Talk:Potential enlargement of the European Union/Archive 1

"most oppose the accession of a large Muslim country, indicating the opposition from a racist frame of reference"
What is this BS? Racism is about race, not culture or religion! Islam is a brutal, totalitarian culture that has woved to convert, kill or enslave the rest of the world(I have read the Quran so I know what I'm talking about). Who would not oppose nazism which is much less of a threat than Islam? Please remove this accusation of racism written by some naive Halal hippie. Thank you :) 83.92.26.162 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks please. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never heard the terms "religionism" or "culturism", like "racism" is to "race". I think the article is well put, particularly after the recent changes made to the Turkey section.  If this IP user thinks the opposite, he/she can do the changes by him/her-self.  And 100% backup to Andrew:  NPA. My two yen worth opinion ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Norway and high seas fishermen
I'm removing an incorrect and unsourced statement from the section about Norway. See this article and the corresponding discussion page for more information. Dieus (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument makes sense, but I would suggest to change what it used to say here than erase it. What it used to say in this article is correct, but it is not the whole truth... Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Albania's application for candidate could be in 2009 (declaration of Prime Minister)
The previewed year is 2008 for Albania, but such date is unrealistic. Please change it into 2009. See reference --Sulmues 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Nice limits members?
Where does the Nice Treaty state the EU can only have 27 members? It states what happens when the EU has more than 27 members (not every country gets a commissioner), but apart from that...? — Nightstallion 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question, been looking for ages. I have a feeling it is in one of those semi-legal declarations they usually don't stick in the online texts. Or of course they are just hiding it in jargon - you know, when it has that meaning in principle but reads something like "when the Union's territory includes between twenty-six and twenty-eight members and owns a small coffee shop in Sofia, then those countries to the west, south, north and east can not have canteen privileges at EU summits until the treaties are amended to the effect that the vice president of the economic and social committee can not have a second job"... or something. I'm trying to find someone who cites it but they're probably all citing us (maybe including Sarko) so it may take some time.- J.Logan`t : 14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Iceland and EU enlargement
Can someone with more in-depth insight of the issue refer to this and update the page if necessary? Check out the following article: http://euobserver.com/9/26870 It may show certain progress in Iceland towards EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.69.225 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this, this having been mentioned here as well. But I think this might be overly recentist on this - more general - article.  Thing is, there's some reasonable chance this'll just turn out to be a red herring - that Iceland won't end up applying to the EU as a result of all this - and for now I think it probably belongs on the article Iceland and the European Union and not here. Pfainuk talk 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto, way to much detail develops in this article because people add so many small events. Best see what happens, or at least take a much broader view of it (i.e. talk about the economic crisis in general rather than this one event).- J.Logan`t : 09:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Iceland is going to apply for EU membership on the 27th of July 2009, if a resolution on the matter passes through the Icelandic congress. But that is the most likely outcome in this matter, as there appears to be a clear majority for a EU membership application in the congress. Here is a news on the current status on EU matters in Iceland, the news is in english. Since the Icelandic part of the article was written, Iceland has changed government. The main party in the Icelandic government is pro-EU party. There partners are anti-EU party. The status on Iceland-EU relation might change fast in coming weeks. Jonfr (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Icelandic Parliament has sad yes to a EU application, here is the news on that, Iceland's parliament votes in favour of EU bid. Jonfr (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Iceland has formally applied for EU membership, the application can be found here. Jonfr (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

News about the Icelandic EU application can be found here, Iceland applies to join European Union, ANALYSIS-EU fast track for Iceland could dismay other bidders. Jonfr (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Iceland is now marked as potential candidate on EU enlargement website. The website is not ready at this point, but the map has been updated. Jonfr (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This text is wrong and needs to be updated, "Iceland's current ruling party has recently endorsed holding a referendum on opening accession negotiations with the EU. The endorsement comes as a break with traditional Icelandic EU policy, but it is far from clear whether the population would support opening negotiations.[6] If negotiation were opened they would likely be completed relatively quickly as Iceland has already implemented large portions of the EU acquis through the EEA free trade agreement.". This was rejected by the parliament, and Iceland has already submitted it's application. Please update this text. Jonfr (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:European Union maximum enlargement.svg
I don't see "how the geographic criteria is important", it's more like an editor's personal opinion instead of evidence.

As the caption states "IF Greenland rejoined" it's blatantly crystal-balling/speculation("IF?"). Until this moment, not one single piece of evidence shows that Greenland and Russia and Switzerland will join the Union. Naming it "European Union" doesn't necessarily mean it will be an All-Europe Union.

Without any evidence or any schedule, everything is speculative.

116.48.63.112 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that we should remove the whole article since it is pure speculation, why don't you propose it at WP:AfD?


 * The caption clearly says what the map is and there is no speculation about it. Now the word 'if' can not be used in Wikipedia? Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very relevant to show which countries fulfill the goegraphical criteria. Morocco was for example on paper rejected purely because it was not 'considered a European country'. I included Greenland because it has been a part of the EU before, is still de facto considered a part of the European sphere (not many ties with Canada or the US), and it still has a special status in relation to the EU and is still a semi-colony of Denmark. Greenland is a special case, both legally and de facto. For example it is still part of the Council of Europe and the Nordic Council. - SSJ ☎ 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Nightstallion 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, including "If" totally violates policies on no-Original Research and no-speculation. If we can add "if" into Wikipedia content then why not "If EU includes the Western Hemisphere", "If EU conquers the world"(hey, so that we can shade all continents in green, huh?!)219.79.30.145 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Be realistic if you want to be taken serious. That is the geografical limitations of the EU, and that is what the map represents. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be useful to have a map showing all countries currently geographically eligible to EU membership according to the Copenhagen criteria. And there is already an attempt to create such a map in the Copenhagen criteria article, the only problem being that it is unknown what definition of "Europe" the EU uses. According to one definition, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are part of Western Europe, but according to most other definitions, they aren't part of Europe. As far as I know, there is also an EU regulation stating that any non-EU part of Denmark, France and the Netherland (and also of the UK?) may choose to join the EU if it wants to, which would mean that Greenland isn't geographically blocked from joining the EU. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Iceland
I think the intro of the article and the Iceland section need to be rewritten and reliable sources added.

The intro section says:

"However, although Croatia is considered to be the likely next member of EU, the 2008 financial crisis has prompted Iceland to reconsider its opposition to membership. It is expected to apply for membership in 2009 and will be fast-tracked due to the fact it is already heavily integrated into the EU via the European Economic Area (EEA). Due to this, it could join in 2011, alongside Croatia."


 * The first sentence sounds like Iceland has to join because of the financial crisis. What it should sound like is that due to the unusual circumstances Iceland must reevalue it's options. Or something like that.
 * Second sentence: Who expects Iceland to apply for membership in 2009? The EU? These are mere speculations.
 * What are the odds of the country being fast-tracked when the European People's Party thinks that the EU should slow down enlargement after Croatia has joined the union?

The Iceland section says:

'Iceland has never applied for EU membership but is already associated with the union through the EEA (where it has access to the Single market) and the Schengen treaty. As of November 2008, the public opinion in Iceland shows a stable support towards joining the European Union, the only EFTA country with such support.'


 * This paragraph is out-dated. Public support did rise in late 2008 but (my best guess is) because of harsh reactions from the EU toward Iceland when it sought a loan, the public support has dropped significantly and is now 45.5%, whereas support was over 70% (if I remember correctly) in late 2008.

'Like in Norway, fear of losing control over the fishery resources in its territorial waters is the single largest issue keeping Iceland reluctant to join the EU. However, the strong effect of the economic crisis of 2008 on Iceland has accelerated the debate considerably. The formerly ruling conservative Independence Party of former Prime Minister Geir Haarde, hitherto opposed to membership, has rescheduled a party congress from October to January 2009 with the express intent to decide quickly on a membership application, as well as on replacing the hard-hit Icelandic króna with the Euro. Iceland's prime minister has announced the set-up of a commission to investigate joining the European Union. An initial plan has already been drafted by the country's foreign ministry that would see a membership application made in early 2009, aiming for entry some time in 2011.'


