Talk:2013 enlargement of the European Union/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2013 enlargement of the European Union. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
To the user HUSOND
Please do not revert the current article with the old one. What the Swedish ambassador to Serbia said, about Serbia and Croatia joining together between 2012 and 2015 was denied by official Swedish authorities. Please read this article: http://www.vecernji.hr/newsroom/news/croatia/3028830/index.do There is no need to put here on Wikipedia untrue statements, taken completely out of context. That is what the Swedish Foreign Ministry stated! Hence, that is true, and as such is a source for a Wikipedia article. I sense some POV from you, Husond. Correct me if I am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.124.148 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The above link to 'vecernji list' is dead, which tells that there might not have been any news like you are talking about at all. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's a bit harsh on User:Husond, who was only reverting the removal of a referenced sentence. The user who removed the Swedish ambassador quote also removed a reference for the previous sentence as well, which I've now added again. If anyone is pushing POV here, it's people who remove any suggestions, regardless of how well they are referenced, that Croatia might not join until after 2011. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, that was just an ordinary vandal patrol, nothing seemed to indicate that the edit was more than a POV content removal. 78.2.124.148, please assume good faith next time. Húsönd 21:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:EU Accession Croatia.png
Image:EU Accession Croatia.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Reassessed importance for WikiProject Croatia
I've changed it from Top to High. No doubt that Accession of Croatia to the European Union is very important for Croatia, but encyclopedic importance is something else. For example, air is supremely important because you couldn't live without it, but it is not of such high importance as a subject in an encyclopedia. GregorB (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Negotiation progress
Acquis chapter
Some moron is reverting my changes to the screening and chapter negotiations, can you lock this article as illiterate morons or worse try to ruin whole article with the constant changes. Croatia has finished 12 chapters, and is negotiating 16... http://www.eu-pregovori.hr/files/Progress%20in%20EU-Croatia%20accession%20negotiations-2009-10-02-M.pdf
should redirect here. and also Croatia's accession to the European Union --189.33.14.179 (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did that. Tomeasy T C 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks--189.33.38.206 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
status on 22nd of December 2010.
Negotiation progress
|
|
Slovenia chapters freeze/unfreeze
Why remove this columns? Slovenia objections were part of the process and as per the official site eu-pregovori.hr one chapter is still blocked. Alinor (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Land ownership issue
is out of date. All eu citizens can buy land in Croatia since several years ago. I suggest to delete the section.
- It can remain as this was a contentious issue, but of course it should be explained that it is resolved. The issue is relevant and important part of the accession of Croatia to the EU. Alinor (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Current progress table
I think that the colored column with "status" should be for the status at the beginning of the process. The "current status" would supposedly became "all green" when Croatia joins, but showing "status at begin" would show what amount of progress was needed in each area. If somebody thinks that "current status" colored column is also needed - such can be added additionally (and eventually removed - after all gets green). Alinor (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
why?
there is nothing in this article that explains the reasons why Croatia (or its political elite anyway) wants to join the EU and what the reaction of Croats are to joining the EU. Are they enthusiastic? Is there resistance? That sort of thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added a brief section on public opinion. This could be expanded by using the annual Eurobarometer surveys if someone has the time. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Contradictory
The article says at the start that public opinion is in favour of the move, but in the specific section later on that it is divided. I accept that they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but it's a bit misleading. Snootyjim (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
After 3rd May
On 6th of June Latvia deposited its deed. Romanian Parliament ratified the treaty on the 26th of June, while the Czech one did on 8th and the formal (czech) ratification was on the 26th of June. --Edroeh (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Percentage of poll
In the introduction, there is a statement regarding the voting percentage that is unclear. It reads "and the 67 per cent of Croats taking part voted in favour of EU membership."
Because of the "the," this sentence means that 67% of Croats participated in the vote, and all (i.e. 100%) voted in favour. This is unlikely (unless it was rigged).
