text:
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 Special:Contributions/ (talk)

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:

 * 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: to
 * 🇩🇰 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? — Nightst a  llion  (?) 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. 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)
 * 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".

 * 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: . 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: --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 : 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. 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, 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: . 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?
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. 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)

Logo vs Flag
Given the string of recent disruptive edits, I would like to emphasize that Council of Europe "flag" and "logo" are two different things - they are both official CoE symbols but serve a different purpose. Although the presence of the flag may cause some to confuse CoE with the EU, the reality is that we cannot purge official CoE symbols from Wikipedia just because it confuses you. The issue with the shared nature of said symbols is more than adequately explained in the very first paragraph and also has its own dedicated section further down the article. I think we can expect our readers to actually, um, read?!--Damianmx (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And adding the same "clarifing" url 7 times to the lead is not helpful.  TDL (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your input. Unfortunately, looks like the user just reversed your edits, like he did countless times before, and now went further by deleting any mention of CoE on the Flag of Europe page. And its with the same copy/paste URL and comments. I'm starting to question this person's mental stability. I already contacted an admin to see what can be done to end this disruption.--Damianmx (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Missing rules on governing persons
I am amazed that 68 full years after its creation the CoE would still have no rule on how to sack one of its governing members after a vote of non confidence and several calls to resign, but here you go: (about Pedro Agramunt's ill-advised and ill-timed journey to Syria) Ausbügeln kann diesen Fehler nur der Präsident selbst und zwar mit einem Rücktritt, denn über Regeln, ihn des Amtes zu entheben, verfügt der Europarat im Augenblick noch nicht [only the President himself can right this wrong, by resigning, because the Council of Europe doesn't have, for the moment, any rule about relieving him of his duties], Deutschlandfunk, 27 June 2017.--Edelseider (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Nothing is going in the wrong direction with the assembly as such" says "...the chairman of the United Left, the Dutchman Tiny Kox". With a name like that he is ideal for investigating COE corruption. :) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Council of Europe. 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 tag to http://www.mipim.com/App/homepage.cfm?appname=100517&moduleid=288&campaignid=11888&iUserCampaignID=43827991
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808073053/http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/translation.pdf to http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/translation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Council of Europe. 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/20080528112349/http://www.coe.int/t/dg2/trafficking/campaign/Source/PDF_Conv_197_Trafficking_E.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/dg2/trafficking/campaign/Source/PDF_Conv_197_Trafficking_E.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528112354/http://www.coe.int/t/DC/Press/Source/PressFile_%20AGORA_fr.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/DC/Press/Source/PressFile_%20AGORA_fr.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418213025/http://www.theewc.org/about-the-ewc.html to http://www.theewc.org/about-the-ewc.html
 * Added tag to http://www.lalsace.fr/fr/france-monde/article/3340157,218/Reduction-drastique-des-activites-a-Strasbourg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Russia's status at the Council
I believe that a section should definitely be added to reflect Russia's voting suspension at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council, as this is an element of importance. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 * It has just been reversed, presumably because the financial contribution from Russia might have, over time, caused a shrinking of that organisation. Now the Ukrainians have moved out. I was most surprised that the Council gave NGOs a legal status. NGOs are not democratically elected bodies. They are hobby horses and lobby organisations, only accountable to their funders. They operate in the political space without being elected or accountable. That is a concerning development which is why Russia has cracked down on these organisations. This is a potential point of conflict. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:9C:B334:C7BC:B1A9 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-003.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Council of Europe Palais de l'Europe aerial view.JPG

British Overseas Territories
Should we add the British Overseas Territories into infobox and page in general? (For example; Falkland Islands, Akrotiri, Dhekelia etc.) 176.227.44.104 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's absolutely necessary, we don't want to overly clutter the infobox with every singe minor geographic anomaly or technicality. The infobox isn't the place for that. Besides, there is a separate article with a list of CoE member states where users may link to any of the country articles, where specific geographic features are covered in greater detail. Archives908 (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Locations within the infobox

