Talk:Council of Europe

European Union template

Although the COE is not part of the European Union I thought that it might be useful to put the European Union template on this page. --Drdan 21:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Erm, I would be against incorporating any EU template as the CoE suffers from being confused with the EU and this would only make it worse! rlongstaff 21:56, Oct 17 2005 (UTC)

I thought about that as well. But only having it on the Talk-page could be OK. I am not going to force this, so if you think that it confuses those coming to the talk-page I am open to remove it. --Drdan 07:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

WHAT "With the exception of Belarus and Kazakhstan all European states have acceded to the Council of Europe"

Kazakhstan is NOT AT ALL A EUROPEAN COUNTRY. For crying out loud, it lies on the Central Asian steppes - yes, it isnt a member, but neither is Uganda, and thats prolly as European as Kazakhstan. Someone please explain why Kazakhstan should be a European country???????? >>Err. Western end of Kazakhstan is considered part of Europe. Not a huge part, maybe 20% of the country, but it's considered European nevertheless. I'm sure there are many sites here that can show that to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.252.71 (talk) 21:50, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

FYROM,the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,as Republic of Macedonia is fabrik for forgery Greek history,Greek culture,Greek geography and Greek symbols Macedonians!See Greek Macedonian symbol "Vergina Sun",Philip II king of Macedonia and Alexander the Great king of Macedonia !!! Vergina 19:43, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I still fail to see how "F.Y.R.O. Macedonia" fails to meet your standards, while the expanded acronym does -- the difference seems negligible to me. You can impose the conflict in the name to a point, but if you overstate it, you're not doing the readers a favor. Note also that the RoM link is a pipe link, avoiding a needless redirect. --Shallot 20:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jiang's version even now says "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", it just doesn't link the whole name, so I don't see what the issue is really. --Delirium 09:05, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

This is Propaganda !! Vergina 09:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Should not the name here reflect exactly the English equivalent of what the COE lists as the name? That should prevail over any POV. This is the COE article and nothing more. There should be no arguing here about it - Marshman 04:12, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The problem is only with Vergina who seems to believe that we need to display the ridiculously long name and link to the respective redirect. While the former could be explained with accuracy and honoring the dispute, the latter is really pointless. --Shallot 18:07, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see no problem with the long name if that is the name under COE. Link should never go to a redirect; that would be a bit POV - Marshman 19:26, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC) I looked it up on the COE website and Jaing is essentially correct: "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" — Wikipedia should reflect the COE terminolgy on the COE article page. - Marshman

New Macedonia¤-related poll

It has been proposed that uses of terms Macedonia¤, Macedonian¤, and Macedonians¤ in articles mentioning the Republic of Macedonia¤ should be accompanied with the following disclaimer:

{{macedonian naming dispute}}Template about to be deleted per TfD consensus.-Splash 02:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In particular, this article will be affected, among some others. If you happen to have an opinion for or against this proposition, please vote on it at Talk:Macedonian¤ denar/Vote. Thank you. -- Naive cynic 16:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article itself and the graphic contradict about which observer status the USA and Israel have. Tfine80 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I recall 4 other nations: Argentina, Chile, Japan and Morocco whom applied for European Union membership but withdrew have signed agreements with the E.U. in 2006 and these countries are on the way to acquire observer status in the E.U. Indeed the 3 nations of the NAFTA treaty: the USA, Canada and Mexico have obtained observer status. I understand clearly on why there's involvement of Israel in the Council of Europe, but they don't include the Palestinian Authority which remains under Israeli occupation is an internationally recognized soveriegn state. Only one observer member, the Holy See or Vatican City consists of an organized religion (the Roman Catholic Church). + 71.102.10.169 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Greenland

Anon changed:

• Denmark

to

• Denmark minus Greenland

I do not believe this is the case; indeed, I think the anon is getting the Council of Europe confused with the European Union. I am reverting this change until such time as they provide a source for their assertion. --SJK 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro

How did Montenegro join in 2004, when it was still part of Serbia and Montenegro? john k 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It didn't, and the article doesn't claim it did, either... Where did you get that impression from? —Nightstallion (?) 10:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Country

I heard that Serbia will be the next Head country of the CE, but I failed to see any mention that there is a leading country in the article at all. --PaxEquilibrium 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the Council actually do?

