Talk:Euromyth

Incredibly misleading

This article implies that all criticism of the EU are invalid lies, making no indication of the very many valid criticism of the EU. I question the worth of this article, but if it has to stay than the intro needs to be rewritten to be more balanced, and a new section added which contains or leads to more serious and respectable criticisms. Juggertrout (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice that the article is about the term Euromyth and is not intended to be a place for general or specific criticisms of the EU. As such, the article properly describes what a Euromyth is and it illustrates that description with what seem to be well-sourced examples. That said, it is normal practice on Wikipedia to have, within one article, a 'See also' section which leads to related matters. (Here, for example, [[1]], in the article on art criticism, is a section which leads to related issues). So you could add such a section to this article if you feel it requires it. Setwisohi (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken; and I've added a preliminary "See also" section. However I still feel the intro strongly suggests that all criticisms of the EU are "Euromyths", which would be wrong. Perhaps a small addition such as, "Euromyths, as opposed legitimate criticisms of the EU, are largely fictional and often highly sensationalist. They are usually promoted by the tabloid media and promote either entirely fictional laws and directives or misinterpret proposed EU directives to create highly speculative scenarios."

That's a bit wishy washy, but I think a small inclusion separating legitimate criticisms from Euromyths would ease confusion. Juggertrout (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

European Parliament is weak

Does this new section belong in this article? In the article, a euromyth is defined as an urban legend, and I don't think this applies to assessments of the strength of the EP (whether or not they are mainstream).--Boson ([[User talk:Boson|talk]]) 14:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Removed this section, as the EU's response more or less admits that this is true. It's not a "Euromyth" that the EU has grading standards for fruit and vegetables.

The Commission also cites a separate story from the Sun from 1998 which reported that "Bananas must not be excessively curved." The Commission states that: "Bananas are classified according to quality and size for international trade. Individual governments and the industry have in the past had their own standards with the latter's, in particular, being very stringent. The European Commission was asked by national agriculture ministers and the industry to draft legislation in this area. Following extensive consultation with the industry, the proposed quality standards were adopted by national ministers in Council in 1994."[2]

Also removed this, as Rennie is unable to give any sources this claim is unsubstantiated:

The Daily Telegraph's former Brussels correspondent David Rennie investigated the source of a story which had appeared suggesting that the EU was planning to ban Bombay mix (a snack made of dried Indian noodles, chickpeas, lentils and peanuts). He traced the source of the story to "a small regional news agency in the south of England (I shall not name it, to avoid getting into messy legal territory). Anyway, it is enough to say that I called them up, and ended up speaking to their news editor, who cheerfully admitted the story was his idea." He concluded that there was "no evidence that this story is true at all".[3]

The version which removed all examples..

.. removed all that was sourced and replaced it with mere statements sans sources. That's definitely not the way to edit Wikipedia. i. If you want to rewrite a part of an article, first find sources and then write with these checakble references included. ii. In any case removing sourced examples - especially where they are illustrative of the subject matter - is not a good idea. Expand rather than remove is the best thing to do. But make sure you add those sources too! bon chance! JaneVannin (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, they were reemoved because they were either unsourced, not true, or were merely justifications for EU regulations that were true, rather than rebuttals. 86.141.190.110 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

They look properly sourced classic Euromyths to me. Hence I have restored them. Setwisohi (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The examples were just copied from the EU web portal, which is not a reliable source and is certainly not an unbiased source. I have tried to make this article more balanced, but its very existence is borderline POV. No one would dispute that there is inaccurate reporting of the EU, just as there is of the UN, the US Government, or the French Government. The EU's claim is that this is uniquely an EU phenomenon. If we start copying examples from the EU's web site to back up its case we have strayed away from NPOV. Jay-W (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give it a rest, Mr Watts. You have been here several times before judging by your contributions history and have fallen foul of different editors. There is nothing wrong with the sources or the examples. By all means add to the article in a constructive manner but do not just delete sourced material. Setwisohi (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please spare me your condescending remarks. It's irrelevant whether I have disagreed with another editor or not. You have visited this article over several months and had disagreements with at least three users on this subject. You repeatedly copy opinions from an EC website and present them here as facts, while deleting any mention of alternative viewpoints. You seem to lack any understanding of the NPOV concept, as well as any basic civility, so perhaps its you who should give it a rest. Jay-W (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove examples

I've proposed this before and I'd like to again. The inclusion examples on this page serves no purpose. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. They do not enhance the article in any way. The examples section is essentially a trivia section without any obvious reason or purpose for the inclusion of the examples listed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

They illustrate perfectly what a Euromyth is. They are sourced material too. So removing them, without consent, is tantamount to vandalism. Please refrain. Setwisohi (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardly!! You don't own this article I don't need your consent to edit. I proposed the removal and followed through when no one objected after a few days. Just because info is sourced doesn't mean it should be kept! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Much of the value of the article would, imho, be taken away with the removal of the examples which represent good examples of Euromyths. I would even go as far as to suggest that not only the examples should stay, but that more should be added perhaps in the form of a table. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Euromyths are only readily understood with illustrative examples. And, to me at least, it is not at all clear why some editors seem intent on removing such examples. Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper and they are certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. The idea of a table is interesting though; as such myths are quite common, particularly in the British press, the inclusion of more examples could help to present an accurate picture of their number and nature. Not sure how exactly it could be done, but any constructive idea - such as that - certainly has my support. Setwisohi (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What about a table with the following four columns: (A) Year, (B) Date & Newspaper, (C) Myth, (D) Reality/Truth. Both (C) and (D) would be supported by references. We could start with the most recent myths and work backwards. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The article could also be expanded to include a section on bias in the British media. This is an interesting read:[4]. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the examples is that they are copied from an EU website, and are written by unnamed authors - although, presumably, press officers employed by the EU. The EU's Web Portal could not by any stretch of the imagination be called an unbiased source. This site has also previously had to remove claims from its "Euromyth" section for being untrue, so it is not a reliable source either.