 * 176.227.44.104, please discuss here regarding recent edits before continuing to make changes. You recently restored a version of the infobox which included the geographic regions of "Anatolia" and "Siberia", within the location section (in addition to placing Georgia and Azerbaijan entirely within Asia, when they both have territory in Europe as well). In line with the other examples, it is far better to use the precise country or administrative subunit (ie. Greenland, French Polynesia), rather then including vague geographic regions within a country. For example, when you added the Canary Islands, you decided to add the precise territorial entity within Spain, rather then the geographical region (Macaronesia) where it is located. For this case, I think we should be as consistent as possible. As for Europe/Eurasia, yes, Europe is technically the Westernmost part of Eurasia but as I mentioned above, I don't believe it is utmost necessary to point out minute technicalities. The infobox isn't meant to go into great depth of each member states' geographic details/perplexities, otherwise, the list would be endless if it did. Like I said above, there is already an article which covers all members of the CoE, should readers require additional geographic information, the individual country articles are far more detailed- and rightfully so. Archives908 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Archives.908, I see your point regarding locations listed. However I think it’s still not necessary to keep both “Europe” and “Eurasia” at the same time. Because the definition of “Eurasia” encompasses whole “Europe” already. The word “Europe” sometimes covers the countries listed under “Eurasia” as well although it happens mostly because of the political reasons. For example; CoE itself classifies Cyprus, countries in the Caucasus, Russia and Turkey as European countries apart from members’ dependencies/regions in other continents. Despite the above, in my opinion, we must go in line with the predominantly accepted geographic definitions for such “infobox” templates. We can apply one of the two options: Opt#1- Restoring to previous version (keeping both Europe and Asia) and specify the Asian regions’ names of the individual countries as other users once did; if we are not able to distinguish the Asian parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan, we can simply insert a foot note mark and explain these are transcontinental countries straddling both Europe and Asia. (I think it’s fine to go with “Siberia” and “Anatolia”. These must be not mixed with the Macaronesia archipelagos as some of them (the northern arch., the Azores etc.) are classified as Europe apart from the rest and these archipelagos are territories of different sovereign states unlike the Siberia (Russia) and Anatolia (Turkey). So it’d have not been appropriate writing Macaronesia as not all states there are members of the CoE.) Opt#2- Keeping only “Eurasia”. However I believe that we must specify “Europe” at all, as this page refers to a pan-European organisation so I would go with the opt.1.Additionally, “Eurasia” is not a continent unlike the others (North America, Africa etc.). It also confuses me how come “Siberia and Anatolia” be misguided listings while “Eurasia” is not? Thank you.-the ip user.
 * Ip user- as I've explained, it is not necessary to list every single minute geographical anomaly within the respective infobox. Once again, the CoE article is not the place for that. If it were, we could point out several other geographical related discrepancies among the 47 member states. There is no need to get that technical here. However, I do see your point and in order to appease your concern regarding the use of "Eurasia", we can remove it altogether and replace with just Europe. Of course, we can add a foot note explaining that some member states have territory either wholly (Cyprus/Armenia) or partially (Georgia/Azerbaijan/Russia/Turkey) in Asia (similar to what is present in the Europe article itself). I believe this to be a fair suggestion, considering that the CoE does classify these member states to be politically "European", as you have pointed out. This is a win-win recommendation, since it 1) precisely reflects the CoE definition of these countries, 2) removes vague terms which could lead to confusion (Siberia/Anatolia) and overlapping/redundant terms (Eurasia) and 3) avoids cluttering the infobox. This option addresses both our primary concerns. Thoughts? Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Archives.908, Considering the fact that all the respective countries (Caucasian countries, Cyprus, Russia, Turkey) are defined as “independent states” by the CoE, I think the suggestion below seems appropriate to apply:  …we can remove it altogether and replace with just Europe. Of course, we can add a foot note explaining that some member states have territory either wholly (Cyprus/Armenia) or partially (Georgia/Azerbaijan/Russia/Turkey) in Asia…  Thank you.-the ip user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.67.190.219 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia
Russia has been suspended from the Council of Europe due to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. I do not know how to edit the map so I will leave this message here. (If the invasion is over by the time someone sees this, they were suspended around 17:00 in UK time.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILikeMountains (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The map has been changed, but I don’t know if it’s correct right now. As I understand it, Russia is suspended, but that doesn’t make it a non-member, right? Also, shouldn’t Kazakhstan be coloured in the same way as Russia and Belarus, since it is technically also a European country? De wafelenbak (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Russia is still a member - for this exact moment. However, the article doesn't even clearly state that Russia is a member. Downstrike (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia has withdrawn from the Council so I've updated the map. Skycloud86 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Instead of uploading a new file, svg map should be updated
 * Leaving the Council is a lengthy process so Russia will be a member until 2023 Chris Archer (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source confirming Russia's membership until 2023? Archives908 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article says that if a member state unilaterally wishes to formally leave the Council of Europe, then a member state would send a formal letter the Secretary General, asking that it would like leave the Council. If it is done between the 1 January and the 30 September, the withdrawment would happen at the 31 December on that year. If it is done between the 1 October to the 31 December, then it would happen on the 31 December the following year.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_Council_of_Europe Chris Archer (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps under normal circumstances, yes. However, to claim that Russia will be a full member until 2023 is bold and highly speculative. Most sources confirm (even if vague), that Russia has officially suspended any connection with the CoE. From Russia's point of view, it is not a member. Russia is definitely not engaging with any CoE organs right now- yet alone until 2023. Archives908 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you, or any other editor, provide a reliable source (that isn't Wikipedia) confirming Russian membership until 2023? If not, your claim can't be 100% verified. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Russia is not a full member, it is a suspended member, it is also known to ignore ECHR decisions for years by now.
 * The source is not Wikipedia but the Treaty of London and there are no other withdrawal procedures. So unless the Council decides to speed up to process according to Article 8, there is no other legally confirmed withdrawal date. Chris Archer (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is kinda confirmation from CoE source that Article 7 is in action
 * https://twitter.com/CoESpokesperson/status/1503769841391611917
 * "Real" media are fuzzy about it unfortunately Chris Archer (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, kinda confirmation still does not verify your claim. The tweet makes zero mention of 2023 as the year of Russia's supposed year of withdrawal. I think you should retract that bold claim, considering there isn't currently any reliable evidence of it. All the sources I have come across confirm Russia has unilaterally suspended its membership. Whether they are "legally a member in the books" is irrelevant. From Russia's perspective, they are not cooperating with this body any longer and have ceased dialogue with CoE organs. The formal relationship is null and void as per Russian governmental statements. The map you keep reinstating in the infobox is highly deceptive and no longer appropriate considering the recent developments. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The tweet mentions Article 7 and Article 7 states that "Such withdrawal shall take effect at the end of the financial year in which it is notified, if the notification is given during the first nine months of that financial year." https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London,_1949
 * And your source of immediate termination is ...?
 * > Whether they are "legally a member in the books" is irrelevant
 * Please state a rule, a source or a precedent for this.
 * I have a counter-precedent however, look at Ukraine membership in CIS. It is unclear from the beginning and it is reflected in the article. So at best I could agree only to "unclear membership". Chris Archer (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will be WP:BOLD and reinstate the updated map, it should remain at least until you or someone else can provide at least one reliable source confirming Russia's membership until 2023. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You should update the SVG map on Commons then, not to add a new ugly raster map. But I still don't see your sources, reliable or not. Chris Archer (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Included one above- here it is again. Archives908 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no date of termination in that article. Chris Archer (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The source confirms Russia's current position (ie. not a member of the CoE). On the contrary, you verbatim proclaimed, "Russia will be a member until 2023." Since there is not a single source confirming that, the status quo should remain until further information becomes available. To reiterate, I'm not saying your wrong, but you haven't quite backed up your bold claim. Therefore, it is logical of us to default to Russia's announced position until more accurate information is presented. Nothing contentious with that. Archives908 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the sources are contradictory, status quo would be to revert to the time before the announcement when all positions were clear. Chris Archer (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I care only about the file and you care only about the content and svg map was updated to your position, I will revert your change on technical grounds. Please update the map itself if you don't agree with it. Chris Archer (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not reinstating the misleading map with Russia. I do not have experience with maps. However, the map in its current form is more than sufficient for the time being as it is more accurate based on the data currently available. An editor with more experience may improve its quality in due course- if need be. Archives908 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On 16 March 2022 Russia became the first state to be excluded from the Council of Europe . Banterasitis (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

