File talk:EU28-further enlargement map.svg

Should we have a separate colour for the UK in anticipation of Brexit?

This map shows the possible enlargement of the EU28 (based on the en:Copenhagen criteria). For the Brexit we need a new map. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Coloring Russia and Kazakhstan

I am sorry I was unable to initiate this discussion any earlier.

This July, I noticed this map does not include Russia and Kazakhstan in the category "membership possible," which, I believe, is a factual error. I have found a revision of the file that includes them and reinstated them to get reverted by Kolja21. I've started a discussion (in German) with him, trying to understand his reasoning. It appeared to me at that point that his arguments were not particularly consistent with the precise wording this map uses: "membership possible." I did not believe I've met a particularly good argument from him, trying to explain why I did not see each particular argument as sufficient, and after Kolja did not respond in a week (still being active and even responding to another message at his talk page), I assumed my arguments were stronger and he ran out of ideas, so I reinstated the revision of the map I believed to be correct, inviting him for a further discussion if there was anything else to be said. Instead of that, he reverted me in less than 24 hours.

At this point, it is clear there needs to be a wider discussion on the matter. I've tried initiating one in en.wiki, assuming it has most active project members and thus could provide a wider discussion. Unfortunately, I was wrong and the discussion I've initiated returned no third-party opinions. I believe we should have a discussion here to settle the matters.

I believe that the map should also color Russia green ("membership possible" -- I'm putting an accent on the latter word), but Kazakhstan should remain gray. My main point for this is that according to the Treaty on European Union, Article 49, every European country can join provided it fulfills certain criteria. Then comes the question of which countries are European to begin with. The European Union provides the answer to this at their official website: scroll down to the list of "other European countries," where you can see Russia listed as one (and not Kazakhstan). I believe there possibly couldn't be any authority that could be more reliable on further EU expansion than the EU itself.

To this I have not heard any objections. However, a few other points were raised that were meant to show the impracticality of coloring Russia green. However, I did not find any of them particularly prohibitive and overcoming the argument above:

• "Russia does not fulfill the Copenhagen criteria." True. But then again, this does not make membership impossible, because there is a chance the criteria are met and then the country could be accepted. Compare to the case of Morocco, in which membership is impossible no matter what the country does. (Except, of course, for attaining some European territory, but a map cannot reflect such a possibility.) In addition to that, this does not seem to be the problem in case of all EaP countries, so it couldn't be the problem here.

• "The Caucasus countries, Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova all participate in Eastern Partnership, which Russia does not do." That is not relevant at all. First, Eastern Partnership is not concerned with future membership of these countries. Here is the first sentence of the en.wiki article Eastern Partnership past the lead section: "The Eastern Partnership complements the Northern Dimension and the Union for the Mediterranean by providing an institutionalised forum for discussing visa agreements, free trade deals, and strategic partnership agreements with the EU's eastern neighbours, while avoiding the controversial topic of accession to the European Union." Second, Russia not participating in EaP does not in any way deny it of a possibility of a future membership. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (except the evidence in question is not really evidence to begin with).

• "Russia's membership anytime soon is very improbable." Yes, that's exactly what it looks like. But the map does not say, "membership probable"; it says, "membership possible." (Also, from what I know, a vast majority of people did not see around 1980 the European communism would crumble in a decade and a great number of those former communist countries would be parts of the EEC (which later became the EU) in less than 25 years.) But even saying that Russia certainly couldn't join in an equal period of time from now solely on that basis is the original research I am trying to avoid in this map (even though it looks very unlikely, we're not talking about "likely"; we're talking about "possible").

• This is an exact quote, translated by Google Translate: "If you do not agree with a frequently used graphics and can not convince the creators of the map from your point of view, you can not simply change them by yourself, but you have to create your own graphics. Anything else would be cheating on the authors, which they deliberately incorporated as file him their articles." First of all, factual errors do not fall under this description. Second of all, authors' feelings play no role at all. Moreover, if feelings even come up in a discussion like this, then it is most certain this quote from a Commons guideline should be applied: "You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to a Wikimedia project".