It is more likely that, of the Croats participating, 67% voted in favour. In which case, the "the" needs to be dropped. As I don't know the actual figures, though, I don't want to make the change, so somebody who does know the figures should make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmasters0 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Done TDL (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Poland/Ireland
The Polish Parliament voted for ratification, on the 14th September. Did Irish Parliament decide right now like the map in the german wiki suggest? --Edroeh (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- You can find references about Irish and other ratifications on Treaty of Accession 2011. Tomi566 (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Ratification process "completed"
I'm really not sure what the confusion is here. Have you read the source that you claim to be "syncing" with? It clearly contradicts what you are arguing: "Article 3. of the Accession Treaty states that Member States shall deposit instruments of ratification with the Government of the Italian Republic, therefore, only upon fulfillment of that conditions the Accession Treaty can be considered officially ratified in individual Member State." It lists these states as "parliamentary approval obtained" and NOT "ratification procedure completed." Listing them as "Ratification process completed", as you're attempting to do, is both inaccurate and contradicts the sources. I've reverted your proposed changes several times, and restored the long-term WP:CONSENSUS version per WP:BRD. Please self-revert and discuss on the talk page if you disagree with me and all the the sources. TDL (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fully agree; no bundestag approval means, that this state is not passed yet... L.tak (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of official sources
Ron 1987, Tomi566 and now L.tak you cannot delete official sources on the premise of "they are wrong and I am right", ok? We all know the ratification process in Germany is not yet fully completed and that it is far from being deposited however that is not the question here. We have an official link stating that Germany has obtained parliamentary approval and that is, in fact, the only valid reference concerning this issue. Even furthermore deleting ALL links (official ones) regarding depositions and ratification on the same premise is just simply vandalism. I invite you to discuss this issue without deleting sources from a longstanding status quo/consensus version of the article. Shokatz (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've provided you with four references, one being the Bundesrat itself, and you still claim Germany has finished parliamentary approval on the basis of a EU Delegation's to Croatia map coloring? For your information, their coloring has been wrong in the past, for example, they have made the same coloring right after House of Commons and well before the House of Lords voted. Do you realize that German legislative process requires both Bundesrat and Bundestag votes, and one can claim that parliamentary approval has been granted only when both chambers vote in favour. In one of the references there's a clear Croatian MFA position "The treaty now needs to be approved by the upper house, the Bundesrat, at a plenary session which begins on 7 June. This will mark the end of the ratification process." What do you think would happen if Bundesrat votes against? Do you think they are voting on June 7 just for fun?
- Furthermore, there was no "long-standing consensus version" of the article. Bundestag voted only 11 days ago. Also, the main article Treaty of Accession 2011, never claimed Germany has finished parliamentary proceedings. And your accusations of clone accounts are not even worth answering. Tomi566 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did not claim Germany has finished anything, the article and the official link say "Parliamentary approval obtained", it does not state "finished" nor does it state "completed". In fact the entire ratification process is considered finished only and only when the state officials deposit their instruments of ratification at the Italian Govt. When any parliament of any state votes in the accession, at that point it is considered that it gained a parliamentary approval....no matter whether the internal ratification is complete or partial. And yes there is a long-standing consensus version of the article and that link which you removed completely has not only been on this article almost from the very start of the ratification process but is in fact the only viable and verifiable link we have and you deleted it entirely. And not only that you removed two links regarding the UK ratification for no apparent reason whatsoever, no explanation, no anything. If Germany is your only concern here you could have easily restored the old section saying "Ratification process not yet completed" and list Germany there with the appropriate links....but you decided to vandalize this article and delete official link "because it is wrong and you are right". Fantastic rationale...unfortunately for you that is not how Wikipedia functions. Shokatz (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, obtained means there is no further parliamentary approval needed, and in this case Bundesrat vote is needed. Link regarding the UK ratification was redundant because it was used only until the point the EU Council website updated the fact that UK deposited. To be more specific, it was needed on May 20 and May 21. And since you insist on this EU Delegation as the holy grail of official sources, you'd be surprised they actually do claim the same as I do. Tomi566 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't mean that. As I pointed you out there is nothing in that article which says that the process itself is finished, in fact the Croatian ministry which you quoted is wrong as well because for the ratification process to be considered completed or finished the govt. of