WikiProject Numismatics		NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:Numismaticnoticenumismatic articles
Numismatics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject European Union	(Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)	European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
European Union portal v • d • e This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents 1 First sentence very like a school essay 2 Criticism NPOV 3 Introduction 4 Article to be renamed 5 Renaming

[edit] First sentence very like a school essay

The opening sentence of the entire article should not be a definition of what an economic and monetary union is. It is supposed to introduce what the EU's EMU is.

70.105.210.97 (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As the lede has been rewritten, I will delete the not-encyclpedic tag. --Red King (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism NPOV

I think this section needs a complete rewrite. It is terribly phrased, uses atrocious Wikiformatting and just bad English in general e.g the "Eu Four Freedoms" (did EU become a proper noun). It is also very POV in a sceptical manner, with little counter arguments for most of the points, and there are plenty of easily identifiable ones. - ^Рэд_хот 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree this section used to be quite biased, and unobjective, but it has since been edited, and now presents a reasonable critique of the issues involved in EMU. Is there any need for the neutrality-mark to remain there?? (RM21 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
• I agree with the initial criticism also, it seems to be mandatory that every article on the EU has a section dealing with eurosceptic arguments even when the subject is ill suited to it. We wouldn't have, for instance, every article on the governing institutions of the United States' including a criticism section so I'm not sure why this standard is applied to the EU.
• "but these aims are proving difficult to implement in the real world" - This is poorly disguised "You are just dreamers"-sophistry. The whole criticism section needs a rewrite. It should not include anything except issues related directly to monetary policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.187.106 (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree completely. The section consisted entirely of unsourced assertions, much of it about the principle of Optimum Currency Area theory rather than about its relevance to the EU in particular. I've deleted it pending some text that is supported by credible sources (at least the FT) and not just British tabloid polemic. See policy Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Red King (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

There was some confusion about the meaning of EMU in the introductory text.

EMU has three stages, as correctly explained later in the article, of which only the last one means the adoption of the euro by a country. For details, see http://europa.eu.int/pol/emu/index_en.htm.

Currently, Denmark and the UK are using an opt-out clause from the third stage negociated for the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden voluntarily avoids to meet some of the criteria to join, but is theoretically obliged to do so, as are the 10 new members. Leparrain 20:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article to be renamed

this article (Economic and Monetary Union - capital letters) deals with the EMU of the European Union. It is different than the general article on economic and monetary unions (Economic and monetary union - small letters). This is very confusing and also hampers links in other articles - they point to the wrong page. So the EMU of the EU should be renamed to something like "Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union". Then the current capital-letters page should be made a redirect to the general-EMU-page (small letters). The problem is that if we copy the current content (and discussion pages) of EMU (capital) to "EMU of EU" and then we make EMU (capital) to redirect to EMU (general, small letters) - then all articles have links to the current EMU (capital) has to be re-linked to "EMU of EU"... Is there any way to do this automaticaly somehow? bots, whatever?

Done much of the re-linking... Alinor 10:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

I find the new name kind of clumsy. Maybe something like "European Economic and Monetary Union" would sound better, no? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The article was with that name a long time ago (see redirect European Economic and Monetary Union). I don't know what the discussion was, but most probably the majority of people don't liked this name, becouse this EMU is not for ALL EUROPEAN states, so it looks somewhat inappropriate... Maybe you should look into the history of the page (or the redirect) for details... 212.36.8.100 07:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, that's a good enough answer for me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)