fyi:  www.coe.int: Council of Europe leaders make joint statement on the exclusion of the Russian Federation from the Council of Europe --Präziser (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Euler diagram
Hi all, the Euler diagram for the CoE needs updating to reflect Russia leaving it. I have no idea how to edit it's formatting, so if anyone does that would be grand. Jamzze (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Please leave the edit until the actual withdrawal Chris Archer (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, now it was excluded officially, now we need a new diagram. Chris Archer (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of members of the CoE
I didn't edit this because I saw there's a small edit war going on, so I'd rather ask the people who are active right now. . There's a few mentions of "46 members" around the article, including in the first paragraph and the infobox:

"Founded in 1949, it has 46 member states"

I'd like to know what we should do because I haven't seen any of the editors involved correct this number yet. Reuters (I just updated Current Events) said Russia withdrew from CoE voluntarily. Tetizeraz -  (talk page)  20:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Oh, I just noticed that number has been changed a few days ago. Disregard my message, sorry for the ping.  Tetizeraz  -  (talk page)  20:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * until the 16 of March 2022 - 47 Member States
 * from 16 Match onward - 46 Member States
 * https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/the-russian-federation-is-excluded-from-the-council-of-europe Cactusn.3 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Did Turkey join in 1949 or 1950?
I know that there are statements in some versions of the article stating that Greece and Turkey both joined in 1949, but there are sources cited which claim that Turkey didn't actually join until 1950, after Iceland had joined. Does anybody have an explanation for this discrepancy? Fabrickator (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Turkey, alongside Greece, attended meetings of the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly from August 1949, but their instruments of accession weren't deposited with the Secretary General in Strasbourg until April 1950. I agree, the article in its current form is confusing and needs this explaining somewhere. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote rollback
Evidently the Rollback button doesn't allow for an edit summary (mea culpa; re-noted for the future), so I'm putting my justification of my rollback of the IP user @213.52.58.244's hatnote change here.