 * Fear of losing control over the fishery resources is just one of the reason (although it is probably the most discussed issue) why Iceland has long opposed EU-membership. There are others that should be mentioned, such as other natural resources, cost of EU-membership, sovereignty and independence, Iceland's influence within the EU etc.
 * This is also out-dated: However, the strong effect of the economic crisis of 2008 on Iceland has accelerated the debate considerably. EU debate has been very little since the beginning of 2009 and it's almost as if everybody has forgot about it.
 * Now the part about the former prime minister suddenly wanting to join the EU and replace the currency with the Euro is just plain wrong.
 * The commission's objectives are to monitor the EU and development within the union, not to investigate joining the EU. The Independence Party is still very much opposed to joining the EU.
 * The so called plan being drafted which is metioned above does not exist. The foreign minstry conformed this and it has been removed from the article Iceland and the European Union.

I think the main problem with this is that no Iceland sources are used. Only speculations from EUobserver and The Guardian which don't seem to reflect what the media in Iceland is saying.

--Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is indeed true since Iceland has not officially responded whether to join the EU or not. While the EU seems welcoming of Iceland joining the union, Iceland has not discussed about joining the EU recently. I googled 'Iceland and EU', and most of the info is out-dated. Usually, this would mean that Iceland would not be joining the EU since it has lost interest. 71.104.93.168 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Like in Norway, fear of losing control over the fishery resources in its territorial waters is the single largest issue keeping Iceland reluctant to join the EU. Fisheries might be the single largest issue, that doesn't mean that the loss of territorial controle is the single largest issue. There is another big fishery related point has been stressed by Norwegian fishery related organisations after "the Icelandic EU-debate" began: Norwegian fisheries are in general, compared to both EU and Icelandic fishieries, less industrialised. In other words the % of fishermen in their own small boats who supply fish to landbased fish factories is much bigger than in most of EU/Iceland. Hence, that Iceland might join the EU does not seem to "move" the fish-concerned among the EU-sceptics and the biggest fishermen organisations comment on it as something more or less irrelevant for them. --Tordenskrall (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Iceland
Is there a reference for Iceland actually lodging the application? As far as I have read they have only voted in favour of doing so. In fact, they apparently intend to submit it to the general and foreign affairs council meeting in Brussels on the 27th.- J.Logan`t : 08:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the reference I made was broken. Fixid it now. Grioghair (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia
I have nothing against Macedonians but since EU still refers to this state as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" the articles about EU should use the this name.195.114.112.247 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * it is rather long, and is mentioned. How about first usage in the full name, just Macedonia after that? There is no chance of confusion with the Greek province afterall.- J.Logan`t : 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Use an acronym, as with other long names. FYROM is shorter than Macedonia. The Homosexualist (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This page follows the consensus at WP:MOSMAC2, following an Arbcom case, considered "binding and enforceable". There being no disambiguation required in this case, consensus requires that we use "Macedonia". Pfainuk talk 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought there was some rule behind it, thought it was looser. Right ho, logical.- J.Logan`t : 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

new sections in the article - western and eastern europe
I see the reasoning behind this division, but I think that at least for Northern Cyprus we should add some clarification in the text, as it is eastern geographicaly. Alinor (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Renamed "dependencies" to "special territories" and moved it there. Alinor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No way you can say northern cyprus is a territory, it is an unrecognised de facto independent state. Given it its own header.- J.Logan`t : 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't "western", it isn't "dependency", thus I just used the name of the article that deals with the "special cases". In some sense Northern Cyprus is a territory of a member state - at least claimed by a member state... And the most probable way of interaction with the EU for Northern Cyprus is trough the unification process - to unify the current member state Cyprus with the Northern Cyprus "entity" in some way... Alinor (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that is totally misleading, you can't group it together with dependencies, it is not a territory of in any respect, it is a break away state, the other decencies are autonomous divisions of member states.- J.Logan`t : 12:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that you agreed with me: "I think it would actually be safe to stick northern cyprus with the dependencies in this case as it is an enlargement via an existing state" (in your reply in the above section), that's why I put it back there. Alinor (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was only talking about the map in that instance, as we needed to keep categories down are the issue was slightly different, rather than the grouping of dependencies it was more the form of their accession. We could perhaps stick them under the same heading in the article but a) I don't think there is a short way to sum it up and b) there is no need, it will only fuzz the political issue regarding Cyprus.- J.Logan`t : 15:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The EU does not plan to include the microstates, since the EU is not designed with microstates in mind.
As far as I know the EU does not plan to include any state that is not a candidate country or official potential candidate - eg. these covered by the DG Enlargement. And additionally I have reservations about the "not designed with microstates in mind". Malta, one "small" state, is already a member. Iceland and Liechtenstein are already EEA members (thus already deeply integrated in the economic structures of the EU) and Iceland has even applied for the EU (and the initial response is very positive from the EU side). I don't want to speculate, but just imagine that Liechtestein also applies - do you expect that the EU will respond "you are too small to join" instead of "OK, if you fulfill the established criteria, we will do the required arrangements"? Monaco and San Marino have similar populations to Liechtenstein, Andorra has twice. I don't see any established population/area/GDP criteria for EU membership, but maybe we should add details about potential problems to be solved if such microstates apply. Alinor (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Table on progress of negotiations
The table on the progress of negotiations in this article does not match those found in the articles for the accessions of Turkey and Croatia (no such table exists for Montenegro). After checking the first five chapters of the acquis in each table I have discovered several inconsistencies. The table for Turkey, while matching in rankings, does not match the color code used here. It would seem to be more useful to have a consistent color scheme for these tables to increase ease of reading. Croatia's discrepancies are more significant. On this page the first three chapters are listed as having "considerable difficulties", but on Croatia's accession page those same chapters are listed as "no major difficulties expected". These are quite different ratings. Could someone with more familiarity with the subject examine these tables and correct/update them as needed? Khajidha (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The table on the main article was color-coded according to the EC Reports for the "Situation of policy area at the START of membership negotiations" (eg. 2005 reports). I assume that it is still color-coded the same. Maybe the individual articles are color-coded according to the CURRENT situation (most recent EC Report) and that's why there are differences. Alinor (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Croatia to join EU in 2012 very likely together with the rest of the West Balkans
Here are some links from official EU sources which can prove that Croatia could join EU in 2012 or later, very likely in a package with the other West Balkan countries; This is also due to the fact that SAME language is spoken in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro, so that it's a logical thing for them to join together or in very close time intervals. Some people's wishes presented in your article are one, but the reality is a totally different thing. Read and enjoy:)):

http://www.javno.com/en-croatia/advisor--balkan-countries-into-the-eu-together_218190

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/newsbriefs/2009/06/03/nb-01

regards;207.216.132.157 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that some in the Commission are considering this, as one possible option, but I highly doubt it will happen. Croatia is light years ahead of the other candidates, and I doubt that EU authorities will be able to stall Croatia long enough to make this a realistic possibility. Maybe they'll enter with Iceland. Anyway, it's all speculation and we should probably stay away from it as much as possible. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Regards too. It's not quite true that Croatia is light years ahead of the other candidates; maybe it is ahead just in some segments of the system, nothing else. Also, the newest EU enlargement reports that were presented on the net, say that it's considered to enter EU in 2012 ONLY if the 'heavy arms diaries' (which contain all the crimes that the croatian forces have done attacking civilians in Serbian Krajina) are presented to Haag Tribunal and Croatia admits its responsibility for them. Knowing today's nationalistically influenced cro-government, this might not happen untill the date which many EU circles appoint as an entry of the rest of the West Balkan to EU-the year 2014, which will mean that all the West Balkans (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia...) might enter EU together in 2014. As one serbian/croatian/bosnian/montenegrin proverb says: -'Zivi bili pa vidjeli' (-'May we be alive and see' or 'Let's wait and see'); Regards;207.216.132.157 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, light years might be a stretch. But they are several years ahead of their colleagues in terms of the actual negotiations. There's still plenty of work to be done which is why my original position was that 2010 is beyond unlikely. Who knows what happens, but in comparison to Bosnia and Serbia, and even Albania they are certainly way ahead in terms of actual accession.Peregrine981 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Croatia has already started and almost concluded the negotiations - the other states have not yet done this - even if they are technicaly ready, more advanced, etc. - going trough the process will take time (not mentioning the years it takes for just lodging application, getting it trough the EU decision process to get just a candidate status, then more time to start negotiations, etc.), so I think that it's not realistic to expect any country to join in 2012 together with Croatia. It is doubtfull even for Iceland, that is more advanced/prepared/etc. than all of the other candidates (regardless if some future referendum approves or rejects membership). Alinor (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone is to join in 2012, it will be Croatia and Iceland. The rest of the Western Balkans will take much longer. IJA (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Croatia is much furder advanced than other Balkan states, but it is not 100% sure that they want be taken in one packet. Reasons for that can be for example stability of the region like in case of Romania and Bulgaria.--Alexmilt (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Greenland update, maybe worth mentioning
In a November 2008 referendum, Greenlandic people voted to further loosen tights with Denmark, seeking for more self-government. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually they've now become their own independent nation due to a national referendum. So they no longer qualify to be in the EU. Yeah that should be mentioned. 134.50.14.44 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you know something the rest of the world, including Greenland, hasn't yet cottoned on to. The result of the referendum was that Greenland was granted greater autonomy; a greater degree of home rule.  It is seen as a step towards independence, which may yet be many years away.  Whether they achieve independence or not would not affect their criterion for inclusion in the European Union.  It would, however, mean that they would become eligible to become a full member of the Union, which a dependency cannot become.  Your comment that the referendum result means that "they no longer qualify to be in the EU" is utter nonsense.  Skinsmoke (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Belarus
The first map states that Belarus has shown no interest in membership, yet the second map states it as part of the eastern partnership and the accompanying text states "all members of the Eastern partnership have expressed interest in membership"

