue, except you consider the EU as Europe, then it might be. In the country I live currently (Serbia) Kebab is hardly known and so far I didn't see any place where to buy it. Therefore I suggest to modify the above statement. --Arsenio 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've more often heard chips (the French fries) as *the* European food. —Nightstallion (?) 10:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arsenio, the fact that something is not available in one European country does not mean something cannot be considered 'pan-European'. Serbia has much less of a recent ethnic influence than, say, France, Belgium, Germany or The Netherlands or the Scandinavian countires.

For example these countries have had a major immigration from Arab and Middle-Eastern countries, importing ethnic food culture and blending it into the local cuisine. The resulting blend (just look for example at the doner kebabs, they were created by Turks in Germany and now they are available at every streetcorner of any West European city. Even the French have opend up their bistro culture for kebabs). Serbia will follow, just have some patience.

Also, think of Airbus. Is this a true European project. Yes. Is Airbus in all 25 EU member states? no, ofcourse not. Is Boeing a true American company? ofcourse yes it is. Is Boeing in all 50 US member states? ofcourse it's not. Are we going to dispute Airbus as a 'pan-European' project just because it does not have a assembly line in Latvia or Malta?? Europimp 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also - the recent addition of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia 'disputing' the EU representing Euro culture - in Russia, there's a patriotic idea that Russia has its own 'Eurasian' identity, and that it has no need to adopt either Western or Eastern culture in order to grow. They certainly don't want a part of this. Ukraine and Belarus both follow pro-Russian policies and would probably agree, even though there are lots of pro-EU people in these countries compared to Russia. Joffeloff 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's territory, just like Turkey's, is geographically mainly in Asia. Therefor Russia can't be seen as a 'true' European country, it's like said, a Eurasian country. Russia's a bit like Texas, half Mexican/Half American. That leaves the Ukraine and Belarus disputing the EU representing Euro culture. The whole point is, however, that the EU is the first and only entity representing a pan-European identity. Even Norway and Switzerland, two non-EU member quite more significant European countries (because they're surrounded by the EU) than the Ukraine and Belarus, are not contesting this. Europimp 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed much speculative content from this article - which is more of a personal essay, than an encyclopedia article. I also asked for sources for several dubious assertions. Almost everything in the article derived from wishful thinking, and although an article on recent pan-European identity is a good idea, it must stick to reality. The identity is extremely vague, and not a form of 'patriotism'. A new title is needed.Paul111 17:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed many sections, which are important and accurate. For example: the part about a common historical background. The Ryder Cup, which ist the only tournament in the world (!) where there is only one single European team. Also, things like "widely regarded as kitsch" are non-NPOV. 129.206.196.96 07:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted material is personal opinion and unfounded assertions. Wikipedia is not a forum, and this article is not intended to advocate 'europatriotism'. That is simply not the function of Wikipedia. The older version contained fantasy and wishful thinking presented as factual 'europatriotism'. The role of pan-European sport teams in identification with Europe could be mentionned, but a Ryder Cup team is not evidence of 'Europatriotism'. The article needs a new title since the very existence of 'europatriotism' is questionable, and its use is largely negative, i.e. to say that it does not exist.Paul111 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted most of this:

Another major source of unity expressed through patriotism is the existence of a national military. This is especially true for the United States, but the first glimpses of a pan-European army are clear in the form of EUFOR, which recently celebrated its first anniversary. Although for there to be a "national military" there would have to be a "nation" of Europe for a military to be national of - there does not seem to be any prospect of forging a nation state encompassing the whole of Europe, although some would like to see the EU evolve into a nation, which would provide a large nation within Europe although still not encompassing all of Europe by any means.

This is typical of the speculative private opinions which abound in this article, so here are the objections:

• the role of the military in patriotism is disputed
• a future 'pan-European army' is just speculation, and totally unacceptable to eurosceptics, and for several member states
• EUFOR is explicitly not a European Army.
• 'nation of Europe' is a disputed phrase associated with the New Right
• who is it, that wants to see the "EU evolve into a nation"?
• why is a "large nation within Europe " necessary, and why should this article say so?

Paul111 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul111: Where are you talking about? I personally am I Europatriot. Hence it exists. Pleas eput the original title back. Which anti-euro lobby group is paying you? 212.83.71.69 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul11: please have a look at these random EUFOR pictures: http://www.paixbalkans.org/images/eufor.jpg http://www.eupm.org/FCKeditor/Images/Image/EUFOR%20and%20EUPM%20800.jpg http://desdelcongo.blogdiario.com/img/Eufor.jpg http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Lexikon/EUGlossar/G/__Bilder/eufor917704,property=poster.jpg What do we see here? Military people, vehicles and aircraft carrying the European flag. What do you mean exactly by 'Fictitious'? There *IS* a European Army whether you like it or not, and whether you like to call this an 'ARMY' or not. There's military with European flag. That can not be ignored in this article I would like to restore the whole EUFOR section that Paul111 deleted for no apparent reason other than deleting stuff from this article and make it just even more negative. 212.83.71.69

I deleted this, it is simply personal opinion, and what does fighter performance have to do with European identity?Paul111 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurofighter is currently one of the most high-tech military jets available. In a spontaneous dogfight above Scotland between a Eurofighter and two F-15s, the F-15s tried to lock onto the Eurofighter. To the surprise of both the Eurofighter and the F-15s' pilots, the Eurofighter managed to evade and get behind the F-15s in shooting position, which in the RAF is generally regarded as a position for a sure hit. The fighter's performance compared to the comparatively modern US F-22 fighter, however, remains to be seen.

