Talk:Euro/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Official Bulgarian Transliteration of EURO is ЕВРО as of 13 December 2007

As of 13 December all EU institutions -inc. ECB - use ЕВРО as the OFFICIAL Bulgarian transliteration of EURO. The dispute with the ECB has been resolved in Bulgaria's favor. All the references to the single EU currency in Bulgarian on ECB's website have been changed from ЕУРО to ЕВРО. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.97.200.144 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Official link? --Dima1 (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"The word euro will be spelled 'евро' /evro/ in Bulgarian instead of 'еуро'/euro/. All the Member States have given their consent for the word to keep its originalBulgarian spelling 'евро' /evro/ instead of 'еуро' /euro/ as the European Central Bank insisted. The news was announced by the Portugal Prime Minister Jose Socrates."

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kuneva/media/press_review_2226102007_en.pdf

The European Central Banks switched to using ЕВРО, instead of ЕУРО, on their website late last year. If you had visited their website before December 2007 you would have seen them using ЕУРО.

http://www.ecb.int/bc/euro/html/index.bg.html

Problem with map showing Eurozone

It says Montengro uses the Euro, but it shows Bosnia Herzegovina as Montenegro. Can someone change this map or can we use another one? 213.214.57.217 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Hicham.Vanborm

confusing sentence

Hi. I'm a bit confused by the second sentence at the top: "It is also used in 9 other countries around the world, 7 of those being in Europe. " What does this really mean? The link at the end of this sentence doesn't really talk about it. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They mean Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Mayotte and Saint Pierre and Miquelon as "countries" with Euro. Those are not countries, but self-governing territories of the UK and France. This sould be changed. (the 6 real countries are Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, Andorra, Kosovo, Montenegro). --BIL (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You call those "real" countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.227.98 (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to It is also used in five further countries with formal agreements and six other countries without such agreements. --Red King (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This business with formal agreements with other countries doesn't make sense to me. St. Pierre & Miquelon, St. Martin, et al., are all parts of France, UK, etc. It's like saying Puerto Rico and Guam have a formal agreement to use the USD, or Okinawa to use the Yen. These territories/states/provinces etc. should be cut as they overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.155.164 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Stagflation

An anon user has twice inserted a claim in Euro#Criticism that http://www.thetimes.co.za/Careers/Article.aspx?id=780641 is a citation that supports a criticism of the euro that it causes stagflation. First, the article does not say that, it merely says (from currency speculator's point of view) that the EUR/USD rate has reached its maximum and may be expected to retrench. The stagflation risks are real, but they are present in many non euro economies too - see

• Asia, Korea: Asian inflation accelerates despite signs of slowing growth - FT
• USA Stagflation, Not Strong Growth, Justifies Pause: Gene Sperling - Bloomberg
• UK The new stagflation - Growthbusiness

The euro is not perfect, but let's not tilt at windmills. --Red King (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Ssolbergj has removed the criticism section from the page. I disagree with his removal since it does add something to page. It needs to better referenced but reading though the section, there nothing that appears to be completely false, just needs to be referenced. Thoughts? Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read this well thought through consensus among editors of the EU article (imagine it says "euro" instead of "EU" and you've got my argument). "Many critics claim..." is a perfect example of how not to write a neutral article. One thing is to provide references and clean up, but a more important principle is that criticism sections should be avoided. The standpoints of critics should be neutrally and encyclopedicly integrated into other sections. - SSJ ☎ 15:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't say euro, it says EU. There is a difference between the two and offering a list of criticism that people/groups have made against the euro is valid. I have no problems with moving these criticism to other sections but just deleting the content without moving it to other sections is not the way to go. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, we agree that a critisism section isn't the ideal thing. But additionally, most sentences that's currently in the section, is uncited and written in a biased way. Ergo; most of it is uncited crap, so for now, deletion is justifable. If that doesn't happen, I think the need for references, rewriting and relocating is acute. That's my point. - SSJ ☎ 19:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

..And it was tagged since september 2007 so it was just deleted by some other editor. Good for now. - SSJ ☎ 19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Price parity

This section presents theory ("prices on commonly traded goods are likely to converge, causing inflation in some regions and deflation in others during the transition") but what happened in reality?? The one cited piece of evidence is pre 2002-01-01. Very weak section, probably should be removed. Vyyjpkmi (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Economics of the euro