So which one is it? I do remember the Belarus president mentioning moving closer to Europe recently due to Russia reneging on something or other. Regardless, either the first maps is wrong or the text for the second is, and I can't edit the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.147.96 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I corrected the text to say that only Ukraine has shown interest, since that's what its reference said. So there should be no more contradiction now. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, I think the Grabbe quote should be removed from the lede. It's absurd to say that "Ukraine is too large to join in the near future" since there are at least three EU members (D, F, UK) more populous than Ukraine, and candidate country Turkey is also much larger. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, the quote is cited from an expert and does have grounding in reality. It is a massive country to take in and the fact that Turkey is large does not mean we can hold back Ukraine on that ground; we've been dealign with Turkish accession since before the end of the Cold War, to put Ukraine on top of that raises the valid point of another massive country. One is bad enough, two- Ukraines size becomes a factor. Besides, Turkey may never join.- J.Logan`t : 09:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I second Logan. It is just your opinion. The expert might have reasons for his opinion, and we can assume safely that he knows that D, F, UK are more populous. Even if Turkey had joined, one could imagine that Ukraine's size was a still considered a problem by some having in mind their much lower GDP per capita. T om ea s y T C 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the validity of the quote, it hardly seems to belong in the intro. That gives it undue weight. It's not as if Grabbe is in a position of authority to decide EU membership. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Language
Why should this article use American English? I originally reverted an edit which was made by User:Sourside21, who changed the article from British/Irish English to American English. He did this with no reasoning or explanation. I changed it back because: However User:ChrisO comes along and reverts this. I have yet again changed it back to how it was before. Ijanderson (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)User:Sourside21 had no edit summary, reasoning or justification when he changed the article to American English See Here. He also know for changing article to American English, please see here how he changed the article Australia, which use Australian English into American English, this is also done without an edit summary.
 * 2)"Stabilisation Tracking Mechanism" and "Stabilisation and Association Process" (both of which are very important to the article) are officially spelled with "ise".
 * 3)This is a European related article and this European variant of English is more suitable.
 * 4)The EU which this article is about uses British/ Irish English
 * 5)WP:ENGVAR says British/ Irish English for EU articles.
 * 6)There is no relation or national ties to the US in this article
 * 7)Per WP:REDIRECT.
 * 8) When the page was fist created by User:JLogan, he used ise British English and according to WP:ENGVAR "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used", thus we should use JLogan's style of English.


 * Why is British English more suitable for articles having to do with Europe? Is American English more suitable for articles having to do with the Americas? Philippines English for South East Asia? Or Singaporean English? They are all fully mutually intelligible. Nationalism has no place on Wikipedia. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I said we should use British/Irish English because that is used by the EU. Besides WP:ENGVAR says we should use the style of English first used which was British English. Also my edits were in response to someone changing it to American English in the first place. Why do you think American English should be used? Ijanderson (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That guideline is to prevent Americans from seeing Briticisms in articles about America and vice versa. But no such idioms are used in this article, or in most. It's an -ise v. -ize thing, and it should be decided by the people who edit the article, like ChrisO, not nationalist interlopers. Besides, it's for "strong national ties", not tentative international organizations. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At end of the day, what you have just said is not backed up by any Wikipedia policies unlike what I have said. Please find in WP:MOS where it says "it should be decided by the people who edit the article", if you actually read it you will know that it says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used", thus what I'm saying is correct if we are going by Wikipedia policies.
 * Also how am I "nationalist", I was defending and going by Wikipedia's policies. I have noticed that you have not refereed to User:Sourside21 as nationalist who randomly out of the blue changed the article into American English from British-Irish English. You have not referred to User:ChrisO as nationalist, when he refers to American English as using "standard naming", thus implying that British/Irish is English is not Standard, thats kinda biased, POV and nationalist itself.
 * Since this article was created until recently, this article has used British-Irish English. However I am apparently "nationalist" because I questioned and reverted when the article was all of a sudden changed into American English out of the blue for no reason. All I did was change the article back to it's origional variant after it was changed recently for no reason. Please tell me what I have done wrong? Ijanderson (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:EU/MOS. Also, behind that, is WP guidelines of using first author's language in contrast to a major rewrite later on my someone else. No more rewrites by "nationalist" Americans please.- J.Logan`t : 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much JLogan Ijanderson (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG You people are weird. Wikipedia used neither American nor British English. Since different people, from different countries, edit the article, they use different versions of the language. It's all in one. --SleepySheepy (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, please ready the policy - we have consistency in spelling. Each article is either in one or the other - where there is a relevant context, that spelling is used. For example an article on Ireland would use Irish spelling as that is the context - most editors and sources are using that spelling for one point - and other spellings aren't mixed in so there is consistency in style. It would be awfully sloppy to interchange spellings of words. Furthermore where there is no context the style the first author used is preferred and changing the article from one style to another is actively discouraged. That is Wikipedia I'm afraid, not what you imagine it to be.- J.Logan`t : 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is - such articles are edited by people from different countries.. American people don't usually know how to spell British English correctly,, on the other hand British people don't generally know how to spell American English correctly. If articles in English are to be edited by people from different countries, using different spelling styles is UNAVOIDABLE. Danke.--SleepySheepy (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not really a major problem. If someone uses the wrong variety of English, someone more knowledgeable can correct it.--Boson (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Maps
On the maps, can we please get rid of categories such as "expressed interest" and "membership debate", these are so vague as to be unhelpful and pointless. What amounts to interest, and how many years later does that one half hearted mention expire? What constitutes a debate? Can't we just have Member, Candidate, Applied, Official-Potential/SAA (just to cover Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo but nothing beyond that).

I mean, does anyone really think Azerbaijan will join in the next 50 years and it is even possible to have a debate in that country? Ditto for the others east of the current border. Why do we need to say Switzerland is having a debate? Some times we get more information across by keeping it simple. Only those who have concrete moves should be on the map, and perhaps the second map could be moved down to spread the data a bit?- J.Logan`t : 06:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

yes you're right - for example there's no membership debate in Switzerland and neither in Norway I guess. The same thing counts for San Marino and Monaco!!Olliyeah (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, we should cut "expressed interest" and "membership debate", as they could be applied to pretty much all countries in or around Europe. We should stick to: Member, Candidate (negotiating), candidate (not-negotiating), Applied, and Potential Candidate (Not-Applied). Those are the only official distinctions that exist.


