Jump to content

Talk:India–European Union relations

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

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia (country)–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/sour-turn-in-indiaeu-trade/article5966709.ece. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to fellow Wikipedian contributors on article revamp undertaken in February 2015

[edit]

The article has been rewritten (end of february 2015). The sources are either university publications, specialized press (dealing with EU matters, diplomacy and Indian political affairs) and/or editorials from prominent global news media. Care has been taken to avoid blogs and fringe ideas. The text structure for the article is as follows : introduction to the general context of EU and Indian politics and thereafter an insight into the specifics. Text submission methodology is an incremental upgrade with subsequent text tightening/clean-up and source URL additions. 109.128.142.34 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note about the POLANDBALL cartoon images in the article: Hope that Wikipedia contributors/editors won't mind a bit of light-hearted contextual cartoon humour to lighten-up the otherwise dull text. The images are also contextual and drawn/created by persons who have no stake in this article or issue so it can be assumed as being in good faith and neutral. The Polandball cartoon images appear at contextual locations.
If there is a 'serious issue of compliance' viz Wikipedia rules, then kindly redact. Else, if just a matter of perception then kindly leave the cartoons untouched and instead explain the rationale and relevant wikipedia policys here on the talk page so that a calm, organised and pragmatic debate can take place. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
91.182.193.128 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there is not much inputs from other contributors on India's relations with EU. There are lots of scholarly publications and media articles which makes it quite a challenge to read-up the scholarly work to identify the relevant factors/data/determinants of the relation prior to selecting the news/media articles for text creation. Come-on wikpedia editors, do lend a hand at improving the article.
22:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.114.197 (talk)

Proposal to review contents and modify the structure of the article

[edit]

Reading the article I had the impression I was rather reading a sort of (rough) assessment of EU by some Indian scholar. In fact:

1) what is the appropriateness and utility in this context of some sentences like: "The EU is not and never will be a superpower" because the EU lacks "the substance of superpowers" due to shortcomings in the EU foreign & military policy according to David Miliband, the former UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who explained the requirements: "reach [and] possess the capacity to arrive quickly anywhere with troops that can impose their government's will".[6]

The future demographics of Europe is most favourable to France and UK where the fertility rate are closest to the replacement level. The econometrics of an aging Europe point to serious socio-economic issues for Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland in the years ahead. Initiatives to offset population shrinkage through selective immigration schemes has faced hostile public and political sentiment."?

2) how can this sentence: "The capacity of geopolitically insignificant European countries to unduly influence policy choices of the European Union is problematic. Countries with small foreign-affairs bureaucracies are obliged to prioritize bilateral relations with the EU-3 countries (where clear and fast political leadership can be expected) so as not loose time over multilateral EU-28 discussions (which are lengthy and often end in unsatisfying compromises) in a rapidly transforming world. With less than a 1000 career diplomats, staffing is a weak spot of Indian diplomacy" be something diverse from some unnamed Indian author point of view, which is here unduly presented as an objective fact?

3) what is the rationale in dividing the individual EU countries into the following paragraphs: "EU 3" (please notice that wikipedia article about EU 3 states "Following the 2004 enlargement of the European Union the EU-3 group had a declining influence in the European Union, and has acted more often within the G6"), then "Group of six" (which, at least should be renamed "other Group of six members, EU3 members are also EU6 members), putting sopme confuse reference to G 4 and then saying nothing about all the remaining 19 members of EU and their respective relationship with India?? Are we sure thee is nothing of interest about Indian relations towards, say, Belgium or Sweden?


For the above mentioned reason I propose to drastically revise the first part of the article by eliminating non-pertinent or obsolete parts and streamlining the whole text.