Well, what do American fighter jets have to do with the USA? being supreme is a good reason for being patriotic, isn't it? Why did you remove this? I dont care about pan-Euro identity, this was about patriotism. Supreme, patriotsm = perfect match. Coderman 11:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The test implied that this paper [1] advocated 'Europatriotism'. In fact it does not use the term and says explicitly: "There is certainly a tradition of assumed European cultural superiority, but not a nationalism that associates this with Europe as a single political entity."Paul111 11:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do David Beckham, Robbie Williams, Daft Punk and Aqua contribute to patriotic identification with Europe? Or to any identification with Europe?Paul111 11:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not neccesarily about direct "patriotic identification". Beckham, for instance, is a cultural icon across Europe, and this section of the article was meant to be about pan-European culture. He's a common icon for people across the continent, and this sense of shared reference points is exactly what patriotism is all about. Just as the Beatles were a cultural icon for Liverpool, for England, for Britain and for the wider world, so Beckham is a cultural icon on many levels, including on the European level. This is why he's a part of any notion of "europatriotism" (whatever that means) and a part of a shared European culture. Modernway 16:59, 4 September 2006

That's very much original research. Unless you can find compelling and non-trivial mentions of David Beckham as a European icon.--Nydas 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to change the title to Pan-European identity. It is more neutral, it is descriptive of what is already in the article, and it can cover more related material, all without the dubious and inappropriate 'europatriotism' term. It also relates better to the Pan-Europeanism article, and to the 'pan-European' political parties. If there are no objections, the change can be done quickly. Paul111 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Article re-organised and some headers changed, in preparation for title change.Paul111 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposed move.--Nydas 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reject. The article started out as an article on 'Europatriotism' not on 'Pan European Identity'

Well.. Euro-dance is quite euro-centric. Euro-soccer league.. quite European, and pan-national, what else could you ask for? Coderman 11:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I read the first sentence:

Despite its economic significance and its impact on the lives of its 450 million inhabitants, the European Union attracts no sense of identification comparable to that with nation-states.

So nobody in the whole of the EU thinks of themselves as European? Uh huh. You have a cite for that? Give me a cite, and make it a good one, giving what proportion of the EU think of themselves that way, and then rewrite it to match, otherwise it's gone, in accordance with wiki policy.WolfKeeper 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most people don't, and wishful thinking won't change that. Source added.Paul111 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike that the opening of the article starts with a negative attitude. 'despite ...' is has a negative connotation, let's change this article's title back to 'Europatriotism' and restore patriotism-related sections. This article is not supposed to be about 'Pan-European Identity'.11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The sensible name-change aside, a horde of questionable edits have appeared, rendering this article a silly POV screed. Let's look at the introduction, which categorically fails as an introduction.

"Despite its economic significance and its impact on the lives of its 450 million inhabitants, the European Union attracts no sense of identification comparable to that with nation-states. Early expectations that people would "become European" and gradually abandon their national identity, have not materialised. On the contrary, a specific hostility to the European Union developed: euroscepticism. Although many in Europe believe that there is a European culture, that has no political effect, and co-exists with national loyalties and national patriotism. There is no comparable 'europatriotism' directed towards the EU, much less the entire continent. The European Union has made some attempts to increase identification with 'Europe' (meaning the EU itself), and has introduced some European symbols. The promotion of this identification is now low-key, partly for fear of eurosceptic reactions."

Problems:

• The comparison with national identities simply does not belong in the first sentence. No starting sentence in an article should begin with 'Despite'.
• What early expectations? From who? When? Why is it assumed that identity is zero-sum game?
• 'Many' believe = weasel words. Who? How many?
• 'No political effect' = Original research
• Low-key approach - sources?

More generally, despite being named 'Pan-European Identity' and not 'Pan-EU Identity' the article pours an unencyclopedic amount of scorn on various Pan-European projects which are not related to the EU.--Nydas 17:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with national identities is indeed an inheritance from the previous article, and its use of 'patriotism'. However national identity is the relevant comparison for the EU, not for instance the degree of support for pan-Africanism. The Eurobarometer surveys are the main source of hard data on this issue. The early expectation are those of the late 1940s and 1950s, which could have a better source than Churchill, but they did exist. As for 'low-key', the article should point out that the EU does not push its identity in the way that, for instance, the Turkish state does.Paul111 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence should contain a neutral description of the topic, not a comparison. Imagine if the article on Velvet Revolver started with 'Despite selling many records, they have not sold nearly as many as Guns N' Roses.' It's totally unencyclopedic.--Nydas 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, a comparison at the start of the article is relevant, because there is nothing at European level comparable to national identity. Simply stating what an identity is, is pointless.Paul111 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, it's absolutely normal. How many other articles begin in this way?--Nydas 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text does not 'pour scorn' on Europol and EUFOR, but explains what they are not, again an inheritance from the previous text. As far as I am concerned, all the 'projects' can be removed from this article, since there is not a shred of evidence that they contribute to any kind of European identity.Paul111 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Paul111 simply dislikes to see a list of succesful Euyropean project? Your reasoning does not make sense, you destroyed valuable information. 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Although many in Europe believe that there is a European culture, that has no political effect, and co-exists with national loyalties and national patriotism." No political effect whatever? Cite?WolfKeeper 18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text is clarified. If the supposed 'common culture' had political and geopolitical effects comparable to national cultures, there would be a European State. There isn't, and this article ought to explain the limits of pan-European identity, and especially their limited role in the EU.Paul111 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks Paul111 is paud by an American anti-EU lobbygroup 11:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions.Paul111 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul11: There is no European State and there will never be one. The reason is that we're shifting into the post-nation state era. Read Rifkin's book 'The European Dream', just first chapter and you will understand what the EU really means for Europe - and the world. The EU has a typical post-nation state structure by all means. This is World 2.0, it's the P2P technology of the world today. 212.83.71.69