It's not just the price parity paragraph, the whole economics section is amateuristic, for example nothing about the size advantage for capital markets. Besides, the section is written as if time stood still after 2002-01-01, everything is formulated as an anticipation of what's to come. This section needs a few euro experts, with sources at their fingertips. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Economics of the euro section is weak, to wit: (1) mostly, the section anticipates the introduction of the euro (the section repeats theory) rather then describing actual outcomes after 2002-01-01; (2) the section is full of assertions without references of reliable sources; (3) the section does not address what is certainly among the most important economic benefits of the euro, the improved working of capital markets and the efficient allocation of capital in Europe; and (4) the section fails to address the downstream roadblocks to further economic integration that have become apparent with the introduction of the euro. Given the subject matter, we need an expert or two (with reliable sources at the ready, for one example among many more sources, this EU website points to a treasure trove of data, even if the data may not be useful without expert interpretation) to fix the section, in this case amateurs won’t do, particularly because there are so many sides to this technical matter – therefore the red flag of the “expert needed” tag. Please leave the tag until there is substantial change in the section. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Irish for euro

Just wondering, what is the justification for this? I see the note on the translation department but I don't care. Nobody uses "eoró". Not even government legislation. For example: No. 38/1998: ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION ACT, 1998 (Irish displayed in left frame). Last time I checked individual words were not regulated by the EU. I'm pretty sure Foras na Gaeilge's usage is more important, and focal.ie, the only online dictionary endorsed by FnG (as evidenced by prominent link here) lists "euro" as the only translation for the English word [1]. An EU translation department's usage is insignificant. The only majorly influential bodies are:

1. Government usage (if I'm not mistaken, the government is supposed to always use An Caighdeán Oifigiúil, and if so, it evidently does not include "eoró")
2. Department of Education usage
3. Foras na Gaeilge usage

None of the above use "eoró" (except maybe DoE in examinations when an extract from something else does). - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 12:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

denmark

denmark has not adopted the euro and has been part of the eu for a very long time, however in the list at "Post-2004 EU members" sweden appears. sweden has been in the eu since the 90's. so why is sweden on the list? or why is denmark not on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.243 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You might be confused with the table titled "Remaining currencies on track to be migrated", which is at the same level of the section "post-2004". Both Sweden and Denmark are explained in the Pre-2004 section, if you read that you will understand why Denmark is not in the previous table I mentioned and Sweden it is. I hope that helps, Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cuba

I understand that Cuba is accepting Euros now. As yet I don't have a link for this.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Found this:- http://www.cubatravelusa.com/currency_cuba_Nov_2004.htm <<< Worth mentioning in the article? Objections?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused, Cuba does not accept euros or any other foreign currencies in the main establishments in Havana or any other cities, only Cuban Convertible Pesos (currency code CUC) are allowed. There is only one beach resort (Varadero), that is frequently visit by European citizens. Only in this resort prices are shown in Cuban Convertible Pesos and euros. What the article you referenced means is that since December 2004, it is better NOT TO bring US dollars to Cuba, since there is an extra fee wehn converting them and your dollars will be devaluated almost 20% of the real value. I lived in Cuba for a long time and I still go there once every two years or so, I always bring with me either Japanese Yen or Canadian Dollars, just to avoid the extra conversion fee mentioned in the article. But I could not use them (not even euros), I would have to convert them first to Cuban Convertible Peso (now pegged to the USD at 1 CUC = 1.08 USD). I hope that clarifies the situation. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking for something else I found this [[2]] (in Spanish). They are accepting euros in Cuba not only in Varadero, but in a lot of other tourist spots. It is interesting that you can use them almost everywhere: hotels, rent a cars, shops, restaurants ... etc. I thought it may be of interest. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this worth mentioning in the article then? An example of the Eurozone unofficially extending way beyond Europe's borders? Seems important?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Its more of a Cuba issue than a euro issue isn't it? Accepting foreign currencies at tourist hotspots is hardly big news (only for Cuba in the context of isolation - but as I say, that is a cuba issue). What would be news was if the locals were using it. And we do mention Cuba I think in terms of trading currency.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"What would be news was if the locals were using it" ... it is news then, in those tourist spots, locals and tourist can pay in euros. However, I do not think is clearly received/accepted among the locals. I do agree however, that this is not a euro issue. Miguel.mateo (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Homer euro

should we add info about the homer simpson euro? 75.52.123.217 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well do you have info about this "homer euro" ? -- CD 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Who needs info, from the name I think the answer is a clear and definate "no!"- J Logan ^t: 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Did a google, not as bad as I thought but it really isn't notable for this article. Maybe if we had a specific one on counter-fitting - or maybe if someone knows how it can be squeezed into the commemorative coins article! - J Logan ^t: 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This coin has no place on the euro commemorative coins article.Kevin hipwell (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was actually talking with sarcasm as I thought it was some kind of joke -- CD 10:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation ...

