Template talk:European Union candidates

Discussion moved from MediaWiki talk:EU countries

Should non-member countries be included in the footer?

Can we put at least a header with Candidate countries, and write below it Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey? --Danutz

There is a group of 10 countries that are acceding to membership to the European Union on May 1, 2004. The main reason why they are listed at all, prior to this, is that the full membership is actually impending. Even though it is likely that at least some of the candidate countries actually will be joining the organization this is a fact that ultimately remains to be decided. The real question is whether only members, but also prospective members ought to be included in this footer. I think that for the sake of clarity only those who are in fact members ought to be included. However, the enlargement process is important to the EU and the enlargement article should probably continue to be linked even after the current round is concluded on May 2. Any others who wants to have a say on this?-- Mic 12:16, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Now, Romania and Bulgaria are going to acced to membership surtenly in 2007, EU established that on the Thesaloniki summit, then they had a reunion and decided with only few votes against, but the majority for, to fix 1st of January 2007 as a accesion date for Romania and Bulgaria.--Danutz 13:20, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

The European Union and Enlargement pages mention both the 2004 and the (proposed) 2007 enlargements. The map on the European Union page also lists Romania and Bulgaria. As long as it's made clear that Romanian and Bulgarian accession are provisional, I'd definitely prefer them to be listed here as well. It's consistent with the other pages, it's accurate, and it adds to the knowledge-value of the page. KevinC 18:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Romania

Hey User:Cantus, what is the matter with the message with EU candidates? Romania (as Bulgaria and Turkey, for the matter) are official candidates to membership (and in the next future also Croatia and FYROM could be added to the list), so it seems natural they could be enlisted there .. --Alessandro Riolo 11:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't blame me, I added the candidate nations to the EU_countries msg but somebody deleted them, and then you added a different msg. Just edit the EU_countries msg at Template:EU_countries --Cantus 03:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, now I see. I created the Template:EU_countries_and_candidates to be added in the candidate's countries instead of the Template:EU_countries 'cause I was betting modifying the latter could start revert wars. The EU enlargment is a sensitive matter, and there are plenty of people totally against that they would probably try not to allow the names of the candidate countries to be enlisted in the page of their own country. From another point of view, I think it is a meeaningful information, surely to be shown in the EU related main pages and in the pages of the candidate countries. --Alessandro Riolo 09:53, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

EU countries and candidates

Creating the Template:EU countries and candidates is a good initiative, since it will be able to solve the desire of displaying the candidate status to the European Union for Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, without alluding to membership status. I also think that it is a good idea, as it is currently done, to display this footer rather than the footer with just the member countries on the European Union page. The Template:EU countries footer is for listing countries which actually are members of the European Union, the notable exception beeing the countries joining on May 1. The countries in that group will not be members until May 1, but as they have been listed so far and accession is less than three weeks away it does not seem meaningful to remove them at this stage. -- Mic 08:32, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree --Alessandro Riolo 09:01, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would ask for at least Bulgaria and Romania to be listed in the EU countries listing, too, because EU wants these countries to join on January 1, 2007. Perhaps one could think about this issue. Until the issue is resolved, I will revert my edit of the EU countries list. --EBB 16:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Croatia is likely to become a recognised candidate country soon, but should it or should it not be included in the footer before that happens? More generally should only the recognized candidate countries be included or should the circle be wider? And if so, where should the line be drawn? -- Mic 19:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Both Croatia and Macedonia are now posted under the banner of "likely candidate countries". Any opinion on the issue? -- Mic 07:04, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Making it a bit smaller

OK, I know this isn't the easiest task, but would it be possible to try and express the information in this footer in slightly fewer lines? I'm undecided whether I like these navigation boxes at all, especially with pages ending up with several large boxes at the bottom taking up a whole screenful of space. However, if they are going to stay, perhaps it would be best if they were as small as possible. Since there's already debate about this one, I don't want to jump in and fiddle with it, but with Turkey on a line by itself, I think it could perhaps be more succinct. - IMSoP 12:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Including 2007-2015 possible candidates

