Talk:Pan-European identity

Good start..

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)

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)

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)

Europatriotism is not anti-americanism

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)

European Miracle?

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)

A debate article?

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)

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)

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)::

Churchill's use of "Europe"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

European Coast Guard, border police, etc

• 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)

Pan-European culture and identity

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

The wish is father to the patriotism

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)

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)

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)

Fictitious 'European Army'

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)

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)

Eurofighter

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)

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.

What do American fighter jets have to do with the USA??

Misleading use of source for Europatriotism

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)

European loyalty to David Beckham?

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)

New title

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)

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

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

First sentence

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)

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

Numerous questionable edits

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)

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)

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)

Uh huh

"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)

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)