... I can add at least 10 more samples of the use of EURO to the top of the article. Shall I do that so everyone is clear that this should not take place? In the disambiguation page is clearly stated all the different uses of Euro, so why do we have to treat the UEFA cup differently? IMHO, only a link to the disambiguation place is accepted.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't include a stub if you want to get a point across. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, the fact you answered this post is enough for me. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant says the user who adds a white supremacy stub and compares it to one of the most widely watched sports tournaments in the world. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, irrelevant is that "the most widely watched sports tournaments in the world" needs to be referenced from the Euro article, just because some people call it like that; for that reason we have the disambiguation pages (BTW, I thought the "most watched ..." was the Beijing Olympics, but that is irrelevant too). Would you accept if I put a {{for}} tag in the top of the UEFA article pointing to this article? Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people calling it the Euro is an understatement. Also, you're misquoting me since I stated that it's one of the most widely watched, not the most widely watched. Adding a tag on the top of the UEFA article that directs a reader to this article is fine and vice versa. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, disambiguation is enough - there are loads of articles, people can just go to the disambiguation page for them, no need for a direct link.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Euros" and "cents" as non-legislative plurals

To stop the editing and reediting of this page what is the proper pural of euro and cent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.53.61 (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The official position is euro and cent, I think thought that needs to be written in the prose somewhere so we avoid this problems in the future, I will try to do that later. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

as far as i know, the rule is only for legislations and official documents issued by the goverments - irrespective of the language the term euro and cent should be used both in singular and plural. But in articles, TV, media .... euros and cents can be used - the local term can also be used e.g. in the maltese on the tv they wouldnt say euro and cent but ewro and centezmu/i --Melitikus (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The English-language natural plurals, i.e. the ones that are correct and commonly used, are "euros" and "cents". 87.175.20.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The situation has changed somewhat since 2004

• The spelling of the nominative singular is still clear.
• So is the non-capitalization.
• The singular form of the plural on banknotes would also appear to be a matter of fact.

It has been clear for some time that in normal writing the plural with 's' is usual and preferred by the English public and by the European Commission.

It now also seems to be clear that there is no longer any insistence on the singular form for the plural in official documents such as legislation. I cannot even find any recommendation for this after 2006.

The current position of the ECB, as far as I can establish, is defined in Opinion CON/2005/51 and is that specifically the nominative singular [my emphasis] is "euro"/"cent". Following problems with Lithuania etc., the ECB apparently now avoid any pronouncement on the declension in the different languages.

Reference: European Central Bank (2005-12-13). "Opinion of the European Central Bank of 1 December 2005 on a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 on the introduction of the euro (CON/2005/51)" (pdf). Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved 2008-09-07. For reasons of legal certainty, the ECB recommends that the text of the proposed regulation incorporates in its normative part a provision confirming that 'the spelling of the name of the euro shall be identical in the nominative singular case in all the official languages of the European Union, taking into account the existence of different alphabets. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

There are two relevant EU style guides: the Interinstitutional style guide and the Translation Directorate style guide. Both seem to agree on the spelling "euro" and on non-capitalization. They also now seem to agree on the use of the plural form "euros", though that is less clear.

The style guide of the European Commission Directorate-General for Translation currently says:

20.8 The euro. Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital and, where appropriate, takes the plural ‘s’ (as does ‘cent’):This book costs ten euros and fifty cents[my emphasis]. However, in documents and tables where monetary amounts figure largely,make maximum use of the € symbol (closed up to the figure) or the abbreviation EUR before the amount. English Style Guide: A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission (pdf) (Fifth edition (revised) ed.). European Commission Directorate-General for Translation. 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-04. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The Interinstitutional style guide, (7.3.3. Rules for expressing monetary units http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370303.htm ) currently has a caveat: The text in point 7.3.3 is in draft form and is currently being analysed by the institutions. When it has been finalised you will be notified on the News page of this website. but has the following note (using "euros" in the plural):

When a monetary unit is referred to generally but an amount is not included, it is written in letters, except in tables (see ‘When to use the ISO code (EUR)’):

an amount in euros[my emphasis]

a sum in pounds sterling

As I understand it, both the Translation style guide and the Interinstitutional style guide had different texts prior to 2006, as quoted in ECB Legal Working Paper Series No. 2 / February/March 2006 The Application of Multilingualism in the European Union Context

