Talk:European Neighbourhood Policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject European Union (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

links to documents [1]

Ukraine quitting ENP?[edit]

This Ukrainian source quotes Ukraine's deputy foreign minister saying that with adaptation of the action plan for the association agreement with EU Ukraine effectively quit ENP: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andriy155 (talkcontribs) 01:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


The map is out of date after Bulgaria and Romania joined. 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

also: "The countries covered include all of the Mediterranean shores of Africa and Asia, as well as the European CIS states (with the exception of Russia and Kazakhstan) in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe." yet Russia is marked in brown on the map, surely this should be the grey of individual agreements? Grunners 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the deal with Russia? I thought Russia had a seperate agreement? The previous poster has a point. Peregrine981 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Russia is covered by the same EU instrument as the ENP states - ENPI (European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument). So it is covered by the same basic EU strategy and policy documents as the ENP. Alinor 06:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like a source on that please. My understanding was that Russia is not part of the ENP, and the EU's official map does not show Russia as being part of the ENP [2]. I'd change the map myself, but have no technical skills whatsoever, but would someone please do it, unless a source is forthcoming... Nicolasdz 20:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So, I have seen a few sources which suggest that EU funding to Russia does fall under the ENPI, but that is not the same as being part of the ENP, and the map on the ENP page shoud still be changed to reflect that. Nicolasdz 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Check this out - [3] - currently they have a paper about ENP on the front page. The summary uses the Wikipedia ENP map. but has "(c) Copyright CEPS" below it. Shouldn't they place "(c) Wikipedia" instead??? Alinor 06:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, unless we stole their map. I have no idea, but they really should be acknowledging Wikipedia if that's the case. Nicolasdz 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No, we haven't stolen their map, because I have made it (out of a blank Wikipedia map). Maybe there is some place/admin in Wikipedia that should be alerted to discuss with to change the copyright to "(c) Wikipedia" ... Alinor 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • E-mail that I sended to Alinor 12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

>> Dear team:

As a regular reader of your site ( I am pleased to see that your website, uses content from Wikipedia (, the free encyclopedia. This is the sort of reuse that those who contribute to Wikipedia, as I do, wish to promote.

However, you must follow the GNU Free Documentation License (, which governs all Wikipedia content. Only the GFDL is legally binding. However, we do make certain recommendations about how to comply. First, I’d like to point out that when you use content from Wikipedia you ought to include a link back to the source Wikipedia article as is suggested on Wikipedia’s copyrights page, which is located at Additionally, you should also include a GFDL notice. One way of doing this would be to add the text "This picture is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license", and provide a link to a copy of the GFDL on your own server. Text such as "This picture comes from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" is a good way to acknowledge the general source of the picture.

Specifically, your page (this is the often changing front page – so I attached a screenshot) uses content from . I was a contributor to this article, and picture that I made appears on your site. Since it appears without attribution to me, or a link to the Wikipedia history, or the text of the GFDL under which I released my contributions, the existence of this page violates my copyright, as well as those of all other contributors.

Please add the required links and acknowledgments to all parts of your site that use Wikipedia content promptly.

Because the full source-citation procedure described above appears to be too space-consuming regarding the use of only a single map on your front page you may use a slightly different approach to recognizing credit where it’s due:

1. Replace the “© Copyright CEPS” marking that you currently use below the map with a more appropriate one “© Wikipedia”

2. Make this note a hyperlink to this page where all license details and contributors are properly mentioned.

Thank you. <<

Reply from CEPS (they removed the picture, because of technical inability to cite another source): Alinor 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

>> Dear Sir,

I am writing to you with regard to the e-mail below, which highlights the breach of copyright rules on our part due to the (mis-)use of the map of Europe that you created for the Wikipedia article on European Neighbourhood Policy.

Please, accept my apologies for the improper use of the picture, and for the lack of attribution to you of the copyright on it. Our website has just been re-designed, and, at our request, the developers included a field for the attribution of copyright, to deal with precisely the kind of issues that you raise in your e-mail. Unfortunately, this was done in a way that makes it technically impossible to change the note. Therefore, the copyright is always referred to CEPS, even in those cases when it actually rests with others.

We have obviously asked the developers to sort out this technical glitch as soon as possible, and once this is done we will be happy to correctly attribute the copyright to you and/or Wikipedia. In the meanwhile, we have removed the picture in question from our website, so as not to cause any further damage to your rights.

We hope that this solution will be acceptable for you, and we thank you in advance for your understanding,

Yours sincerely, Marco Incerti


Marco Incerti

Communications Manager

& Research Fellow

Centre for European Policy Studies

- Thinking Ahead for Europe <<

EU or EU's[edit]

An anonymous editor has repeatedly removed an apostrophe, using some shoddy logic to claim that it is incorrect to use a possessive apostrophe for acronyms. However, the WP:MOS specifically states that "Acronyms, like other nouns, become plurals by adding -s or -es (they produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; the laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006). As with other nouns, no apostrophe is used unless the form is a possessive." Also, the EU itself uses an apostrophe so it seems highly unlikely that this is improper grammar as claimed. Of course, using EU as a Noun adjunct ("EU outermost regions") as the anon prefers isn't necessarily wrong either, but switching back and forth mid sentence ("EU (specifically France's) outermost regions") sounds terribly sloppy. What do others think? TDL (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The wording sounded a bit awkward to me, so I reworded the sentence for clarity. As for grammar, the only poor grammar I can see is the use of "which" when "that" should be used. "Which" follows a comma; if there is no comma, then "that" is preferred. Initialisms and acronym's are definitely allowed to show possessiveness like any other proper noun. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Your changes look good. Thanks for the input! TDL (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, TDL – I hope this sets well with the IP contributor, also. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)