The purpose of this article is to explain the concept and the claims which are made by both sides. Wikipedia articles are required to take a Neutral Point of View. Whatever your views on this subject, copying claims made on an EU website and representing them here as factual is certainly not NPOV. I have added a section which explains the Euromyth pages on the EU site, and users are directed to the site if they want to learn more. This is the appropriate way to handle this subject. Jay-W (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of websites, even academic papers, about Euromyths which can be sourced directly from the newspapers in question without having to refer to the EU's website. I should also take this occasion to remind you of the WP:OWN policy - no one user can claim ownership to any article and no one user can direct what is to be the content on a particular page. Euromyths are a creation of the UK press and not of the EU institutions which merely report on them. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic that you should direct me to the WP:OWN policy, since all you did was revert all my changes indiscriminately, even minor changes made to improve grammar or readability. I am not claiming ownership of this article, but I am asking you to adhere to basic standards of neutrality, which include adopting a neutral point of view, and quoting sources, not just copying claims from an EU site and presenting them as fact. Jay-W (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The point which gets missed here is that this is meant to be an article about Euromyths. Not a database of them. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer: I see what you are driving at but, as I'm sure you would agree, there is no single or correct way of writing an article. Editors add what they feel is appropriate and it seems to be appropriate, with this article, to have examples included. They do have direct relevance. They do illustrate the subject matter. The article is not overly long and to remove the examples would leave the article rather as a stub. So I can't yet see your reasoning for wanting them removed.

Jay-W: As each example quotes both the 'myth' and the EU response, I assume that what you are unhappy with is the way they are worded? If so, the best approach is try to reword them in an NPOV manner - not remove them altogether. So, for example

"Crackpot Euro chiefs have decreed British rhubarb must be straight. Farmers will have to throw away crooked stalks under barmy new rules. The order follows a review of community fruit and vegetable standards by the EU agricultural directorate". The Sun, 24 June 1996, page 11.

In fact the European Union has never planned to set, or recommend, any such marketing rules for rhubarb but it did set out grading standards for fruit and vegetables and an attempt was made to prosecute the British supermarket chain Asda for breaching grading standards. [3]

Could perhaps be rewritten as

On the 24th June 1996, The Sun claimed that "Crackpot Euro chiefs have decreed British rhubarb must be straight. Farmers will have to throw away crooked stalks under barmy new rules. The order follows a review of community fruit and vegetable standards by the EU agricultural directorate".

In response, the EU claims that it has never planned to set, or recommend, any such marketing rules for rhubarb but it did set out grading standards for fruit and vegetables and an attempt was made to prosecute the British supermarket chain Asda for breaching grading standards. [3]

And so on. Setwisohi (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Setwisohi, I have removed the examples for now because they are still in an unacceptable form, as I think you know, and the "truck drivers to eat muesli" story doesn't even pretend to be sourced.

I have considered the possibility of re-wording and presenting these statements as the EU view. However, there are a couple of major problems here. Quotations don't necessarily need to be from primary sources (although it is obviously preferable). But if we are going to quote from secondary sources these should at least be independent ones. If we take the quotes from the EU site then we would have to say something like "the EU Web Portal claims The Sun said...", etc. This doesn't seem to me to be a very acceptable way of quoting someone.

And I'm not sure that the EU Web Portal is really authoratative or reliable enough to quote as being the EU view. The site contains the disclaimer that it does not represent the views of the European Commission, which means we can't really present it as such. Which just leaves some claims made by anonymous authors on an EU PR site, which is known for making false claims. It's not exactly authoritative. Jay-W (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jay-W - you may not realise it but your changes are riddled with unacceptable (and unreferenced) NPOV. It is in fact (at least to my reading) a denial that "Euromyths" exist (with some minor exceptions), ignoring the abundance of material highlighting press biais. You have also used weasel words such as "supposed", "alleged", "those who use" and "one of whose many roles". Please consider reverting your changes until some sort of consensus has been reached. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They are restored. If you wish to edit sourced material, you may do so. (I have suggested a possible route above). Deletion is most definitely not the proper way forward. Please refrain and try to be constructive - as I'm sure you wish to be. Setwisohi (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the discussion relating to this article stems in part from the quality of the article, which is perhaps the real issue, rather than the examples. Euromyth is a real topic; it can be pointed to in the reporting of EU or Europe-related items in at least the UK media on an almost daily basis. Therefore it is deserving of a credible article. I have created some more links to the topic in relevant places, and suggest that those who are for retention/expansion of this article do likewise.

Regarding the examples, I have changed the heading containing these examples to "Examples of Euromyths in the media" to make the subject of this section clearer. Some examples are essential in order to illustrate how the creators of Euromyths manipulate facts to provide a better story (if nothing more sinister). However, to be credible, these examples must be sourced as fully and irrefutably as possible - on the EU side ideally by use of the actual text of the law/opinion in question.

In summary, it seems to me that repeated removal of sourced examples contributes nothing to the discussion. Perhaps instead it would be useful to attempt to improve the article in other ways? This could include researching these examples to provide more "authoritative and reliable" sources. JaneVannin (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - if it happens again without discussion the changes should be reverted and the page temporarily protected. In an effort to deal with some of the issues flagged up on this page, perhaps editors could avoiding using the Commission's website as a source for "Euromyths" and link directly to the articles in question in the media? Lamberhurst (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about using the actual laws. That could get very close to original research. To quote WP:RS Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. I would avoid sentences like "In fact the EU is not involved in setting condom standards." unless independent secondary sources are used. As it stands, this is in my opinion, a fairly clear violation of WP:OR, virtually stating that the journalists have misrepresented the facts.

I think one problem with the article is that it is, to some extent, about a word rather than a concept. That would be more appropriate on Wiktionary, or in a disambiguation entry. To the extent that it is about the concept behind the word, the concept is probably somethimg like "Tenor of European Union coverage in British media" (which might be a better title). And the word used to represent that concept conveys a point of view, namely that the coverage is untrue or exaggerated, negative and/or hostile. Given that EU civil servants are referred to as "europrats" and "barmy Brussels bureaucrats", I suppose some of the implied POV should be uncontroversial, but it remains a POV.

I would prefer to use books as secondary sources and only use the EU if it is considered appropriate to represent the Commission's point of view in the form of quotations, i.e. "This is what the EU lists as examples of euromyths" rather than "Here are some examples of euromyths, citing the EU as a reliable source for a statement of fact. --Boson (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair points about OR. I dont think we can go there.

On the issue of balance or POV, it seems balanced to me: the anti-EU POV is given (namely the 'myth') and the pro-EU POV is given (namely the 'rebuttal'). But I absolutely agree that it needs to be written in a more traditional 'Wiki' style. I've suggested an approach above. Shall I go through the examples and rewrite them in that manner? Setwisohi (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement that it is not acceptable to copy these claims from the EU site in this way. For that reason, I have removed the examples. You have suggested they could be re-written to make it clear we are quoting, but I can't see any way that they can ever be used in a NPOV way. Both the claim and the rebuttal come from the same biased source. We can't claim these newspaper quotes are taken from The Times or The Telegraph, because this is not where they have been taken from. The source being quoted is still the EU website. You can't use a biased source to represent both sides of the argument. There are also issues with each of the individual examples, which should be obvious to anyone who has read them.

