Talk:European Union–United States relations

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

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

• -FsA14 - Freiheit statt Angst 060 (15062050686) (2).jpg

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

Requested move 23 November 2024

• European Union–United States relations → United States–European Union relations
• European Union–Peru relations → Peru–European Union relation
• European Union–Turkey relations → Turkey–European Union relations
• European Union–Sudan relations → Sudan–European Union relations

– 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

• Support based on the prior RM, especially due to the overwhelming consistency with Category: Third-country relations of the European Union. It seems like the move in 2021 was without discussion, at least not on this talk page. TiggerJay (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENT as these appear to be the only articles where the EU is listed first. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  They are the only only for countries. There are others, such as European Union–NATO relations and European Union–Mercosur relations. There's another inconsistency in this area. For example, these, compare Denmark and the European Union vs Croatia in the European Union.

  Also not just members, navigating you see Greenland and the European Union (redirect from Greenland–European Union relations), and its African Union bilateral category vs their summits, such as 3rd European Union–African Union Summit. Web-julio (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  You do not understand how any of this works. Greenland is a territory of Denmark. Denmark is the member, not Greenland. Member state of multilateral organizations like in Category:United Nations relations have the name of the country/member state and then the organization. You think there will be a great consensus to agree to change the naming style of the UN cats after years of consistency? There won't be. Your claim of inconsistency is not based on any rational other than feeling. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I didn't propose to change anything here, I'm bringing information. But where did I mention UN? It would make sense to follow that naming standards from UN for relations between two organizations, maybe.

  And where did I say Greenland is a member? I gave Greenland as an example of a non-member, but I already know it's a territory of a member state. If there was a similar case for French Guiana, I would also mention it. Web-julio (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENT. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)