 * 1) Piping Council of the European Union to "EU Council" in a hatnote is typically improper, per rule (1) of WP:Hatnote.
 * 2) The tangential links to European Union and Institutions of the European Union are improper per WP:HATEXTRA.
 * 3) It's not obvious that merely having similar membership makes European Political Community (2022) particularly confusable with Council of Europe. The only word they have in common is "Europe". I would argue that "Community" and "Council" aren't sufficiently confusable. Based on the Wikipedia article, it doesn't sound like the E.P.C. has any subsidiary organ with "council" (or a near-synonym) in its name.

Hence my rollback.  Cyber  cobra (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph about the SG
Noticed that the paragraph on the Secretary General's role cites the name of a previous SG : "The Secretary General, who is elected for a term of five years by the PACE and heads the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. Thorbjørn Jagland, the former Prime Minister of Norway, was elected Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 29 September 2009. In June 2014, he became the first Secretary General to be re-elected, commencing his second term in office on 1 October 2014."

The link to and the text of the article on the SG itself indicates the current SG.

Alternatively, "Marija Pejčinović Burić, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, was elected Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 26 June 2019. Her term began on 18 September 2019." SLobey (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Council of Europe


text:
Walther Bothe

Walther Wilhelm Georg Bothe (8 January 1891 – 8 February 1957) was a German nuclear physicist known for the development of coincidence methods to study particle physics.

He served in the military during World War I from 1914, and he was a prisoner of war of the Russians, returning to Germany in 1920. Upon his return to the laboratory, he developed and applied coincidence circuits to the study of nuclear reactions, such as the Compton effect, cosmic rays, and the wave–particle duality of radiation, for which he would receive a share of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1954.

In 1930, he became a full professor and director of the physics department at the University of Giessen. In 1932, he became director of the Physical and Radiological Institute at the University of Heidelberg. He was driven out of this position by elements of the deutsche Physik movement. To preclude his emigration from Germany, he was appointed director of the Physics Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Medical Research (KWImF) in Heidelberg. There, he built the first operational cyclotron in Germany. Furthermore, he became a principal in the German nuclear energy project, also known as the Uranverein (Uranium Club), which was started in 1939 under the supervision of the Army Ordnance Office.

In 1946, in addition to his directorship of the Physics Institute at the KWImf, he was reinstated as a professor at the University of Heidelberg. From 1956 to 1957, he was a member of the Nuclear Physics Working Group in Germany.

In the year after Bothe's death, his Physics Institute at the KWImF was elevated to the status of a new institute under the Max Planck Society and it then became the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics. Its main building was later named Bothe laboratory.

Education
Bothe was born to Friedrich Bothe and Charlotte Hartung. From 1908 to 1912, Bothe studied at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (today, the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin). In 1913, he was Max Planck's teaching assistant. He was awarded his doctorate, in 1914, under Planck.

Early years
In 1913, Bothe joined the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt (PTR, Reich Physical and Technical Institute; today, the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), where he stayed until 1930. Hans Geiger had been appointed director of the new Laboratory for Radioactivity there in 1912. At the PTR, Bothe was an assistant to Geiger from 1913 to 1920, a scientific member of Geiger's staff from 1920 to 1927, and from 1927 to 1930 he succeeded Geiger as director of the Laboratory for Radioactivity.

In May 1914, Bothe volunteered for service in the German cavalry. He was taken prisoner by the Russians and incarcerated in Russia for five years. While there, he learned the Russian language and worked on theoretical physics problems related to his doctoral studies. He returned to Germany in 1920, with a Russian bride.

On his return from Russia, Bothe continued his employment at the PTR under Hans Geiger in the Laboratory for Radioactivity there. In 1924, Bothe published on his coincidence method. The Bothe–Geiger coincidence experiment studied the Compton effect and the wave–particle duality of light. Bothe's coincidence method and his applications of it earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1954.

In 1925, while still at the PTR, Bothe became a Privatdozent at the University of Berlin, which means that he had completed his Habilitation, and, in 1929, he became an ausserordentlicher Professor there.

In 1927, Bothe began the study of the transmutation of light elements through bombardment with alpha particles. From a joint investigation with H. Fränz and Heinz Pose in 1928, Bothe and Fränz correlated reaction products of nuclear interactions to nuclear energy levels.