Maybe this is a naive question, but I would expect to come away from the article understanding something about what the Council of Europe actually does - and I don't. Perhaps a summary of its various activities would be more useful than the list of partial agreements and Committees - worthy though these may well be. This reads as though written by someone who knows so much about the Council that these simple references are enough to explain; but to the outsider, they aren't. Raggio 21:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And I don't think your question is naive so much as indicative of the confusing state of affairs in Europe. Seems to me that if they really want to propagate the Union and establish a united entity, they need to rid themselves of some of these competing institutions. Or maybe that's in the works ?76.113.104.88 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice to editors from organisations in Strasbourg

It is starting to become clear that there are a number of people and/or organisations (mainly of a European nature based in Strasbourg) are writing and editing articles about themselves. I would like to remind them that although new content is welcome, it is against Wikipedia's policy to write about yourself, your company, your organisations, your colleges and so on.

In many cases the information is needed, which is why I haven't made a fuss however some pages are starting to sound like promotional items. If you are such an editor please consider using citations for everything you write if it is direly needed. Otherwise inform others of information and sources via the talk page so an independent editor can write the article. Thank you for your attention. - J Logan ^t: 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Following the points above (concerns about editors involved with the organization) and lack of clarity about what the CoE actually does, I have added a section highlighting criticism, after achievements. These criticisms suggest that the Council of Europe at this point does too little. For NPOV, the entry needs to reflect that there such criticism from a number of established and reputable sources. The current information on criticism may be too short still, as there likely are many more concerns out there, from established external sources. (Hundnase (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC))

Country naming convention

Following the FYROM issue is that we should refer to countries with a sensible convention, such as (1) their name according to the CoE, (2) their official name, or (3) their common name.

1. According to this vaguely official page, Russia should be "Russian Federation", "Bosnia-Herzegovina" should be "Bosnia and Herzegovina", and Slovakia should be "Slovak Republic". Another page uses "Slovakia", and also mentions "the Republic of Serbia" in a footnote, though it doesn't refer to it anywhere else. Unless someone can find an official document that gives countries' names, this probably isn't the way to go. Using "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in the table (it includes the quotes too!) would also make the column really wide.
2. For a start, there's The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Hellenic Republic (anyone recognise that?). There's the same problem with Slovakia and Russia. Then there's a lot of Republic of _ [1], _ Republic [2], Kingdom of _ [3], Principality of _ [4]. For uniqueness, there's a Most Serene Republic of _ [5], a Federal Republic of _ [6], a Grand Duchy of _ [7], and a _ Confederation [8]. Only four countries have their common name as their official name [9]. For the most part, the official names are far, far too long. [1] Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, Turkey [2] Portugese, Italian, French, Slovak [3] Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Norway [4] Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco [5] San Marino [6] Germany [7] Luzembourg [8] Swiss [9] Ukraine, (The) Netherlands, Ireland ("Republic of" may be used to distinguish it as a country, but is not its official name), Romania
3. We'd have to keep Bosnia-Herzegovina (since plain "Bosnia" probably wouldn't be acceptable to people living there), and "Czech Republic" (since nobody calls it Czech or Czecho). It would also mean using "Macedonia".