Old text (February 2006):

Footnote 111

Translation style guide (20.7) "Guidelines on the use of the euro, issued via the Secretariat-General, state that the plurals of both ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are to be written without ‘s’ in English. Do this when amending or referring to legal texts that themselves observe this rule. However, in all other texts, especially documents intended for the general public, use the natural plurals ‘euros’ and ‘cents’ "

Interinstitutional style guide (7.3.1): "In English, the terms euro and cent are invariable (no plural 's'), notwithstanding the acknowledgement in a footnote that ‘The spellingwithout an “s” may be seen as departing from usual English practice for currencies’. Notwithstanding that in Italian, German and Greek the words ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are also used in their plural-less form, in most other languages, including French and Spanish, the name of the single currency tends to vary in the plural, both inofficial and in everyday use."

The note in the Interinstitutional style guide suggests that the matter is under discussion.

See also Linguistic issues concerning the euro, which may also need reviewing.

--Boson (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: It looks to me as if some of the confusion may have been caused by the ECB previously talking about a single (i.e. common) spelling for a single (i.e. common) currency. In the above Opinion (and others) the wording is less ambiguous, using identical rather than single (which could have been misinterptreted as singular): "the spelling of the name of the euro shall be identical in the nominative singular case in all the official languages of the European Union, taking into account the existence of different alphabets". --Boson (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

from http://www.evertype.com/standards/euro/kevin.html which was and article in The Irish Times, 24 July 2002

"BY JOVE, we must be the the toast of Brussels. For we were told to have a non-plural plural for euro and cent, and we promptly obliged, even though it is idiocy, as any attempt to regulate language must be. But apparently it makes politically correct euro-sense to have a meaningless plural, if only because most of the plurals of the old currencies of euroland did not exist – as in deutschmark – or were there but remained silent, as in francs. And obedient to that mad compulsion to impose conformity, our Belgian lingocracy has prescribed one rule across euroland. So: we were told not to use a plural for euro, and obediently we did as instructed, opting for the new EU version of plurality, the pleural: one euro, two euro, one cent, two cent. It sounds ugly, it is ugly, it will always be ugly: but the pleural is proof of our abject euro-compliance, evidence that we are thoroughly good Europeans. To be sure, we will do nothing to defend our eurochums if they are attacked, and we even intend to pass a constitutional referendum so that our studied, pious unfriendship will then be graven in legal stone; but at least we will pronounce our pleurals as we are told to." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.13.81 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Current usage in (past) legislation in English is to use the plural without 'S', as correctly described at http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/InformationWebsite.htm?http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/faq.htm ("Spelling of the words "Euro" and "cent" in official community languages as used in community legislative acts [my emphasis]"), though it should be noted that this site cites Wikipedia on similar topics. This applies (or, at least, applied) specifically to legislation. Because of subsequent changes made to the official style guides one must be very careful to read exactly what the authorites (e.g. the ECB and the EC) write and note the date when it applied. --Boson (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia is not an instance of E.U. legislation, and since the Commission recommends the natural plurals to be used outside of legislation, it should be acceptable to use the natural plurals on the Wikipedia. (This has been the consensus here; check the archived discussion!) -- Evertype·✆ 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter what the EU want or the ECB want what matters is what Wikki wants! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.222.33 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

All of you, quit edit-warring

All of you, stop edit-warring over this now. I've already blocked one editor for violating WP:3RR over this issue; if this continues, I'll protect The Wrong Version. This is what talkpages are for. – iridescent 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some quotes from the ECB

Here are some quotes from the ECB's own publications. The emphasis is mine.:

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2008/html/sp080112.en.html

The successful entry of Malta into the euro area Speech by Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the ECB Keynote address at the Euro Celebrations Valetta, 12 January 2008

"Now, twelve days after the successful introduction of the new currency, I would like to stress that, in the short term, the conversion of prices into euros should not be used as an opportunity to raise prices in an unjustified manner."