 * The other map, which is useful in its own way, including EFTA, and the Eastern Partnership, should by all rights include the Mediterranean Union, or the entire European Neighbourhood Policy, as they are equivalent to the Eastern Partnership. There has never been any official indication that the Eastern Partnership constitutes a step on the road to membership (even if it may well). Peregrine981 (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On further reflection, we could perhaps include a category to indicate failed, or frozen membership discussion to apply to Sziterland and Norway. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - If countries expressed their interests in EU membership like Ukraine, Georgia, etc. we should add them to the maps. If countries have a debate, we should add them too. As for JLogan's claims about Azerbaijan, please see this link. But I support Peregrine981's suggestion. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  11:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @ Turkish Flame: Oh right, so Kazakstan says "we want membership, but not like Estonia, we want to be an equal", that is really an expression of interest on a par with a country drawing up its application? That's just political posturing and such countries don't even stand a chance if they tried. Its the same with Azerbaijan, you can't even have a debate in a dictatorship like that.
 * Comment - 1) Kazakhstan isn't even a CoE member, like Morocco (whose EU application was rejected before), so you can't compare it with Azerbaijan. Also Azerbaijan is a democratic republic, unlike a dictatorship. 2) The map you've recently created is about the current enlargement policy of the European Union. But this article is about the possible future enlargement. We can't remove Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, etc. fom the article. That's why we should keep them in the maps. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  13:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @ Peregrine: I think dividing like negotiating and non-negotiation is a tad too much detail, but perhaps it is useful though the colours should be similar. I.e. Member: blue, candidate negotiation: dark green, candidate non-neg: light green, applied: orange, potential: yellow. So we can show that detail but at a glance it isn't so busy as to confuse.- J.Logan`t : 12:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and on the failed/frozen. I'm against that as this page is for further enlargement, not past. We're looking at what states are on the horizon, and their state of joining. So I actually think we can loose the second map as that is more foreign policy instruments than enlargement.- J.Logan`t : 12:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Logan for producing a new map so quickly. I like it, and I think it includes all relevant official distinctions. I do think that the difference between candidates who are and are not officially negotiating is a relevant one, as it can be years before negotiations officially open. I think that the inclusion of countries that want to join, but have not officially applied, and haven't been given "potential candidate" status is a bit difficult. Who speaks for the country? If the prime minister gives an interview stating he wants the country to join, does that mean the country has "expressed interest"? Do we need an official vote? What if the opinion is divided. Etc... As to Norway and Switzerland, I'm open minded. Both do have some official status with the enlargement process, and could restart negotiations at any time, so I don't think they are irrelevant to potential future enlargement. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Its all theoretical though isn't it. Switzerland still has an open application, they haven't withdrawn it or been rejected so technically speaking there at the same level as Iceland or Albania, but do you think Switzerland will ever join, let alone before any other of the mentioned countries. It is possible to get a mention of interest from nearly every country in Eastern Europe. In fact, given the low bar of "debate", we could include Canada as a few people there were calling for EU membership. Its a joke. The only way I can see it working is if we define it as official policy of the CURRENT government to seek full EU membership, but finding a reliable source clearly stating that will be dodgy - I mean, Kazakstan going after the EU? Is that really useful "information"? Official government policy usually amounts to nothing as it is posturing and lies, that's why I say we build the map of ACTIONS.
 * Specifically to Turkish flame again, I'm sorry I can't stop laughing at the idea that Azerbaijan is a democracy! Yes it is possible future enlargement, but we mention nearly every European country in this article, are we to put them as all expressing interest? That's information overload and it is too spurious. We have no definition of it and nothing will come of any enlargement east except for Turkey within the next 20 years. We do not need EVERYTHING on the map, that is not its purpose, that is the purpose of the text. Oh, and can you reply below rather than editing your existing comments as it will get rather confusing.- J.Logan`t : 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Azerbaijan isn't a democratic country, how and why the CoE let it join? Belarus, a fully European country, still can't join to the Council because it isn't a democratic country. As for the maps, I still oppose removal of those countries. We should emphasise their intensions if reliable sources can be found. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the CoE was getting very hopeful and doesn't have any power to deal with backsliders. Look at Russia, Russia is no longer a democracy but it was let in because it was almost there during the 1990s, then it all collapsed because of poor US and European foreign and economic policy. Why do you think everyone was embarrassed by Russia taking the CoE presidency?
 * Their intentions mean squat unless there is a real possibility because what they say and what they really intend are two totally different things. Belarus was talking about joining the EU last year, you really think that was their intention? Ha! They, or should I say he, knows what he has to do and doesn't want to, he is just trying to cosy up the EU because he is being given the cold shoulder by Russia. We have to distinguish between political posturing and enlargement. Tell me, what has Azerbaijan done to further its membership ambitions? One thing?- J.Logan`t : 17:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijan's foreign priority is the conflict with Armenia over Karabakh. But EU-related topics are also important. See this link. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Switzerland and Norway are special cases, and both are different, so I'm not sure how we would label that on a a map. We could either say negotiations suspended/withdrawn, or just say that they're both part of EFTA and Schengen, and therefore pretty much 2/3 or the way into the EU anyway. Speculation about their future course can't really enter into our labelling.
 * Since almost any country that could conceivably be considered part of Europe (and some that couldn't) has "expressed interest" in joining the EU, I don't think including that information on the map is particularly relevant without any concrete actions.Peregrine981 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and as I've said before this is about future enlargement so rejected/refused past applications and EFTA/Schengen situations are not relevant. Is it so bad not to mark them at all? They are simply not on the agenda, ditto Azerbaijan etc. and "EU-related topics are also important" is hardly something that qualifies it for a special mention over, say, Andorra which probably has more chance of joining the EU than even Ukraine.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed this map in use on the Enlargement of the European Union page. I hadn't seen it. I like the simplicity, but still think that overall Logan's most recent proposal is best, as it gives a very precise idea of how advanced each country really is, although the colour scheme is slightly more elegant in the other map. I am in favour of dropping Switzerland and Norway from the main map.

Thinking over the issue of the second map, I think that there is some utility to a second, less strict map, which shows the current relations of "potential potential candidates". The CPH Criteria say that any European country can join, so I think there is some use in a map showing the present relationship of all European countries to the EU. I think it is more or less fine as it stands. The only possible quible is that it might be useful to indicate that iceland is a member of EFTA but also a potential candidate state. However, since that is listed on the other map it isn't a big deal. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Simplicity can some times say more than detail, I quite like that map to be honest and remember we have a detailed zoom of the western balkans with their various states of application, in fact we could move that up to the top perhaps? But we should remove the second map then though as three maps at the top would be too much. If we don't move it up, I suppose it could be useful in some ways but I am still not convinced it has a place here. What does it actually say about future enlargement? That a bunch of countries to the east are in a "partnership" and in the west there is an economic alliance. Considering Iceland is joining any message on the latter is dead in the water and mainly historical while the partnership is designed to be deliberately ambiguous and not expanded upon in its meaning much in the text.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 15:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The zoom seems good, for clarity. We could move the third map somewhere further down in the article. I think it is useful, as it shows the status of the countries that could seriously be considered to be eventual candidates. I can easily imagine people might be curious about the status of Ukraine, and such a map might be helpful. I think that including EFTA is relevant, as it is effectively 2/3 into the union already, and defines their relationship to the rest of the block. Any entry negotiations would be greatly facilitated because of that. ENtry to the EU is usually preceded by a series of previous agreements anyway, as occurred in the east, with Turkey, the SAAs, Iberia etc.... It is pretty much as much a part of the process as an actual application. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * EFTA still isn't about future enlargement, Iceland is the only one who might join and its nothing to do with the EEA. Its a substitute to membership for these countries, for an SAA - no one is talking about Norway being one step closer to membership as the government readies itself to become a candidate... Do remember that if people are curious about this or that, they can read the article or look at a different page. If it wasn't for Iceland, then EFTA would be relevant for saying these countries won't join however. Iceland has buggered that theory up however and remember that more categories like that make it very hard to show in a single map, Iceland being both an applicant and EEA, we keep adding more categories and it'll look like vomit-art.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 11:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, been thinking, if it is elaborated something like this, it could work; - <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 12:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Member State
 * Candidate in negotiations
 * Candidate
 * Applicant
 * SAA (current enlargement agenda)
 * Eastern Partnership (sought but not on current agenda)
 * EFTA (alternative integration pursued)


 * Just adjusted the map again, I'm back tracking on EFTA in my list as it messes up Iceland too much and I've lost the distinction of negotiating candidates, if we have eastern in there as well it gets very busy. It is only one country, I've put a table on the article, we could ad into that more detail like when the negotiations start perhaps? -rather than put too much data into the map- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 14:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake I suggest sticking to this:
 * 1) Member State
 * 2) Candidate in negotiations
 * 3) Candidate
 * 4) Applicant
 * 5) SAA (Potential Candidate)

