Talk:Transatlantic relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union High‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things to do

Things to do:

History
Cultural issues
abortion
Find a few images

-- Joolz 07:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amateurly Written

In History, the phrase "President Wilson's Fourteen Points helped to redraw the map of Europe. After the war the League of Nations was supposed to create a lasting link across the Atlantic but the United States refused to join" is very poorly written. First, the only point of Wilson's Fourteen that was accepted was the League of Nations--the map of Europe was NOT redrawn by the 14 Points. Second, the Leagues of Nations was created by Wilson, so saying that the United States refused to join seems a bit weasely). It should be mentioned that the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the measure. Third, the goal of the League of Nations was NOT to forge a link across the Atlantic, but instead to foster international peace like the UN. Was the goal of the UN to forge a link between North America and Europe? No, that was the goal of NATO.68.164.0.172 (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, WP:BE BOLD, and rewrite it. 173.183.190.30 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs More Historical Background

First, is this article about the WHOLE HISTORY of Transatlantic relations, or just current relations?68.164.0.172 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUCH MORE needs to be mentioned about European-US relations in the Cold War, and of how the United States fully supported the creation of the EEC and the EU. Reading this article as is makes it seem like European-US relations started with George W. Bush.68.164.0.172 (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully somebody can be chosen to write this up who hasn't been so poisoned by the Bush years as to think that all Transatlantic relations have been more of a disagreeing nature than friendly nature.68.164.0.172 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous intro sentence

The intro sentence formerly read as follows:

Transatlantic relations are the relations between the United States and countries in Europe on either side of the Atlantic Ocean.

There are countries in Europe on either side of the Atlantic Ocean? Who knew? :) I have fixed the sentence to make it clearer what is actually meant, but I found the way the old sentence was written humorous enough to read that I thought it worth remarking on this talk page. —Lowellian (talk) July 2, 2005 23:31 (UTC)

It does sound rather silly - I originally wrote it to say "... the United States and countries in Europe, either side of the Atlantic Ocean" but it must've got changed at some point :> -- Joolz 3 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

--

Transatlantic relations do not only exist since the Second World War and surely didnt have to "extend" into Continental Europe! The UK has a special status in transatlantic relations but it is not the beating core of relations!

But I suppose France and Germany are at the "core of relations"?68.164.0.172 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--

One of the lead paragraphs is incredibly "weasely" and POV--and OUT OF DATE "There are a number of issues over which the United States and Europe generally disagree. Some of these are cultural, such as the U.S. use of the death penalty, some are international issues such as the Middle East peace process, and many others are trade related. The current U.S. policies are often described as being unilateral in nature, whereas the European Union and Canada often take a more multilateral approach, relying more on the United Nations and other international institutions to help solve issues. Of course, there are many other issues upon which they do agree."

Who describes US policies as being unilateral, etc.? Obama isn't still pursuing the unilateral policies of Bush (who was much less unilateral than the uninformed public thinks). Why mention the US death penalty? Why not mention European differences over making it illegal for muslim women to wear headscarves (the US doesn't do that), or mention how some European governments retain the right to outlaw certain political parties (which the US doesn't have). Did the EU have a multilateral approach when it came to getting UN approval to intervene in Yugoslavia? Nope. Did France get approval to retaliate against Ivory Coast by destroying their entire air force last year (2008)? Nope. Perhaps we can have a paragraph pertaining to the myth Europeans have that they support multilateralism when, like the US, they clearly choose unilateralism when it serves them. And as for Middle East peace, the US and EU views are in sync now, so perhaps that should be corrected.68.164.0.172 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing subsidies?

The article blithely states that both Boeing and Airbus recieve subsidies. Boeing does not recieve subsidies. I'd really like to see a citation for these subsidies. In the meantime I'm going to change the wording to reflect that both companies are *accused* of bennefiting from subsidies which is certainly true.

Zebulin 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good source for subsidies that aren't tax breaks or military contracts or other inappropriate concepts of 'subsidies' and placed the citation in the article.

Zebulin 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Transatlantic bridge"

That is NOT what the picture is representing. The structures on Europ Banknotes are meant to represent European achievements, not crossing the atlantic. Zazaban 05:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They all have building of some type. That's it. Not other secret message. Kevlar67 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have been added by a Euroskeptic trying to make it look like the EU was a ploy to integrate with the US. Zazaban 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains a fair amount of detail and organization, although it requires expansion and referencing. I have assessed this as mid importance, as I feel most readers would have general, though not specific, knowledge of the topic and it is broad in coverage. Cheers, CP 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed line

"The U.S. government is not allowed to join the ICC without amending the US Constitution."

Not true. Or, even if it were true, a highly controversial constitutional question that shouldn't be treated as a fact. Removed. 99.178.185.216 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US is one of the main founders of the ICC and original members. Then Bush pulled us out of it, then he brought us back in. This person needs to get their facts straight.68.164.0.172 (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]