Talk:Copenhagen criteria

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union High‑importance 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does not belong here but maybe in a separate page on criticisms of the European Union, does this exist? If there is a source or quote on these specific criticisms then re-add it directly from those sources. It certainly should not link to a page about begging... --Didanvwisgi (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should create a separate page for European Union Membership criteria? Alinor 10:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See 2024 move proposal in below thread. -- Beland (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the Copenhagen criteria have absolutely nothing to do with *any* geographic criteria. As such that whole section seems to me to be falsely inserted in this article (not to mention that it contains horrible statements like the silly "Neither the EU nor the candidate countries have the power to change geographical reality," or the even more horrid "European (i.e. Christian)") This section needs to be excised entirely. Aris Katsaris 23:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, AFAIK the EU simply borrows its geographical criteria from the Council of Europe, which means that the maximal theoretical extension of these two international organizations runs along the Russia-China and Russia-Mongolia border, then along the southern border or Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkey. The Cape Verde Islands and Greenland can go either way (hypothetically). In response to your comment... feel free to improve! Only don't cull too drastically, just rephrase horrid statements instead. =J //Big Adamsky 11:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is that if the Copenhagen Criteria *don't* have anything to do with geographical criteria, then the whole section doesn't belong in the Copenhagen criteria article (Copenhagen Criteria are *not* a synonym for "membership criteria", they're only a subset thereof, AFAIK). I'll see where I can move the section to (probably Enlargement of the European Union, with some small reduction) and will see about rephrasing horrid statements also. Aris Katsaris 11:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See 2024 move proposal in thread below to change the name of the article to include both. -- Beland (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says there is no consensus definition of "European country", and that this is determined on a political basis by members. -- Beland (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, if Cyprus is geographically Asian but culturally European, what is to stop Australia and New Zealand becoming EU members (despite the absurdity of the notion)??? Soundabuser 03:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of this wild theory that Armenia is more European than New Zealand or Israel, this is original research and should therefore not be included on Wikipedia. Support its deletion. Kransky 06:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find an article concerning that topic, but shouldn't it be included here?

So, basically it should depict the process from the application to full membership?! Containing the different fields, acquis and chapters and all that stuff. I don't know whether that should be part of this article, but in general I think this would help to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.4.204 (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some eejit had put "People from Leitrim" on the section about minorities in Ireland. Deleted! Added phrase about Irish Nationalists and Republicans in Northern Ireland to UK sentence. Remove if not applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.147.5 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There should be a separate page for this and criticisms of the process using real sources... --Didanvwisgi (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected some factual mistakes in the sentence regarding the "sanctions" against the Austrian government in 2000. First, it was not "Jörg Haider's government", he wasn't a member (what was then his party was in the government). Second, these "sanctions" were not EU-sponsered, but imposed by the other 14 governments outside of the framework of the EU. A relatively good description can be found under Wolfgang Schüssel. Martg76 (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have a geographic criteria section? The section basically is a bunh of OR based on theories on what is or is not Europe. Basically there are no geographic criteria, as any "European country" can join. The EU website states that "The sole material condition laid down by Article O of the TEU is that the applicant must be a 'European State'. There is no unequivocal interpretation of that criterion. It can be read equally well in geographical, cultural or political terms." European is the only criteria, be it geographic, cultural, or political. I suggest removing that section, just combining anything relevant with the section above. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How seriously is the "secret ballot" criterion taken? The UK does not have a secret ballot in the strictest sense (since each voter's number is recorded against the ballot paper number), so presumably would be ineligible to join the EU after Brexit. Is this the sort of thing that would be overlooked? 2A02:C7F:1C0C:1700:B17D:CC1D:9F98:223B (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The map shown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Further_European_Union_Enlargement2.png) has Iceland shaded as if it is a candidate, yet it is not mentioned as a candidate in the caption below the picture (on the main page for which this is the talk page). I apologize if I'm posting this in the wrong place, but there doesn't seem to be a talk page for the image file itself. I don't have a source on Iceland so I didn't want to add it myself. Hopefully someone else has the knowledge/resources to resolve this discrepancy.

It has been proposed in this section that Copenhagen criteria be renamed and moved to European Union membership criteria. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Copenhagen criteria → European Union membership criteria – This article includes both the Copenhagen criteria and geographic criteria; according to comments on the talk page these are separate. Readers interested in one topic are probably interested in the other, so having them both in a single article makes sense, and it's been that way for a while. This proposal is to change the title to match the contents of the article, to resolve the repeated complaints on the talk page that the geographic criteria are off-topic. -- Beland (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 11:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine the average English reader ever using the more specific term (note: not just the average EU enthusiast), so the wider scope and a descriptive name seems perfectly reasonable. (Support) --Joy (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the ascension criteria are primarily defined by the Copenhagen criteria, to the point the two terms are sometimes used equivalently[1][2]. There are a few other points [3], but they are not equivalent in importance, the Copenhagen criteria are the "key criteria". In a google scholar search for "European Union membership criteria", my first hit is titled "The Copenhagen criteria: are they helping or hurting the European Union", the second "European Union membership conditionality: the Copenhagen criteria and the quality of democracy". The current title is recognizable, natural, and precise. It is a bit more concise, and a descriptive explanation is partially handed through the short description. CMD (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All the links you posted are from EU institution websites. That's not exactly the pinnacle of recognizability among the average English readers. Heck, even the average EU citizen isn't necessarily aware of these websites and this terminology. I happen to come from an EU member state that joined most recently, so the topic of accession is something generally more prominent here, and I don't remember the media ever using this term. If I look it up today in my language, the mainstream mentions typically prefix the term with "so-called", call it "Eurojargon", and a lot of the mentions are explicit promotion. --Joy (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Recognizability is not whether something is known by most English speakers, it is about what the topic is often called. Otherwise almost all titles would be descriptive. The google scholar search I referred to did not hit EU institution websites. These criteria may have other names in different languages, that use does not affect English RMs. CMD (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, WP:AT says it's The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. I'm not saying most speakers, just the average speaker with that level of familiarity with the topic. That group will probably include people in the UK and Ireland who follow European politics, and I'd bet the average such reader would tell us the same thing. For example, the BBC also treated this term as part of the EU jargon at [4]. Does it mean it has entered the common parlance, or that we're better off with a descriptive title? I'd lean towards the latter. --Joy (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the article itself, the Copenhagen criteria were defined at the 1993 conference in Copenhagen, but the geographic criterion had been defined in the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, and is separate from the Copenhagen criteria. It also says that passing national laws that align with EU law is another criterion separate from the Copenhagen criteria. Are there sources which demonstrate that these assertions are incorrect, that geography is part of the Copenhagen criteria? That would not only decide the question differently for me, but provide a basis on which to change the article's claims. -- Beland (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Geographic criteria" may be a term made up in this article, trying to explain Article 49. The passing of national laws is part of the ascension process (Potential enlargement of the European Union#Current situation), not a part of the initial criteria. CMD (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that countries have been rejected for not being "European", it does seem that criterion is real, regardless of what it is called. It certainly needs to be mentioned, but it doesn't seem complicated enough to deserve a standalone article, or for there to be an article about all criteria and a separate one about only the Copenhagen ones.

  It does seem fair to move the legal alignment details into a section called "Application and ascension process" or something which summarizes how countries are assessed and what happens after they are approved at various stages. -- Beland (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject European Union, WikiProject International relations, and WikiProject Politics have been notified of this discussion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: No clear consensus. I've notified relevant WikiProjects to (hopefully) generate a clearer one. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]