I'm looking for either an official list of country names according to the CoE, or a good reason not to call it "Macedonia" and remove footnote b (or add a footnote for every country which is referred to as something else by the CoE). ⇌Elektron 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it is also a province in Greece. They would be the same name for two different places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radio Guy (talk • contribs) 01:18, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

It's a place in other neighbouring countries too, but they don't kick up a fuss. And "America" is two continents. But that's not the point — we should have a consistent way of naming the countries on the list, and we don't. Please sign your posts. ⇌Elektron 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh the FYROM issue again, I'm quite sure this whole problem was designed for the sole pourpose of annoying Wikipedians. There is a list of members at the CoE website here and that is all semi formal. Elektron is quite right in that it is hardly unique and people are hardly going to think Greek Macedonia is a CoE member. However as it is the name used by the CoE I think we ought to stick to FYROM - less chance of people changing it all the time. Its annoying and I just call it Macedonia, everyone does, but while this dispute is still going on we should stick to FYROM. People know what it means either way, esp. with the flag. - J Logan ^t: 07:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There's more than one list on the site, both in my post, and they are not consistent (Slovakia/Slovak Republic). Neither do we care about the CoE designations for other countries (Russian Federation) — it seems that anyone bothered enough to edit it only cares what Macedonia is named. I'm happy to have it as TfYROM, but only if we agree that CoE designations should be used in the table, someone justifies the really long country name, and someone finds something more official than two lists which contradict each other. Nobody's got it right either ("the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", including quotes). Compromises like "shorten it to FYROM" may be politically correct, but are wrong (it's not the CoE designation and probably insults Macedonians), and there is no "change it to whatever-name to stop edit wars" policy (e.g. Aluminium). ⇌Elektron 15:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, problem. The MoS for Macedonia states we use what subject uses - we use what the CoE uses. So I've gone through trying to find the official term, I think the closest we get is their treaty office here, as that should show what it signed up as: [1]. All I can see on here is the former Yugoslav name (not suprising as Greece no doubt would not allow it to join under anything else. But if you can find a contradition in these pages, we'll have to find some other source to use. - J Logan ^t: 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any documents about Macedonia joining though, but even Macedonia's CoE site has FYROM with quotes. The treaty site doesn't include quotes, so it's hard to say what the official position for the quotes is. It might be sensible to adopt a shortest-name-used-by-the-CoE policy, with an exception for Macedonia ("FYR Macedonia") and an accompanying footnote, so we don't have to make the table column too wide. ⇌Elektron 15:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It has it under the statues, number one on the Council of Europe. All signatures to the statue are listed and it uses the extended term. The chances of the constitutional name being used when Greece is a member is slim and according to Wikipedia policy we have to follow the subject of the article. However if it is in a footnote because we don't want to make the table too wide, that ought to be fit okay. - J Logan ^t: 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. The article no longer mentions "Macedonia" outside of the FYROM context. I'm tempted to add quotes to the Template:Council of Europe too (and perhaps lowercasing), but that may be going a bit far. ⇌Elektron 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I think the template might be a bit far, but I don't think it would do it any damage to tinker with it a bit. - J Logan ^t: 08:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

The map on the right side of the screen is helpful, but the color key is ridiculously small and, for me at least, illegible. Could someone please duplicate the map in the body of the article where the key might be made bigger? -Laikalynx (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! As the font size was calculated at less than 9pt on Mac, 'greeking' was used. The requirement is thus to adjust it to 9pt or higher. The 'legend' style is set wiki-wide to 90%. A previous editor had tried to allow for this by wrapping the legend in a div with font-size 110%. However, 114% was need to get the font to round to 9pt on Mac. This may behave differently on other operating systems.Ferg2k (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Potential for unnecessary confusion: position of flag and logo in infobox