EFTA/Eastern does make it a bit busy. Perhaps we leave that to a separate map. I like the chart to keep track of the details.Peregrine981 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, deal, keeps it focus on the relevant ones that way. I've updated the map again and am popping it up on the article now.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks good. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add to these that in the ENP Action Plans of the Eastern partnership states (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan; Belarus has no ENP AP) there is the remark: "The EU takes note of the european aspirations of country-xxxx". I think this is enough to denote "expressed interest"? Alinor (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added this category. There was similar previous revision, but in the current one Belarus is not marked - thus the distiction is made on concrete criteria (ENP Action Plans adopted by both the EU and the partner countries), not on "vauge" terms like "debate". I hope this is an acceptable "middle ground". Alinor (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, as discussed above the "taking note" is still posturing to keep these states happy while it makes the map even more busy, detracting from the levels of real integration going on in the Balkans. We have detailed maps throughout the article that address these token measures. The current categories are details levels of achievement by these countries where as the ENP footnote places those other states only one step up from the likes of Israel. In short, it is misleading in such a context where the information needs to be imparted rapidly and simply. However, we could perhaps have a second main map detailing policies post-current agenda. I.e. we have the following categories: EU;current agenda;EasternPartnership;shown interest. Or something like that? Just to deal with the other areas of the article. But I really think it is too much and misleading to stick all this detail into one map, that's why we started to review this before.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if the first division line in post-current agenda should be at Eastern Partnership or at ENP european aspirations (Belarus is the difference)? Anyway, I think that the Iceland example shows that the West vs. East division is not very appropriate... it is more a historic reference maybe and could be noted in the text, but I think that it would be better to do the following divisions after the Progress table: EFTA states, Micorstates, Eastern Europe, Northern Cyprus, Special territories, Non-european. Again, I am not sure if/how we should divide the Eastern Europe in furthure groups: european aspirations in ENP, Eastern Partnerhsip (aspirations+Belarus), ENPI-covered (aspirations+Belarus+Russia), the rest (Kazakhstan) or just two groups (aspirations + Belarus/Russia/Kazakhstan)? Alinor (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, sorry, I missed out EFTA. I think it would actually be safe to stick northern cyprus with the dependencies in this case as it is an enlargement via an existing state. With Eastern Europe it would be those which have the "recognised ambitions of" clause. And then perhaps a general category of it has been "discussed" at leadership level, that would catch Israel and Cape Verde in the non-European category. But to be honest it gets very muddy and meaningless.
 * I think perhaps, as western Europe is rather secure and the non-Europeans are ambiguous, we could have a map centred on Eastern Europe dealing only with their status, then again the only reliable data in that sense is the Eastern Partnership states which we already have a map for below. Can't we just be satisifed with having this detail in maps but further down the article?- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 09:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Further European Union Enlargement in Eastern Europe.png|thumb|200px]] OK, please look at the map here - to be put in the Easter Europe section. It has the following groups: Blue: EU. Green: current enlargement agenda (applicants, candidates, potential candidates as per EU DG for Enlargement). Brown: EU aspiration noted in ENP Action plan. Yellow: the rest of Eastern Europe. Alinor (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to label "the rest of Eastern Europe"? Perhaps this would be an appropriate place to note the remaining EFTA states' membership status? Or just note that they are EFTA states? Or maybe note non-EU Schengen states? Other than that, I don't object.Peregrine981 (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The removal of the yellow group would take us to a neat map with just 3 categories: "EU", "Current enlargement agenda", "Expressed European aspirations" - that is true. The reason I added the yellow group is because of the blurry line of ENP (expressed european aspirations)/ENPI (ENP+Belarus+Russia)/Eastern Partnership (ENP+Belarus)/Eastern Europe (ENPI+Kazakhstan).... Alinor (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I think no EFTA if it goes under eastern Europe but I am half an half on the "rest of". I think if we're just saying "rest of" then we should get rid of it, but perhaps we could make more of a statement about it? Okay, I've rewritten this about fifteen times trying to think of what at least two of these countries have in common that is different from all the eastern states. Can we perhaps add more detail within this one grouping we have?- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 11:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, it seems that you think along with the Peregrine981's comment to remove the yellow color. I am also sliding to this side - now, when the In-ENP and Out-of-ENP are in two different groups, each of them can have its own map (In-ENP without the yellow group; the Out-of-ENP get the "maximum extend" map)? As a side note - the common thing between Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan is membership in EurAsEC, but this is a shaky criteria (unsuitable for the purpose of dividing states in groups according to the EU enlargement perspectives) - what if Belarus joins also the ENP with "european aspirations"? Alinor (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you see with EurAsEC we're sliding towards foreign affairs rather than enlargement, which is why I am trying to steer the whole thing away from these issues. Its outside the area of this article but they get mixed up very easily.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see "Is Montenegro an EU Candidate now?" the answer is no, so please remove. The Commission recommended its recognition as a candidate, but it is not officially a candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the previous version of the map with Montenegro properly coloured. TDL (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo-EU relations
I have changed the Kosovo status, because the EU in its relations with the region doesn't recognize the Republic of Kosovo (see this official site), so it's absolutely wrong show Kosovo with the Republic of Kosovo flag. The EU still recognizes the UNSCR 1244, so the UN flag must be shown instead of the ROK-one. Oikema


 * For further information, see the European Comission Enlargement Kosovo page and the Serbia one. It's absolutely wrong too showing Serbia without Kosovo in the maps, as you can see in the links. Oikema (88.26.79.220 (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC))


 * I think the Kosovo section, should be accession of the "Republic of Kosovo". UNMIK/1244 Kosovo should be included under Serbia. It is not possible for a UN entity to join the UN. If Kosovo is to join the UN, it will either be with Serbia as a whole or as a the Republic of Kosovo, but not as UNMIK. Just to remind people the EU doesn't recognise Kosovo as a province or as a country because it doesn't have the power/ capacity to do so, however the European Parliament recognises Kosovo as independent. IJA (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have edited the article regarding Kosovo. We need to remain neutral. In theory Kosovo is going to try and join the EU twice in a way and we need to reflect that. Kosovo will be trying to join the EU with Serbia under UNSC 1244 and as the Republic of Kosovo. We need to mention both if we want to be neutral. There should be section about Kosovo joining the EU with Serbia under 1244 and there needs to be a separate section about Kosovo joining the EU as the Republic of Kosovo. IJA (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you give references to support that "Kosovo will be trying to join the EU with Serbia under UNSC 1244 and as the Republic of Kosovo"? I am not sure about this; in fact, the EC enlargement agency recognize Kosovo as an special entity, that can join the EU with its special status (UNSCR 1244) and with Serbia. Once again, the links shown first (1 and 2). The EU nowadays doesn't recognize the Republic of Kosovo (as anyone can see), so how can this entity join a union that doesn't recognize it? It has no sense, I insist, nowadays. Could be that in the near future the EU recognize the ROK as the sucessor of the UNSCR 1244 Kosovo, but nowadays it is not that way, because 5 of the 27 countries doesn't recognize the independent Kosovo. I will wait for your reply, but for me, with the references that I had gave, it is very clear that for the EU elargement agenda, there is no "Republic of Kosovo". Oikema 83.55.8.95 (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC).


 * That the EU does not recognise Kosovo is unsurprising. It also doesn't recognise Germany, Japan, or any other state.  This is because it doesn't have the authority to recognise states - that is the prerogative of the governments of the member states.


 * It is currently impossible for an entity other than an independent sovereign state to join the European Union. This is because joining requires the ratification of a number of treaties, and entities that are not independent sovereign states (or in some cases, international organisations) do not (by definition) have the authority to ratify treaties.


 * The only scenario in which Kosovo could become an independent member of the EU is if it is accepted as an independent state in its own right by all EU governments (as all EU governments have to ratify any accession). In this case, its government can join as an EU member in its own right.  We correctly present this as an obstacle to Kosovo membership in this article.


 * For those that do not accept Kosovo as an independent sovereign state, the territory of Kosovo will become part of the EU as part of Serbia if and when Serbia joins.


 * It is not appropriate to use the UN flag in reference to Kosovo. Since the only way Kosovo could possibly become an independent member of the EU is as an independent ROK, the flag of the ROK is appropriate.  If we are doing this, then it is also appropriate to mention Kosovo alongside the Serbian flag for balance.


