![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
don't you think that ukraine and moldova are better of being at the "russia etc". category? or countries that have no hope of joining soon be in a different category?
i would prefer that moldove ukraine and belarus will be part of the "better chances of joining" category.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ifeldman84 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, Apr 14, 2006 (UTC).
Why are the earlier statistics shown using modern data? It's a bit confusing... Also the GDP per capita data is confusing... 68.17.200.204 23:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the most useless article I've come across on Wikipedia, bogus statistics and speculation. The only truth in this is the section about the 2004 enlargement. -- Bjarki 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I found out that the statistics used here, are not on the same level as they are used in the topic of List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. For an example, the statistics on this page suggest that Germany and Belgium have a higher GDP than The Netherlands. However, accourding to the page of List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, The Netherlands has a higher GDP than both Germany and Belgium. So what are the right/ official/ correct statistics??? -- 84.104.123.100 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The GDP per capita figures seem to have been calculated as a simple average of the GDP per capita of the single countries, instead of dividing the total GDP by the total population of the different blocs. The corrected calculations give very different values - which I've substituted only in the first and second table (that's why you see a very noticeable error in the third one, where it gives a blatantly erroneous figure as for the variation of GDP per capita compared to the former bloc). Anyone can continue? :-/
I'm sorry but the area "Barcelona Process" drives me insane. It is obviously written by someone without English as a first language, which makes some of the paragraph hard to understand. Also, a thorough use of the shift key is in order. If someone with a better grasp of language than myself could edit, perhaps . . . 82.19.8.110 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment and I have edited as follows:
These nations aren't likely to join the EU, because they are outside Europe, but on the other hand they are participants in the Barcelona Process, with the aim of aligning themselves and integrating with the EU (but not joining it). This will lead to significant improvements in their relations with the EU, which in some cases are already better than EU relations with some Eastern European countries already mentioned. For example relations between the EU and Tunisia are better than relations with Belarus, so it is more likely in that sense that Tunisia or Israel would join than Belarus. In addition, the reason why Cyprus joined was not because of its geographical location, but because of its historical, cultural and political connections with Europe. If there is to be further integration, this could also apply to the Barcelona Process participants, which is why it is worth mentioning them in this context.
/me eu citizen
Another problem! The Barcelona Process mentions nothing about Libya, yet on the map Libya is colored in blue. I beleive the fault is in the latter, as Libya was not present at the conference. - Alexandre-Jérôme
Why Ukraine is grupped with Caucasus and Belarus is not? I think Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and probably Russia should be grupped together. And Caucasus shown separately.-- Nixer 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and delete statistics related to those countries that aren't explicitly within the plan to expand the European Union? It really isn't encyclopaedic, and, IMO, the removal of all except the current 27 members and 3 official candidates is a requisite for this being an acceptable article. Bastin 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed Croatin joinig GDP -1.74% of 25,160.59 is not 23,649.21 but 24,722.79
I've corrected the data to reflect the actuality of the time (as promised above), but it's not quite complete. I've haven't taken into account Greenland or French Algeria (i.e. they're treated as though they've always been outside the EU). Furthermore, the source from which I got all this data only has stats for up to 2006. Hence, I've had to use the current data for the 2007 expansion, which is clearly accrued with a different methodology. Thus, it doesn't really make perfect sense. However, it's still a vast improvement over before.