I have also removed the swings in Wiltshire story as this appears to be a factual story about EU regulations, I can't see any "myth" here. I have also made some changes to the phrasing to remove the POV a bit, re-written the introduction to use the definition of Euromyth given on the EU website, and re-instated the eurosceptic view.

IMO the inclusion of any "examples" seems to push the article into a particular POV; that Euromyths are real and here is the proof. This is especially true when the examples are taken from the EU's own site. Its not our job to try and prove or disprove this.

Remember:

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone

- Bosun makes a good point about the article title. I have thought about whether this is really a candidate for Wiktionary, and I'm not sure. Having "Euromyth" as the title does give the article a certain bias to begin with. Jay-W (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As the user Swetisohi has not answered any of the objections I have given above, I have reverted his changes. I have explained in some detail the objections to the examples, and explained the other changes I have made to the article, but there has been no response, beyond the slightly hysterical one below. I am happy to discuss any of these issues with any user who is able to act constructively and with civility. Jay-W (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately your user history shows that you pay scant regard to the views of other editors. That may explain why you have had no further reponse. JaneVannin (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Persistent removal of sourced material contrary to consensus

Despite several requests to the contrary and the efforts of several people on here to come to some understanding, Jay-W has once again taken it upon himself to remove the sourced material from this article rather than attempt a rewrite. As far as I see it, this is tantamount to vandalism. Setwisohi (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha! As an addendum to this, contributors to this debate should take note of Jay-W contributions history (here [[5]]. It looks pretty much like this is basically a single purpose account with the intention being the removal of these examples and/or the disruption of this article. This might, perhaps, explain the continued removal of the material from the article and the POV version(s) he keeps creating. Now that this is 'out', so to speak, perhaps, from this point on, he will join in the debate without acting in such an unconstructive manner? Setwisohi (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A user called Jeff Watts was busily removing these examples and arguing with editors in November 2006, and again in August 2007, at no time did he seem prepared to agree any kind of compromise. A user called CalJW was doing the same thing earlier in 2006. Maybe these are no relation to Jay-W ? Or maybe they are. Setwisohi (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Attacking other users does not represent a useful contribution to this discussion. I have explained to you in detail what is wrong with these examples, but you chose not to respond. I also explained the changes I had made to the body of the article, and again you failed to respond. Instead you reverted all changes and launched this hysterical attack on me.

It is not beholden to me to try and make biased claims unbiased. I have already explained to you that I do not think these claims can be presented in a way which represents a Neutral Point of View.

I am sorry that you appear unable to treat other users with civility and respect, but if you are to continue using this website, I hope you will learn to do so. You should also take the time to learn about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Jay-W (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. Persistently removing this material is just not the best way forward. As others have requested, please try to be more constructive. JaneVannin (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jane. There's not much else you can do with people like this. Setwisohi (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and good stab at rewriting the article Boson. I'm happy with that. You've certainly made it more Wiki-esque. With luck that will placate the troll and we can all move on. Setwisohi (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This page

I don't know where to start with this page. It's at best coatrack article designed to discredit Euroscepticism. At worst it's an attack page. Some of the "Euromyths" that are mentioned here haven't actually been rebutted at all. Phrases like "The scale of negative and distorted reporting on the European Union in the British press" are so far off presenting a neutral point of view, I'm surprised they've lasted so long. Additionally, much of this is sourced from the EU, which is hardly a disinterested source in this case. Furthermore some of these "myths" are actually true, as the EU's own website[6] seems to concede. Being encyclopedic and being cynical are two completely different things. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's nothing here calling the rhubarb story a "Euromyth" or discrediting it in anyway so it shouldn't be in the article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten this. "Euromyth" is a perjorative term and this should be made clear. It shouldn't be applied indiscriminately; opinions should never be presented as facts. I think there's a lack of understanding about what constitutes a "neutral point of view" here. The following is not NPOV: "The British press tells lies[source]". The following is NPOV: "The British press has been accused of telling lies[source]". For some reason, this article nearly always favours the first formulation. There's also a misunderstanding about what constitutes original research. It's not enough for everything to be sourced, the article mustn't contain unpublished analysis of sources or synthesis of published material. It's not enough to find a story on the BBC about swings, debunk it and call it a "Euromyth": where are the sources that say it is a Euromyth? The same goes the story about rhubarb. It's worth quoting WP:SYN here: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C." You can't simply say, "I think this story is exaggerated therefore I'm calling it a euromyth." --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Lo2u - as per my talk page, I've removed the weasel words from your changes (hate using that expression!) and restored much of the rest, which was fine. (eg. the Rhubarb has gone as per your comments but the swings are back - cant see an issue with that). Thanks for your input. On one point I think we may disagree - I dont think it necessary to put euromyth in "" or to cover it up in any other way (no need for words like 'alleged' and stuff like that). Your version of the intro covers it's perjorative nature and we have to assume that intelligent readers will bear that in mind when reading an article like this. Setwisohi (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

CEN

The section on condoms (pause, tee-hee, OK, are we ready to continue yet, thank you) quotes an EU representative as saying "The European Standardisation Committee (CEN) is a voluntary body made up of national standards agencies and affiliated industry/consumer organisations from nineteen European countries. It has nothing to do with the EU." whereas our own article on the European Committee for Standardization states CEN is officially recognised as a European standards body by the European Union; CEN is contributing to the objectives of the European Union. The CEN website says that CEN supports the policies of the European Union (EU) and its Annual Report shows that it is funded by the EU. In a nutshell then, it is false to say that "It has nothing to do with the EU."

