Jump to content

Talk:European Union–United States relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2024

[edit]

– Per proper naming convention as the EU is not a country. Was proposed and failed before. No discussion was held after that by consensus to move WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Raladic (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has existed at this name for 3 years, seems a bit of a stretch for an undiscussed revert.
The WP:AT (specifically WP:AND) policy says "It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures. - it's an "especially" not a "doesn't apply in reverse.
So these 4 titles here all seem to be appropriately listed alphabetically. Raladic (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Countries and cultures are not reflected by these articles. This isn't a bilateral relations article were it would make sense. It would make sense if it was about two countries. EU is not a country. And cultures are not applicable to these articles since there is no direct relation or mention of it. Wider consensus needs to be had. And the article was under United States–European Union relations at first. A discussion in point from the US article talk page from 2014 would agree with this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that was 10 years ago, but the AT policy on preferring Alphabetical sorting in general still stands, whether the EU is a county, or culture, or neither. As I already mentioned, that article has now been at this new title for many years without any opposition. So I think if you want these 4 to be moved, holding a full RM and nominating all 4 in a bulk RM discussion will be best to clear up and create clear consensus. Raladic (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Consensus is consensus. No matter how long ago. Please read how consensus works. If it was from 2007 and was changed without a discussion this year when the original discussion said not to remove, then it was violation of consensus policy. "Generally" is not definite nor mandatory. And since these four are part of a series of a broader/larger topic, it requires discussion/consensus. Not one user making changes because of what they feel or relation to policy. You also omit, "However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead." This falls under conventional. And as one voter has stated is the Consistency section. "Titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics." These articles also fall under this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not uncontentious as it pits alphabetical sorting norm against consistency norm, which means that an RM instead of RM/TR is the right venue.
If consensus below now finds that yes, we want to use WP:CONSISTENT over WP:AND then the question is answered and the 4 articles can be moved and this discussion referenced in the future. I don't have a horse in this race, I just clerked the RM/TR request and given the contentious nature, it wasn't uncontroversial, hence I moved it to contentious and started the RM as a courtesy instead. Raladic (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above thread was moved from Special:Permalink/1259060490#c-Raladic-20241123035300-WikiCleanerMan-20241123002900 for context of the contested move request. Please add new comments below.

If WP:AND were applied there wouldn't be a conflict with WP:CONSISTENT, because the two entities named in the article title would consistently appear in alphabetical order. Article titles would consistently follow that pattern, with its basis in policy (WP:AND), instead of the pattern in which countries and non-countries are always in the same position in relation to each other, which apparently has no such basis in policy. Ham II (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject International relations, WikiProject European Union, and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All the EU bilateral relations articles should be alphabetically sorted. We shouldn't make a move that is incorrect for "consistency". AusLondonder (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bilateralism is between two countries and/or states. The EU is not a state or country. EU relations with countries, in particular for the ones nominated are non-member states, is multilateral relations. EU relations with other organizations like African Union, Organization of American States can be alphabetical and would not be an issue. Consistency is right for this discussion. Also, I would advise to also see the discussion I linked that opposed the moves to the titles currently. Consensus from last discussions takes precedent over concept of alphabetical sorting. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet this page's shortdescription, as well from several others, says it's a bilateral relation. And that's not inacurate, bilateral means two sides or, in this case, two entities, not necessarily two countries or states.
    Not only that, EU website says it's bilateral, regardless of how Wikipedia defines what's bilateralism. Web-julio (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They can still be alphabetically sorted at Category:Third-country relations of the European Union by the country's name using category keys, regardless of the articles' titles. Ham II (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The debate appears to be consistencies against other consistencies, and the smaller an order is within an area, the more favorable it is to be adapted to the others instead. In that way, the consistency with other bilateral relations between states are more prevalent and older, and indeed more substantial, which is ordered alphabetically. And just because it can also be considered multilateral, it doesn't make it less a relation between states, in this case more than just two states, still two entities. Web-julio (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also states "The policy of having bilateral agreements between two countries." And only bilateral on EU website links are referring to trade. Relations are in terms of diplomatic relations. States in articles like these are referred to countries. It has been this way for a long time. The IR project found consensus that bilateral articles are between two countries. "it doesn't make it less a relation between states, in this case more than just two states, still two entities." No, it is still not about relations between states and it is not about relations with more than two states. Wikipedia does not define the definition of bilateralism. You are cherrypicking and this is becoming a case of a violation of Wikipedia:Competence is required. Your nomination of the EU cats and your inability to provide any evidence for your rationale on the category nomination and this is discussion is very concerning. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is nothing at WP:AND to suggest that supranational unions should be treated differently from countries; the only germane part of that policy is "It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order" in article titles which combine two topics. The pages and subcategories within Category:Third-country relations of the European Union which don't follow this policy should be moved.

    The only difficulty I can see with the approach I'm advocating is with the contents of Category:United Nations relations (which doesn't include any of the articles in this nomination). United States and the United Nations, Uruguay and the United Nations, Uzbekistan and the United Nations and Vanuatu and the United Nations (the only affected countries) seem like more natural constructions than United Nations and the United States, United Nations and Uruguay and United Nations and Vanuatu – though perhaps even those we could get used to. Possibly "However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead" at WP:AND covers these cases. Ham II (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics." These fall under that. These three cover similar topics. It will be very hard to convince change for the UN cats and articles. It has been that way for long time as in the case of these EU articles. And cat sorting is not relevant in any which to this discussion. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Would help to have more opinions on the matter. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (STRONGLY). (well, you're missing an "s" in the Peru relations proposal, but other than that, yes)
To clarify: usually, there's a rule of alphabetization for a "CountryX–CountryY relations" title on Wikipedia. I'd say the alphabetization rule makes complete sense when it's between two nations — BUT multinational organizations generally supersede the alphabetization rule and come last in titles.
For example: see Serbia–NATO relations, Sweden–NATO relations, Switzerland–NATO relations, Ukraine–NATO relations, and the FIFTY+ (50+) other pages in the "[NameOfCountry]–European Union relations" format in Category:Third-country relations of the European Union. The multinational organization comes after the country name, consistently, across ALL of these other page titles.
"European Union–Sudan relations" breaks the established format consistency, and should be fixed to match with the above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. biunivocal relations should be alphabetically sorted vis-à-vis the title. It is practical and spare us from a variety of byzantine discussions. I do not see how the European Union not being a sovereign state is relevant here.---Asqueladd (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in the international relations sphere the EU acts very similarly to a sovereign state, and much more closely to a sovereign state to organisations like NATO, further neither deviating from the alphabetical order convention nor moving an article that has been stable and this title for several years seem to bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Union–United_States_relations&oldid=1260633437"