That fixes the first point raised above. I'm still in favour of deleting all speculative entries (i.e. those 'future expansions' that affect non-candidate countries). If that's done, the 2007 expansion gets the same treatment vis-à-vis contemporary data, and the hash of ignoring Greenland and French Algeria is amended, this article would actually be worth something. Here's to hoping, eh? Bastin 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The GDP and GDP per capita figures for Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia are according to PPP whereas the the figures for the 2004 Enlargement countries are nominal.. The GDP figure for Macedonia is nominal but the GDP per capita is based on PPP (!) GDP and GDP per capita figures for Turkey are nominal. Also, the population figure for Turkey is over 3.5 mio more than compared with the figure in its wikipedia article. I think this article should either get its figures right based on the same criteria or should be deleted.. Yucina ( talk) 10:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The figures for the founding 6, per capita GDP in 1958 may be incorrect. A good source is Andic, Suphan and Peacock, Alan T (1961). The International Distribution of Income, 1949 and 1957. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General). Vol. 124, No.2, pp. 206-218. Italy's per capita GDP was 51% of the average and Luxembourg's was quite higher. The present per capita GDP do not look correct, Turkey's looks underestimated by 30%. I am using as a source this document from the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/others/58/countries_en.doc Tbenbrahim ( talk) 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Tony BenBrahim
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
The various subsections that estimate various EU28 rely on different statistics for EU27 (which are themselves not the same as the 2007 statistics presented earlier). They should either rely on the same baseline or different ones, but in either case the baseline data should be included.
Aside from that inconsistency, it's obvious the data is plain wrong: for example, the ratio of GDP per capita decrease percentage to population increase percentage is lower for Iceland than for Croatia, which makes no sense as the GDP per capita is closer to EU27 average in Iceland. -- Shenanenigans ( talk) 04:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are GDP quoted in US$? the majority of the countries listed use Euros and do their accounts in Euros, so the "real" figure is the original amount in Euros, before converting to a foreign currency. The Wikipedia convention is always to quote the original units if possible, then show any conversions. Most people from European countries are more familiar with Euros than any other currency. Also with the current variable exchange rates, the figures are very difficult to convert back to the original currencies as their is no indication about which exchange rate was used (that on the date the figure refers, or the current rate). TiffaF ( talk) 16:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The map shows 1973 enlargement already without Algeria, but the area figure for existing members is the same as in 1958. Igor Naumov ( talk) 11:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Candidate section has been updated to 2021 figures. Should the banner be removed? Hetsre ( talk) 17:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Even if this article is about the enlargement of the European Union, I think Brexit should be addressed. Maybe the article should be renamed as well? Hetsre ( talk) 17:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia are official candidates Iktsokh ( talk) 00:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
don't you think that ukraine and moldova are better of being at the "russia etc". category? or countries that have no hope of joining soon be in a different category?
i would prefer that moldove ukraine and belarus will be part of the "better chances of joining" category.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ifeldman84 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, Apr 14, 2006 (UTC).
Why are the earlier statistics shown using modern data? It's a bit confusing... Also the GDP per capita data is confusing... 68.17.200.204 23:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the most useless article I've come across on Wikipedia, bogus statistics and speculation. The only truth in this is the section about the 2004 enlargement. -- Bjarki 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I found out that the statistics used here, are not on the same level as they are used in the topic of List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. For an example, the statistics on this page suggest that Germany and Belgium have a higher GDP than The Netherlands. However, accourding to the page of List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, The Netherlands has a higher GDP than both Germany and Belgium. So what are the right/ official/ correct statistics??? -- 84.104.123.100 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The GDP per capita figures seem to have been calculated as a simple average of the GDP per capita of the single countries, instead of dividing the total GDP by the total population of the different blocs. The corrected calculations give very different values - which I've substituted only in the first and second table (that's why you see a very noticeable error in the third one, where it gives a blatantly erroneous figure as for the variation of GDP per capita compared to the former bloc). Anyone can continue? :-/
I'm sorry but the area "Barcelona Process" drives me insane. It is obviously written by someone without English as a first language, which makes some of the paragraph hard to understand. Also, a thorough use of the shift key is in order. If someone with a better grasp of language than myself could edit, perhaps . . . 82.19.8.110 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment and I have edited as follows:
These nations aren't likely to join the EU, because they are outside Europe, but on the other hand they are participants in the Barcelona Process, with the aim of aligning themselves and integrating with the EU (but not joining it). This will lead to significant improvements in their relations with the EU, which in some cases are already better than EU relations with some Eastern European countries already mentioned. For example relations between the EU and Tunisia are better than relations with Belarus, so it is more likely in that sense that Tunisia or Israel would join than Belarus. In addition, the reason why Cyprus joined was not because of its geographical location, but because of its historical, cultural and political connections with Europe. If there is to be further integration, this could also apply to the Barcelona Process participants, which is why it is worth mentioning them in this context.