So my question is: how should this be reflected in the article in question? Groomtech (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I read "It has nothing to do with the EU" as meaning that it is separate from the EU rather than that there is no cooperation between the two organisations. CEN is one a number of pan-European bodies independent from the EU whose goals overlap with those of the EU and hence cooperate with, and sometimes receive funding from, the EU. It is not strictly true to say that CEN has nothing to do with the EU, but I don't think that the article would gain from a detailed discussion of the relationship between the EU and CEN when the main point is that both the EU and CEN deny that they have (or are planning to) set standards for condom sizes. Duncan Keith (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The statements by the newspaper, the European Commission and CEN seem to be correctly reported. --Boson (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The statements may well be correctly reported. Unfortunately they are inconsistent, and so cannot all be correct. Is it improper to say so? Groomtech (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The statements of the EU and CEN are consistent with respect to the allegation that the EU was planning to harmonise condom sizes. The supposed inconsistency is tangential to the fact that both organisations deny the truth of the Independent story. If you can find a source that claims the EU spokesman's description of the relationship between the EU and CEN casts doubt on the substantive point he is making then it may be proper to include it here. Duncan Keith (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the third sentence It has nothing to do with the EU is inconsistent with other sources, and, as you say, tangential to the condom size issue, I propose to delete it from the quote. Groomtech (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lumpy vegetables

The source [7] on the lumpy vegetable case make it clear that, even though it was indeed promoted by lobbyists with an ulterior motive, the story itself was correct ("the story was true"). I think that disqualifies it from being a Euromyth. Groomtech (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is (or should be made) clear in the definition in the lede that the term "euromyth" is used to refer to stories that are designed to portray the EU, in particular EU civil servants, in a bad light and that are either untrue or are manipulated, distorted or exaggerated. I think this example belongs in an encyclopedia article about euromyths, even if one argues that underlying facts reported are true. To avoid confusion, I have changed the text to "euromyth-like stories". We should, however, remember that this is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, so we should be talking mainly about the concept, not the term euromyth. There is a general problem with the title of the article. I think I would personally prefer an article entitled "Coverage of the European Union in the British media", with much of the content of this article describing the negatively biassed side. --Boson (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The intro currently says "A euromyth is a term used to describe negative media coverage of the European Union that is perceived as exaggerated, distorted or untruthful." If you think the intro is incorrect, then change it. But it is worth pointing out that the principal source for this article, Cross, defines euromyths as "lies and distortions" (p.53). Anyway, the point is that a story that is in fact true does not come under either of those descriptions. If you want to change the definition, you need another reliable source, or of course a new name for the article, such as News stories the EU didn't like. Groomtech (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! "exaggerated, distorted or untruthful". A story can be distorted without being entirely fabricated, though this story was reported as including inaccuracies. The story concerned was distorted and misleading. Cross clearly regards it as a euromyth (or at least relevant to a discussion of euromyths), beginning with "In January 2002 a spate of stories appeared in the UK press that briefly cast light on how Euromyths are manufactured and for what sort of purrpose . The story in question concerned how BBBs were intent on discovering . . ." [my emphasis]

Anyway, it is beside the point since there is nothing wrong with an article on euromyths describing similar phenomena (Cross also uses the term "euromyth-like story").

I don't think it necessary, but if anyone thinks it would make the meaning clearer I would not object to them adding a few more alternatives to " exaggerated, distorted or untruthful", for instance: "misleading", "biassed", or "one-sided".

--Boson (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Euromyths as a Straw Man

This recently added section is seriously flawed: The title is extremely POV. That this is a straw man is disputed, as is obvious from various sources (and other statements in this article). The same is true of the first sentence: Sometimes, pro-EU commentators will cite an exaggerated critical statement as a straw man Euromyth. Other statements are also tendentious in the same way: not precisely true if so phrased (source?), the commentator can call the ban a myth while still technically telling the truth,thereby creating the popular impression that claims of EU over-regulation are without foundation. The whole point is that the reporting allegedly portrays the facts in an exaggerated or distorted way. It is the reporters who made the exaggerated claims, not their critics who exaggerated their claims (as the "straw man" argument would imply).

In an article about alleged distortion by the British media, it would be permissible to cite the Telegraph blog post as an example of the (allegedly misleading) coverage by the British media; it is not permissible to treat such sources as factually accurate authorities.

The argument expressed in the section also relies on a substantive (and illogical) error of interpretation: "a minimum grade (curve) of 27mm" interprets "grade" as meaning "curvature". Apart from the fact that this appears to be claiming that the regulation forbids straight bananas, grade refers to thickness, not curvature, as is obvious if you read the regulation. --Boson (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now changed the section heading and rewritten the section to remove inaccuracies and POV and provide more references.--Boson (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made slight changes to your revised version. But otheriwse I agree with your reasoning and the changes you have made. Setwisohi (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have moved some detail to Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No_2257/94 -- hopefully in a neutral way! -- and mentioned the proposed repeal (referenced). 80.68.82.223 (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look below, it seems there's some doubt about whether this particular regulation was repealed. I claimed it was and was corrected. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Still problems with this article

I've made what I consider fairly minor changes. It is important that we don't refer to particular stories as "euromyths" because doing so would always involve presenting a disputed claim as fact, contravening the NPOV requirements. I also worry that the EU's website is itself not averse to distortion and exaggeration. Just had a skim through and I'd say at least half the EU's named "Euromyths" are basically true. Examples: The Express reports (correctly) that an EU official has called for Waterloo Station to be renamed and has even proposed a new name. The EU rebuts a completely different story, a straw man, about the EU planning to force the UK to rename its station but the Express made no such claim. There are examples in this article too: 1. like it or not, there is a ban on unripened bananas having abnormal curvature. 2. European legislation does require people working at a height to wear hard hats and there's no exemption for trapeze artists. Accusing the British press of myth-making in this respect is unfair.

I think there's a problem of weight here. British newspapers frequently claim that their stories are indeed true and that it is the EU that is being untruthful.[8] [9] [10] --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The changes you have made to the article seem fine to me. And they certainly have improved it. But some of your comments - thankfully on this page and not in the article - could be disputed until the cows come home. (For instance, I would argue that Euromyths are not "basically true" as you seem to think but that they are in fact "basically a deliberate distortion and comical exaggeration of a half-truth made for political reasons by a right-wing press with a marked and well-known jingoistic attitude"). Fortunately, as this is only the talk page, we can disagree like this without disrupting the article. So please do not take my comments here as any kind of criticism.

I also disagree with the problem of weight as you mention it. There are, indeed, a few (a half dozen?) cases where Euromyths have been shown to have a substantive degree of truth. But there are, by comparison, countless (hundreds?) examples of Euromyths which are demonstrably false.

But, not to end on a sour sounding note, once again, thanks for your edits. I think they have improved the overall tone of the article itself. Setwisohi (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's fair. Your comments don't deserve to be in the article and neither do mine. But I disagree. Your "half a dozen" is a severe underestatement: there are many, many examples of EU regulation that has had undesirable results. Many of them aren't "rebutted" by the EU. There's also the reverse tendency, where so-called "Euromyths" that never really existed are constantly repeated by pro-Europeans as proof that all such stories are lies: a story about the EU banning sausages never appeared in the British press but on the comedy "Yes Minister", for example. On the question of whether the word "alleged" is appropriate, I would say it isn't in the case mushy peas and mince pies (assuming these are genuine examples), which are evidently not banned. In the case of bananas: there was undoubtedly a ban on the selling of misshapen bananas that would have led to bananas being banned for abnormal curvature. At least one journalist has explicitly disputed the assertion that this is a myth. I would say that it would be POV not to add "alleged". Either that, or take that particular example out. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As regards use of "alleged", one of the linguistic problems is whether to define "Euromyth" using the word "purported" or "alleged" (which are largely synonomous). The version you recently created defined a euromyth as ". . .media coverage of the European Union that is purported to be exaggerated, distorted or untruthful". Later there was talk of "alleged Euromyths". We are effectively talking about "alleged stories that are allegedly distorted".