I think it is rather unpractical to list all those possible EU members (2007-2015) because they are in no way official and they might not even join. Moldova or Albania are in no way to be considered part of the EU family (no hard feelings to them, it's just the truth). Therefore, they should not be put alongside countries like Romania and Bulgaria which are nearly going to join. I think putting Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey is necessary - they should stay. Croatia and Macedonia is on the borderline - I think the fact that they have submitted their applications means that they can also stay (when I say stay, I mean as part of this MSG:) However, I think it's taking it a bit too far to include all the possible countries. If we do this, why not include all the countries in Europe for that matter? 203.109.249.137 23:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Not all countries. I included all possible. --Avala

Probably it will go like :

• 2010 - Croatia
• 2012 - Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia
• 2015 - Turkey (if european part is all great in asian part i saw people that live in caves!!!!)
• 2020 - Albania and Moldova

Russia will never join, Ukraine and Belarus are very close to Russia and with current communist regimes they are not moving any forward especially Belarus.

Serbia ,considering the northern part and Belgrade, could join even in 2007 but great problem with Kosovo and poverty in the south is pulling Serbia back. Also Serbia started it`s process of integration in 2000 which will in best case join in 2012. It will probably not going to need 15 years for rebuilding like other countries of eastern Europe needed, because it was a rich country before the war. War affected Bosnia the most. The biggest problem are impatient people that vote again for nationalist parties because they hoped that Serbia will join EU in few years after milosevic gone away. It is very similar to problem that Slovakia had few years ago. But only in last few months in serbia signs of better life are showing.

Montenegro will join probably together with Serbia but still as long as its PM is wanted by Itanlian court with mafia connection charges moteengro will stay out of EU.

Macedonia is still very undeveloped but in next few years I guess everything will be just fine.

Albania and Moldova are just......far away but I was surprised that Albanian GDP per capita is not that bad , it is even very close to Bulgarian. I just don`t unederstand what is stopping them.

Croatia will may join in 2007 but it would be more than unfair thing to do. Because they haven`t done all the job yet especially like Romania and Bulgaria , countries that are strugling to join EU for last 15 years.

--User:Avala, 16:25, 15 May 2004

I don't think we should include candidates beyond 2007 at all - it's pure speculation. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/candidate.htm (the official web page on the matter) only goes up to 2007. -- ChrisO 18:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Those years up there are very speculative and prone to change. I agree that we shouldn't list countries that haven't been given candidate status because if we do, it's a slippery slope. --Shallot 19:03, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

We should only list recognised EU candidates (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) and if we want, we could also list "likely" countries - Croatia and Macedonia. These countries have already submitted their membership application, and are waiting for the EU to give them official candidate status. We can include them if we want, though I would say not to (Croatia will get candidate status very soon this year, and when it does, it should be included).

However, I believe there is a difference between Romania-Bulgaria and Turkey. While Romania and Bulgaria have actually started and nearly finished accession negotiations, Turkey hasn't even started them. While personally I think it would be great to promote Turkey's accession bid, I think it is unfair to Romania and Bulgaria to place it in the same line on the MSG. Therefore, we should have "Candidate countries joining on 1 January 2007" and "Other candidate countries". 203.109.249.137 08:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Official Candidates, Applicants, Accession Countries

Bulgaria and Romania - Official candidates. I added a note about the date - AFAIK it has NOT been confirmed for either as definite yet - Bulgaria has had the "shouldn't be any problems" line, while question marks have been set about Romania for 2007 (it may still be OK, but that's not been officially declared). I beleive people are waiting for an announcement on this from the EU. Until then I vote we have the "preliminary date" qualifier, or no date. Also - after the date is confirmed - are they not then accession countries?

Turkey. Is it now a candidate and not just an applicant?

