Talk:Eurasian Economic Union/Archives/2015

Individual Country Maps

Should we have the EEU member countries have their maps on their respective pages be like the maps of EU and African Union member countries?? MosMusy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The EU includes more political components than the EEU, so probably not, but then again, the EEU has a court and wants to create a parliament so I'm not entirely sure.—Mentoroso (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I doubt the African Union is as tight-knit as EU, yet it does it for its member-states. I guess it's not particularly important at this point.MosMusy (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Mentoroso the flaw with your argument is that ASEAN, which is 100% economic, also has in light color countries of the union in question. See Thailand. Also, unlike the EEU the AU does not have a court it only has a Human Rights court. The AU parliament only consults and advises. See here.–Katenzz (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Katenzz, The maps with ASEAN highlighted were made without a consensus and should not actually be used as the ASEAN is only an economical organization. --Leftcry (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I say we wait for now, it was just a suggestion, but I think we should see how the Union transpires in the coming months. MosMusy (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The AU is also purely economic. And if there was no opposition of the highlighting of the maps for ASEAN that means nobody thought otherwise. In any case, I digress-Katenzz (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we could colour other member states, while keeping the map centred on the country being located. Otherwise, the countries like Belarus would significantly distorted due to the much larger size of the EEU in comparison to the EU. I don't really like the EU maps as they distort the shape of the countries as you go n/e/s/w, hindering the main purpose of the map for those countries. Also, Belarus should not use the European map scheme considering it is integrating with north Eurasian states. Rob984 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Acronym: EAEU vs. EEU

According to the organisation’s website (source) the official acronym is EAEU. However, many news organisations including TASS use the acronym EEU. So I have put both and made a note on the page. 159753 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that! --Leftcry (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

EEU is also used on the website, I've created a separate note section for those kind of refs---Krastama (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think one thing the Union needs for sure is to agree on an acronym! 159753 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh! They should indeed! :) ---Krastama (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurasian Economic Union/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Given the size of the article, I should have this one up in a couple of days if that's ok ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Thank you for taking the time Jaguar for reviewing the article. It is very much appreciated.—Mentoroso (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• Citations are generally discouraged from the lead unless it is citing controversial information. I think that "Although Kyrgyzstan's accession treaty will not come into force until May 2015, provided it has been ratified,[15][16][17][18]" - is not really controversial (I could be wrong), so why four citations?

 Done

• Maybe the third paragraph could be switched with the second, as articles generally have the second paragraphs in the lead talking about the history and the third [last] miscellaneous?

 Done

Body

• "The idea was quickly seen as a way to bolster trade" - bolster trade with who? Western nations or Eurasian?

 Comment: The goal is to boost trade in general: to increase mutual trade between members of the union and increase trade with Europe and Asia (the EEU also wants be a transit hub for countries of both continents)—Mentoroso (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• The first paragraph in the Founding Treaties (1990s) subsection should contain at least one source

 Done

• Some paragraphs in the Geography section are unsourced. Please make sure at least every paragraph is sourced in order for this to meet the criteria

 Done

• Some flow issues in the Enlargement section. The opening "Tajikistan is interested in joining" should be merged with another paragraph

 Done

• Budget subsection is very short, consider expanding or merging it?

 Done

• Would the European Union be considered 'competition' to the EEU? A mention of "Tensions between the EEU and the European Union (EU) occurred as both have sought to deepen their ties with several former Soviet republics" gives us an idea that there could be some competition

 Comment: There's some sort of a competition yes, for countries like Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia. Both unions have tried to sign agreements with those countries for them to pursue integration. Russia wants those countries to remain in its sphere of influence. The EU wants them to pursue european integration. It could probably described as a "tug of war"—Mentoroso (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Kazakhstan ranks favorably in terms of miles of road per inhabitant as other developed countries in the world have much less roadway per inhabitant" - big claim! This needs to be sourced?

 Done

• Second paragraph in the Existing integration projects is unsourced

 Done

WP:ENGVAR

• Does this article use American English or British English? In some cases there are words such as "modernise" and different spelling variations such as "unrecognized" etc

Y Completed

References

• Ref 42 is dead
• Ref 24, ref 47, ref 56, Ref 150 are all either dead or not working
• Ref 59, ref 99 and ref 84 are all also dead.