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2008/html/sp080213_2.en.html

Keynote speech at the Second Symposium of the ECB-CFS research network on “Capital Markets and Financial Integration in Europe” Speech by Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the ECB at the Second Symposium of the ECB-CFS research network on “Capital Markets and Financial Integration in Europe”, Frankfurt am Main, 13 February 2008

Let me compare some main features of deposit insurance schemes across European countries, starting with coverage. [7] In EU countries, the amount of fully insured deposits per depositor varies between 20,000 euros, the minimum threshold prescribed by the Directive on Deposit Guarantee Schemes, and about 103,000 euros.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2008/html/sp080214_1annex.pdf

China and NMS have lower import price level (euros per kg of EA manufacturing imports)

http://www.ecb.eu/pub/pdf/other/pp81-94_mb200802en.pdf SECURITISATION IN THE EURO AREA

Notes: Includes non-euro area European issuance, such as the issuance of securities with UK collateral. “CDOs” includes securities issued in euros only.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2003/html/sp031027.en.html

The euro in central and eastern Europe Opening remarks by Ms Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell,Member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank,Panel Discussion Euro Finance Week, 27 October 2003 Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt am Main.

The euro is also used as a financing currency. Indeed, countries in the region have been active issuers of bonds in euros.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2001/html/sp010404_2.en.html

"E-economy: will we still need banks in the future?" Speech by Dr. Willem F. Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, at the XVIIth German Banking Congress, Berlin on 4 April 2001

In other words, electronic euros stored on a payment card must have the same value irrespective of when and by whom the card was issued. This important principle has been safeguarded in European legislation through the imposition of a redeemability requirement for e-money.

http://www.ecb.eu/pub/pdf/other/financialstabilityreview200412en.pdf

F I N A N C I A L S TA B I L I T Y R E V I E W D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 4

With the creation of an integrated money market in euros, the importance of funding risk may have declined.

http://www.ecb.eu/paym/cons/shared/files/T2S_urd_management_summary.pdf

T2S User Requirements - Management Summary

The objective is to achieve harmonised and commoditised delivery-versus-payment settlement in central bank money in euros (and possibly other currencies) in substantially all securities in Europe.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2007/html/sp070502.en.html

Economic performance, institutions, and human values Speech by Lucas Papademos, Vice President of the ECB at the Second International Symposium on Universal Values: “Science, Technology and Human Values” The Academy of Athens, Athens, 2 May 2007

other words, Europeans seem to place more value on extra leisure than having a few extra euros in their pockets, while Protestant work ethics and a more materialistic attitude to life drive Americans to work harder.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2001/html/sp010528.en.html

Testimony before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliamentwith the President of the European Central Bank, in accordance with Article 113(3) of the Treaty on European Union

Mr Duisenberg:

As to the reference that Mrs Peijs made to public transport in the Netherlands, who have publicly announced that they will only accept euros as from the lst January and no longer guilders, I share the question with Mrs Peijs, whether that even is legal, and I have my doubts, I must confess.

http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2002/html/sp020123.en.html

Testimony before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliamentwith the President of the European Central Bank, in accordance with Article 113(3) of the Treaty on European Union Introductory statement by Dr. Willem F. Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, Brussels, 23 January 2002

Mr Duisenberg

I quoted the figures, I believe, in my introduction: in the course of last year the currency outstanding total declined by about 100 billion euros and part of that, but only a small part was currency that was returned from outside the euro area.

--Boson (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Future adoptions

AS question for the community:

Does it really make sense to have dates for future adoptions, when this information (although sourced) is subject to speculation? The latest sample is Poland, where sources have cited a government figure saying that the euro will be introduced in Poland in 2011. This is very difficult to believe, particularly because Poland is not even an ERM II member yet.

I have seen sources, also from the Polish government, made a few days later after the previous announcement, which says that what the previous comment really meant was to be accepted by the ECB, not to be using the euro as currency. So the real date of adoption is 2012 and not 2011. I am sure that if I change the articles using this second source, even sourced, this gives a lot of place for speculation and edit-warring. So that is why I have not sourced.

What does people think about the dates, shall we avoid mentioning dates for future adoptions unless is completely real like Slovakia? If agreed we should remove all those dates which more likely change in the near future.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use dates anyway to avoid equality of all countries. In case we remove the dates it would became unclear what states are closer to the euro adoption and what are far away from this date. And the cronological sequence will be lost. --Dima1 (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if they are incorrect? Poland's case is definitely incorrect. I thought Wikipedia is about present and past accuracy and not about future speculation. How can we know which countries "are closer to the euro" without speculating? I vote for no dates and alphabetical order. I could also go for using the official voice of ECB and not other sources; something in those terms will be by far more accurate. As of now, Poland is incorrect, we are showing the public that Wikipedia is incorrect; that is my concern. Just my opinion though ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the records, I hope I am incorrect, I do want all european countries to adopt the euro tomorrow if it were possible ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also for the records, here are the sources: ForexYard, BizPoland and The Gardian UK. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If the dates are incorrect please change them. Just provide reliable sources. The idea I explained is that in case we remove dates of euro adoption (even if they are approximative) it would not be seen the difference between the countries. For example, between Latvia and Romania now it is clear that Latvia is closer to the euro adoption date in comparison to Romania. If there were no dates both Latvia and Romania turn to be equal to the euro adoption date, that is absolutely incorrect. So, I think, it is more speculative fact than approximative date. So, I vote for keeping all the dates like it is now. --Dima1 (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dima1, I do understand that, but really, what makes you think that Latvia is closer than Romania to adopt the euro? Is it because their government said so? We could build an index: how many aspects of the convergence criteria does the country meet, and that is by far more realistic than dates. I do believe that a date given by the government to commit to use the euro does not mean anything about "is that country closer to the euro than the other".