As mentionned above, I propose to delete these commercial projects, unless there is some material, either on their impact on European identity, or showing that they are intended by politicians to have that kind of effect. The GPS system does seem to have political intent, but a source would be useful.Paul111 18:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul111 WHat are you talking about 'politics', tyhis article was about patriotism, which is a people's emotional expression. Not a political or commercial project. However, patriotism gets influenced byprojects suchs as there, and therefor they were listed. Now that you destroyed this article by renaming it, it doesn make sense anymore. Pretty clever but its beyond the scope of what this article used to be about. By changing the core of the artcile, obviously, some stuff doesn;t make sense anymore. Clever move. Which lobby group is paying you to do this? 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to criticise Paul111. It's true that this article was almost like an essay to promote European patriotism, and he was right in pointing that out. But now he has made the article into the exact opposite - a very negative description of "pan-European identity". The beginning of the article is very annoying and against the NPOV principle. Just as the "Euroscepticism" article illustrates what people don't like about Europe and the EU, this article should illustrate positive examples and explain the concept of "Pan-European identity", not try to kill that concept! Dumbledore 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do feel patriotic about Europe, and I'm not the only one. I consider myself a European citizen. Dumbledore 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Europatriotic too, and, I am one of the That makes at least 3 of us amoing the 456,953,258 EU citizens. Coderman

The positive position (i.e. anti-Eurosceptic) belongs in Pan-Europeanism or Europhile - there are several others with similar content and they could usefully be merged. This article should be about how strong the identity is, about the attempts to promote it, about the historical comparison with the strength of national identity in Europe. It should also describe the often-quoted 'common historical identity' of Europe, which does not seem to be covered in any other article.Paul111 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article used the word 'negative' 0 times before Paul111 started to mutiliate the article. The word 'negative' is used 6 times now. I think we should restore the article and have Paul11 edit a 'Anti-Europe' article. I'm sure the lobbygroup Paul111 works for would love that. 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul111: anti-Eurosceptic is the wrong way to put 'Europatriotic' it's like saying -1x-1 = 1. I mean, we're talking 1 here. Also by looking at all Paul111's edits in articles on Zionist, multi-culturalism and other Europe-related articles it seems Paul111 is a notorious Euro-basher. Coderman 23:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the function of this article to promote 'Europatriotism'. That is not what Wikipedia is for. There are several forms of pan-European identity, historical and recent, and there is data from Eurobarometer on how widely they are supported. Whether people ought to be 'Europatriots' is an opinion issue. Why not include a section on Arguments for Europatriotism?Paul111 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is identity zero-sum, as Nydas questions above? The research for Eurobarometer, and subsequent analysis of the data (see the references), indicates that national and European identity tend to be seen as mutually exclusive, but that there are national differences in this. In general it seems, that the more positive the attitude to the EU, the more likely that the respondent will accept 'European identity' as complementary to the national identity.Paul111 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with kitsch? Kitsch defines a large part of American culture, I'm sorry to say - yet a lot of American culture is -despite being quite kitsch- embrased worldwide. Why was it removed from the article? Coderman 00:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article out to describe emegring 'Europatriotism'. The article started out a bit well// 'patriotic' but has been neutralized by many others ove rthe last few months. Now that Paul111 has completely added a lot of negative connotation and eventually decided to rename the article, I think the very core of the article is touched. This is about Europatriotism, not about anti-euroscepticism. It's time to rename the article back and work on an even better version. Thanks. Europimp 01:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the function of Wikipedia to promote Europatriotism. There is an article on patriotism and there should be, because patriotism is an accepted term for an important phenomenon. On the other hand, 'Europatriotism' is a disputable neologism used mainly in small groups such as the JEF. If it was used as a synonym for 'European identity', then it would be acceptable as an article title, but it is not widely used in this way. Most 'Europeans' think of themselves as belonging to a nation-state, and have no 'patriotic' attachment to Europe. That is the reality, and that is why the article should not suggest a factually existing and widespread 'Europatriotism'.Paul111 10:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the artcle described 'emerging' Europatriotism. It's not widespread, but it's there - you seem to ignore this? 212.83.71.69 11:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of irrelevant information and personal opinion does not belong in this article. Fighter performance says nothing about pan-European identity, or even about Euro-patriotism. The tone is wrong too - 'limey' doesn't belong here. (And besides, it is a US term for the English, not for Europeans).Paul111 10:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a suprise rendez-vouse with an two American built F-15 fighter jets the US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the Eurofighter jet would have been shot down. Much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails - winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world