Croatia. Keep a sharp eye out people, apparently it's due to get candidate status by June, and there's talk of Croatia joining alongside Bulgaria and Romania.

Macedonia is the suggested next - but I don't know that it's even an applicant - is it an official applicant?

Who are the other official applicants besides Croatia - should they be listed as such? (I'm guessing not if there's too many or it's a LOT less likely than for Croatia).

Zoney 15:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Even after the negotiation of the accession treaties has been completed, the treaties also need to receive approval from the national parliaments of the member countries. It may seem unlikely that a member country would use their veto against a joining country, thus blocking their accession, but there are examples where thas, or threats to that effect, has been used as a bargaining chip in intra union "power struggle". Even the smallest member states are in this way able to cause delay or even to halt an accession process. -- Mic 16:41, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Croatia

As of 18 June 2004 Croatia is an official candidate country. [1] - Zoney 11:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That requires registration - try http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3818485.stm instead. -- ChrisO 11:34, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Romania and Bulgaria

Eliminated "(preliminary date)". The date is now official. --Danutz

No, it isn't. It'll be confirmed in October. —Nightstallion (?) 15:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Flags

Nice idea, and they are pretty, but such a mish-mash of colours is distracting and over the top for such a template in my opinion.

I shall revert it for now, until such time as more people come out in favour of the change.

zoney ♣ talk 20:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding North Macedonia