For the reasons you mention, I think we removed most references to the EU site. Since the article is about alleged distortion by the media, I think we also need to be very careful with the use of the media as a source, particularly where they are claiming that they are not distorting the facts. We can use the media and the EU Commission as a source to confirm that they made a claim. We can also use press sources to confirm where reporters have admitted or claimed that coverage was deliberately misleading. But we should not normally use either source to back up a Wikipedia statement of fact as to the truth or otherwise of an alleged story that is purportedly distorted.

There is a problem when a headline refers to a ban on "bent" bananas (which appears to be ridiculous) but the regulation uses the words "deformed and "abnormal curvature". If we explicitly point out the subtle manipulation, that might be original research; if we do not point it out we might be complicit in the manipulation. I think the best way out is to state what the media said, juxtaposed with what the regulation said, in such a way that each reader is able to draw his or her own conclusions (as to the truth of of any claim that the story or headline is misleading) based on the reader's own judgment and/or prejudices. That may mean accepting that readers with a Europhilic or Eurosceptic viewpoint will think the article is biased toward a Eurosceptic or Europhilic point of view, respectively. --Boson (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a subtle difference between how the term "Euromyth" is actually used and what it means. A Euromyth is a myth: it is an exaggerated, distorted or untruthful story about the EU. "Alleged" is not part of the definition. However, the term is often used controversially and applied to things that are arguably not myths, which is why it seemed important to say, when talking about how it is used, that it is "used to describe negative media coverage of the European Union that is purported to be..."; to say it is "used to describe coverage which is" would be a little POV, it would amount to an assertion that every story that has been called a Euromyth really is untrue or distorted. I take your other point point, it's very difficult to juxtapose different possible views without introducing original research. It's why, although I think there are problems with the article, I haven't even attempted to fix them. As for the bent bananas, I don't really agree that a ban on selling bananas with "abnormal curvature" sounds any less ridiculous than a ban on selling bent bananas. It was ridiculous and calling it a ban on selling bent bananas is not a distortion as far as I can tell. This is why the rule has been revoked. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source (other than the British media) regarding the reason for "revoking" the "regulation"? --Boson (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for the revocation of these regulations are supported by quotes in the British press from EU officials. There's pretty clear consensus that this was unnecessary regulation. Two mentions in the international media (quoting an EU official): "We simply don't need to regulate this. In these days of high food prices and general economic difficulties, consumers should be able to choose from the widest range of products possible." [11]; "In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw (misshapen fruit and vegetables) away or destroy them. It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things" [12] --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is, of course,not the same as saying that the regulations were repealed because they were ridiculous or that the repealed regulations applied to bent bananas ("misshapen" is very different from "bent; that is one element of the distortion). I would also like to see a reference to bananas (other than quotes from the British press). It might be sensible to do some fact checking to see if the statements were meant to apply to the "bent banana regulation", and if that regulation has indeed been repealed (i.e. to see if the sources are reliable). If it is a case of deliberate or negligent misrepresentation by the British media, I suppose it belongs in this article. --Boson (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem I'm trying to point out is that footnote 26 says: "Bent bananas not a Euromyth after all"; Wikipedia says "Examples of Euromyths include... stories about curved bananas". Do you not think it's POV to present something as fact when more than one opinion exists? The regulation is here[13]. Abnormal curvature is not just one element that defines distortion; it is explicitly stated that a banana will be rejected for abnormal curvature alone. It actually refers to abnormal curvature of the "fingers" (i.e. the stalk) of the banana, which is if anything even more ridiculous because we don't eat that bit. I don't think we're going to find a source that actually uses the word ridiculous but I would say comments like "makes no sense" and "we simply don't need to regulate this" amount to much the same thing. I'm not suggesting the article should actually use the word "ridiculous", after all. Earlier I found a source (now mislaid but referred to here[14]) that listed ten fruits whose regulations were not revoked. Bananas were not on that list so I presume this regulation was, indeed, revoked. I admit I may wrong though. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wrong: the "finger" is simply a word for the individual fruit according to the article. Though a source I read earlier asserted it was the stalk. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Regulation 1221/2008 specifies exactly which regulations are repealed. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 laying down quality standards for bananas does not appear to be one of them. Perhaps your sources point to a regulation other than 1221/2008. I know what the footnote says. It quotes the headline in the British press. That is the problem: the article is about alleged distortion by the British press. To repeat: "bent" is not the same as "abnormal curvature". "Bent" only implies abnormality if the object is normally expected to be straight, and bananas are expected to have a normal curvature. You will note that the quote about "no sense" refers to changed circumstances (high prices etc.), not the senselessness of the original regulations repealed by Regulation 1221/2008. As regards representation as fact, that does not apply according to your definition of Euromyth, which only requires that the coverage is purported to be distorted etc. For that reason, it might be better to revert your addition to the lede and restore the "alleged" elsewhere. But we can't logically add "alleged" elsewhere if your definition contains "purported". Wherever we decide to put the "alleged", the article is about allegedly misleading coverage by the media and the "bent banana myth" is an example of that. Somewhere, I suppose, though perhaps not in this article, we could do with a discussion of the original reason for the regulations on the quality of fruit and vegetables (probably including pressure from the food production and packaging industries) and the resistance to the repeal of the regulations on the part of a number of countries and sections of the population. --Boson (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason we need to say alleged twice is that the opening is not a definition, it simply purports to state how the term is used, which could conceivably include stories that are not Euromyths. I have certainly not "defined" Euromyth as an allegedly or purportedly inaccurate story. I don't want to repeat my explanation at 19.30 but it is in fact POV not to use the word "alleged" (or similar) in both places, at least in the way the term is used in the article. I think the reasons why certain regulations were revoked are a little peripheral, and certainly not suited for this article but I'm grateful for the correction. You seem to be saying that the regulation bans straight bananas, not an interpretation I have ever seen anywhere. Curvature is the rate of change in the angle from a give tangent. An abnormal curvature may be one that is too great or too small. The latter is unlikely because bananas are frequently straight. That would not amount to "abnormality". What the British media tends to claim (including the example cited by the EU) is that the EU banned excessively curved bananas, which is entirely consistent with, and undoubtedly exactly what is meant by, "abnormal curvature". (Examples:[15] [16] [17] [18]). The final section of the article ("The banana regulation") is pure verbal acrobatics, a complete non-denial-denial of the fact that excessively curved bananas were, and apparently still are, banned from sale. All the section does is point out all the other possible ways a banana might be defective. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your logic about the double use of alleged/purported, but I think we will have to agree to differ on that for the moment. I am not saying that straight bananas are prohibited. I should perhaps have written "normally curved bananas are not normally thought of as having abnormal curvature (which should be obvious but apparently is not). Perhaps the bent-bananas journalist was willing to sacrifice a little accuracy for the sake of alliteration. I have no objection to reformulating the last paragraph in a way that better fulfils its purpose: to inform the reader that there is a claim that the media coverage concerning regulation 2257/94 is misleading, and to very briefly summarize the actual claims by the media and others. Since selective reporting and choice of headline can also be misleading, I think we need to summarize what the regulation prohibits, in order to put the two words "abnormal curvature" in context. If the section makes a statement as to the merit of the claims, it should be changed. --Boson (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this seems evasive or pedantic, I really don't mean to be. Who is this bent banana journalist who sacrificed accuracy for alliteration? All I am aware of is various claims that excessively curved bananas are banned. I don't think anyone ever claimed there was a ban on bananas that curve in any way at all. Only Daniel Hannan's headline comes close to making that claim and this is clearly a humorous allusion to something all his readers will know about rather than a new claim (note, this is a blog post, not a newspaper article). I doubt very much that anyone has ever believed that it is illegal for a banana to bend in the way bananas normally do, which would be ridiculous. That sounds like a pro-European myth. That is not what the Sun claimed when the story first appeared. It spoke of excessive curvature. I could be missing something but this reporting doesn't sound misleading in any way. Why inform readers that something is misleading when it is not? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You apparently believe everything you read on the Europa Web site! (grin) How's this for a secondary source quoting the Sun front page: Darnton, John (1994-10-06). "The Bent-Banana Ban and Other British Gibes at Europe". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-05. The banana story began with a page-one article last week in The Sun, which reported that 'Brussels bureaucrats proved yesterday what a barmy bunch they are -- by outlawing curved bananas.' I also doubt that anyone has ever genuinely believed that it was the Commission's intention to make it illegal for a banana to bend in the way bananas normally do, which would indeed be ridiculous; so, assuming that the direct quote from The Sun is accurate, we would possibly be justified in inferring (not in the article, of course) that The Sun was deliberately misleading its readers, whereas blog posts by other newspapers might be merely carelessly inaccurate or ambiguous or be drawing unexplained conclusions (for instance about the alleged repeal of the regulation) from unrevealed sources . --Boson (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the quote from the Sun has been taken out of context. The EU did ban curved bananas. Not all curved bananas certainly. But this sentence appeared beneath the headline "Bananas must not be excessively curved", and the rest of the article would have clarified the legislation, so you would need to apply a misleading and selective reading to draw the conclusion that entered Brussels folklore that the British media has claimed curved bananas are illegal. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The abusive and manipulative line speaks for itself. Whatever followed Brussels bureaucrats proved yesterday what a barmy bunch they are -- by outlawing curved bananas. screams distortion. Try to imagine a similar Wikipedia talk page header with Eurosceptics prove what idiots they are by . . . !