I contest the information is irrelevant: This article is about Europatriotism, and European supremacy in aircombat gives ground for Europatriotism. The fact that the term 'Europatriotism' has not been used in article is irrelevant, the case described by the article gives clearly ground for Europatriotism. The fact that you are trying to hide this information gives ground to think you're on the anti-EU side, possibly a lobbygroup worker. This is nota personal attack, because, I checked this with Wikipedia, it's allowed for lobbygroup workers to tweak articles. So don't worry you're perfectly legal. You're right that the word 'limey' doesn't fit in an ecyclopedia, but, by sasying 'it is a US term for the English, not for Europeans'... so? Do Europeans care? A Brittish pilot in a Eurofighter is a EU Citizen operating a European build Fighter jet, winning a dogfight from two Americans flying US built jets. 11:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Coderman 212.83.71.69 11:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Coderman has suggested three times now, that my edits are being paid for by a lobby group. This seems to be a personal attack but it also says something about the environment in which the term 'Europatriotism' is used. In any case the attacks should be withdrawn.Paul111 10:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Me thinks Paul111 is paud by an American anti-EU lobbygroup"

"Which lobby group is paying you to do this?"

"have Paul11 edit a 'Anti-Europe' article. I'm sure the lobbygroup Paul111 works for would love that"

No it's not: being a paid lobby group worker is legal according to Wikipedia's policies - I did check this. It's your full right to tweak this article in any direction you like. I dislike it though. 212.83.71.69 11:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the term PAN- European in the intro, which now starts with a dull definition / disambiguation, as requested above. I added more on the 'Christian identity of Europe' debate, and the consequences for Turkish accession to the EU. Sport has a subsection, and the laundry list of footballers is replaced with the UEFA competitions, which are more relevant for this article. Link to 'Great Seal of the European Union' is deleted, it is a one-website proposal: no author is named at the website, and no evidence that it was submitted to the European Commission.Paul111 10:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul great work. Now the article has nothing to do with Europatriotism anymore. 212.83.71.69 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was an attempt to write about the emerging phenomena of 'Europatriotism'. Instead of having an article on patriotism, symbols, etc.. we now have a (pretty bad) antropological article on 'Pan European Identity'. I think it's time to rstore the article back to where it was about: Europatriotism Note that Paul111, the onbe that decided to change the title, has not reacted to complaints on the topic title change. The only response was the chapter 'personal attach'. No comments on patriotic feelings such as Europeans being the ones with worlds largest economy, competing with US and building better fighter jets.212.83.71.69 01:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This unsigned comment is from user Europimp, who first created the 'Europatriotism' article. The question is: whose patriotic feelings are these? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a community site like MySpace. If 450 million EU inhabitants felt the same way about Europe, as US-Americans feel about the USA, that would be world-shaking news. But they don't. How many people do, and where is the evidence that they do?Paul111 09:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well frist of all, let's hope EU citizens never feel the same way about the EU as US Americans feel about the US.

The point of the article was to describe history's first form of a pan-national patriotism. This is uncomparable to the way Americans express their nation state patriotism, as they do this the same way most European nation states did a centuries ago. As others on this page argues they do feel euro-patriotic; so it does exist. The world-shaking news is that this is, as said before, we've never seen such a kind of patriotism before. That was the reason to start a wikipedia article, not to describe Pan-European identity. Paul111 tweaked, modified and corrupted the core of the article, Im sorry to say but this is the only way I can see it Coderman 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ony two people have identified themselves as 'euro-patriots' here. Pan-nationalism is not a new phenomenon, neither is pan-Europeanism. It would be notable if large numbers of EU inhabitants adopted political pan-Europeanism. So where is the evidence that they do? Wikipedia has criteria of notability, which make it different from MySpace, and it is not a crystal ball. So how does Europatriotism meet those criteria?Paul111 10:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul11: pan-Europeanism is, AFAIK, a new phenomena. I haven't seen much on the subject before, I think it's new. Could you prove otherwise please? If not, it takes away any ground of the renaming of the article. The point was to describe the new, emerging phenomena of Europatriotism. Coderman 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Richard Nikolaus Graf Coudenhove-Kalergi and International Paneuropean Union. If 'Europatriotism' is emerging, then there should be some evidence that it is emerging. In reality, it seems to be a non-notable neologism, and this article is better directed at the real-world (and abundantly sourced) controversies about European identity.Paul111 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the International Paneuropean Union however, I must be one of the few. This organisation is just a serious as Texan seperatists. Sorry, I still think Europatriotism as it was originally described bhy this article is emerging and new, it sjust too bad Paul111 destroyed the article Coderman 12:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has criteria of notability. If Europatriotism is indeed emerging, then there should be some Europatriots. For notability, there should be a substantial number of Europatriots. I asked already for some evidence of this, i.e. for some evidence that the term is anything other than a non-notable neologism.Paul111 10:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, people reacted here on the talk page. Nobody claimed the opposite. I therefor still think the article was taken off topi cby renaming it. Coderman 17:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia criteria of notability and accuracy are not rescinded by lack of comments on a talk page. There is simply no case for an article on 'Europatriotism', if no evidence can be provided that it is anything other than a non-notable neologism.Paul111 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question wheter Europatriotism exists in reality i snot important. The concept of Europatriotism exist, and therefor an article in Wikipedia is justified. See http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=%22Padraig+Harrington%22&y=4&javascriptEnabled=true&x=7&id=060915007687. Reason enough to write about it. 212.83.71.69 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to this new, it reads to me as balanced and neutral (though, as I am pro-European, perhaps that makes it biased!). I definitely support the change of title - "Europatriotism" was quite excessive, too subjective, not verifiable, vandal bait. Reading the above comments and the edits that have been made, it seems to me that the article has already been cleaned up. So I propose that we delete the NPOV and CLEANUP tags and according I vote