• All of these need to be replaced or removed in order to pass some part of the GA criteria. You can check what links are dead at the toolserver

Y Completed All links have been replaced with the exception of one (no replacement needed as other references are present)

On hold

Overall a comprehensive article, it is broad and well referenced, despite the problems it has now it has a fighting chance of passing the GAN. The major concerns here are the dead references that need to be replaced and some prose/lead issues too. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and if they are all addressed we'll take another look. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Hi Jaguar! I have updated and corrected the article in line with your comments. I hope it fits your expectations adequately.—Mentoroso (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Sorry for not seeing this as I have been away for a while - thanks for addressing them. After reading through the article again extensively I am happy to say that this article has improved and meets the GA criteria. It passes 1a. of the criteria (well written) and after your improvements, the references should also pass. Anyway, I could go on for a bit, but let's promote this ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox numbers

It's pretty pointless adding Kyrgyzstan's information (language, population, currency, etc...) to the infobox as it is not an official member of the union yet and neither are any of its national attributes. The official website of the union says nothing about Kyrgyzstan and will not say anything about until it becomes an official member in May. The Eurasian Economic Union does not consider Kyrgyzstan's national attributes official so neither should we. --Leftcry (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. TDL (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mentoroso: can you please remove all of the information you added about Kyrgyzstan from the infobox. --Leftcry (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally object to the removal of the Kyrgyz language, and the Kyrgyz TLD (both of which figure on the website), the Kyrgyz calling code, and the currency. As for the "General Economic Indicators" (GDP, population, etc.), I think that those should be adjusted to the site. Totally removing Kyrgyzstan from the infobox when the country's accession treaty is in force wouldn't be right.---Krastama (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion was to leave Kyrgyzstan in the Member States section as an acceding state but remove its national attributes as they are not yet official to the EEU. As for the Kyrgyz language, the Kyrgyz TLD, the Kyrgyz calling code and the currency, none of them are official to the union so it makes no sense for us to list them as official details when they're simply not. --Leftcry (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The language and TLD figure on the official website (which is under construction). I agree general economic indicators like population don't match up but other than that I don't see any reason to remove anything else.---Krastama (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Krastama: Can you tag a source showing the website referring to the language and TLD as official attributes of the union. --Leftcry (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No Krastama, it doesn't not figure on the website, as it's not a member yet.—Mentoroso (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Guys I misread website. Although President Nursultan Nazarbayev had this to say---Krastama (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I did not add that information to the infobox in the first place, other users did. Second, I'm not removing Kyrgyzstan from the infobox, as far as I'm concerned I agreed to its status as an acceding state. I've made changes to further underline that it isn't a full member yet. But removing it and making it look like a "candidate" is completely wrong and not in line with key facts.—Mentoroso (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mentoroso: Umm...yes you did [1] [2] which is why I asked you to remove it, cause you would know what to remove and what information to bring back. Also, when we agreed to treat Kyrgyzstan as an acceding member we also agreed to not treat it as a full member of the union. By adding the its information to the infobox we are recognizing it as a part of the union when it isn't. The bottom line is, Kyrgyzstan is not a member of the Eurasian Union, its area and population are not part of the Eurasian Union, and its language, currency, calling code and internet TLD are not official to the Eurasian Union, so we shouldn't treat them as such. --Leftcry (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed my mind shortly after my edits were reverted. About 4 other users then added the information. A state cannot accede without gradually implementing converging policies and making provisions to harmonise its currency, labour market (people) and laws (which therefore need to be translated in Kyrgyz to be adopted and applied on Kyrgyz territory). By adding Kyrgyzstan to the infobox as an "acceding state", we're clearly stating that it's an official participant and integrating, which it is.—Mentoroso (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Egypt

According to http://rt.com/business/230987-egypt-russia-free-trade/ "Egypt has established a free trade zone with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union". It probably ought to be added if/when someone has sufficient understanding of the agreement (I don't know enough about it). Maybe it belongs in Eurasian Economic Union#Foreign affairs under the existing subtitle Economic Partners or maybe it fits even better under Eurasian Economic Union#Free trade agreements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.102.57 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Dozens of protestors"

"However, not all Kazakh citizens were happy about the agreement; dozens of people protesting the agreement were arrested in the nation's capital after it was signed."