Hi all,

After reviewing the article on the Council, it seems that the potential for confusion with institutions of the European Union is recognised, yet does little to alleviate it. For instance, the flag of Europe, simultaneously flag of the Council and the EU, is placed before the Council's logo and unproportionately bigger. IMO, this only reinforces common misconceptions. Would it be possible to amend the placement and scale? CoEComm (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the flag of Europe from the infobox (it remains in the body of the article), until a better solution can be foundCoEComm (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Its the flag of the Council! Yes its confusing but the situation itself is like that, we can't change reality because its confusing.- J Logan ^t: 09:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is the flag of the Council. And I am not proposing to remove it completely (I resorted to the maybe slightly rash measure of removing it temporarily (!) to attract attention to the problem). I know that the confusion is inherent in the emblems of the Council. Therefore it shouldn't be made worse by having the flag first and much larger than the logo, which was specifically designed and adopted to counteract the confusion. All I would like is for the presentation to be as unambiguous as possible, especially since the infobox is the first thing readers look at. Can the placement and the size of the flag be changed?CoEComm (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea is people read the article. We shouldn't change a standard used throughout wikipedia being people can't be arsed to read the first line of the article - or indeed the title. By changing the infobox standard it would only create confusion rather than get rid of it - standards are there for a reason. If people confuse the Council of Europe with the European Union because of one image then they should stick to reading the Simple English Wikipedia so its spelled out nice and clear.- J Logan ^t: 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a reductive view of Wikipedia readers was certainly not the motivation. The general observation still stands, however, the current arrangement taints the overall quality of the article. Well short of changing standards of the template all over Wikipedia, it should be possible to find a specific solution to this article, especially since only minor changes would lead to visible improvement. CoEComm (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How does factual accuracy taint the quality of the article?? Sorry, but if it is confusing then perhaps it is the Council of Europe's fault for inviting the EU to adopt it and sticking with the same flag. Any confusion with the EU is merely a reflection of the reality and it is not Wikipedia's job to change reality. What I will alter the line at the top to make it clearer that there is no connection. If they fail to read that then I really have no sympathy for them.- _J.Logan^(t): 10:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

According to the Accession of Turkey to the European Union, Turkey was actually one of the earliest members of Council of Europe, but based on my reading that article, the membership ended due to a coup. Shouldn't stuff like this (on former members) be included in the article? --Voidvector (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