• Delete the NPOV tag --Red King 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supported--Boson 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do it.WolfKeeper 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the CLEANUP tag --Red King 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supported--Boson 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do it.WolfKeeper 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If anyone sees particular sections that need work, attach an NPOV-section tag to it rather than the whole article. --Red King 20:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I supported the removal of the NPOV and Cleanup flags, I was a little concerned about the last paragraph of the introduction:

Pan-European identity generally competes with national identity. 1999 Eurobarometer surveys show that only 6% in the EU combine feeling European with their national identity, with variations between the member states. [3] The European Union has made some attempts to increase identification with 'Europe' (meaning the EU itself), and has introduced some European symbols, but this has not been as intensive as the promotion of national identity in the nation-states.

I would tend to make this a separate section. Also I don't think the last sentence is verifiable, and I would tend to replace it. 1999 seems a little old; so I would replace this with the data on "national pride" (P. 26) and "European pride" (P. 49) as well as feelings of European citizenship (P.42) from the last Eurobarometer (No. 64 for 2005, published June 2006). [2] The correlation between national pride and European pride might be interesting. It might also be interesting to copy some of the tables and/or graphs, but I am not sure of the copyright position. AFAICT they would be subject to the EU (EC) copyright notice, which states "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged. . ." but, of course, that is not GFDL or public domain. The document probably has lots more interesting stuff. --Boson 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the EU ever made schoolchildren salute the European flag every morning while singing the 'Ode to Joy", there is no comparison between the meagre efforts to promote an 'EU' identity, and the things nation-states have done in that respect.Paul111 09:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the European anthem doesn't have words; so I doubt they would have children singing anything. I don't know of any European nation state that makes children salute the national flag and sing the national anthem. If any serious German politician suggested such a thing it would probably be political suicide, and it would probably just be laughed at in Britain. Indeed, I imagine it would be contrary to Section 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, not to mention all sorts of free speech rights. My main problem with the statement is that I don't see any way of verifying that the nation states do more to promote national identity that the EU does. Apart from that I'm not at all sure it's true. I suppose in Britain you have bath towels and toilet paper printed with the Union Flag, but I don't think that counts as official promotion. So it looks to me like non-verifiable POV. --Boson 20:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Union Flag only exists because English troops conquered Wales, Scotland and Ireland: that's the kind of thing nation-states do, to create and promote national identity. It would be historically inaccurate to ignore the agressive and violent promotion of national identity in the 19th and 20th centuries, or imply that the EU ever pushed 'European' identity to the same extent.Paul111 10:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "competes with" as that is "leading the witness stuff". Readers can draw their own conclusions from the Eurobarometer citation without needing to be told what (someone thinks) it means. But yes it could do with being replaced with a more recent survey. --Red King 20:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some trouble with the tendious use of the menaing of what would be considered 'European'. For example the sections on the Eurofighter & Airbus and also on teh European Space Agency uses a stragne explanation of what would be 'European'

'Like Airbus, Eurofighter is European in the sense of not being American: it has four European nations as co-sponsors, and other European nations are likely to purchase aircraft. France, Sweden and Russia all manufacture competitor aircraft.'

I think that, in order to label something such as the Eurofighter or the European Space Agency 'European' it does not require all 25 member states to participate in the project. Nor needs the participating sates to be solely EU states. The point is that the initiatives and driving forces behind it are comming from Europe.

It's like claiming that for example Beoing or Lockheed-Martin are not American either; I doubt all 50 US states participate in the Lockheed-Martin or Beoing company. Just what the think of a project such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter led by Lockheed-Martin, an American company? Many parts of the plane are built and designed by European companies - does this make Lockheed Martin less American? 212.83.71.69 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the title now says 'pan-European', otherwise every book, building or business in Europe would belong in this article. A distinction is necessary. Airbus is not in origin or intent a pan-European project. The media label 'European' is in this case intended to contrast it to the US, and in fact to Boeing, its only competitor for large aircraft. The article should not imply that there is a pan-European aircraft manufacturer.Paul111 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul'negative'111 where are you talking about? Airbus IS a Pan-European aircraft manufacturer. 16:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)~

The unsigned comment above is by 212.83.71.69. Pan-European denotes all of Europe. Airbus and Eurofighter producer EADS "emerged in 2000 from the link-up of the German DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG, the French Aerospatiale Matra and CASA of Spain." [3]