 * It is not appropriate to use the EU designation for Kosovo in this article per Wikipedia policy, which is that we should be using the most common unambiguous name for states, rather than official names (this also means that, for example, we refer to "Macedonia" and not the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). Pfainuk talk 17:44, 23 December 2009 (U:TC)


 * It is not hard to find a source which says the Rep of Kosovo wants to join the EU. And I think it is rather obvious that Serbia wants Kosovo to join the EU with it. Also the Rep of Kosovo will still try and join the EU even if it is vetoed, but that is no reason to not include this information on the article. Also 22/27 EU member states to not believe that Kosovo is a part of Serbia (Yugoslavia) per 1244. And per the European Parliament, there is a "Republic of Kosovo".
 * Also I agree with Pfainuk, as I have said earlier that the EU does not recognise Kosovo because it does not have the power or capacity to do so. The EU does not recognise Spain, US, Russia or Romania. Simple as! IJA (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about the "name" that the EU uses when it refers to Kosovo; we are talking about the "entity" that the EU recognizes its sovereignty in Kosovo. When the EU says that Kosovo could join the EU under the UNSCR 1244, it is saying that could be an exception to the rule, and an entity could join it without being an independent state, and is saying too that it doesn't recognize the ROK-government as the sole and higher representative of the kosovar people. It means that there is an authority called the UNMIK that is above the provisional government. When I asked to you demanding references, I meant that in this special case there would be a very hard proof to probe that the EU itself recognizes that the Republic of Kosovo authorities could be considered as the representatives of an European state, and then could join the EU in the future. I'm not talking about the interest of the ROK regime (or the abjasian or southossetian regime) to join the EU; I talk about the recognition of the EU that the ROK is an independent an sovereign state, and I fear that this recognition, that exist for Serbia, Albania and Montenegro, and is essential for joining the EU, doesn't exist nowadays for the ROK regime. So, how can we say that an entity not recognized as a state by the EU could join the EU? It is, clearly, a case of Primary source. Oikema (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC).
 * But your sources there do not prove that the EU recognises Serbia, Albania and Montenegro. The EU cannot recognise a country. Also saying that Kosovo joining the EU is a special case is Original Research and in violation of WP:OR IJA (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I insist: I talk about recognizing an european state as independent and sovereign state. You can, for example, look this map found on the EU official site, where doesn't appear Kosovo and it does appear Serbia, Montenegro and all the European states. When I said that Kosovo is an special case, it easy to probe: think about the Stabilisation Tracking Mechanism, an special process started in 2002 (five years and a half before the ROK declaration of independence) that exist only for Kosovo, because of its special status and that most EU countries don't recognize the ROK independence. So, am I falling into Original Researches? I don't think so. I am still waiting your references about the EU recognition of the ROK as an independent and sovereign state subject to the SAP process. In any case, as this recognition doesn't exist nowadays, I insist that keep talking about the possible join of the ROK to the EU is a clearly case of Primary Source. Oikema (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC).
 * ...but the EU does not recognise countries, that is left up to the individual member states IJA (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is this: The EU does not recognize the Republic of Kosovo (whether or not they theoretically could). The EU has no official relations with the Republic of Kosovo. All relations are conducted through the framework of Kosovo under UNSCR 1244. As such, I think that we should refer to Kosovo as such, because the EU technically doesn't have relations with the Republic, and any such reference would therefore be legally incorrect. The two terms are not interchangeable. I think that the Spanish government would be quite surprised to hear that the EU has been holding official meetings regarding the accession of the Republic of Kosovo to the EU. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I have tried to explain. Thank you, Peregrine981. Oikema (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Kedadi: please take care about looking above. Thank you. 80.35.16.216 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are trying to imply that only "Kosovo 1244" can join EU because EU doesn't recognize RoK. As IJA stated above, EU doesn't have the capacity to recognize countries. 22 out of 27 EU members regard Kosovo as the Republic of Kosovo and 5 out of 27 members regard Kosovo as "Kosovo 1244". So, what do you think, should we only include what 5 EU members think, the POV of 22, or both POVs? Thank you. <small style="background:#000"> kedadi al  19:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So what? I am only trying to keep the WP:NPOV. Oikema (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is zero possibility of the EU admitting Serbia with Kosovo included because 20 of the 22 EU member states which recognize Kosovo's statehood are committed to veto Serbia's accession until Serbia recognizes Kosovo's statehood. That's why Serbia's accession is stalled.  Similarly, there is zero chance of the EU admitting Kosovo before Serbia recognizes Kosovo's statehood because four of the five EU member states which do not recognize Kosovo's statehood are committed to veto Kosovo's accession until Serbia recognizes Kosovo's statehood.  As a practical matter, Serbia can either continue to claim Kosovo or can proceed with EU integration. Following the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, Serbia is trying to get a resolution of the General Assembly in its favor.  Until the General Assembly votes on that (probably in October), nothing will happen toward either Kosovo or Serbia joining the EU.  In the meantime, the removal of Kosovo's flag from the page is, in my opinion, a violation of NPOV by taking the Serbian side of the dispute.  To continue such a charade after the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice is especially disturbing. Mcarling (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Maps removal
Recently these maps were removed from their respective sections with the reasoning "They are incredibly unhelpful as they fail to present the political reality. They are merely a geographically based fantasy.". Every other section has a map showing the EU plus the countries discussed in the respective section. Some of them are also geographical fantasy at this stage(like Belarus in the EU, etc.). The only difference is that the other maps show the EU and the third countries with different color, not uniformly as these two that were removed. I think that the removed maps do not use different colors, because they show "maximums" (eg. all of Europe in the EU, etc.), but anyway - I post here to check your opinion. Should we remove these two maps, should we put them back as they are, should we put them back with color division between current EU and "theoretical enlargement states"? Alinor (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The other sections show the relations map, the EU plus the country in question. It is a different matter when next to, say, Russia you have a map showing the EU, Russia the entire rest of Europe, Greenland and Kazakhstan all as one entity. That is fantasy, showing one country in relation to the present EU is not. As for the second map, the EEZ has no relevance to this article.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 16:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These two maps are nothing more than fantasy and OR. Why should this be the theoretical limit? why not more, why not less? Agreed, someone tried to make an educated guess on these questions, but it is also not more than that. T om ea s y T C 17:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the definition of a European country is subject to contemporary political decision, not a predictable geographical logic which these seem to be attempting. Thus they're misleading in claiming that that this the maximum extent of the EU.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 18:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's why I asked should we put them back with color division between current EU and "theoretical enlargement states"?. Anyway, I just wanted to avoid a proxy discussion in the edit-revert-re-revert comments and that's why I put the issue here. Alinor (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing the issue up here.
 * I think, it would also not help to make distinction using colors as you propose. The problem is more about the "theoretical enlargement states" than about having one color. We have no verifiable clue which states these could be. T om ea s y T C 11:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is we're crystal balling even that this is the maximum. For example the map does not include Israel and Cape Verde, despite there being the theoretical possibility, just as theoretical as Russia and Kazakhstan, they could join. Therefore we're making a POV judgement that Kazakhstan may join, but Israel will not. It is far safer to use locator maps with the present EU (and maybe the current agenda) and then each potential country being discussed (exception being where you have an established group such as the eastern partnership).- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 14:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, up to ENP/EaP we already have the maps. For Israel/Morocco we have the map showing the Mediterranean ENP partners. This leaves Russia, Kazakhstan, Cape Verde and OCTs. Should we make new maps with EU/current agenda/RU, EU/current agenda/KZ, etc. (the Cape Verde and OCT maps should be a little different, because of sizes, locations, etc.)? Also, if yes, should we display EaP/ENP in the RU/KZ maps? Given time, I will try to make on EU/OCT/Cape Verde map. Or we should abandon this entierly? Alinor (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those countries do not form a group though. Why not just use the locator maps as are used for each individual candidate under the current enlargement section. I think we are missing locators for some but they'll need to be created anyway.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get this - which countries do not form a group? My proposal is for 3 or 4 separate maps: 1. EU+current agenda+RU; 2. EU+current agenda+KZ; 3. EU+current agenda+OCTs (Mayotte - colored as current agenda); 4. EU+current agenda+Cape Verde. All other countries already are present on the maps in the article. My question is if on the RU-map and KZ-map we should display EaP/ENP besides current agenda (as we already list them in the Template:European Union candidates). Alinor (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While we are at this - please look here. Alinor (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about them as a single map. Though I'm not sure why we need another OCt map, we already have one don't we?- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think of "Special territories" map showing them with the same colors that we apply to the rest of the maps: EU-color(mainland+some of the special territories/mainly-OMR), current enlargement agenda-color (candidates+Mayotte), the rest/mainly-OCT-color. The current map just shows all territories regardless of their EU status. Alinor (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not get why you want to introduce all these maps like EU+Russia. Why do you want to introduce the maps that you listed (1 to 4), and not others? I am sorry to say, but I still see no validity in the points you're raising. T om ea s y T C 21:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why the maps I listed and not others? Because as I said - the rest already have maps in the article. If you see some other (than those 4) country not shown on map - please tell so (I can't find such), or just add a map. Alinor (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The rest? You may take a look at the globe to find other/s (countries). I contest that there is a theoretical limit.
 * Israel and Morocco have been mentioned, which are clearly outside Europe, but who knows whether this doctrine is eternal. Or think of Kurdistan, not a state yet, but who knows about the future. Or Transnistria and similar cases, already a state within Europe which just does not consider about applying. If you make a map for Israel, how can you not produce one for Libanon or Palestine, since you want to show the furthest enlargement possible.
 * The Wikipedia project has good reasons to abstain from crystal balling. T om ea s y T C 21:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean the rest of these mentioned in the article. Not as in the rest of the world. Israel and Morocoo are already on the ENP map, along with Lebanon, Palestine (but they are not mentioned in the article - maybe because there are no sources showing EU membership discussion there). Alinor (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am misunderstanding you: So what are you aiming at? Do you still want to introduce maps that show all the states that might possibly become part of the EU, or did you change that intention to show maps only for those states that are currently under discussion? T om ea s y T C 19:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the maps (some new and some that I found already uploaded):