CoE refers to FYROM as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

Please see link from CoE site: [2]--Avg (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We should refer to it on this article as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" then Ijanderson (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, no, we shouldn't: this article is us talking about that country, not the Council of Europe talking about it, so we should do what we and common English usage and reliable sources out there do [3]: refer to the country in our own voice, as we always do, using our own standard naming convention for it just like everywhere else. The fact that the organisation has its own naming convention is something that we should mention somewhere, but not something that should dictate our own usage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Then, why in the case of RoChina-Chinese Taipei-Taiwan, Wikipedia is not doing the same? So, it is inaccurate what you say that this is what we always do. This is not what we always do.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So, what are we doing in the Taiwan case? I find it is handled correctly in, for instance, the World Trade Organization article: "the Republic of China (ROC) (commonly known as Taiwan, whose sovereignty has been disputed by the People's Republic of China) acceded to the WTO in 2002 under the name of "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" (Chinese Taipei)." The name Wikipedia itself uses in this sentence is the one we commonly use everywhere, and the one chosen by the organisation in question is mentioned, but not used. That's as it should be. If other articles do it differently, they are wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha! So, should we also say here "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (commonly known as Macedonia) bla bla"? RoC is not the name commonly used everywhere. This is mentioned in the above excerpt only in parenthesis!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to sharpen your sense of parallelism. With the Taiwan case, there is a three-way naming issue, and only one part of it is comparable to the Macedonia-in-international-organistions one. The double naming scheme of "Republic of China" + "Taiwan" is a cludge because in that case there's a divergence between the self-defined official name (R.o.C.) and the common English name (Taiwan), so the compromise has been to use them both. Whether that's the best solution for that part of the problem is immaterial here, because the Macedonia case doesn't have such a problem: "Macedonia" is both common English and self-defining/official. What is comparable and relevant to the present case is the treatment of the third name, the one chosen in the international organisation in question: "Chinese Taipei" logically corresponds to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The parallel is that this domain-specific external appellation gets mentioned, but not used in our own voice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And I am afraid you did half-reaserch. If you go here. you'll see that in the table it is "Chinese Taipei". Are you going to turn it into "Taiwan"? Or what then?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In that article, too, the first mention in the text itself is the full description along the correct schema: the Republic of China (Taiwan), which acceded to the WTO in 2002, and carefully crafted its application by joining under the name "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei)". I have no strong opinion about the table, but personally I guess I would prefer some bracketed or footnoted solution there too. But I have no intention of editing Taiwan-related issues. China is another mess; let's get our corner of Wikipedia tidied up first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Fut. In China case you have a formula for int. organizations where certain special naming conventions are implemented and respected, and which could be a guide for us here as well. After all, the relevant bibliography (do some book-googling), when it is about int. organizations, it is not standardized towards "Macedonia"; "FYROM" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are broadly used, and the instances of using "Macedonia" or "RoM" alone is not the majority. And this is something I realized doing my research when adding references to the "Macedonia (terminology)" article. So, even per your MOSMAC 3 the uniform use of "Macedonia" or "RoM", the solution you want to impose here rejecting any other view on the issue, is not the most appropriate. By restricting the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in a mere footnote I am afraid you are pushing a POV solution.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We may or may not have a "formula for int. organizations" in the China case, I wouldn't know about that, but if we have one and those articles are showing it, it isn't the formula you are pressing for in the M. case. What you want here is analogous to using plain "Chinese Taipei" throughout there, and one thing is certain: that's what we are not doing. As for usage in reliable sources, I would accept a special convention only if there was a clear majority of sources following such a special convention, including popular sources such as news media, and I'm not seeing that anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You tend to forget that you are also pushing for a formula of yourself where any "former Yugoslav R|epublic of Macedonia" is pushed into the "vestiary", and only the "Macedonia" is "visible"! This is not acceptable as well! I did not say a clear majority. I said that a simple google booking reveals that the "FYROM" term is not banished as you would like it. To the contrary, it is broadly used. By the way, "reliable English-language sources" (quoted from your MOSMAC 3) does not mean only news media. There is a whole bibliography on this issue which cannot be ignored. Therefore, ablishing "FYROM" where it is used as you systematically do in all int. orgs article is also what we are not doing. Regards.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I never denied that some sources use "f.Y.R.". But we must still settle for a single name to be our standard name throughout, and that is M. or R.o.M., and the only reason we should be introducing domain-specific exceptions is if the sourcing in that domain has overwhelmingly a different convention from ours. And I never said we should make "f.Y.R." invisible – to the contrary, we should of course mention it in an article like this one, but mention it as part of what we are reporting, not use it as if it was our own preferred name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I do not think we should use the Taiwan/Republic of China/Chinese Taipei mess as a model. It is not a shining example of Wiki-neutrality, it is a cat-fight between two contending National Causes, occasionally tempered by outside intervention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• So, what is your opinion in our case? Does Fut.Perf.'s position cover you?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not entirely. We should mention that the CoE uses "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as a provisional reference - and even the "The" nonsense, to explain the alphabetical order; but we should call the country Macedonia; no sane reader will suppose that the Greek region is one of the "47 member states". If it were necessary to disambiguate, the route in text is "the Republic of Macedonia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory maps

It seems there are two maps showing the member states according to when they joined. The map at the top of the page shows Norway and Sweden in light green, which according to the key means they joined subsequently. However, the text and another map further down the page imply that they were amongst the founder states. Jammy07 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo again

According to Jean-Louis Laurens, Director General of Democracy and Political Affairs at the Council of Europe EMNI; Kosovo can become a member of the CoE if Kosovo achieves 2/3 of a vote and Kosovo already has 2/3 recognition in the CoE. [4] Is this worth a mention? Ijanderson (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Asia and Europe

We've seen another flurry of anonymous edits to this page, presumably from Council of Europe hacks. What induces them to redraw the boundaries of Europe to include Kazakhstan? Annettelucy (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since its founding with Turkey its always been recognised as including Eurasia. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Greece+Turkey

Can we get a reference that they're considered 'founding states'? Though it's very probable, I would still like to see a cite. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Member table

The dates the members joined are not sorted. McLerristarr (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong flag? Failure to emphasise the separation between the Council of Europe and European Union

The flag shown for the Council of Europe is the same flag as is shown on the European Union Wikipedia page. Surely that can't be right?