From "and the rest of the article would have clarified the legislation" I can only assume that you have never read The Sun.

Apart from that, there was no ban on curved bananas. The regulation specifically allows "defects of shape" for Class I and Class II bananas. It is only Extra class bananas that were not allowed to have abnormal curvature.--Boson (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more recent example of Sun reporting:

• http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2534237/German-judges-call-EU-treaty-not-legal.html
• http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/papercolumnists/billleckie/2570025/Bill-Leckie-column.html

--Boson (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Your assumption about me never reading the Sun would be correct but quoting the NYT, the Sun article went on to explain that the regulation referred to "abnormally bent" fruit. The headline said that too. There's no attempt on the part of the Sun to conceal the fact that this was a ban on excessively curved fruit and the meaning of the reference to curved bananas is unambiguous and correct in the context. The bent banana thing is pure Brussels cliché. Like some of these Euromyths, it is founded on a grain of truth but relies on taking a few words out of context and repeating them endlessly. The only way you can make the article say what you are trying to make it say is by a narrow and selective quotation. As for the various quotes you provide, I don't really know what they prove except that the Sun doesn't like the EU, it thought its ban on abnormally shaped fruit was a bit stupid and it expressed its view in language that you and I would not use on a talk page. An assertion that EU officials are idiots may be slanderous but it is not a Euromyth, just bad mannered. On the class 1/2 distinction, the regulation incorporates a "tolerance" of misshapen fruit, provided such misshapenness does not harm the "presentation" of the fruit. My reading of that is that a bent banana would still be disallowed if it was sufficiently bent. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems another user has removed some things and added others. I have to say, this is a lot more acceptable now that the bendy banana regulation isn't buried under a heap of irrelevant information about thickess and deformation designed to make it more palatable. However there's also something that's been added about the regulation being repealed. Not true, apparently. Anyway, if you're happy to go with this version (excluding any inccuracies of course) I've no objections. I still think the purpose and tone of this article is completely wrong and POV however. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, if we cannot establish that the regulation has been repealed, we should remove that information.

The cognitive deficts, mental health, or general competence of European Commission officials may actually be central to the concept of the Euromyth and the campaign waged by The Sun.

I take exception to the comments about the details being included in order to make it more palatable and other accusations of distortion. The extra detail is provided so that readers can make up their own minds as to whether the press reports are selectively reporting and putting undue emphasis on certain points for sensational effect or to advance a point of view. If you find the version with more detail "more palatable", that may be because it is the first time you have seen the facts presented without undue weight being given to the shape. Look at the following section on quality quoted from the regulation, and tell me if you think objective press reports aimed at telling the reader what the regulation does would give the same weight to the curvature as the press reports we are talking about:

II. QUALITY

This standard defines the quality requirements to be met by unripened green bananas after preparation and packaging.

A. Minimum requirements

In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the bananas must be:

- green and unripened,

- intact,

- firm,

- sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is excluded,

- clean, practically free from visible foreign matter,

- practically free from pests,

- practically free from damage caused by pests,

- with the stalk intact, without bending, fungal damage or dessication,

- with pistils removed,

- free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers,

- practically free from bruises,

- practically free from damage due to low temperatures,

- free from abnormal external moisture,

- free from any foreign smell and/or taste.