• Another exact translated quote: "The selection in the map is also conclusive in this respect, since there are also no Russian efforts to join the Eastern Partnership or even to apply for membership of the EU. Instead, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAWU) was founded as a counter-project." First, "no Russian efforts" is by no means "no possibility," as common logic dictates. Second, I couldn't find any traces of Azerbaijani efforts; yet Azerbaijan is not denied the possibility. I couldn't think of any practical Belorussian attempts to join, either (EU sanctions against particular Belorussian individuals and companies were only abolished last year), and the country is also a founding member of the said Eurasian Union; Armenia made a faithful decision to join in 2014. Third, the Eurasian Union was not meant -- or at least declared -- as the counter-project to the EU. According to the Russian PM in 2011, "Some of our neighbours explain their reluctance to participate in advanced integration projects in the post-Soviet space by saying it allegedly contradicts their European choice. This is a false divide. The Eurasian union will be built on universal principles of integration as an integral part of greater Europe, united by common values of freedom, democracy and market laws." Fourth, even if it were, it does not mean that a country couldn't leave this union for the EU. This has even happened in the past a number of times: some examples to begin with are Sweden (leaving EFTA) and Poland (leaving CEFTA). Lastly, there shouldn't be any selection in the first place. I applied simple criteria rather than making editorial decisions. Editorial decisions are fine in minor contexts (what color to choose) but not when it comes to facts.

Then again, none of these precisely contradicts my general point, which is: every European country is granted a right for membership in the EU under certain conditions; Russia is recognized as a European country by the EU; therefore, it is correct to include under "membership possible" (and not correct not to do so). Maybe the map was intended to show something else; then, however, it should say something else in its legend. At the same moment, it directly contradicts what is said there in the Source line: "See the list of countries potentially capable of membership at the official site of the EU (the EU provides right for every European country to join once certain criteria are met)."

I will invite everyone involved in this story to this discussion. Unfortunately, I have not found anything in Commons that acts like a WikiProject in en.wiki so I could invite more people, but there is anything, I'd love to know.--R8R (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How many time you want to "invite" us again? As you wrote we had this discussion in English and German, and there is no reason to start it again. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: Spamming or molesting other users ([1], [2]) might have the result, that your account will be blocked again. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The matter was never settled in one way or another. The two of us could not find a compromise that would satisfy both of us, so I am starting a wider discussion. This is what you generally do in Wikipedia/Commons. There has never been any general discussion to stick to as of now. If you do have a position to defend, you're in your full right to do so.

Threatening others in response to invitations for discussion that people have not participated in and that was never settled anyway is certainly not good behavior. Bringing up the July block would not pay in your favor: you have withdrawn from an active discussion, seen a message saying, "You've withdrawn, so I'm changing for now, but contact me if you have anything to add (that last note specifically added to prevent any future edit warring)," undid my edit, and blamed me for edit warring before an administrator. This is not what anyone would call constructive behavior.

Please stick to the point. Do you have any ways to show there is any justification behind your position regarding the map?--R8R (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have serious doubts on the "Possible membership" colouring, because it needs sources, and it is difficult to find them for something that is not certain, but just "possible". Nevertheless, not considering news rumours, I would only refer to the UE webpage about member and possible member countries: in the "Joining the EU" section, I read 5 candidate countries (Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey) and 2 potential candidates (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo). Russia isn't officially a "Potential candidate", and Kazakhstan is not even considered an european country. --Ruthven (msg) 12:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: I've had these doubts, too. Maybe we could get rid of this category altogether, indeed. That, however, be a different map, I believe, so I've only considered the options that keep this category in place.

However, most of the country colored "membership possible" are not listed as potential candidates at the EU's official website, either. That alone is not particularly decisive, however: Iceland was not listed as such until very recently, and it only changed when the pro-EU forces won local elections there and the country quickly submitted a bid for entrance.

If we are to keep this category at all, we must define it using reliable sources. The suggested scheme (color all countries marked as European in the EU's official website as members of the "membership possible" category per Treaty on European Union, Article 49) is the closest thing I could come up with to a referenced definition of this category. So I suggest we use it if we do keep the category.

I listed Kazakhstan just in case someone asks about it. By the way, while the EU apparently does not consider Kazakhstan as European, the Council of Europe does.--R8R (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

To me, it's quite simple: we should report exactly what's in the source. A different source, would lead to a different map. --Ruthven (msg) 12:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Could you please clarify what exactly this would mean regarding this particular map? The current scheme is not supported by any source I've seen so far. Should we remove the "membership possible" category or should we include all countries the EU lists as European? Or anything else?--R8R (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the map does not consider Greenland as European country. I doubt it should be coloured if we consider the EU page as source. Ankry (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@R8R: I mean that it must reflect only the contents of https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries. --Ruthven (msg) 13:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ankry: This map is part of a whole set of EU maps, see Maps of the European Union enlargement. Greenland was part of the European Community till 1985, and they can join again (like the UK) if they want. Of cause geographically Greenland or Cyprus are not part of Europe, but this is not the point like we have discussed multiple times. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)