Can we go one by one. Which is the one that you would find most appropriate to be added to the article? I will then take a concrete look at that one. T om ea s y T C 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see my "favorites" in the article now. But, keeping in mind the discussion above, maybe the RU/KZ maps should be made without the EaP coloring, and the Cape Verde map without the UfM coloring? Alinor (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We should have no EEZ images, they're totally off topic and now we seem to have a few hundred. For Cape Verde and so on, where the said country is very small, we should make specific zoomed versions as we have for the microstates or we could simply not have images - they're not obligatory.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 07:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that EEZ images are useful for the OCT (and related) maps (only three, not hundred: All-OCTs, Cape Verde, Norway), because they make otherwise unnoticeable OCTs visible and put them in perspective with the other neighboring countries, the EU "mainland", etc. This could not be achieved with zoomed maps, as OCTs are all over the world and instead, if we have to make zoomed maps - they would really become too many. Alinor (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What, Cape Verde, maybe Israel and Morocco (but I think we already have those somewhere). Not suggesting for the OCTs. We don't really need a map at all there. We certainly don't need OCT maps for Cape Verde and Iceland.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 08:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Israel and Morocoo are in the ENP map in the lead of the last section (no new map). Iceland has its map in its section (no new map). I added only the following maps to the article:


 * Non-EaP map (showing RU and KZ) - here it is debatable if there should be 2 or 1 maps and also if EaP should be shown colored or not.
 * Cape Verde map - based on the OCT map, because CV is of the "invisible" type and also because major part of the reasoning for its inclusion is its location in the same island group as Azores, Mladeria, Cannaries, that are already part of the EU (not OCTs).
 * Norway map - based on the OCT map, because Norway has special overseas territories itself (in contrast to all other non-EU countries mentioned in the article)
 * OCT map - I replaced the previous OCT map with this EEZ map, so that we have the same color sheme as for the other maps - EU, current enlargement agenda (coloring also OCTs on the agenda), etc. Alinor (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asking you which one you would like to introduce, and yo just go ahead an add three of them. This is not OK. From the discussion above, you should have understood very well that there is no consensus for your move.
 * Now, to the topic: I find it inappropriate to show this map three times, with the only difference being that Norway or Cap Verde are shown. It may be discussed whether we want to show one copy of this map to show the EEZs around the EU territories. However, even with this I see the problem that I do not really trust your map. You name no references, and to be honest, the file description could also be improved. T om ea s y T C 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Other maps are also show multiple times, for different countries, that's why I expected that this would not be a problem.
 * "I do not really trust your map" - what is there to be trusted?? It is just a map... What references do we need? That France is France, that New Caledonia is New Caledonia? If you find some mistake in coloring - please tell me or just correct it.
 * About file description - OK, what do you propose? Alinor (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not trust the coloring of the antarctic, just to give one example. It is not colored here. A map that comes without references looks like original research, especially when it is possible to alter colors to our liking (as you proposed).
 * there is so much to improve in the description, e.g., link to relevant article, explain abbreviations, use clearly defined terms (enlargement agenda is not), improve the style and format, etc. T om ea s y T C 17:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is wrong in the Antarctic? You can check the antarctic sectors on many articles, like this. I don't see as OR when you just take a blank map and color it according to the content of the article, where the map is to be placed. Do you expect to find all such maps somewhere on the web, and they to have wikipedia-appropriate copyright status, etc.??
 * "link to relevant article" - there were many links in the description, what remains unlinked?
 * "explain abbreviations" - there were the following abbreviations: EU, EaP, EEZ (all with links, showing tooltip with the whole name of the article - Eastern partnership, etc.) - we can expand them of course.
 * "enlargement agenda is not clearly defined term" - it is defined in the article itself... ; I don't object some reformulation, but also I don't understand what you dislike in this one
 * "other not clearly defined terms" - ?
 * "improve the style and format" - I don't object. Alinor (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You claim those territories to be OCTs. That needs a reference. This article claims the opposite.
 * My criticism about sloppy file description targets, e.g., this file: no links, no expansions, inconsistent wrong format, and yes, no references. T om ea s y T C 23:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no claim that they are OCTs, but that they are "special member state territories" (not all such are OCTs) - as you can see in the legend below the map in the article. Anyway, as a matter of fact, they are also OCTs as can be seen on page6, entity 4 and 17 if I count right.
 * "This article claims the opposite." - no, it doesn't. On the contrary. They are clearly marked as such. And this is correct - see links there and link here.
 * This is already getting inappropriate. It doesn't seem that you argue in good faith. And you make such a misleading statements (as the two above)...


 * Regarding the rest of Tomesay post.
 * You can not expect that we fit the whole "special member state territories" article (over 60KB) and its references under a simple map, that already has link to the said article in its legend on the article!
 * I uploaded the Israel-locator only for completeness here - if somebody decides that it is useful, as you see I don't propose to add it (as we have similar map already in the article). It is not meant to be put on the article (if somebody wants to put it at all) with the "raw description" of the file-upload page, but with a normally structured legend description, with links and all - as all other maps already on the article; I don't see reason why this can't be simply corrected/improved, if needed
 * I don't find external references/sources on the other maps, that you don't object (excuse me if I missed them). And this is the natural situation as I explained above.
 * "no expansions" - please explain; I don't see reason why this can't be simply corrected/improved, if needed
 * "inconsistent wrong format" - please explain; I don't see reason why this can't be simply corrected/improved, if needed
 * if all this description-criticism is directed on the file-upload-description, but you accept as appropriate the legends-as-seen-in-the-article - you could just said so, and of course you are free to correct/improve the file-upload-descriptions - by copying the legends there. Alinor (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You confuse captions in articles with file descriptions. I already linked to a file description page. I do not know how I can make myself more clear as to where my criticism goes.
 * You do claim they are OCTs by the name you gave the files. Nevertheless, you seem to be right. It would be great to be consistent and use this correct term in the description as well and provide the reference you showed. Based on this reference, I believe that this map is wrong. T om ea s y T C 10:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Do you agree with the captions in the article, as they were?
 * About the file names - sorry, and I don't object changing them (and they should). But I am not familiar with the renaming procedure.
 * About special territory vs. OCT. Just a reminder - not all special territories are OCTs! These that we speak here of are, but some others are not, so if the description says "special territories" it means exactly this and not OCTs-only.
 * Yes, the SVG map of special territories could be improved by adding those, but I have no SVG tools at hand. Anyway, as most of the special territories are too small for World-level-zoom I would propose using EEZ map instead (or both maps). Alinor (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * About adding this particular reference - I still think that it would be too cumberstone to add all such references to the map itself. Why not just link to the special-territories-article in the file description? Alinor (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If only you used half your energy, now wasted on rebutting valid requests, on improving your maps ... T om ea s y T C 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As your requests may be valid to a degree, they nevertheless disregarded the things, that I had to explain here above, by providing duplicating references, etc.
 * So, do you agree with the captions, and with the additions from this, that you later removed? Alinor (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the map generator, you should be more concerned to provide the proper file description. These stay with the file, while the caption can be anything in different articles where the file is used. And yes, the captions are way better than the current description. If you are able to provide this level of quality to the descriptions, perhaps added by some of the references that support your claims, we are one step further.
 * Then we can discuss whether content-wise these maps are an enrichment to the article. I made some statements about this way on top. T om ea s y T C 13:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are as well free to improve on the maps, their description, etc.
 * The next step should be to agree what of the maps will be added to the article. There is no use in changing descriptions, etc. of maps that will be removed anyway. Alinor (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposal is to add the following of the maps: Non-EaP map, Cape Verde map, Norway map, Special territories map - see . Alinor (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As said before, I see only the possibility of showing one of them. The new thing they show are the EEZ, which I think it good to be shown once (especially here: Special Member State territories and the European Union), but not 4 times in the present article. If you want to display a map with the EU and Cape Verde, however, it does not need the EEZ. Honestly, I loose motivation to continue this discussion while you have the energy to repeat that you do not want to improve the maps that you fight for so ardently, but you do not have the energy to improve them. T om ea s y T C 19:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any improvement ideas for the maps content - only for their descriptions/etc. I can't see what is stopping you from realizing your ideas for improvement of the descriptions. Alinor (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand correct the special territories EEZ map is accepted.
 * The Non-EaP map is not with EEZs, should I consider that you don't object it too?
 * So, the problematic maps are for Cape Verde and for Norway. Here is my reasoning for using EEZ base map for these two:
 * Norway - because Norway has special overseas territories itself (in contrast to all other non-EU countries mentioned in the article)
 * Cape Verde - because it is of the "invisible" type (made visible by the EEZ) and also because major part of the reasoning for its inclusion is its location in the same island group as Azores, Mladeria, Cannaries, that are already part of the EU (but as the CV, they are invisible if the map is without EEZ). Alinor (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