In 1929, in collaboration with Werner Kolhörster and Bruno Rossi who were guests in Bothe's laboratory at the PTR, Bothe began the study of cosmic rays. The study of cosmic radiation would be conducted by Bothe for the rest of his life.

In 1930, he became an ordentlicher Professor and director of the physics department at the Justus Liebig-Universität Gießen. That year, Bothe and his collaborator Herbert Becker bombarded beryllium, boron, and lithium with alpha particles from polonium and observed a new form of penetrating radiation. In 1932, James Chadwick identified this radiation as the neutron.

Heidelberg
In 1932, Bothe had succeeded Philipp Lenard as Director of the Physikalische und Radiologische Institut (Physical and Radiological Institute) at the University of Heidelberg. It was then that Rudolf Fleischmann became a teaching assistant to Bothe. When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933, the concept of Deutsche Physik took on more favor as well as fervor; it was anti-Semitic and against theoretical physics, especially against modern physics, including quantum mechanics and both atomic and nuclear physics. As applied in the university environment, political factors took priority over the historically applied concept of scholarly ability, even though its two most prominent supporters were the Nobel Laureates in Physics Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark. Supporters of Deutsche Physik launched vicious attacks against leading theoretical physicists. While Lenard was retired from the University of Heidelberg, he still had significant influence there. In 1934, Lenard had managed to get Bothe relieved of his directorship of the Physical and Radiological Institute at the University of Heidelberg, whereupon Bothe was able to become the Director of the Institut für Physik (Institute for Physics) of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institut für medizinische Forschung (KWImF, Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Medical Research; today, the Max-Planck Institut für medizinische Forschung), in Heidelberg, replacing Karl W. Hauser, who had recently died. Ludolf von Krehl, Director of the KWImF, and Max Planck, President of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Gesellschaft (KWG, Kaiser Wilhelm Society, today the Max Planck Society), had offered the directorship to Bothe to ward off the possibility of his emigration. Bothe held the directorship of the Institute for Physics at the KWImF until his death in 1957. While at the KWImF, Bothe held an honorary professorship at the University of Heidelberg, which he held until 1946. Fleischmann went with Bothe and worked with him there until 1941. To his staff, Bothe recruited scientists including Wolfgang Gentner (1936–1945), Heinz Maier-Leibnitz (1936 – ?) – who had done his doctorate with the Nobel Laureate James Franck and was highly recommended by Robert Pohl and Georg Joos, and Arnold Flammersfeld (1939–1941). Also included on his staff were Peter Jensen and Erwin Fünfer.

In 1938, Bothe and Gentner published on the energy dependence of the nuclear photo-effect. This was the first clear evidence that nuclear absorption spectra are accumulative and continuous, an effect known as the dipolar giant nuclear resonance. This was explained theoretically a decade later by physicists J. Hans D. Jensen, Helmut Steinwedel, Peter Jensen, Michael Goldhaber, and Edward Teller.

Also in 1938, Maier-Leibnitz built a Wilson cloud chamber. Images from the cloud chamber were used by Bothe, Gentner, and Maier-Leibnitz to publish, in 1940, the Atlas of Typical Cloud Chamber Images, which became a standard reference for identifying scattered particles.

First German cyclotron
By the end of 1937, the rapid successes Bothe and Gentner had with the building and research uses of a Van de Graaff generator had led them to consider building a cyclotron. By November, a report had already been sent to the President of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Gesellschaft (KWG, Kaiser Wilhelm Society; today, the Max Planck Society), and Bothe began securing funds from the Helmholtz-Gesellschaft (Helmholtz Society; today, the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres), the Badischen Kultusministerium (Baden Ministry of Culture), I.G. Farben, the KWG, and various other research oriented agencies. Initial promises led to ordering a magnet from Siemens in September 1938, however, further financing then became problematic. In these times, Gentner continued his research on the nuclear photoeffect, with the aid of the Van de Graaff generator, which had been upgraded to produce energies just under 1 MeV. When his line of research was completed with the 7Li (p, gamma) and the 11B (p, gamma) reactions, and on the nuclear isomer 80Br, Gentner devoted his full effort to the building of the planned cyclotron.

To facilitate the construction of the cyclotron, at the end of 1938 and into 1939, with the help of a fellowship from the Helmholtz-Gesellschaft, Gentner was sent to Radiation Laboratory of the University of California (today, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) in Berkeley, California. As a result of the visit, Gentner formed a cooperative relationship with Emilio G. Segrè and Donald Cooksey.

