Jump to content

Talk:Eurasian Economic Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Eurasian Union)


Eurasia Economic Union

[edit]

This topic has to be fixed. Some information is disinformation and people can not understand correctly. Text bellow is from THE INVESTOPEDIA TEAM ( New York, Canada Edmonton)

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is an international economic union and free trade zone comprising countries located in central and northern Asia and Eastern Europe 95.140.195.218 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eurasian-economic-union-eeu.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.140.195.218 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S one of the editor, Caleb Silver Editor-in-Chief, has award winning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.140.195.218 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Is this map still correct?

Eurasian Economic Union (orthographic projection) - Crimea disputed

109.131.60.100 (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the observer members of the EAEU are not included in this map. Archives908 (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the disputed territories in Ukraine, as the Crimea is also included on this map? So ether Crimea should be removed, or the other 4 territories should also be included, no? 109.131.60.100 (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, either all disputed territories should be included, or none of them, and I'd fall on the side of all of them. NightingaleNI (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova

[edit]

Let's talk about it...is Moldova an observer member or not? Every single news website I've come across has stated that Moldova was granted observer member status in 2017. There is 1 article where the Moldovan president vaguely suggests that she does not know what happened to the "paperwork". What does that even mean? Not very convincing for me. We need more reliable sources. Archives908 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all major news outlets have confirmed Moldova's observer status. See: [1], [2], [3], [4], and even Jamestown Foundation confirming this [5]. Therefore, just because Maia Sandu states she believes nothing happened with the "paperwork", it does NOT mean that Moldova isn't or wasn't an observer member. We need more valid sources to confirm this BEFORE we change the article. Archives908 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Moldova was granted the status of "state-observer" (literal translation of Russian "государство-наблюдатель") by the Decision No. 8 of the Supreme Eurasian Council dated May 14, 2018 [6]. In the original text in Russian there is no word "member" anywhere. According to Regulation, A State interested in cooperation shall send through diplomatic channels a written application for granting status and, in accordance with article 109, an obligation to refrain from actions that could harm the interests of the Union and the member States. Then Supreme Eurasian Council simply answers "we don't mind." The observer has the right to form a representative office, but its absence does not change anything. This status is only for bureaucrats if they want to actively participate in various commissions. There are phrases everywhere in the text "has the right" and "can". Also the observer can send an application for renunciation of the status. ruASG+1  17:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

  • There are several uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs.
  • There are too many images: Wikipedia is not a gallery and the images do not create great formatting throughout the article. The images for the lead are stretching the article and need to be moved to other sections, the galleries at the end of "Internal market overview" and "Geography" should be removed and the images removed or used in other parts of the article.
  • Unreliable sources are used in the article like International Business Times (WP:IBTIMES) and vz.ru. These should be replaced.
  • At almost 11,000 words, this article might be considered WP:TOOBIG. I recommend that some information be spun out and moved to other articles.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this be sent to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]