the country in question needs to deposit (hand in) the instruments of ratification (documents confirming the ratification) to the Italian government which originally received (as Italy held EU presidency) the petition from Croatia to join the EU. I said it in my previous reply, if you wish to point out that Germany has not yet obtained parliamentary approval you can restore the old section and list Germany there with the appropriate links, but do not delete the official link of the EU which also deals with other countries besides Germany. Deleting verifiable sources is considered vandalism. Shokatz (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've provided four sources instead of the one I removed, and I've provided many sources in the main article Treaty of Accession 2011. There, every single vote is referenced, and way more precise and sourced than that EU Delegation table. Ratification as a term is frequently used in both senses, as "internal" ratification, or "external", i.e. when country deposits. Therefore, it is not wrong to use the term interchangeably. And no Italian EU presidency has anything to do with instruments of ratification being deposited in Rome. All EU Accession treaties are deposited with the Italian government. What old section are you talking about? Can you name it? Tomi566 (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Shokatz, by definition you can't "obtain" something until it has been "completely" granted. That being said, I agree with you that there is no reason to remove the link to the official site. For the UK link, I agree with Tomi566 that it is a bit redundant, as the date is listed on the depository website now. Finally, you might want to read WP:VAND as none of the edits you are referring to are vandalism. This are content dispute, and making WP:Hitler attacks against good faith editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia is not helpful to resolving it. TDL (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't claim anything was obtained, it was already in the article citing the mentioned link. The link to which you referred to countless times yourself. Removing official link completely from the site with the explanation "it is wrong, I am right" is vandalism not a content dispute nor it is a good-faith edit and thus I have reported such behavior. As for the other minor content issue with Germany and internal ratification you can clearly see that I have no problem with it. Shokatz (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your allegations about 1) Vandalism, 2) Cloned accounts, 3) Oversimpfying my edits as "I am right" egotrips, whereas I have included 4-5 references, were completely uncalled for. I hope you realized that. Since you now have the very same EU Delegation link explaining the upper chamber, i.e. Bundesrat still has to vote, I'm not against keeping that EU Delegation table, only if that inaccurate map coloring it's not used anymore to move Germany to "Parliamentary approval obtained" group. Tomi566 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- What was also uncalled for is that I have invited you and the others several times to discuss this here on the talk page which you refused and continued to push your agenda. Yes I see removal of official links on the premise "it is wrong" as vandalism. Perhaps I am wrong too by Wiki policies and that is not vandalism but I certainly saw it as such. I never had a problem with Germany not being in the group of countries with parliamentary approval but I had a problem with deletion of Germany altogether from the section or the deletion of the official link that was there for months. That is why I have invited you and the others several times so we can discuss this trivial issue instead of arguing like little children. Shokatz (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The procedure is then, to keep the original version; the so called last stable version. Procedure is also never, never ever to make more than 3 reverts. What would have been practical, is not to directly revert, but to do what you did in your last edit: change what you think is necessary; and leave the disputed part…. That leads to something without escalation; and without pages being locked… L.tak (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well I believe I have pointed out somewhere (can't really remember now where) that if you disagree with the official site and you can support it with links (it was actually never truly disputed that Germany did not complete internal ratification as it was obvious) that we return the "ratification process not yet completed" section and supplant it with ref's; while also keeping the mentioned link because it contains information about other countries as well not just Germany. Shokatz (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The procedure is then, to keep the original version; the so called last stable version. Procedure is also never, never ever to make more than 3 reverts. What would have been practical, is not to directly revert, but to do what you did in your last edit: change what you think is necessary; and leave the disputed part…. That leads to something without escalation; and without pages being locked… L.tak (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- What was also uncalled for is that I have invited you and the others several times to discuss this here on the talk page which you refused and continued to push your agenda. Yes I see removal of official links on the premise "it is wrong" as vandalism. Perhaps I am wrong too by Wiki policies and that is not vandalism but I certainly saw it as such. I never had a problem with Germany not being in the group of countries with parliamentary approval but I had a problem with deletion of Germany altogether from the section or the deletion of the official link that was there for months. That is why I have invited you and the others several times so we can discuss this trivial issue instead of arguing like little children. Shokatz (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your