93.144.72.233 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I see that some contributor modified some of the sentences I quoted here above. I just modified some other ones. Now I am going to merger the EU 3 and group of six paragraph because of a/m reasons. 93.144.72.233 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


A message to editor 109.128.156.129
dear editor, I see you deleted my entry [1] with the following motivation: "Removed false assertion (Pakistan officially supports Indian quest for UNSC seat)" etc.); however, as far as I know the official position of Pakistan is "Pakistan is against addition of permanent members without any exception. We have maintained this position over the years. Accordingly, we oppose the G-4 (Brazil, Germany, Japan and India) quest for individual permanent membership and unequal status." as reported in this official UN document:[2]. Are you aware of any other successive official document by Pakistan changing this position? thanks in advance, regards. 93.144.72.233 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have only taken a quick look at the article, but it seems to me there are serious WP:NPOV problems here, as well as a lot of commentary that does not directly pertain to the subject of the article. I endorse User:93.144.72.233's proposal to revise the article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Demagoguery central: This page is unreadable and embarrassing

[edit]

Isn't this meant to be an encyclopaedia No one side is to brame, mind you. But seriously guys. You can do much better. Please. 131.111.128.45 (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this and with the remarks from last year just above (when looking for uses of an image file, I found India–European Union relations#European Union and other heavily Eurosceptic sections). I placed {{POV-check}}. Oliv0 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be specific and clearly highlight which portions of the text you are pointing to when you say you have concerns (Neutrality, POV, OR,...) ? A reasonable time-frame can be set so that the process to fix specific sections of the text or maybe even entire sub-sections can be initiated as set forth within Help:Maintenance template removal.
It is a straightforward process to redact any unsourced text and so also totally unrelated/unconnected text sections.
However, issues and factors of a geopolitical/foreign/domestic political nature or certain key regional or global current affairs development which impacts the relationship need to be addressed adequately and in a manner which reflects the reality of the political & economic relationship.
CrimsonStar (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call for patient and knowledgeable text content editors

[edit]

The EU-India relations encyclopaedic article needs to adequately reflect historic (legacy/contemporary) and current state of the relations between the two complex political entities which are the European Union (28 member states) and Republic of India. The article is neither a marketing or public relations brochure for a chamber of commerce or a think-tank nor a governmental publication which diplomatically minimised differences and highlights mundane aspects of the relationship.

The article in it's current state, reflects how public opinion within both EU and India perceive each other and themselves. For this, the article draws upon national and specialised publications from news media which are cross-checked for factual accuracy with academic sources. The article should neither be Indo/Euro-sceptic or Indo/Euro-phobic, it should be balanced with verifiable facts and take care not to omit significant political, economic and social which bear upon the relationship.

Request all editors to kindly become familiar with recent academic publication sources which are available in the public domain regarding the EU India relations are available from several universities (Kings College London, National University of Singapore, Australian National University, Univ. of Texas, Stanford, etc.) besides specialized think-tanks based in India and Western Europe or N.America. These academic sources (many of whom are referenced in the article) serve to validate the veracity of facts and understand the dynamics of India-EU relations and thereby help weigh the relevancy of the news articles.

Kindly help to improve the article with constructive and knowledgeable additions which can be cross-examined for relevancy and veracity. Please take care not to remove contextual information without first checking whether these have not been flagged as important factors/determinants in the relationship between the 2 entities. Thanks for getting involved with this article ! CrimsonStar (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

[edit]

Congratulations on becoming the largest non-list article on Wikipedia on October 5, 2016!— JJBers (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No congrats due if this is because it is a POV WP:CFORK of European Union; {{POV check}} has been placed back with same reason as 2 sections above: India–European Union relations#European Union and other heavily Eurosceptic sections. Oliv0 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on India–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, 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: 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) 12:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation overkill

[edit]

I think this article is a prime example of citation overkill WP:CITEKILL. For example, under the section "EU Group of Six" the following sentence has 10 references: "General consensus within the United Nations that Europe is already over-represented within the UN Security Council is a critical obstacle for Germany's bid to become a permanent member of the UNSC." If it's a general consensus, one-three references should be enough to establish that. I counted 56 examples where content has 5 or more references to support a single sentence or block of text, one example had 18 citations alone. There is no need to use every applicable reference available online, only as many as are needed to verify the statement. The number of citations needs to be pared down greatly. Coinmanj (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Some sections of the article are absolutely citation-cluttered to the point where reading it becomes difficult. --BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 18:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on India–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, 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: 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) 08:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is shit.

[edit]

You know what, this article is shit. It is full of worthless ramble, cite overkill and an essay-like tone. There needs to be a collective effort to change it around. !dave 18:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:India–European_Union_relations&oldid=1218782635"