After the armistice between France and Germany in the summer of 1940, Bothe and Gentner received orders to inspect the cyclotron Frédéric Joliot-Curie had built in Paris. While it had been built, it was not yet operational. In September 1940, Gentner received orders to form a group to put the cyclotron into operation. Hermann Dänzer from the University of Frankfurt participated in this effort. While in Paris, Gentner was able to free both Frédéric Joliot-Curie and Paul Langevin, who had been arrested and detained. At the end of the winter of 1941/1942, the cyclotron was operational with a 7-MeV beam of deuterons. Uranium and thorium were irradiated with the beam, and the byproducts were sent to Otto Hahn at the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institut für Chemie (KWIC, Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry, today, the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry), in Berlin. In mid-1942, Gentner's successor in Paris, was Wolfgang Riezler from Bonn.

It was during 1941 that Bothe had acquired all the necessary funding to complete construction of the cyclotron. The magnet was delivered in March 1943, and the first beam of deuteron was emitted in December. The inauguration ceremony for the cyclotron was held on 2 June 1944. While there had been other cyclotrons under construction, Bothe's was the first operational cyclotron in Germany.

Uranium Club
The German nuclear energy project, also known as the Uranverein (Uranium Club), began in the spring of 1939 under the auspices of the Reichsforschungsrat (RFR, Reich Research Council) of the Reichserziehungsministerium (REM, Reich Ministry of Education). By 1 September, the Heereswaffenamt (HWA, Army Ordnance Office) squeezed out the RFR and took over the effort. Under the control of the HWA, the Uranverein had its first meeting on 16 September. The meeting was organized by Kurt Diebner, advisor to the HWA, and held in Berlin. The invitees included Walther Bothe, Siegfried Flügge, Hans Geiger, Otto Hahn, Paul Harteck, Gerhard Hoffmann, Josef Mattauch, and Georg Stetter. A second meeting was held soon thereafter and included Klaus Clusius, Robert Döpel, Werner Heisenberg, and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker. With Bothe being one of the principals, Wolfgang Gentner, Arnold Flammersfeld, Rudolf Fleischmann, Erwin Fünfer, and Peter Jensen were soon drawn into work for the Uranverein. Their research was published in the Kernphysikalische Forschungsberichte (Research Reports in Nuclear Physics); see below the section Internal Reports.

For the Uranverein, Bothe, and up to 6 members from his staff by 1942, worked on the experimental determination of atomic constants, the energy distribution of fission fragments, and nuclear cross sections. Bothe's erroneous experimental results on the absorption of neutrons in graphite were central in the German decision to favor heavy water as a neutron moderator. His value was too high; one conjecture being that this was due to air between the graphite pieces with the nitrogen having high neutron absorption. However the experimental setup involved a sphere of Siemens electro-graphite submerged in water, no air being present. The error in fast neutron cross-section was due to impurities in the Siemens product: "even the Siemens electro-Graphite contained Barium and Cadmium, both ravenous neutron-absorbers." In any event, there were so few staff or groups that they could not repeat experiments to check results, although in fact a separate group at Gottingen, led by Wilhelm Hanle, determined the cause of Bothe's error: "Hanle's own measurements would show that carbon, properly prepared, would in fact work perfectly well as a moderator, but at a cost of production in industrial quantities ruled prohibitive by [German] Army Ordnance".

By late 1941 it was apparent that the nuclear energy project would not make a decisive contribution to ending the war effort in the near term. HWA control of the Uranverein was relinquished to the RFR in July 1942. The nuclear energy project thereafter maintained its kriegswichtig (important for the war) designation and funding continued from the military. However, the German nuclear power project was then broken down into the following main areas: uranium and heavy water production, uranium isotope separation, and the Uranmaschine (uranium machine, i.e., nuclear reactor). Also, the project was then essentially split up between nine institutes, where the directors dominated the research and set their own research agendas. Bothe's Institut für Physik was one of the nine institutes. The other eight institutes or facilities were: the Institute for Physical Chemistry at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, the HWA Versuchsstelle (testing station) in Gottow, the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Chemie, the Physical Chemistry Department of the University of Hamburg, the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik, the Second Experimental Physics Institute at the Georg-August University of Göttingen, the Auergesellschaft, and the II. Physikalisches Institut'' at the University of Vienna.

Post–WW II
From 1946 to 1957, in addition to his position at the KWImF, Bothe was an ordentlicher Professor at the University of Heidelberg.

At the end of World War II, the Allies had seized the cyclotron at Heidelberg. In 1949, its control was returned to Bothe.

During 1956 and 1957, Bothe was a member of the Arbeitskreis Kernphysik (Nuclear Physics Working Group) of the Fachkommission II "Forschung und Nachwuchs" (Commission II "Research and Growth") of the Deutschen Atomkommission (DAtK, German Atomic Energy Commission). Other members of the Nuclear Physics Working Group in both 1956 and 1957 were: Werner Heisenberg (chairman), Hans Kopfermann (vice-chairman), Fritz Bopp, Wolfgang Gentner, Otto Haxel, Willibald Jentschke, Heinz Maier-Leibnitz, Josef Mattauch, Wolfgang Riezler, Wilhelm Walcher, and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker. Wolfgang Paul was also a member of the group during 1957.