About Poland, I know if I start changing dates in all articles, even sourced as shown, it will create speculation and edit-war; that is the reason why I am against dates in general. All sources will say different things; which one to choose?

Eurozone not largest Economy

The beginning of the article is totally incorrect. The GDP of the Eurozone in terms of PPP is much smaller than that of the USA (just add up the countries and see for yourself), and in terms of GDP (at exchange rates), since the dollar is much stronger than $1.56, the US is also larger than the Eurozone in this method, as well.

--Lee

Fix the data with sources, do not remove it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is the link for Eurozone GDP (PPP). As you can see, it is $3.6 trillion smaller than US GDP.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=163&s=PPPGDP&grp=1&a=1&pr.x=63&pr.y=7

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=111&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=42&pr.y=7

In current exchange rates (before the euro depreciated, meaning that it is now much smaller):

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=163&s=NGDPD&grp=1&a=1&pr.x=42&pr.y=3

I disagree because you're using estimates, the numbers that were original in the article are official 2007 numbers as reported in March 2008. I do agree that the exchange rate would influence the results, but I am against using estimated numbers. Especially, after all this crisis, those numbers will change a lot. Slovakia will join the Eurozone next year, hence more changes to the numbers. I would prefer to wait to update the sources of that portion of the article.

However, I do not feel like taking this battle on my own and I do understand your point. Hence I will leave to the other fellow Wikipedians to correct the article. I think we should put the previous sources, but change the wordings that depending on the exchange rate it can be either the first or the second biggest economy in the world.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

History of the name

The Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union article states that the name "Euro" was adopted for the new currency on 16 December 1995 - however such information is lacking from this article. It's perhaps obvious why "Euro" was chosen but this article needs to state at least the date & perhaps other names that were considered. Mark83 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Overlap between euro and Eurozone articles

I think we should try and limit the overlap between this article and the Eurozone article. I propose to replace the "Eurozone" and the "Future prospects" section of thus article with a short paragraph introcusing the Eurozone article. Merging info into the Eurozone article if appropriate. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, every time that a news come with a new date for one of the future prospects, the information needs to be changed in like five articles. So you have my vote. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye, this has to be a regular thing as more data keeps flooding in there. It only needs to be very basic information.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction with the US dollar

The entry for euro claims that it's the currency most used in international transactions. The entry for United States dollar says the dollar is most used. Which is correct? --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

USD used to be. Right now is EUR, since EU has the largest economy in the world (500 mln people). --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

With this kind of reasoning (as if size of population, or even size of economy, determines volume of use in international transactions) anybody surprised about the lack of quality in Wikipedia’s more technical articles? Unbeatablevalue (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I will have to agree with the first and third comments. I am almost sure that is the USD is the one taking this spot still, let me get into it now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