I was thinking there should perhaps be more discussion of the geographical "object" of pan-European identity (EU, whole of Europe, including Russia, Turkey, etc.?). In that context there should perhaps also be more mention of the Council of Europe, the EEA etc. Since there are other articles concerned with European integration, I wasn't sure what really belonged here. I would tend not to include Schengen, though there should perhaps be a general discussion of various attributes of "identity" (e.g. "identity" implies thinking of Europe as a unit, which may imply free movement within a single territorial entity). What about all the different types of "identity" (territorial, political, cultural, . . .). What is the difference between European identity, European consciousness, etc.? Questions of "Europe des nations", subsidiarity, federalism etc. might also be relevant. There is also the question of what "European-ness" imples: can "European culture" be equated with "western civilization" etc. I was also wondering about historical attempts at European integration, possibly based on a common identity (Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler?). What about the effects of EU enlargement? Should we include a discussion of the Christian heritage, Islam in Europe, etc.). Any ideas about what should be included here and what belongs elsewhere? --Boson 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are considered to be negative elements for the purposes of defining European identity, as indicated by the fact that they are often conveniently forgotten when listing Europe's civilisational heritage. When they are listed, it is in an apologetic tone, and it is that attitude which is relevant for this paragraph.Paul111 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The running disputes above mainly arise becuase of the "Pan-" part of the aricle. For example, the Eurofighter and EuroFor are clearly European, but they are just not Pan-European. Thus, if even one European country does not participate, some editors can argue that it is not Pan-European. So I propose that we change the title again to European identity. Please indicate your support/opposition below in the usual way. If anyone objects, we will have to use the official "Request to Move" procedure. --Red King 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haggis is also European, since Scotland is in Europe. The pan prefix is there for a reason, namely to distinguish between that which is part of Europe by location there, and that which refers to Europe as a whole.Paul111 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul111: I would react to this that the original article was about 'Europatriotism' The whole discussion about wheter or not we need to pre-fix with 'pan' would be out of scope if it wasn't for the fact that you changed the title against community consesus. I would like to see the article to be renamed to the original name that I used when I started this article 'Europatriotism' 212.83.71.69

212.83.71.69 has removed the date from the above comment, so that it appears that the three users below support his suggestion. In fact it was added in 2007, after the three had indicated their support for the proposal of Red King. His proposal was never implememented.Paul111 11:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

• --Red King 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • meaning support European Identity. I am strongly opposed to patriotism in anything other than choosing which team to support! "Patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel" or words to that effect. --Red King 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• --Boson 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• --dream.x 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 80.57.125.170 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

European identity is indeed in common use, but it means something different to what is covered by most of this article. As generally used, it refers to the historical identity of Europe, with the well-known list of Greece, Rome, Charlemagne, Renaissance, Enlightenment. It is also used for the alleged 'European values' of democracy, human rights, a free press, and so on. There is a mass of material available on this issue, which was prominent in the debate on the European Constitution. Wikipedia should have a major article on this issue, certainly. But not with Robbie Williams! And not with Airbus either. Even if they were official EU mascots, that is still not the same thing as the constitutive identity of Europe. I suggest the 'constitutive identity of Europe' gets its own article, perhaps under that name. This one could be re-named as 'identification with Europe' or similar, to cover the Eurobarometer surveys, the degree of Euroscepticism / pro-integration attitudes, and the official EU promotion of identity, and a brief reference to the EUsymbols, which have a separate article. In the process, Robbie Williams and Airbus can go, although the Eurovision contest could stay, as the only 'grassroots' pan-European culture phenomenon.Paul111 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other comment[edit]

The Europeanism article is also primarily about European identity.Paul111 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So why did you, Paul111, change the article from being about Europatriotism to Pan-European Identity? 212.83.71.69

Yes. Paul11 .please explain. Why not rename the article back to it's oruiginal title 'Europatriotism'? 80.57.125.170 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europeanism and europatriotism are entirely different concepts. --Red King 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to stay in the article, it needs a source indicating that it contributes in some way, to people's sense of being European. The Airbus project might have some material on that, but I doubt if Eurofighter does.Paul111 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the name itself? 'Euro'-fighter? 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.125.170 (talk)