At the end of 1957, Gentner was in negotiations with Otto Hahn, President of the Max-Planck Gesellschaft (MPG, Max Planck Society, successor of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Gesellschaft), and with the Senate of the MPG to establish a new institute under their auspices. Essentially, Walther Bothe's Institut für Physik at the Max-Planck Institut für medizinische Forschung, in Heidelberg, was to be spun off to become a full fledged institute of the MPG. The decision to proceed was made in May 1958. Gentner was named the director of the Max-Planck Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK, Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics) on 1 October, and he also received the position as an ordentlicher Professor at the University of Heidelberg. Bothe had not lived to see the final establishment of the MPIK, as he had died in February of that year.

Bothe was a German patriot who did not give excuses for his work with the Uranverein. However, Bothe's impatience with Nazi policies in Germany brought him under suspicion and investigation by the Gestapo.

Personal
As a result of his incarceration in Russia during World War I as a prisoner of war, he met Barbara Below, whom he married in 1920. They had two children. She preceded him in death by some years.

Bothe was an accomplished painter and musician; he played the piano.

Honors
Bothe was awarded a number of honors:

 * Member of the Academy of Sciences of Göttingen
 * Member of the Academy of Sciences of Heidelberg
 * Corresponding Member of the Saxon Academy of Sciences, Leipzig
 * Grand Cross of the Order for Federal Services
 * 1952 – Knight of the Order of Merit for Sciences and the Arts
 * 1953 – Max-Planck-Medaille  of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft
 * 1954 – Nobel Prize in Physics "for the coincidence method and his discoveries made therewith". Bothe received half of the prize; the other half was awarded to Max Born.
 * 19178 Walterbothe, asteroid named after him.

Internal reports
The following reports were published in Kernphysikalische Forschungsberichte (Research Reports in Nuclear Physics), an internal publication of the German Uranverein. The reports were classified Top Secret, they had very limited distribution, and the authors were not allowed to keep copies. The reports were confiscated under the Allied Operation Alsos and sent to the United States Atomic Energy Commission for evaluation. In 1971, the reports were declassified and returned to Germany. The reports are available at the Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center and the American Institute of Physics.

 * Walther Bothe Die Diffusionsläge für thermische Neutronen in Kohle G12 (7 June 1940)
 * Walther Bothe Die Abmessungen endlicher Uranmaschinen G-13 (28 June 1940)
 * Walther Bothe Die Abmessungen von Maschinen mit rücksteuendem Mantel G-14 (17 July 1941)
 * Walther Bothe and Wolfgang Gentner Die Energie der Spaltungsneutronen aus Uran G-17 (9 May 1940)
 * Walther Bothe Einige Eigenschaften des U und der Bremsstoffe. Zusammenfassender Bericht über die Arbeiten G-66 (28 March 1941)
 * Walther Bothe and Arnold Flammersfeld Die Wirkungsquerschnitte von 38 für thermische Neutronen aus Diffusionsmessungen G-67 (20 January 1941)
 * Walther Bothe and Arnold Flammersfeld Resonanzeinfang an einer Uranoberfläche G-68 (8 March 1940)
 * Walther Bothe and Arnold Flammersfeld Messungen an einem Gemisch von 38-Oxyd und –Wasser; der Vermehrungsfakto K unde der Resonanzeinfang w. G-69 (26 May 1941)
 * Walther Bothe and Arnold Flammersfeld Die Neutronenvermehrung bei schnellen und langsamen Neutronen in 38 und die Diffusionslänge in 38 Metall und Wasser G-70 (11 July 1941)
 * Walther Bothe and Peter Jensen Die Absorption thermischer Neutronen in Elektrographit G-71 (20 January 1941)
 * Walther Bothe and Peter Jensen Resonanzeinfang an einer Uranoberfläche G-72 (12 May 1941)
 * Walther Bothe and Arnold Flammersfeld Versuche mit einer Schichtenanordnung von Wasser und Präp 38 G-74 (28 April 1941)
 * Walther Bothe and Erwin Fünfer Absorption thermischer Neutronen und die Vermehrung schneller Neutronen in Beryllium G-81 (10 October 1941)
 * Walther Bothe Maschinen mit Ausnutzung der Spaltung durch schnelle Neutronen G-128 (7 December 1941)
 * Walther Bothe Über Stahlenschutzwäne G-204 (29 June 1943)
 * Walther Bothe Die Forschungsmittel der Kernphysik G-205 (5 May 1943)
 * Walther Bothe and Erwin Fünfer Schichtenversuche mit Variation der U- und D2O-Dicken G-206 (6 December 1943)
 * Fritz Bopp, Walther Bothe, Erich Fischer, Erwin Fünfer, Werner Heisenberg, O. Ritter, and Karl Wirtz Bericht über einen Versuch mit 1.5 to D2O und U und 40 cm Kohlerückstreumantel (B7) G-300 (3 January 1945)