From my side, none of your maps is accepted. To be hones, please do not take it bad, I am fed up with this discussion. T om ea s y T C 08:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

states with limited recognition
I see that recently were added Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh (albeit with a very short sections). If we want to keep these two entities, then we should similarly list South Ossetia and Transnistria - or alternatively: none of these. In any case the current situation is strange - discussing only some of the four that have very similar status and history.

Of course, Kosovo and TRNC, at both of witch have been made substantially more EU-actions (having their own sections in the DG Enlargement of the EC), are also part of the article since long time. Alinor (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Its not really a case of recognition, its a case of do they stand a chance in hell. Kosovo is included because it is on the agenda and TRNC is included because of Cypriot reunification. The others have no relevance here.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 07:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so sure about this. Does the Basque Country stand a chance in hell of 1) becoming independent, 2) joining the EU as a sovereign state? Maybe the "seccessionist scenarios" section needs removal as well. Ladril (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo
Can I ask why is there no flag beside Kosovo? I have changed this a number of times only to come back and find it changed back again. Rctycoplay (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you show diffs of the edits you are talking about?
 * The Kosovo flag represents the state that announced independence two years back. The Kosovo territory can be seen from other perspectives (and is by few EU members), e.g., as a territory according to UN resolution. This perspective is not represented by the Kosovo flag. Perhaps that answers your question. T om ea s y T C 22:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

the map
the world map shows Switz. as part of the EU in blue! Wrong! Please change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.212.76.157 (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Alinor (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Serbia's Questionnare
Can Somebody edit the table and place a date (24th november) where Serbia's next empty space is.Its the commision presents questionnare to applicant space.I have the source here that it will be in November and it was said to be the 24th: http://www6.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=10&dd=27&nav_id=70529

I did it, and since your source doesn't mention 24th of November, i've found a different one which does. here Tomi566 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Its The 24th so the date in the BRACKETS needs to be taken off and put into a normal date in BLACK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.107.83 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Montenegro an EU Candidate now?
I saw this article on Serbia's B92 however I'm not sure if this is official yet? IJA (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not yet until the Council makes such decision. Tomi566 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. Commision made a recommendation that Montenegro should get the candidate status and now the council will start the procedure which normally takes 3-4 months.
 * No, only a month: Montenegro will receive candidate status on this week's EU summit: -- Stefan040780 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Turkey's section
Is three times larger than the other countries and is written as a pamphlet. A "key regional power" with a big "geopolitical sphere of influence" from the Balkans to Central Asia. Come on, the Ottoman Empire is over, get a grip. The article does not mention that the roman province of Asia is located in Turkey, nor it stresses the complete cultural difference, ranging from the use of a non-indoeuropean language to the widespread majority of muslims, etc. 201.252.18.173 (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Turkey as a country IS three times larger than most of the other countries, so that's about right. Yes, the Ottoman Empire is over, Turkey is a modern state with a large economy and growing, and we'd better get a grip! ("we" being us EU citizens). Yes, most of its territory was central to the Roman empire, and Istanbul (Constantinople) was its capital for as many centuries as Rome herself. Yes, with Europe's cultural expansion through the ages, many places outside Europe took the name of European places (from Guadalajara to New Zealand); even the Asian continent takes its name from a Greek-Roman (European) province, thereafter known as Asia Minor to distinguish it from the continent. Re: cultural issues, Finland and Hungary also use non-indoeuropean languages, should they be kicked out of the EU? On the other hand, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or India do use indo-european languages, so, can they join? Religion is not supposed to count in this matter, the EU is a lay organization, and so is the Turkish state - at least nominally (and this applies to both!)--Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo, and so on...
So... What more can I say to keep the "Kosovo (UNSCR1244)" flag in the right way? Must I repeat another time that the blue-and-yellow flag only represents the Republic of Kosovo, and not the Kosovo under the UN mandate that the EU recognizes? Ok... so I will repeat it, another time. I wait for your opinion, one more time. Oikema (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC).
 * If you or somebody else does not recognize Kosovo's flag, I and other people DO recognize it. So obviously somebody will always be affected. Further more Kosovo's bid for the EU is as a republic and not as a territory. And finally Kosovo is a FACT and its flag is a FACT so everyone who is trying to reject that fact is rejecting reality. If you remove Kosovo's flag, that won't solve nor Kosovo's, neither Serbia's ore somebody else's problems. --Chech Explorer (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it doesn't matter if you or me recognize the Republic of Kosovo; it only matters what the European Union does. So I'm so sorry, but the fact is that the EU only recognizes Kosovo as under the UNSCR 1244, as I have shown to you, and not as an independent country as Thaçi declared the 17 february 2008 with the blue and yellow flag. And more: where are the references to say that "Kosovo's bid for the EU is as a republic and not as a territory" (sic)? Where do you find the word "country" reffering to Kosovo here? So please, don't give me lessons, and start giving references to support what you say. It's obvious that you won't find anything. Oikema (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Israel-Cyprus geography analogy
The article states: "Some claim that allowing Israel into the EU would create a precedent for other geographically non-European countries to apply for membership, but in fact[original research?] this precedent already exists as Cyprus, which is already a member state, is geographically in Asia. Proponents of Israel's accession to the EU claim that Israel's situation is similar to that of Cyprus - a country outside of Europe geographically, but a part of Europe culturally and socially." - the OR tag was added recently, but I don't understand what it challenges - that Cyprus is in the EU, that Israel isn't in the EU, that Cyprus is in Asia, that Israel is in Asia, or something else? Alinor (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Turkey "main concern - geography"
Recently the following paragraph was added in the Turkey section: "A main concern is Geography, but this is bound to be controversial, as the geographical limits of Europe are unclear. Europe is geographically a subcontinent in a larger Eurasian continent, and the geologically arbitrary limits have changed over time."

This text has the following issues:
 * 1) the elaborations about geographical limits of Europe. First, this issue is already discussed at the appropriate places (here and here). Second, by all known definitions of Europe the situation of Turkey is the same (~6% in Europe, ~94% in Asia). The issue of different definitions of Europe borders may be important in the cases of Georgia/Azerbaijan/Kazakhstan/Armenia (depending on definition some of these can be either entirely in or out of Europe), or even Russia (if exact percentage is important, but according to all definitions Russia has both European and Asian parts). In case of Turkey they are no differing definitions, so there is no point in mentioning this definition-of-borders-ambiguity (below in the section it is already described that only 6% of Turkey is in Europe).
 * 2) Stating that "main concern" regarding Turkish EU membership is geography is simply wrong (and unsourced). If something has to get the title "main concern" then IMHO this is the Cyprus dispute (dispute with EU member blocking accession negotiations progress in many chapters). More important than any geographical issue (real or not) would be the pace of economic/democratic reforms inside Turkey and its external relations with Armenia (pesting "good neighborly relations" image). IMHO the "geography issue" is just put in as argument by those that find religion as the "main issue". The religion is already mentioned above in the section (statements by some politicians), but it's not officially taken into account. In contrast to religion - geography is one of the official criteria and Turkey already passed it (see 1989 EC opinion and 1999 EC recommendation) - it has official candidate status (in contrast to Morocco whose application was rejected). In summary - geography isn't a concern at all. Alinor (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. And if I may add, geography isn't that big of an issue since Cyprus, which is already a member state (since 2004), is not in Europe at all, but in Asia. When it joined the EU, it was explained that Cyprus is not in Europe geographically, but it is considered part of Europe culturally. Ben Gershon (Talk) 16:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by בן גרשון (talk • contribs)