Reference to Article 301 was deleted, I don't know exactly why, but it seems to have something to do with Greek-Turkish conflicts. The Article, which certainly does exist and is used, is here only to show that the EU does not have anything like it. (Think of what The Sun would say, if it the EU made it a crime to 'insult European identity'). Someone asked for evidence, that nation-states push their national identity much harder than the EU pushes European identity, and this is a good example. Deleting it in connection with ongoing disputes at other articles is not appropriate.Paul111 10:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? U came up with all these when u saw that i am Greek? my removal had nothing to do with Greek-Turkish conflicts and nothing with any ongoing disputes at other articles! the sentence was like that: However these activities are not comparable to the intense promotion and protection of national identity and honour in some nation-states, for instance Article 301 of the Turkish penal code,.... May objections to that are simple: 1. Turkey is not an EU nation-state, and so u simply can't say some nation-states, for instance...Turkish penal code, 2. promotion and protection of national identity and honour is not exactly what Article 301 of the turkish penal code is about. it is about an extended variety of topics related to the Republic of Turkey, Turkish people, Ottoman Empire, "Turkishness", etc etc. Even the link provided talks about the case of the nobelist Pamuk; note that he was dragged on a trial for talking about the Armenian Genocide, id est something that happened prior to the declaration of the 'Republic of Turkey', contradicting what u added above ...which makes insults to the Republic a crime. and, btw, your new rewording the EU has nothing comparable to Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, has no base... the EU can't nor has the will to have something like that (see Freedom of expression and related articles). do find a better example please... maybe something like "penalties for the destruction of national symbols in almost all EU states" or something relevant. Hectorian 11:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I saw that you edit many articles related to Greek disputes. They are not relevant for this article. I have clarified the intro, so that there can be no misunderstanding about why the reference is there. It is an example of what nation states do to people who offend their sense of national honour, and that is the way it is understood by its critics. The Kemalist ideology takes all reference to the Armenian genocide as an insult to Turkey. That may be historically inaccurate, since there was no Republic of Turkey at the time, but that is the way nationalists think. Turkey is an EU candidate state, and the issue is prominent in the accession talks. And you are quite correct that the EU does not have similar laws, that is precisely the point.Paul111 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further to say but that "It is not an example of what nation states do to people who offend their sense of national honour"! this is an extreme example, highly criticised by all (but the turkish gov.) and incompatible with EU, as everyone in the union says. Regardless my own ethnic background and my editting frequency in Greek related topics, this is the opinion all Europeans share. so, as a European, i find the comparison with article 301 offending... Hectorian 11:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a few words to avoid the confusion that might be caused because "nations states" is used in the previous sentecnces to refer to nation states within the EU but is now being used to refer to third countries. Also added some words to indicate that the statement comparing non-EU nation states with the EU is reporting an opinion or argument, rather than an objective comparison based on some criterion like money spent. Personally, I would prefer to remove the whole paragraph and move the information from footnote 2 into the main body (though notthe intro). --Boson 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the contentious text entirely, the essential information is that the EU has some promotional activities. As an aside, the Netherlands now does oblige people to sing the national anthem in front of the national flag, at least if they want to become naturalised citizens. In Amsterdam, they are also obliged to accept a blue-and-white Delftware potato, as a symbol of their new allegiance. No potato, no passport. What would The Sun say, if the EU did that?Paul111 12:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul111 I am a Dutch citizen of Amsterdam. What you're claiming, and despite The Sun (rubbish) is reporting this, is simply not true. 62.194.87.163 15:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here: [4]. And here are the potatoes: [5] Paul111 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(:-)) For readers who do not speak Dutch and/or do not share Paul111's sense of humour, one should perhaps point out that the press article linked to actually says that on the "Day of Naturalization" which was celebrated that week, anybody being granted Dutch nationality was given a present of the depicted work of art representing a potato, made by a Chinese artist who has lived in Amsterdam for 12 years. It didn't say if the artist was an EU citizen. --Boson 23:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ceremony is compulsory, and enforcement, as with all immigration law, is rigid. Refusal to participate means no naturalisation, and possible deportation. The EU could not and would not enforce a comparable level of compulsion, for a comparable ceremony of allegiance to Europe, that is the point.Paul111 11:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: I started this article as 'Europatriotism'. Paul111 joined in at some point and started to systematically tweak the article and added a lot of negativity to it. Also he carefully tweaked it in such a way that he found ground to change the article's name from 'Europatriotism' to 'Pan-European identity'. I have suggested to change the title back to the original title.

(...) And yet Europatriotism exists. A "Eurobarometer" survey for the European Commission last year showed that 63 per cent of Europeans feel "proud" to be Europeans. Britain scored lowest, with 44 per cent.

(from http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=%22Padraig+Harrington%22&y=4&javascriptEnabled=true&x=7&id=060915007687)

212.83.71.69 00:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did somebody remove the picture of the huge European flag near the banks of the river Seine in Paris? This picture has been in the opening since I started the article. I like to restore the picture with the huge European flag. 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia link policy says no links to own websites (conflict of interest)...

• You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.

and avoid links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET and links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. It also says that linked sites should be directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject.Paul111 11:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr is not primarily a networking site nor a weblog, its rather a website with creative commons licensed pictures. The collection of Europatriotism pictures has been promoted by www.europeunited.org -- being a recognized authority. If you would not have changed the subject of the article, which was 'Europatriotism' there would be not debate on wheter this Flickr link would be appropriate. Still, within the conect of pan-European Identity I think linking to this collection of pictures is very valid, and at least, the only visual signifier available on the internet that relates to the current subject. 212.83.71.69 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr pool has not been "promoted" by Europe United, someone posted a link to their website at the pool page, that's all. Europe United are not a "recognized authority", but a tiny political party with no apparent electoral support. User:212.83.71.69 maintains the Flickr pool. This user also posted this link to his Flickr pool at the German and Spanish Wikipedia, and it appears to be link spam. Removed.Paul111 11:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