I have to confess that until today I did not realise that the Council of Europe was a separate organisation from the EU and that previously, when I have heard it mentioned in relation to some decision or pronouncement, I had believed that the item was EU business. I suspect that there are many people like me who have confused the two organisations, and who, as a consequence, give more credit to Council of Europe pronouncements than they might otherwise deserve.

Maybe there could be more emphasis in the article on the difference between the two organisations, the areas of authority, and their powers. 81.187.233.172

I've added a note on the distinction between the two and on the flag, they share the "symbols of Europe", first developed by the CoE then adopted by the EU as they both pursue a European identity. See Flag of Europe for details.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Achievements

Could we have a list anything that's ever been done by this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the appropriate section? --Boson (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The European Convention on Human Rights is mentioned, as are the other 200 conventions. Should we mention the number of judgments or applications processed by the European Court of Human Rights? --Boson (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Council of Europe to perform significant cuts in its activities because of persistent budget shortages

This should be a relatively big story but it isn't yet, presumably because no action has been taken yet and the outlining of what will be cut where is still not very clear; however it seems that the CoE will shrink no matter how. Apart from L'Alsace, the only other newspaper having reported on that story that I found are the Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace [5], i. e. for now it's only papers from, or from close to, Strasbourg.--Insert coins (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the reason it isn't being reported is because no one will notice. And it is perhaps overshadowed by the massive national cuts which everyone will notice.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And on the note in the article that it will hurt Strasbourg as 2,321 people are employed by the CoE. Well not all the 2,321 people will be laid off, most of th einflux of money comes from the PA members and other people who are not salaried but bring in money to restaurants and hotels. And of course there are over 270 thousand people in Strasbourg. Even if they cut half the CoE workforce that is a little over a thousand people - yes there are families but I don't even think the impact of such a loss would be "notable", especially given the job losses across the whole of Europe from the recession.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The choice of words was the journalist's, not mine. Or, more exactly, I paraphrased half-sentences like L’économie alsacienne touchée, Une perspective peu réjouissante pour l’économie strasbourgeoise. Okey, maybe I over-dramatized my paraphrase, but the tone of the article is gloomy. The interesting question also is: if the CoE closes some of its foreign offices, how will it supervise the application of the Human Rights Convention in those countries? Wasn't the whole purpose of the CoE to ensure a constant supervision of the enforcement of human rights laws? --Insert coins (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I've added {{coi}} to the article because this tool shows that an IP registered to the CoE has made the most edits to the article of anyone. A quick read shows large amounts of unsourced information and a lot is a copyvio. Help in reviewing this would be appreciated. Smartse (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any major problems of bias or copyright now, so I assume that any such issues there may have been in 2010 have been resolved. If any remain, they should be flagged individually. --Boson (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Co-operations with non-members section

I removed Kosovo from the list in the section "co-operations with non-members" - it is based on the lists here, where Kosovo is not mentioned. When/if Kosovo applies for some status at CoE (member/observer) it will be mentioned in the members/applicants/observers section, when/if Kosovo is invited to sign/accede to some convention/protocol/other instrument - then it will be mentioned in the co-operations section. In the meantime - we could add a new section "European non-member states", but this is already covered somehow by the "Council of Europe now includes all European states except ..." in the history section. Alinor (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Churchill reference out of context

The man was not in any way, shape or form planning things like a "Council of Europe" or a "United States of Europe" in the form(s) they have taken. Therefore, the current institutions have nothing to do with him. As Churchill said about his ideas as put forth by him:

“ It should be built by the English. If it were built by the Russians, there would be communism and squalour. If it were built by the Germans, there would be tyranny and brute force. ”

Since neither the CofE nor the EU were built by the English, the reference is isolated and purely incidental.