In addition, hands and clusters (parts of hands) must include:

- a sufficient portion of crown of normal colouring, sound and free from fungal contamination,

- a cleanly cut crown, not beveled or torn, with no stalk fragments.

The physical development and ripeness of the bananas must be such as to enable them to:

- withstand transport and handling,

and

- arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination in order to attain an appropriate degree of maturity after ripening.

You may also like to give me your opinion on whether, in the interests of journalistic accuracy, a serious journalist should have read the whole document before claiming that there was a ban on bent bananas.--Boson (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't mean to accuse you of any deliberate distortion. I was really trying to discuss the effect of the paragraph and I didn't realise you had written this. These facts seem at best irrelevant. At worse they're a distraction, like saying "OK, I admit there is this bent banana clause but don't think about that. Focus on the sensible bit that bans rotten fruit instead". Why do I need to know that bananas must be so many centimetres in length in order to judge the fairness of an alleged rumour about bent bananas?

I see nothing selective about the information as it stands. If I claim that the Magna Carta introduced habeas corpus, I'm not being selective because I fail to mention lots of other things it introduced. Something that is selective witholds relevant information in order to create a misleading impression. If a teacher asks you what last week's homework was and you reply that she asked you to answer the odd-numbered questions without mentioning that she also asked you to answer the even-numbered ones, you are being selective. All the Sun did was withold irrelevant information and report accurately the relevant part about a plan to regulate the curvature of fruit. It's no more selective not to mention the other things in the regualation than it would be selective not to mention all the other fruit the EU regulates.

You tell me to look at the regulation and tell me whether a report that aims at telling me what the regulation does would say that. Of course it wouldn't. But you assume that is the aim of the report, which it is not. The journalist is drawing attention to a very important part of a much larger regualation that he claims will have some serious implication. Why would any newspaper, even a pro-European one want to do an article on regulation number 2257/94? Why should a newspaper article that reports a new law be required to break the bill down line by line and give equal weight to every clause? What is wrong with reporting the newsworthy part of a regulation?

On the first point, calling somebody an idiot or barmy is indeed insulting. It is not a distortion. If you want to add something about the Sun alleging that a law was the result of serious mental illness, you need to get a source. As it stands, this has nothing whatever to do with Euromyths. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't originally write the section; I corrected what I perceived as an very POV version (with a different heading), which read

Euromyths as a Straw Man

Sometimes, pro-EU commentators will cite an exaggerated critical statement as a straw man Euromyth. For example, the much-repeated claims of an EU ban on "curved bananas"[23] are not precisely true if so phrased. However, amongst numerous other conditions reflecting quality control and damage to the fruit, EC Regulation 2257/94[24] does actually specify a minimum size of 14cm and a minimum grade (curve) of 27mm. There is also a concession that up to 10% of a package of bananas can be a little below these dimensions, which means the commentator can call the ban a myth while still technically telling the truth; thereby creating the popular impression[25] that claims of EU over-regulation are without foundation.

Pointing out the actual facts has nothing to do with claiming that there is no over-regulation in the EU. It is about correcting the misleading information. And misleading information is the subject of the article. It might not normally be necessary to go into such detail, but The Sun and a few others have, for decades, waged a continuous campaign with selective information and misleading headlines. European civil servants are continually reviled as "barmy Brussels bureaucrats, etc. They are portrayed as thumb-twiddling idiots with ridiculous ideas. This is the essence of the "Euromyth". Since the "bent banana" story is the typical example that is frequently alluded to, I thought it appropriate to dissect this one in more detail. I have spent quite a bit of time researching some of the "Euromyths" and in many cases I have come to the conclusion (I think, objectively) that the most egregious misrepresentations and inaccuracies are indeed on the part of the "Eurosceptic" press like The Sun. In the case of the bent bananas and other examples, I started off thinking that there was probably quite a bit of truth in the allegations, though they were presented in a sensational way. After reading more of the primary and secondary sources, I came to realize how much the focus of the debate was manipulated by the press reports. When you really look at some of the press coverage you find that practically nothing is completely accurate and unbiassed. Even the statement that excessive curvature is banned is untrue, but this only becomes apparent when you go into the detail.

I don't think we will get past these debates as long as we have an article about Euromyths (as opposed to an article about media coverage of the EU).--Boson (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive the length of this. I agree with most of what you say. However, there are presumably reasons why the British media believes the EU makes draconian, common-sense-defying rules, or rules that seem to have unintended consequences. I can think of a few genuine examples that I won't list here. Besides, if you happen to be opposed to further European integration, as most British people probably are, your opinion of where the dispassionate centre ground lies and what constitutes bias, is probably very different than if you live in countries like Belgium, Luxembourg or Germany where the Euro-Sceptic position is hardly recognised (even if it is represented by smaller regional parties). Still, I accept there is plenty of exaggerated reporting. I'm just not really sure the detail on the banana thing clarifies much. In fact it seems to muddy things quite a bit.

Yes, I think an article on the British media and the EU would be far more sensible. This is a very specific type of article, it relates to a term created and used by one side of an ideological divide to criticise the other. Similar examples are political correctness, loony left, spin, Bible basher, obscurantism, anti-intellectualism and doublespeak. All are legitimate terms that could conceivably be used in a disinterested way but they are also part of the partisan vocabulary of particular causes. They should not be treated as neutral terms. They should come with appropriate signposts. In particular, it is unacceptable not to use the word "pejorative" or similar in the opening sentence. Such articles should not provide an excuse to evangelise one side's criticism of another and they should not propagate lazy stereotypes, about the British media or anything else. There is a risk that we reinforce or promote pejorative terms by providing a surplus of examples and focussing heavily on the target of criticism, in this case the British press, in a way that presents them in an excessively negative light. At the moment this is really an article about the British media that is restricted entirely to reporting the unfair bit of its coverage. It might as well be entitled List of all the stupid, misleading things the British press keeps saying about us. The article is unfair because it can only discuss the part of a subject that presents one side in a poor light.

An article about media coverage of the EU could incorporate a far broader range of material, examples of positive as well as negative coverage and allegations of a pro-European bias frequently made against some parts of the press.

Some parts of the article that could easily be improved:

1. It contains phrases that editorialise and is written in a conspiratorial tone ("As with many Euromyths, there was both fact and fiction in the story", "In fact the EU was merely planning guidelines")

2. It switches from indirect to direct speech, blurring the distinction between the EU and Wikipedia ("The EU responded that the story stemmed from new EU laws which were introduced to protect workers who operate at height but, in the legislation in question, there is no mention of hard hats or circus performers").