me, being User:212.83.71.69 contest this. This cannot be spam just because the link is also placed in translated versions of the main article. Your weird logic would render all links in localized versions into 'spam'. More importantly, the flickr group was promoted by Europe United in a monthly mailing. Also Europe United is a registered party, and this 'recognized'. Please Paul111 you are not in a position to solely decide whether a group is 'regonized' or not. It might be a small party but its a whole lot more than just the single person Paul111, carrying a whole lot more 'authority'. Link restored. 212.83.71.69 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in a mailing by a small political group is not sufficient ground to incluide a link to a Flickr pool in this article, which is not about Europatriotism. The pool seems to consist mainly of images of the European flag. Europe United is not a recognised authority on anything, it is not even registered as a political party anywhwere, and it is only registered as a political association in Denmark and Moldova. In any case, User:212.83.71.69 seems to have commercial interests in placement of this link and promotion of the Flickr pool.Paul111 11:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul111 please don't charging me with having 'commercial interest' or whatsoever. First you charged me with being a 'spammer' just b/c of adding the link that was in the article from day #1 also to the translated versions -- would you like ti include the same pictures if the Flickr group pool would also be renamed to 'Pan-European Identity' then?. Stop making up random reasons please. You have never been open about yur motivations, You recently cleared your user page, but, the history shows a lot of complaints from various fellow Wikipedia users charging you with having certain motivations to ridicule this article. Again: It is not up to you to rule whether an organisation is recognised or not. It exist, it's active, it has members, and it had both on the mailing list and the forums an active talk about both Pan-European identity, Europatriotism and it referred to the Flickr group being the only resource that represents the visual aesthetics of the concept. This is a very valid reason -- link restored 212.83.71.69

Paul111 is right to remove the link, it's a minor site with only a few contributors.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User 212.83.71.69 has or had a commercial interest in the theme, and that is in itself reason to remove the link. The primary reason is however that there is no ground for it to be listed here. It is not important, it does not illustrate anything, and it does not contribute anything to the article. Wikipedia is not a collection of links.Paul111 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Links to flickr are occasionally tolerated for places if the article doesn't have any. Doing so for concepts is not acceptable. --Red King 21:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a lot of people are using this as a discussion forum. Which is fine so far as it may produce decisions about what to put into the main article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has tagged these two articles for merger, but not followed up as far as I can see. The Pan-Europeanism aricle is just a stub and could become a section of this.

• I support a merge. --Red King (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has commented either way, I've done the merge. --Red King (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the section was deleted along with other content later in 2008. I'll restore some of it on the page Category:Pan-Europeanism. – Fayenatic London 08:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why not mention that many europeans from all over europe are united in anti-americanism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny-bollock-rotten (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Europeanism. They seem to overlap. Comments? YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge sounds reasonable - big overlap, if not synonymous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these concepts not functionally identical? HMS Vanguard (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - this article is about (as the title suggests) European identity - the way in which some people feel themselves to be 'European' instead of, or as well as, another nationality. Pan-European nationalism is about the political idea of uniting Europe as a single state, which is far less widespread; you can be a 'Europeanist' without being a 'Pan-Europeanist' in that sense, and indeed most aren't. Robofish (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pan-European identity. 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 https://web.archive.org/20060211014252/http://www.thirdway.org:80/files/reviews/eurorasp.html to http://www.thirdway.org/files/reviews/eurorasp.html

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} 17:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is questionable how far this is even remotely related to the article topic. But fwiiw, the Ryder Cup was a golf tournament between UK and US teams until 1979, when a "Team Europe" participated for the first time. The European flag was first used in the logo in 1991 (picture of 1989 version). I.e. the flag was used for convenience to represent "Europe" years before it became politically charged as the emblem of the European Union (the EU was only even established two years later). So the use of the flag in the Ryder Cup would be irrelevant, if it were not for its mention in the context of sports and nationalism in Bairner (2001). Apparently, by the end of the 1990s, use of the "Flag of the European Union" had become politically charged and people no longer accepted its use as representing simply "Europe" as a continent. So I guess the entire thing is relevant inasmuch as it illustrates the absence of a "pan-European identity" in 2001. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pan-European identity. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410095422/http://www.boheme-magazine.net/php/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=630 to http://www.boheme-magazine.net/php/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=630
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511141703/http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/information/focus/united_in_europe.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/information/focus/united_in_europe.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm it:User:Silvia bruni1, librarian at the University of Florence (Social science library). We organised a Wikipedia course. Erasmus students improved some Wikipedia article about the European Union. Pfcasalongavilde worked on this article. --Silvia bruni1 (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Europeanism seems to discuss two theories of values, which would better be discussed in the context of the broader topic; specifically, in the section here on values. Klbrain (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be moved to European identity? Seem to be dominating name. There is no statistcs about how many people identifies themselves as Europeans in European Union, Europe and all over the world? We have Yugoslavs in Serbia. Eurohunter (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph states that Kalergi viewed Paneuropa as being "in explicit opposition to... Great Britain and the United States" and cites the exclusion of the British Isles as proof of this. This is a horribly inaccurate conclusion (that Kalergi wanted Paneuropa to oppose GB/US) drawn from a true claim (that the Isles were not part of Paneuropa). The citation does not support it either. Having read Kalergi's Paneuropa and a host of secondary readings on Kalergi, I wish to present his actual view and have it included instead.

Kalergi argued that Paneuropa would be just one of three European states who would collaborate each other in pursuit of the "European cultural task". He was a support of European colonialism and valued the British Empire's contributions to global imperialism. He excluded the British Empire from Paneuropa not because he was opposed to Britain, but because the Empire was already so large that he believed integrating it with the rest of Europe would not make sense. Instead, Britain formed its own political space. However, Kalergi asserted that Britain's rightful place would be within Paneuropa should she lose her empire. Horarum (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]