allegations about 1) Vandalism, 2) Cloned accounts, 3) Oversimpfying my edits as "I am right" egotrips, whereas I have included 4-5 references, were completely uncalled for. I hope you realized that. Since you now have the very same EU Delegation link explaining the upper chamber, i.e. Bundesrat still has to vote, I'm not against keeping that EU Delegation table, only if that inaccurate map coloring it's not used anymore to move Germany to "Parliamentary approval obtained" group. Tomi566 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't claim anything was obtained, it was already in the article citing the mentioned link. The link to which you referred to countless times yourself. Removing official link completely from the site with the explanation "it is wrong, I am right" is vandalism not a content dispute nor it is a good-faith edit and thus I have reported such behavior. As for the other minor content issue with Germany and internal ratification you can clearly see that I have no problem with it. Shokatz (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Shokatz, by definition you can't "obtain" something until it has been "completely" granted. That being said, I agree with you that there is no reason to remove the link to the official site. For the UK link, I agree with Tomi566 that it is a bit redundant, as the date is listed on the depository website now. Finally, you might want to read WP:VAND as none of the edits you are referring to are vandalism. This are content dispute, and making WP:Hitler attacks against good faith editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia is not helpful to resolving it. TDL (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've provided four sources instead of the one I removed, and I've provided many sources in the main article Treaty of Accession 2011. There, every single vote is referenced, and way more precise and sourced than that EU Delegation table. Ratification as a term is frequently used in both senses, as "internal" ratification, or "external", i.e. when country deposits. Therefore, it is not wrong to use the term interchangeably. And no Italian EU presidency has anything to do with instruments of ratification being deposited in Rome. All EU Accession treaties are deposited with the Italian government. What old section are you talking about? Can you name it? Tomi566 (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't mean that. As I pointed you out there is nothing in that article which says that the process itself is finished, in fact the Croatian ministry which you quoted is wrong as well because for the ratification process to be considered completed or finished the govt. of the country in question needs to deposit (hand in) the instruments of ratification (documents confirming the ratification) to the Italian government which originally received (as Italy held EU presidency) the petition from Croatia to join the EU. I said it in my previous reply, if you wish to point out that Germany has not yet obtained parliamentary approval you can restore the old section and list Germany there with the appropriate links, but do not delete the official link of the EU which also deals with other countries besides Germany. Deleting verifiable sources is considered vandalism. Shokatz (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, obtained means there is no further parliamentary approval needed, and in this case Bundesrat vote is needed. Link regarding the UK ratification was redundant because it was used only until the point the EU Council website updated the fact that UK deposited. To be more specific, it was needed on May 20 and May 21. And since you insist on this EU Delegation as the holy grail of official sources, you'd be surprised they actually do claim the same as I do. Tomi566 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did not claim Germany has finished anything, the article and the official link say "Parliamentary approval obtained", it does not state "finished" nor does it state "completed". In fact the entire ratification process is considered finished only and only when the state officials deposit their instruments of ratification at the Italian Govt. When any parliament of any state votes in the accession, at that point it is considered that it gained a parliamentary approval....no matter whether the internal ratification is complete or partial. And yes there is a long-standing consensus version of the article and that link which you removed completely has not only been on this article almost from the very start of the ratification process but is in fact the only viable and verifiable link we have and you deleted it entirely. And not only that you removed two links regarding the UK ratification for no apparent reason whatsoever, no explanation, no anything. If Germany is your only concern here you could have easily restored the old section saying "Ratification process not yet completed" and list Germany there with the appropriate links....but you decided to vandalize this article and delete official link "because it is wrong and you are right". Fantastic rationale...unfortunately for you that is not how Wikipedia functions. Shokatz (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