3. It contains (I think) meaningless nonsense ("The alleged ban on curved bananas is a long-standing and stereotypical claim that is used in headlines to typify the Euromyth" - so papers repeatedly write headlines about bananas with the purpose of "typifying the Euromyth", the same newspapers that would probably deny the existence of the Euromyth?)--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with that. The last sentence you quoted, in particular, is greatly in need of improvement, but I think we do need a sentence stating that the bent banana story is the typical example of the "Euromyth" (in the sense that everybody knows you are talking about "Euromyths" if you use the expression in a headline).--Boson (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to Media coverage of the EU

I think that's a good idea. Of course it's a vast area. Even if we're not going as far back as the old common market, it'll probably be necessary to discuss, first of all, the historical perspective: the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon and so on. Euroscepticism and the attitudes of various papers, any telling articles (there's plenty of source material saying which are considered the most and least Eurosceptic). Finally we would need to discuss specific criticisms and accusations of bias: not only Euromyths but other negative coverage. Additionally, there are complaints of a pro-European bias directed against some parts of the media. I've started a new section in the hope of getting some fresh discussion going and pointing out the proposed move. There are some regular editors of this article who've not said anything yet. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge proposal

Since the Euromyth article is mostly about British media coverage, the article Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom might be a more appropriate target. However, I would tend to oppose both merge proposals. Euromyth and Euroscepticism both suffer from being inherently non-NPOV. They are really about two separate subjects, British media coverage of the European Union and Attitudes to membership of the European Union, respectively, and both discuss only negative coverage or attitudes. This makes it very difficult to avoid the appearance of bias. I think this is the main problem. --Boson (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose the merge, as I believe these are two different topics. Euroscepticism is a standpoint against the EU and its political structure. Whereas a purported Euromyth is a report about a specific aspect of the EU. One does not imply the other, just as you can criticise an action of your national government -- even in a misleading and sensational way -- without objecting to your country's constitution in general. 80.68.82.223 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've not made much comment on this. I can't do much while I'm waiting for my (basically evil) ISP to come and fix my broadband connection and with the sort of work this article requires, I just couldn't face looking at this again. I'm not sure how I feel about a merge. I could be persuaded I suppose. My worries are firstly, this sort of story is not confined to the UK. Secondly, a POV consideration: if we make this merge it seems like we're basically deciding that every story that gets called a Euromyth was only published because the British press hates the EU. As I've said before, some of these Euromyths are plainly, unequivocally true. I don't believe everything I read in the Daily Mail but I also don't refuse to believe something just because it appeared in the Daily Mail and it's a mistake to assume that just because such stories don't appear in the European press they aren't true. The Europeans don't have a tradition of scepticism about EU institutions. They have largely accepted them and their discussion tends to be less evangelical, neither Eurosceptic nor enthusiastically pro-European. There's no particular appetite for stories that present the EU in a bad light. A Dutchman would no more discuss the pros and cons of having EU legislation than an American would discuss the pros and cons of having a constitution. It doesn't mean such criticism is false. Compare attitudes to the NHS in Britain with those in the rest of Europe. A different style of coverage may simply reflect a different conception of the reality of the EU: in the United Kingdom it's largely viewed as an international organisation with good points and bad points. Elsewhere it's viewed as a layer of government, inseparable from a country's constitution. Anyway I think there's a danger of seeing all criticism of the EU through the prism of British Euro-scepticism, as if any negative attitude to the EU needs to be sign-posted as a weird British affliction. It's not, it's a widely-held point of view that is as valid as any other. Even as things stand now, most criticism is marginalised and confined to articles like the proposed merge article above: opinion polls in most countries show people object to the Lisbon Treaty or would like to be given a referendum, for example, but the article doesn't really reflect its controversial nature. In fact very little EU coverage on Wikipedia reflects the existence of any sort of controversy. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, that's my opposition to a move to Euroscepticism or similar. British media coverage and attitudes to membership are a different matter and I would support such a move.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 10:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge - Myths are unfounded beliefs, skepticisms may be based on facts. Two different subjects. --Triwbe (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a consensus against merging with Euroscepticism.--Boson (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The banana regulation

Curiously there is no source cited in the article for this actually being a Euromyth. Groomtech (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was the reference following "Examples cited as Euromyths include stories about rules banning mince-pies, curved bananas and mushy peas.", but I have added a few more references and quotes (using terms like "most famous", "mother of all Euromyths", etc.) where they are more likely to be seen. Of course, it is not the regulation that is a "Euromyth" but its alleged content. --Boson (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Some changes

This article is slightly improved but still has some problems. I've made some changes to the intro to make it a little more neutral, and added the Eurosceptic position. The use of the Communications Ethics Now book is OK in context, but the same source has been used several times to make big claims eg "The British press and to some extent the Greek press too are often blamed for circulating Euromyths". This needs to be more specific if it is to be used and explain the source.

I also removed the examples copied from the EU web site for several reasons. I've been over these exhaustively in the past but for newcomers I will clarify why these shouldn't be used:

1. EU site is a biased source.

2. The site is known to be unreliable and has made claims in the past which aren't true.

3. The EU site is being used to quote other sources and this can't be done without making that clear. You can't claim "The Daily Mail wrote this" if your source is not the Daily Mail but the EU site. See here [[19]]

There's also still a question mark over the naming of this article and if it meets NPOV naming conventions.

Jay-W (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the lede could be improved. First defining what is a Euromyth, then who uses it - in clearer language. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Current EU banana regulation

It is simply not true that the banana regulations have been repealed. A list of regulation *currently in force* can be found here http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fruit-and-vegetables/legislation/index_en.htm You'll find on that page a link to "Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011 laying down marketing standards for bananas" which states clearly that "In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the bananas must be . . . free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers,". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.231.29 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's nothing else than a leftist pro-EU propaganda page!

Please delete it! Your "myths" are mostly true, the very few that aren't can be described in a paragraph in European Union. --212.186.14.29 (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Euromyth. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6481969.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321161425/http://ec.europa.eu:80/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth05_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth05_en.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euromyth. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522123256/http://andrewduff.eu/pages/myth-food.html to http://www.andrewduff.eu/pages/myth-food.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Repeated text

The last two paragraphs are a repeat of the previous two. Can someone fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.188.56 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This should probably be removed or merged elsewhere, no?

This is a bit of a junk article isn't it? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.119.246 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Considering that such stories probably had an impact on the UK brexit vote, maybe it should stay right where it is. AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)