However, I just looked and I do not managed t ofind the statement in this article that says that the euro is the currency most used in international transactions. Can you please clarify where did you see it? Thaks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It was in the opening paragraphs, and seems to have disappeared since.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral would be EUR is one of the most used currency in international transactions..Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL: "How many is most?” Unbeatablevalue (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a fact that EURO is increasing and will be the super-currency of the world, it's also a fact that USD is declining. We deal with facts here :) --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about future super-currencies we should be talking about the Yuan and the Rupee. I think it would be simplest if both articles said "The Euro and the Dollar are the two currencies most used in international transactions."--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And the WP:RS reliable source to back up this statement is ........... ? Unbeatablevalue (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is a fact that the Euro is increasing and the USD is declining. Unless, of course, you've looked at the exchange rates for the last few months. I think a more reliable statement would be "The Euro had a bubble building around it, and now the United States is trying desperately to keep their currency cheap to prevent a Deflationary Bubble and prevent Europe from imploding due to the fact their currencies have become effectively unbacked paper and if there's a political problem developping in Europe will find its value destroyed due to a lack of a genuine central government or when it stops expanding and people realize how untenable it is." But that wouldn't be Neutral POV, would it? Its certainly more accurate though based on statistics and programs (TARP, market values) than what Qaz says. By the way, since the Euro was overvalued, the European trade imbalance with the rest of the world went out of whack, more than the US, meaning that all the problems effecting the US will head to Europe, but worse. This is also omitting the fact that the sub-prime crisis was effectively worse on Spain than the US, and the European markets are performing worse than the US, and if the crisis honestly started in the US and its somehow the US's fault, why is Europe in far worse economic shape? Could it be the crisis started everywhere and only showed symptoms in the US first?71.247.100.182 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The following should help this discussion. We are trying to determine (or at least to approximate) the shares of USD and EUR in international transactions. First step: Sooner or later most of the money involved in international transactions washes through the foreign exchange markets. So, the shares of USD and EUR in the foreign exchange markets should be a good approximation of the currency shares in international transactions. Second step: The forex market in London is by far the largest in the world. (Daily turnover in London is more than twice the turnover in the world’s second forex market, New York: compare $1683b/d in London, table 1, with $715b/d in New York, first table on first page.) As there is no particular reason why London should favor USD or EUR, and because of the stupefying volumes (more than a trillion USD, each day!) in the London market, the share of the two currencies in the London market is a good approximation of the use of the currencies in international transactions. Third step: Please turn to table 4 of this report, issued by the Bank of England. Table 4 shows that in April 2008 USD had an exclusive 39.5% share in the forex market (79 volume units out of a total of 200 volume units). The same table shows that in April 2008 EUR had an exclusive 20.5% share (41 volume units out of a total of 200 volume units). Fourth step: The previous steps allow us to approximate the USD and EUR shares in international transactions as, respectively, 39.5% and 20.5%. In other words, and roughly speaking, in international transactions the use of USD is used about twice as much as the euro. (BTW, table 5 of the BoE report shows that 29% of ALL transactions are for the USD/EUR pair. The next largest pair, USD/GBP is less than half the size of the USD/EUR pair. In international transactions, the USD/EUR pair is king. Go USD/EUR!) Hope this helps. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. With one remark, EUR is more and more used, and soon will be the next 'super-currency' of the world if I might say. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I like Iterator12n's logic and can see no fault in it. Should we say "The USD is the currency most used in international transactions" under the US Dollar article and "The Euro is the second-most used currency in international transactions, after the US Dollar" under the Euro one, citing the Bank of England as a source?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait, sooner it will be EUR so no rush to lie about 'super' USD when in 2009 USD is way far from what it used to be, and the trend is... should I say it? it's terrible for the poor dollar :) --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I caution against any attempt at predictions in wikipedia :) People have so often been so wrong about the future of the world economy that we should stick to what we know today... Peregrine981 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you count transactions: by counting the number of transactions, or calculating the total amount of money transferred? In the EU there are some people living on one side of a border and working on the other, and these people will cross the border on most days. These people probably often bring credit and debit cards across the border which they use in cash machines and shops, and this probably accounts for a rather big amount of single transactions. On the other hand, the amounts of money are typically relatively small. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Ambigue paragraph

"In 1998, Cuba announced that it would replace the U.S. dollar with the euro as its official currency for the purposes of international trading.[30] On 1 December 2002, North Korea did the same. Syria followed suit in 2006.[31]" Did these countries just announce their plan to switch their international currency, or did they do it? And if so, did they do it in the same year as they announced it?Sijo Ripa (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible map errors

appears to show the Isle of Man as a part of the EU (brown colour). Shouldn't it be marked as a part outside the EU (gray colour)?