71.173.11.117 (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if the founders of the United States of America thought they would ever have a Black president and nuclear weapons, not to mention gay marriage and the Iraq War. It is in the nature of history that things turn out differently. Churchill's participation and speeches (e.g. in Strasbourg) make it obvious that his ideas were not incidental. --Boson (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Far from being out of context, Churchill was a key mover of the Council. The broadcast of 1943 was only the first of a series of advocacies. Considering who he was in the world of that time I regard the criticism of this section, rather than Churchill, as of little relevance. It represents the commentator's personal opinion, which we can safely disregard. Here is a website for reference on Churchill's advocacy: [6]. For the other comments on the US government, well, I do not believe WP is for the promulgation of these personal comments. In fact, it seems to me the tags at the top are vastly overrated. I think it is a good article. Unfortunately these tags get on there and seem to stay on for year after year. I don't have time to spend on this article but I think you should be aware the tags may not be a sincere evaluation. Thanks.Branigan 15:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Map

Perhaps it can be modified, or provided with a caption in its use here, to say whether there is yellow shading. --140.247.136.82 (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In its thumbnail(?) use here, the yellow shading is invisible to me.

At the File page (click the image), yellow shading for Israel is clear to me. Clear but not prominent; clear only upon search. I can't be sure there are no other yellows. Presumably tiny, such as Vatican City (below).

--P64 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Vatican City excluded due to being a theocracy?

@Cimmerian praetor: The article implies that Vatican City has been excluded from membership of the CoE because it is a "theocracy". Firstly, one should question whether "Theocracy" is the best descriptor for the rather unique governmental system of Vatican City. At that article, the lead describes it as an "Ecclesiastical" state or a "Sacerdotal-Monarchical" state. In the infobox, the term "elective theocracy" is given as the final descriptor, but note the modifier. Secondly and more importantly, is there any evidence or source to support the idea that Vatican City has been excluded from the CoE due to a lack of democratic structures? One wonders how democratic a nation must be when Russia, Armenia, Liechtenstein and Azerbaijan (currently holding the presidency) are all members. I generally don't insist on everything being referenced when the assertion seems likely to be true, but this is not the case here. I doubt the CoE would actually object to Vatican City's constitutional structure. I also suspect that due to the unique nature of Vatican City, it has little need to participate in many international organisations, and relatively few resources to do so. Given these common-sense considerations, I think it's abundantly necessary that this statement be supported by a reference. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The single most important instrument of the Council of Europe is the European Convention on Human Rights. Can you imagine, what would it lead to if the Vatican clergy could sue the Vatican? It is actually the main reason why there are now debates to exit the Convention and Council both in the UK and in Russia - both states which had a multitude rulings against their handling of human rights in the past years. I will get to this in detail on weekend. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Theories are nice, but if they are to be reflected in the text of the article, we need a reference. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Europe

The flag of Europe is indeed the official flag of the Council of Europe (CoE). The problem is that, flag of europe are more known for its use by the European Union (EU), as a result, its use in the infobox of the Council of Europe confuse (me, in the past and others, for that reason the CoE has logo with "e") which is not desired by the directive. Good, then, is the flag of europe only exist in a similar conceptual framework within the Council of Europe article (the link of logo within infobox) to avoid confusion and the informations listed smoothly. --IM-yb (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See also Copyright / {a}, from the official page of CoE. --IM-yb (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See also https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=565003&SecMode=1&DocId=717532&Usage=2 --Boson (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)