Talk:Eastern Partnership

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eastern Partnership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615203243/http://telegraf.by/en/2011/10/belarus-sohranila-uchastie-v-vostochnom-partnerstve to http://telegraf.by/en/2011/10/belarus-sohranila-uchastie-v-vostochnom-partnerstve
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://eap-csf.eu/en/news-events/news/statement-of-eastern-partnership-civil-society-forum-on-arrests-of-internationally-respected-civil-society-leaders-in-azerbaijan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310140117/http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/GECpolicypaper1.pdf to http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec/GECpolicypaper1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426235959/http://www.enpi-info.eu/library/ to http://www.enpi-info.eu/library/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Minisites/widereurope/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.amo.cz/download.php?group=novinky5_soubory&id=19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Belarus is not an active participating state in the Eastern Partnership

Whether its a "suspension" or "withdrawal" is completely irrelevant to the fact that Belarus is no longer an active participant of the Eastern Partnership. As of 28 June 2021, Belarus officially suspended its participation in the Eastern Partnership initiative and that must clearly be reflected in the article. As Belarus is no longer a full-fledged active participating state, their inclusion (as was done by an editor today) is erroneous and misleading to readers. When and if sources can confirm Belarus resumes participation or should gov't officials reverse their suspension decision- then, and only then- should Belarus be included again. Archives908 (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A Russian map File:European Union Eastern Partnership.png uploaded by one edit User:Боузер doesn't change the situation. Unilaterally withdraw without a deadline? Dubious. Until further clarification the official map is still valid File:European Union Eastern Partnership.svg. Putin's Trolls are active, see IP edits on fr.Wikipedia. @Nightstallion: FYI. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Further clarification for what? Every major news outlet has already confirmed that Belarus has suspended its membership in the Eastern Partnership. Are you suggesting these "trolls" control Western media? Doubtful. Anyways, trolls or no trolls, it doesn't change the fact that Belarus has suspended its participation in the initiative. So no, the old map is not currently valid. And if you want to keep that map, sources will be required to show that Belarus is still an active member in some capacity. Alternatively- a new map can be created (or the old one updated), which highlights Belarus as a suspended/inactive member within the Eastern Partnership. I for one, think that is a fair suggestion which accurately reflects the recent announcement made by the Belarusian authorities, without completely removing Belarus from the map. Archives908 (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspended and withdrawn are very different. In the former, they remain members but have suspended their active parcitipation, wherase for the later they have ceased to be members entirely and are former members. All sources and evidence that I've seen indicate the former, and not the later. Therefore, wikipedia should not be erronously indicating that they are no longer a member as the reverted article does.

No objections to accruately reflecting that in the article. I've started that work by adding "(Suspended)" after their listing, and support hilighting them as a suspended state on the map. But they should not be depicted as non-members, and we should replace a svg map with a poor quality png map. TDL (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That's fine and I see your point. However, in the future, please bring your suggestion(s) to the talk first. It is common practice- while there is an ongoing and active discussion- to seek a consensus/share recommendations/provide feedback. See WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Back to the topic, Belarus must be changed in the map from green to an alternate color, reflecting their new status. I think we can all agree that any "withdrawn state" should not be the same color as any other "active participating state". And as you pointed out, the sources all confirm that Belarus has officially withdrawn its participation. Maps are not my specialty, if you would like to take the lead on that, TDL, that'd be a great help. If not, are there any other editors with map editing skills that can take on the duty to accurately reflect the new status of Belarus? Thanks, Archives908 (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Archives908, you've got the policy backwards. The WP:BURDEN of verifying material and establishing a consensus for change lies with the editor wishing to add the claims to the article, not the editor who reverts unsourced changes to the consensus version. I explained in my edit summary why I (partially) revereted your changes. Per WP:BRD, the expectation is that following your changes being reverted by the community you should bring your proposed changes to the talk page to discuss and reach a consensus, rather than trying to force them into the article against consensus as you did by re-reverting. So in the future if your changes get reverted, please discuss them on the talk page rather than edit warring to retain the changes.

You are still confused between suspended and withdrawn. As explained above, the sources do not say that they are a "withdrawn state", so we don't agree on that point. But I have no objection to depicting Belarus' suspended particpiation in a different colour on the map. TDL (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, TDL, I know the difference between "withdrawn" and "suspended". Let's please move beyond this technicality now... The issue here remains that Belarus is not actively participating, since they unilaterally suspended participation. This should be reflected on the map and I'm glad you don't have any objections with that. Maps are not my expertise, do you (or anyone else reading this) have experience with editing maps? Archives908 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• European Union Eastern Partnership.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent situation

There exists an obvious crack between Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, who want to join the EU and Armenia, Azerbaijan, who fight a war, making their membership impossible.

Obsolete article

An example "Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stated that due to the economic crisis in the EU, Ukraine would probably not join the EU".

Obsolete Criticism section

The section informs about a 2010 fact referencing 2009 source.

https://www.epc.eu/en/publications/Lessons-from-the-Eastern-Partnership-Looking-back-to-move-forward~44d130

https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/european-issues/0624-the-eastern-partnership-under-the-test-of-war-in-ukraine

https://us.boell.org/en/2017/11/22/eastern-partnership-still-relevant

Relationship with Russia

Russia is not a member of the partnership. Perhaps "Relationship with the USA" should be added par symmetry.

See also

The section includes 16 links. The article should integrate several of the subjects and some others like Greater Europe should be removed. Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)