Gibraltar appears to be marked as part of the eurozone, but it's hard to tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lowercase article title

I see the point, but I think the article title should be capitalized, as "dollar" or "pound" would be. I think lowercase article titles are meant to be reserved for names that are never capitalized, even at the beginning of a sentence, being used more as symbols or like logos, e.g. e (mathematical constant), iPod, eBay, z/OS. The same rules should apply to names beginning with "euro " and to the corresponding talk pages. --Boson (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

standard symbol for eurocents

SEVEN years after the introduction of the Euro yet there is no standard symbol for euro cents (such as ¢ for the Dollar) then VOTE to choose one! http://www.gaetanomarano.it/eurodesktop/eurodesktop.html posted by gaetano marano in march 31, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.105.234 (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no earthly reason why the cent sign ¢ can't be used for the euro's cents. -- Evertype·✆ 07:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to invent stuff. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Who invented anything? I use the ¢ sign and have since the euro was introduced. I wasn't suggesting that the Wikipedia "invent" anything, I was just making an observation. -- Evertype·✆ 11:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all other nations with cents use the ¢ sign — the Australians and the Irish use a simple "c," just as the British use a "p" to signify pence. But since the Irish are the only English-speaking Eurozone nation, why not use their "c" here on Wikipedia? Makes sense to me. Five cents would become 5c. Having said that, though, I do agree that there is no reason why the ¢ sign should not be used by Eurozone nations. It's there, right? Why write "€ 0,05" or "5 ct" when there's a perfectly lovely symbol available to everyone? SergioGeorgini (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When I see "5c" I see only "five cee". When I see "5¢" I see "five cents". -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the scientific criteria must be adopted. I personally prefer 1 c€ (eurocent=0,01 €), like 1 cm (centimeter) or 1 cg (centigram). And like M€ (1 000 000 €). --Dch (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Those notations would go against English-language conventions in about a dozen ways. It's part continental European, part fantasy. As someone else said, we can't make things up here on Wikipedia. SergioGeorgini (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"On 29 December 2008, the pound sterling fell to an all-time low of £0.97855 (€1.0219/£) against the euro."

I know what it's *trying* to say, but as it stands it's total rot. A pound sterling is £1.00, no more no less.

I won't bother rephrasing it, because some tosser will revert it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.211.25 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Euro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article per the GA Sweeps project.

This is an important article on a foundational subject in wikipedia. I do have some concerns about this article when it is put up against the GA Criteria.

The article is poorly referenced. Links 2, 17, and 20 in the references are dead. Also the "Security Features" site in the External Links section is dead. I have some concerns about the following sections:

• In the Administration section is in-line cite [8] to cover the entire section?
• The final two paragraphs of "The introduction of the Euro" have no in-line cites, this should be addressed since these two paragraphs bring up new information.
• The "Currencies pegged to the Euro" sub section is unreferenced. As is the accompanying map.
• The "Transaction costs and risks" sub section is unreferenced.
• There are several templates in the "Macroeconomic stability" sub section that have been in the article since April 2008.
• The "Flexible exchange rates" sub section is unreferenced.

The article has a couple of copywrited images without Fair Use rationale for their use in the Euro article. These are the images of the coins.

The Lead is a bit underdeveloped. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of all the points in the article, there are a few topics raised in the article that are not in the lead.

Overall the article is a strong article it just needs some work to keep it consistent with the GA Criteria. I will put it on hold for a week pending work. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has been on hold for a week and no work has been done to address the concerns listed above. As such I will delist the article for GA. If the article can be improved and renominated to WP:GAC I am confident it will pass. H1nkles (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Euro/Dollar map

Right now the map states that the Belarusian ruble is pegged to the U.S. Dollar, but it is also pegged to the Euro and Russian Ruble in a currency basket. Because of this the map is somewhat misleading for those not looking into the subject further. I think it might be a good idea to change it.--SelfQ (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also there are some other errors. The Moroccan dirham used by Morocco and the Western Sahara is pegged to the Euro. Also the Jordanian dinar is pegged to the U.S. Dollar, this is shown, but the West Bank also uses the Jordanian dinar and thats not shown. These things are also not mentioned on the map.--SelfQ (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Map fix'd.--SelfQ (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects (moved from talk:€uro).

€uro (not typo)

If €uro (not typo) is ok! why not European €uro a longer form of €uro (not typo) or European Union €uro a longer form of €uro (not typo) showing that it is the Currency of the European Union. Mr Taz (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it is highly unlikely that people will search for those terms. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

This link was recently added:

• Euro Coins Collection Network

It appears to contravene WP:ELNO. Is there some special reason for its inclusion? --Boson (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like WP:ELNO to me too, so I have deleted it. --Red King (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Euro Rates

this: "Against the U.S. dollar, the euro temporarily weakened in 2005, falling to $1.18 (€0.85/$) in July 2005..." does not fit with the chart that says that the lowest euro-dollar rate was in november 2005.

Are this numbers correct?

"With more than €731 billion in circulation as of November 2008 (equivalent to US$1,022 billion at the exchange rates at the time)"

The text is in the first paragraph in the text.