We use "Republic of Macedonia" in all of our articles, including those about the EU. I see no reason to use FYROM in this template. We shouldn't follow EU policy, but Wikipedia consensus in this. I've reverted. —Nightstallion (?) 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is shortened to "Ireland" in this template. Why not shorten Republic of Macedonia to "Macedonia"? --Fred Bradstadt 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this will sound biased since I am Greek, and I wish someone had pointed it out before: Please take into consideration the fact that neither EU itself, nor most of its present country-members recognise the country by the constitutional name 'Republic of Macedonia' ("European Union". European Commission, Enlargement, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)). In that regard, and in view of the pending naming dispute with Greece (which is an active bona-fide member), I am modifying this name to 'FYROM' for this template. Any other appellation is contrary to the status-quo in the EU, highly unprobable since Greece will definitely veto the country's entry by that name, and misinforming since it puts words in EU's mouth. Please keep in mind that even the 'FYROM' name can be considered pejorative by some Greeks, but it is respected by both countries as a stop-gap measure("Interim Accord between the Hellenic Republic and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", United Nations, 13 September 1995). For more details, kindly refer to the respective articles, or to the featured article Macedonia (terminology). •NikoSilver• 08:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PS, I am prepared to accept any form of note or footnote or star or link or whatever for that issue, but EU cannot be quoted for something it doesn't endorse. •NikoSilver• 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm afraid I'm not convinced. We aren't "quoting" the EU here, so any suggestion of EU "endorsement" is not an issue. Just because the template is about the EU, doesn't mean we are bound to follow EU officialese on terminological matters such as this. And as for a disclaimer note, the Macedonia-related articles are already burdened with tons of footnotes and disclaimers and tags, it's really no use adding another heap of them to every single page that links to the Republic of Macedonia article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose we should tell the world that there is a candidate country for EU with that name, while it is not the case? Please consider it like the name of a river, or a city. If we have Vardar, Solun, Bitola in the Mk-related articles and Axios, Thessaloniki, Monastiri in the Greek ones then in this case we must have 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. I am afraid that this is considered EU ground, and Greece is part of it. It is a matter of self-identification. EU self-identifies this candidate (prospect part of EU) as 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', the same way as Greece self-identifies its part called 'Thessaloniki' as such. •NikoSilver• 09:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"EU self-identifies this candidate"? Sorry, but "self-identify" isn't a transitive verb for me... :-) The EU is currently imposing use of "FYROM" on the candidate because Greece forces them to, okay. Calling that a matter of "self-identification" is a bit far-fetched for me. And yes, the statement "There is a candidate country of the EU called Republic of Macedonia" is absolutely true. Just as the statement "Niko is a Wikipedia editor" is true. The fact that you are a Wikipedia editor is one thing; the question of whether to call you by your official wikipedia name "NikoSilver" or by the informal name "Niko" is another. The assertion is true no matter which of the names I choose for referring to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FP, please don't respond with technicalities. I suppose Greece doesn't self-identify (sic indeed) its city as Thessaloniki either then? •NikoSilver• 11:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It's a matter of NPOV, and the NPOV way on Wikipedia is "Republic of Macedonia". —Nightstallion (?) 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please. EU is forced by Greece is an overstatement! All (EU, Greece and the Republic) are forced by the UN (which cannot be considered as forced by Greece either). The point is, that we are not here to solve this. Please provide citation for "Republic of Macedonia is EU candidate". In contrast, I have the primary source for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is EU candidate" (here). Now read in WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position why if A (RoM) is equivalent to B (FYROM), and B (FYROM) is equivalent to C (EU candidate), we cannot state that A is equivalent to C. •NikoSilver• 11:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good lawyering. But you met with the wrong debating partner here, mate. :-) The principle of OR doesn't apply to naming decisions between two synonymous names referring to the same entity. These are editorial decisions made by Wikipedia on the basis of its own self-defined policies. Your "A=B" is ontologically of a different status from your "B=C". B=C is a factual assertion, which requires citation (but is uncontroversial in this case.) A=B is not a factual assertion but a mere matter of choice of language. Imagine we had an article on, say, groupers, and a source was saying that "Epinephelinae eat scuba divers". Would we be allowed to summarise that statement as "Groupers eat scuba divers", to make it fit the conventions of our article, given the fact that groupers are epinephelinae? Of course we would. Same here. The Republic of Macedonia is a candidate of the EU. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha, nice try! But you wouldn't use 'epinephelinae' in a template of, say, 'unofficial names of fish'. Same here, you must use 'grouper' (sorry) FYROM for 'candidate countries in EU'. Otherwise EU citizens or officials may not understand you (like the English fishermen). Aside from the fact that they may threaten you legally! :-) Now, if they are 'synonymous', then why are we having this conversation? I suppose you won't mind using the other synonymous either... :-) •NikoSilver• 12:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quote ridiculous. The name Wikipedia uses, NPOVly, is ROM, not FYROM. Period. Same in all other EU articles. —Nightstallion (?) 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Quote" ridiculous? WP's NPOVness in the article title is another story. Please stop giving ultimatums ("period"). I am not here to push my POV. I am here to push EU's POV. EU doesn't know which country is the one you keep inserting in the template. Please do not keep misquoting EU. This is ridiculous. •NikoSilver• 17:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and since we were all wondering about Greece's veto for on accession in the EU by that name, here's a nice recent comment by the Greek FM: "Embassy of Greece - Washington, DC". Answer of FM Ms. D. Bakoyannis regarding the FYROM name issue. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) •NikoSilver• 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to issue ultimatums. However, we are not here to represent the EU's POV, but a NEUTRAL point of view, and that neutral point of view in use on Wikipedia is to use "Republic of Macedonia", in all articles. —Nightstallion (?) 10:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the name is in dispute, Republic of Macedonia is not NPOV - it is the government of that country's POV and the government of that country accepted to use than name under the 1995 agreement, and accepted to become an EU candidate under that name. Also, as they keep proposing the double name formula as a solution to the problem, this practice should be right up their street. In the worst case, we can mix and match - Google Earth uses the name Macedonia (FYROM). --Telex 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember - this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with it's own rules. Bomac 10:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Nightstallion. Silver, if you are politician, make politics in your office, not in Wikipedia. Bomac 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My points:

1. Template EU, represents EU POV, which at the moment is FYROM (here) per all naming settlements decided in WP. See e.g. the precedent of Gdansk/Danzig (discussion/vote here)
2. You have no source for "RoM EU candidate". I have the primary source for "FYROM EU candidate" (above)
3. Under WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, if A (RoM) is equivalent to B (FYROM), and B (FYROM) is equivalent to C (EU candidate), we cannot state that A is equivalent to C.
4. Any unaware reader can safely assume that EU has accepted a candidate country by the RoM name. This is like misquoting EU (i.e. putting words in EU's mouth)
5. That can neither be the case in the future, since Greece will definitely veto, as seen here.
6. RoM as a name clearly violates the human right to self-determination of Greek Macedonians (among others), who are EU members, as seen here.
7. The FYROM spellout (which I put in the template) is not considered offensive, as seen here (btw unsourced, speculation).
8. NPOV is to treat the sides equally. WP endorses the FYROM/RoM position 100%, even in articles where it does not apply, on the basis of self-determination, while there are other's self-determination rights which are clearly oppressed if you do so (those of the Greek Macedonians). This is unfair for the other side of the dispute and 'prescriptive' from WP's side.

•NikoSilver• 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, this is not something which you will unilaterally enforce in this template, and then try to get it to creep to other places. I've proposed a compromise solution in the template. —Nightstallion (?) 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You figured me out ("creep to other places")! Listen, first of all, I agree with the compromise (both yours and FunkyFly's versions) because I am not a WP:DICK; I had proposed it myself —see my first comment above. Second, I am not unilateral at all in this, as I am sure that there are other supporters, even non-Greek. I believe that it is unfair to accept and endorse (i.e. push) only one POV in this everywhere, regardless if applicable or not, and regardless if it offends others or not. Third, I've had no response to my rationale above (because there isn't any). However, out of my abundant WP:AGF, kindness and politeness, I am accepting your desperate unilateral compromise proposal! :-) •NikoSilver• 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw the same outcome should apply to the NATO template as well.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver -> Mouseover to get an idea of who will do that in the next few days...:-)

Fair enough. :) —Nightstallion (?) 13:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"potential candidate country"

is an official status. Check list of European Union member states. —Nightstallion (?) 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro

Now, we have Serbia and Montenegro further splitting into the two nations of Serbia, and Montenegro. While Serbia was listed as a potential candidate (as S & M), does that mean Serbia and Montenegro both are possible candidates, with Montenegro's independence?

The reason i added the country to the list of Potential Canadidates is from its listing on several pages... List_of_European_Union_member_states and Enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Montenegro User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, both are potential candidate countries, as will be Kosovo when it attains independence. This has nothing to do with my "desire to make Montenegro part of the EU", or however Aldux put it. —Nightstallion (?) 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The EU announced a few hours ago that they will discuss Montenegrin independence in a few days. At that point they will probably declare that both Serbia and Montenegro separately are potential candidates, so that there is no ambiguity. --Joy [shallot] 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, shall i re-instate Montenegro onto the List of Potential/Possible candidates, or wait for the EU's ruling? I also don't live in europe...so my "desire to have montenegro included in the EU" is baseless. I truly would not be affected if Montenegro was accepted or declined, as it does not affect me directly and therefore, the matter does not concern me. I'm just trying to portray the current events as accurately as possible, by adding only the most accurate data to the Wikipedia. User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

People seem a bit too touchy here. The phrase "desire to make Montenegro part of the EU" was only meant to be a joke, not an insinuation (I knew that neither of the editors were from the Balkans). What I'm simply trying to say is that I highly doubted that the potential candidacy was automatic, and that it would be up to the UE to proceed to the candidacy.--Aldux 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Romania and Bulgaria in 2008?

http://europa.eu/generalreport/en/2005/rg92.htm The reports adopted in October 2004 concluded that Bulgaria and Romania complied with the political accession criteria and that they will be ready for accession on 1 January 2007. --81.180.168.24 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not true. The final decision will be taken on 26 September, not earlier. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)