Talk:European Union–United States relations/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about European Union–United States relations. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bennett Hargis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gspinola96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Existence

I am not even sure if this article should even exist. There are no diplomatic relations between the United States and the European Union since in fact, ambassadors from each of the 27 member countries represent their own respective governments and not one single entity as the EU itself. Furthermore, the United States does not have an ambassador or an embassy in Brussels. So there are no "EU-US relations."

When or even if the EU becomes a federation, doubtful as it is, then this article can exist. --Kildruf (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S.-EU Relations

@Kildruf - The EU Ambassador to the United States represents all member states for areas for which the EU has competence (Trade, Justice and Home Affairs, etc). Furthermore, the U.S. has had diplomatic relations with the EU and its predecessors since 1953. The first U.S. Mission to the European Communities was established in Brussels in 1961. I'm not sure where you got your information. Gormami (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Gormami

Title Change

In keeping with Wikipedia Guidelines and formalities, the title of this article should be changed to European Union-United States Relations as this is the correct alphabetical order.

Also, the EU does maintain diplomatic relations with the US and has a delegation to the US in Washington DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxsmith (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Since all bilateral EU relations follow this format, this move request for a single article is withdrawn. Boson (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

United States–European Union relations → European Union–United States relations – Entities should be in alphabetical order. Boson (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Rename, as nominator: Wikipedia:Article titles states: "It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border." I see no special reason to deviate from this. --Boson (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Looking at Category:Third-country relations of the European Union, each entry follows the same format followed here (country-EU relations). So this was obviously done on purpose and I don't see a good reason to change anything. -- Calidum 07:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The standard referred to in the nomination applies to countries; the EU is not a country. Hence the standard of country-EU relations. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Calidum. - SantiLak (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The population of European countries under the section 'comparison' isn't right.

Germany has 80 million inhabitants, The Netherlands has 16 million, Romania has 21 million, for example. You can find the population amounts in their respective Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.14.47 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States–European Union relations. 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/20070312060806/http://www.vrtnieuws.net:80/nieuwsnet_master/versie2/nieuws/details/051201CIA/index.shtml to http://www.vrtnieuws.net/nieuwsnet_master/versie2/nieuws/details/051201CIA/index.shtml

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 21:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States–European Union relations. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States–European Union relations. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing References

Some sections of the article lack of references. References should be added to the following sections: "Arms embargo on the People's Republic of China", "Iran's nuclear program", "Genetically modified food" and "Capital punishment". Gspinola96 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: elaboration of some sections

The very beginning of the article could elaborate a little more concerning the type of relation between the US and EU. Maybe it could give a better overview by saying that overall the relation has been good and solid over the years. Also, the introduction could mention the several fields in which US and EU interact (eg. trade and defense). The official beginning (date) of the relations could be specified. Also the "History" section can be expanded. Several important historical developments such as cooperation within NATO and trade agreements could be mentioned here and elaborated more in detail in the sections below. Approach of US and EU towards Iran is mentioned in later sections but not in the history of the relations. In the section regarding "Defense contracts" (or in the bigger section "Cooperation") it is necessary to at least mention the fact that the EU and the US are both essential members of NATO. Additionally, in the "Cooperation" section, several potential sub-sections such as "Energy and Sustainability" and "Common Values" could be added in order to provide a more comprehensive view of US-EU relations. Gspinola96 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Citation not found

The link of reference number 26 (Review of the translatantic rift at the time Brookings Institution) does not work. If clicked, it says "page not found". Gspinola96 (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments on "Trump Administration" section

I found the section "Trump administration" a bit out of place and distracting at the end of the page. I think it is an important topic and it should be mentioned in another section such as "History". A better option would be to create a new section concerning US presidencies where also the previous US presidents' administrations are discussed (eg. Bush administration and Obama administration). This article (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/15008/3/For%20IR%20HJD%20Final%20Revised2%2023.05.2011.pdf) is a good source that explains diplomatic relations of the US with the EU from Bush to Obama. Gspinola96 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources

Reference number 33 ("US imposes tariff sanctions on European luxury goods". Wsws.org. March 5, 1999. Retrieved July 25, 2012.) is taken from the World Socialist Website. This source may lack of neutrality and could be biased. In addition, this website may also be unreliable because it does not present any reference. Gspinola96 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

And again in 2018: US President Donald Trump seems poised to escalate his trade wars, and looks to be opening up a new front in the automotive sector against dominant Germany luxury brands. https://www. caradvice. com.au/653799/trump-to-ban-mercedes-benz-from-usa-report/ (NB: link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. )

Is this a reference you would accept?

And again in 2018: Nevertheless the White House incumbent is unfazed threatening to slap duties on the import of Germany luxury cars, again for reasons of national security — a ridiculous pretext being used to circumvent WTO rules. https://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/why-american-allies-are-angry-1.2231528

Is this a reference you would accept?

If so, the source also says that the US tariff is seen both as illegal and as pure protectionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.216 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)