/me eu citizen
Another problem! The Barcelona Process mentions nothing about Libya, yet on the map Libya is colored in blue. I beleive the fault is in the latter, as Libya was not present at the conference. - Alexandre-Jérôme
Why Ukraine is grupped with Caucasus and Belarus is not? I think Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and probably Russia should be grupped together. And Caucasus shown separately.-- Nixer 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and delete statistics related to those countries that aren't explicitly within the plan to expand the European Union? It really isn't encyclopaedic, and, IMO, the removal of all except the current 27 members and 3 official candidates is a requisite for this being an acceptable article. Bastin 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed Croatin joinig GDP -1.74% of 25,160.59 is not 23,649.21 but 24,722.79
I've corrected the data to reflect the actuality of the time (as promised above), but it's not quite complete. I've haven't taken into account Greenland or French Algeria (i.e. they're treated as though they've always been outside the EU). Furthermore, the source from which I got all this data only has stats for up to 2006. Hence, I've had to use the current data for the 2007 expansion, which is clearly accrued with a different methodology. Thus, it doesn't really make perfect sense. However, it's still a vast improvement over before.
That fixes the first point raised above. I'm still in favour of deleting all speculative entries (i.e. those 'future expansions' that affect non-candidate countries). If that's done, the 2007 expansion gets the same treatment vis-à-vis contemporary data, and the hash of ignoring Greenland and French Algeria is amended, this article would actually be worth something. Here's to hoping, eh? Bastin 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The GDP and GDP per capita figures for Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia are according to PPP whereas the the figures for the 2004 Enlargement countries are nominal.. The GDP figure for Macedonia is nominal but the GDP per capita is based on PPP (!) GDP and GDP per capita figures for Turkey are nominal. Also, the population figure for Turkey is over 3.5 mio more than compared with the figure in its wikipedia article. I think this article should either get its figures right based on the same criteria or should be deleted.. Yucina ( talk) 10:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The figures for the founding 6, per capita GDP in 1958 may be incorrect. A good source is Andic, Suphan and Peacock, Alan T (1961). The International Distribution of Income, 1949 and 1957. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General). Vol. 124, No.2, pp. 206-218. Italy's per capita GDP was 51% of the average and Luxembourg's was quite higher. The present per capita GDP do not look correct, Turkey's looks underestimated by 30%. I am using as a source this document from the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/others/58/countries_en.doc Tbenbrahim ( talk) 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Tony BenBrahim
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
The various subsections that estimate various EU28 rely on different statistics for EU27 (which are themselves not the same as the 2007 statistics presented earlier). They should either rely on the same baseline or different ones, but in either case the baseline data should be included.
Aside from that inconsistency, it's obvious the data is plain wrong: for example, the ratio of GDP per capita decrease percentage to population increase percentage is lower for Iceland than for Croatia, which makes no sense as the GDP per capita is closer to EU27 average in Iceland. -- Shenanenigans ( talk) 04:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are GDP quoted in US$? the majority of the countries listed use Euros and do their accounts in Euros, so the "real" figure is the original amount in Euros, before converting to a foreign currency. The Wikipedia convention is always to quote the original units if possible, then show any conversions. Most people from European countries are more familiar with Euros than any other currency. Also with the current variable exchange rates, the figures are very difficult to convert back to the original currencies as their is no indication about which exchange rate was used (that on the date the figure refers, or the current rate). TiffaF ( talk) 16:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The map shows 1973 enlargement already without Algeria, but the area figure for existing members is the same as in 1958. Igor Naumov ( talk) 11:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Candidate section has been updated to 2021 figures. Should the banner be removed? Hetsre ( talk) 17:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Even if this article is about the enlargement of the European Union, I think Brexit should be addressed. Maybe the article should be renamed as well? Hetsre ( talk) 17:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia are official candidates Iktsokh ( talk) 00:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)