Selected literature

 * Walther Bothe and Hans Geiger Ein Weg zur experimentellen Nachprüfung der Theorie von Bohr, Kramers und Slater, Z. Phys. Volume 26, Number 1, 44 (1924)
 * Walther Bothe Theoretische Betrachtungen über den Photoeffekt, Z. Phys. Volume 26, Number 1, 74–84 (1924)
 * Walther Bothe and Hans Geiger Experimentelles zur Theorie von Bohr, Kramers und Slater, Die Naturwissenschaften Volume 13, 440–441 (1925)
 * Walther Bothe and Hans Geiger Über das Wesen des Comptoneffekts: ein experimenteller Beitrag zur Theories der Strahlung, Z. Phys. Volume 32, Number 9, 639–663 (1925)
 * W. Bothe and W. Gentner Herstellung neuer Isotope durch Kernphotoeffekt, Die Naturwissenschaften Volume 25, Issue 8, 126–126 (1937). Received 9 February 1937. Institutional affiliation: Institut für Physik at the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institut für medizinische Forschung.
 * Walther Bothe The Coincidence Method, The Nobel Prize in Physics 1954, Nobelprize.org (1954)

Books

 * Walther Bothe Der Physiker und sein Werkzeug (Gruyter, 1944)
 * Walther Bothe and Siegfried Flügge Kernphysik und kosmische Strahlen. T. 1 (Dieterich, 1948)
 * Walther Bothe Der Streufehler bei der Ausmessung von Nebelkammerbahnen im Magnetfeld (Springer, 1948)
 * Walther Bothe and Siegfried Flügge (editors) Nuclear Physics and Cosmic Rays FIAT Review of German Science 1939–1945, Volumes 13 and 14 (Klemm, 1948)
 * Walther Bothe Theorie des Doppellinsen-b-Spektrometers (Springer, 1950)
 * Walther Bothe Die Streuung von Elektronen in schrägen Folien (Springer, 1952)
 * Walther Bothe and Siegfried Flügge Kernphysik und kosmische Strahlen. T. 2 (Dieterich, 1953)
 * Karl H. Bauer and Walther Bothe Vom Atom zum Weltsystem (Kröner, 1954)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Walther Bothe


text: Talk:Louis Riel

title: Talk:Louis Riel


text:
Talk:Royal Proclamation of 1763

Name of article
I moved this to remove the national POV – the previous title omitted British. Trontonian 19:53, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I am moving it back on the basis of the rule of using the most common name. "Royal Proclamation of 1763" is much more common. Furthermore, it is well-recognised, and, I believe, not POV (given that there is no other nation with a Royal Proclamation of 1763). -- Emsworth 01:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and it is a pity that if you type Royal Proclamation in the wikipedia search box you do not come to this article.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncertain Line at NS-MA border
The map shows the Proclamation Line conveniently following the Nova Scotia-Massachusetts border (the current Maine-New Brunswick border). The article at Thirteen Colonies also uses this map, but then shows another indicating the line ran east to the Bay of Chaleurs, not south along the intercolonial boundary, as this indicates. This suggests that all of Nova Scotia (including today's New Brunswick) was within the coastal zone (and should be colored red), not outside (pink). So what's the truth? And if this map is correct, why would the Line discriminate between the areas of today's Maine and New Brunswick? Both were coastal British colonies. Further, this map refers to a 1775 date, not 1763, causing some confusion. Any clarifications are welcome. Yoho2001 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The line does not follow the NS/MA border. It actually continues roughly Northeast into the Gulf of St Lawrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.75.254 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Area east and west of the line?
I would think this would be basic reference data, but I don't see any info on how much, area-wise, of British-held North America was east or west of the line. 96.241.155.5 (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Royal Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

title: Talk:Royal Proclamation of 1763


text:
Talk:Vision and prophecy

Untitled
I don't wish to be a killjoy, but in a lot of contexts Vision and Prophecy are not the same thing. In a Biblical context they are quite different. Even in common usage Prophecy is usually considered a foretelling, while a vision may be of the past, present, future or non-existant events. DJ Clayworth 19:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I moved the page from Vision / Prophecy but I'm still not convinced this is the best title for it. Angela 23:24, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vision and prophecy