How the #### did we get here? Vandalism is narrowly defined on wikipedia (check the link you provided); and I don't like being accused of it. The same goes for being a clone account. If someone is reverted, the normal way is to get a good discussion on the talk page; many people have invited you to do this… Why didn't that happen and did people keep reverting and escalating… It has come of nothing… Any discussion here would have easier led to the discussion now implemented: 1 that set Germany out… L.tak (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I said perhaps I went too far and thus I apologize...to all users who I accused for vandalism and especially sockpuppetry. I was quite annoyed first by removal of Germany from the list altogether and then by removal of official EU link without any discussion. In fact It was I who was constantly calling for a discussion here as you can see both from several of my replies and my edit summaries and thus my frustration grew as it went on and on. I agree though that this whole issue escalated over extremely foolish and trivial matter. Ridiculous... Shokatz (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, but please don't twist the facts now...just compare your two statements from today: "I never had a problem with Germany not being in the group of countries with parliamentary approval" vs. previous edit summary after putting Germany back in the same group: "Bundestag, which is a main parliamentary body, has voted in the accession treaty thus making Germany obtaining it's parliamentary approval". Because that is what the whole issue was about, not about some single reference. Tomi566 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- That was the issue for you not for me...my problem is that you were deleting the reference completely. You have my last edit [1] as proof of that. All this seems like a ridiculous misunderstanding over trivial issue. See, we cannot even agree what we were arguing about. Lol... Shokatz (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- To avoid exactly this kind of understandings, we have talk pages; not only to invite others; but especially as an occasion to explain ourselves… I also saw your sources argument more as "an argument" for keeping Germany, than a point in itself; and looking back at the edit summaries I would still conclude that… Anyway, apologies are to be appreciated and admired (especially after heated debate)! I for one would have no problem of lifting the protection, because I am quite sure the edit warring is over and I trust you all in this; but that would require a lenient admin... L.tak (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well I can certainly say for myself that I learned a lot from this entire incident. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor although I feel this cannot be an excuse for some of my actions such as accusations of vandalism and especially sockpuppetry. I will certainly take a different approach if I ever find myself in a situation such as this, although personally I'd prefer this was the last time. Shokatz (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- To avoid exactly this kind of understandings, we have talk pages; not only to invite others; but especially as an occasion to explain ourselves… I also saw your sources argument more as "an argument" for keeping Germany, than a point in itself; and looking back at the edit summaries I would still conclude that… Anyway, apologies are to be appreciated and admired (especially after heated debate)! I for one would have no problem of lifting the protection, because I am quite sure the edit warring is over and I trust you all in this; but that would require a lenient admin... L.tak (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- That was the issue for you not for me...my problem is that you were deleting the reference completely. You have my last edit [1] as proof of that. All this seems like a ridiculous misunderstanding over trivial issue. See, we cannot even agree what we were arguing about. Lol... Shokatz (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, but please don't twist the facts now...just compare your two statements from today: "I never had a problem with Germany not being in the group of countries with parliamentary approval" vs. previous edit summary after putting Germany back in the same group: "Bundestag, which is a main parliamentary body, has voted in the accession treaty thus making Germany obtaining it's parliamentary approval". Because that is what the whole issue was about, not about some single reference. Tomi566 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
finishing up
 | This edit request to Accession of Croatia to the European Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hopefully as a technicallity: the last version now has
- Ratification process not yet completed: Germany.
From the discussion it becomes clear we all agree that while the official ref says something else, the parliamentary procedure is not fully completed. Keeping this in is a bit… inconsistent, as it would also apply for those countries where there is no royal promulgation etc. I propose to change to:
- Parliamentary ratification process not completed: Germany.
In that we we don't change any references (although I will ask the admin to run WP:ref links, as this page is a ref-mess)…. L.tak (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - The current text is a bit misleading. Better to more precisely describe what their situation is. TDL (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I must say though from what I can see from the link[2] provided now in the article, the German Bundesrat has a scheduled session on June 7th to discus (and vote) on the Croatian accession. This means the whole issue will become obsolete in less than two weeks time. Shokatz (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Tomi566 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Border Discrepancy
In the second to last clause of the intro to this article, it states that the Croatia-Bosnia border will become the longest border in the EU, longer than the Russia-Finland border. It cites a French article that lists the border as over 1300 km. However, looking at a map, this simply does not look true. Obviously I didn't want to use that as my only reason for questioning this. The Wikipedia article Geography of Croatia lists the Croatia-Bosnia border as 1011 km, and cites a very credible-looking geographic survey. Any thoughts?
- The statement in the article was a misinterpretation of the French article, which was in itself wrong. The French article correctly states the Croatia-Bosnia length further down (1011km), while the headline figure of 1,300km is the whole Croatia-rest-of-world border. As someone pointed out in their edit summary, that is in any case shorter than the Norway-Sweden border. Essentially nonsense piled on nonsense. HenryFlower