I think maybe this should be removed and replaced by a more reliable barometer of public opinion in Kazakhstan.

I.e.: "The Eurasian Development Bank's Integration Barometer survey shows that public support for the Customs Union dwindled from 80% in 2012 to 73% in 2013, while opposition to it increased from 4% to 6% as trade restrictions and higher import duties for imports from third countries pushed up the prices of imported goods in Kazakhstan."

More recent data probably exists somewhere. Esn (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The full poll results from 2012 and 2013 are here (at the bottom). More recent polls: July 2014 (Russia), June 2014 (Kazakhstan). Esn (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited the article to replace the previous line with the June 2014 public opinion poll results, which shows that support stood at 68% and opposition at 5.5% (with the rest indifferent or unsure). Esn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Flag?

Is there a reference about that flag in the infobox. Official site only show logo and there are no mentions about that 'proposed' flag. kazekagetr 18:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's just some fan art. Commons:File:Флаг_Евразийского_союза.jpg says "The project is not the official flag of the Eurasian Union. The proposed private persons". I've removed this flag several times, but Twittermon, a WP:SPA, keeps restoring it without any explanation or discussion. I'm going to remove it again, pending any sources showing it has official status. We shouldn't be presenting it as official unless it is. TDL (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Language maps

As an answer by the edit by Kintetsubuffalo concerning to the languages spoken in Eurasian Economic Union, and given his/her response, according to whom, Russian is spoken by all people in the EEU, I must answer this: Neither Russian is spoken by all the rest. In Armenia, Russian is only spoken by a small minority and it's not an official language of Armenia. So, if that map (the one about the Russian language) should be included, while the others should not be, should Germany be included on a map of the Turkic Council? And since English is a lingua franca in the EU and in most of the world, should the article European Union or World include a map of the English language too? In the EEU article, either neither of the official languages should be displayed on a map, or all of them should be displayed on a map. Urgup-tur (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say all people, you misquoting troll.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No comments about that reply! Urgup-tur (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So is this true:

"Russian is widely spoken in all member states"

"widely" infers a majority. Is this true outside of Russia and Belarus? I don't think even Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have that many speakers, let alone Armenia. Rob984 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

re: "I don't think" - please don't "don't think", but do research instead. This is wikipedia, not some blog where people randomly spill their guts. You are mistaken, especially about Kazakhstan. At the same time I do agree with you in the sense that statements of such kind require references. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It is widely spoken in Armenia. Belarus and Kazakhstan are easily verified as well. So it remains to find confirmation for Kyrgyzstan. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I was honestly just asking for it to be verified, hardly spilling my guts. According to the 2009 census, 2.5 million Kyrgyz people can speak Russian, so "widely" is marginally correct. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

legislature

In the ' legislature' part of the info box in the lede, the "interparlementary assembly" is listed. That assembly seems )according to the constituting treaty have no legislative power. It seems from that treaty that the supreme council (similar to the EU council) takes the main decisions on a proposal of the commission (and of course after obtaining national approval if needed, possibly through parliaments). I think we have 4 possibilities to add

1. interparl assembly (which I think has no basis in the treaty
2. leave blank (there is no true 'chambre')
3. supreme council (it takes that role as far as I can see in the treaty)
4. national parliaments (problematic, because they are not an organ of the Union)

I personally think nr 2 or 3 are good, and welcome the thoughts of others. --L.tak (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi L.Tak, you're right about the interparliamentary assembly, I've modified the paragraph to correct it. There should however be a paragraph on the Supreme Council though. —Mentoroso (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks about that. I have had the time to look at the competences of the Supreme Council (Article 12). Those are very broad powers which are generally regarded legislative powers (determine strategy, approve budget, appoint judges and chairmen of other entities, "make decisions aimed at implementing the objectives of the Union"... L.tak (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be good if we had a "Supreme Council" part under the "Politics and Governance" section, in which we would put the powers the Supreme Council have and state like you said "The Supreme Council has very broad powers which are often regarded as legislative powers (such as determining strategy, approving the budget, appointing judges and chairmen of other entities)"—Mentoroso (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)