Talk:Russia in the European energy sector

Absence of discussion about the tags

The article has nine tags such as "examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with EU and USA and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject". What modifications should be done to eliminate each tag? Gazpr (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TAGGING I remove the tags. Gazpr (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Frankly speaking, this is probably one of the worst articles that exists on Wikipedia, and it would be great if we could simply delete it and start from scratch; the problems with it are so great. Therefore I have added (a probable record) 8 problem tags to the top of the article. They are self explanatory really, and it doesn't take much to see exactly what is wrong with the article. The mere fact that the entire history section basically entails a single line about Reagan shouting "Danger Will Robinson" sets the scene. Is there nothing else that can be added to history? Such as NPOV information, or at the very least, information which is presented in an NPOV way. The article is also written like a personal essay, the tone is totally not appropriate, and this only worsens the POV problems. Additionally, there is basically ZERO information from the Russian perspective. It is totally pointless to have an article on Russia in the European energy sector, made up of mainly right-wing, neocon American sources, with a dash of European POV, but yet ZERO Russian POV. And on and on it goes. Then there is all the original research, examples being Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector#Documented_examples_of_energy_sector_incidents - Russia cut gas supply to Ukraine in 2006? Why does this not say that Ukraine under Yushchenko wanted to bring Ukraine into the EU and NATO (as per his neocon masters) and would denigrate Russia and his countries relationship with Russia at every opportunity. In return Russia basically said "Hey, well you know Ukraine, you are barely old enough to shave, but if you want to go out into the big world out there, that's great we wish you luck, but as you are ruining our relationship with your words and actions, you will have to pay your own way - we aren't gonna pay your rent, buy your food, pay your for your fuel, put clothes on your back, etc, etc. Oh, and you know that gas that you have been getting for next to nothing, it is you who wants to make our relationship so that you are never welcome back into our home, so that cheap gas, we ain't subsidising ya ass no more. Here is notice of your new pricing structure, which isn't quite so much as what others are paying, but hey, it's a reasonable price. You are being given fair notice of these price increases, so that you can prepare for them, but refuse to pay and we will cut you off completely. It's a good deal for you Ukraine, you can go out on your own and become as independent as you want, and because we still do care for you (and as much as that feeling isn't shown to us in return) we will still subsidise you somewhat, and the beauty is the gas we sell to others we will allow it to pass thru your hands first, and you can charge a fee for doing this, which will bring your overall cost down. And of course, we also know that you are going to steal a fair amount as well, but we'll look the other way on that for now. Ukraine like the spoilt brat it was (well Yushchenko more like it) thought he knew better and he played the cards, without holding a hand. Blah blah blah. This is somewhat the Russian POV on the issue, and you know what? There is nothing like this presented in the article. It is all advocacy warning about the danger (will robinson) of even allowing Russia and/or Russians to co-exist on the same planet (as per the "title" section on this talk page directly above. The problems are massive, and editors know where they are. Fix them, or if the problem is that one only have access to neocon American sources, feel free to contact me and I will be glad to provide some that can be used to help build a well-written, comprehensive, informative and NPOV article. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There are lot of problems with this article and some of these tags are justified. At the same time eight tags seems to be exaggeration and not in line with the mean of WP:TAGGING. I think {{npov}}, {{essay}} and {{expert}} should stay for the current version. {{original research}}, {{weasel}} need more explanation why used at the top of the article. It seems that it would be better to be removed from the top and, if necessary, used for specific sections and/or concrete words and statements. I don't see any need or justification for using {{tone}}. I also don't see any added value for using {{globalize}}. If anything, this is also covered by {{npov}}. Using {{unbalanced}} for the section containing also one sentence is also exaggeration. Also, I hope that the above-added comment about Ukraine was meant as irony, otherwise it seems as much problematic as the article itself.

Unfortunately, although the new structure how to rewrite this article was proposed for discussion more than one and half years ago, there has been no comments on this issue or attempts to improve this article. Beagel (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The comment on Ukraine is in essence, in an ironic way, the stance of Russia - except nothing of the like is present in the article (Russian POV I mean). I have reinserted {{unbalanced-section}} as it is the opinion of neocon Americans, and it poisons the POV of the rest of the article. A full, NPOV history of Soviet/Russian energy in Europe should be provided, preferably with less reliance on POV of neocon Americans, but rather scholarly sources which give this history. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pending a complete rewrite by somebody, as suggested above, I have corrected and updated a few facts, removed the reference to Romano Prodi declining a job offer, as it hardly represents a financial tie, and removed the reference to a bribery investigation in Sweden, as according to http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/almedalsveckan/article11901642.ab, the case was closed in mid 2009 with no charges brought (see the section "Sections about a short-lived controversy" of WP:NIF and WP:EVENT).

I have also added an "unbalanced" template to the Gazprom in Europe section, as it only cites criticisms of Gazprom. See WP:UNDUE for guidelines. Ideally, the section should be extended with other views on the company, and viewpoints that cannot be proven notable by citing independent sources or attributed to prominent adherents should be removed or given less weight in the section.--OttoG (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

--- Agree that this is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia in terms of slant, but it also appears to be factually wrong in sections. According to Europe's Energy Portal : http://www.energy.eu/#dependency Energy import dependence of EU member states in 2009 (this is from all import sources - unfortunately it does not break it down into countries): Country: Import % Austria 65.00 Belgium 74.20 Bulgaria 45.30 Cyprus 97.30 Czech Republic 26.90 Denmark -18.80 Estonia 21.20 Finland 54.40 France 51.30 Germany 61.60 Greece 67.80 Hungary 58.80 Ireland 88.00 Italy 82.90 Latvia 58.80 Lithuania 51.20 Luxembourg 97.60 Malta 100.00 Netherlands 36.50 Poland 31.70 Portugal 80.90 Romania 20.30 Slovakia 64.40 Slovenia 49.00 Spain 79.40 Sweden 37.40 United Kingdom 26.60

Only Malta has a 100% import dependancy... 27.32.30.155 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

More up-to-date natural gas delivery percentages

Considering the increased interest due to the recent events this article desperately needs more recent stats. 7 and 8 year old numbers (from 2006 and 2007) are frankly unacceptable. Mihai123 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

congrats and suggestion

great article, congrats, suggestion: in addition to the % of gas that is russian, how about the % of total energy use in the country taht is russian gas ? eg, if natural gas is only 5% of a countrys total energy budget, then it isn't that significant if russia supplies 50% of natural gas, as it is only 2.5% of total energy (not that 2.5% of total energy is neglibible) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

UK import again

The UK was agasin added in the list of the share of Russian natural gas in the member states' domestic gas consumption in 2007 with a value of 0% of import from Russia. As previously said, it is problematic for two reasons:

• The list does not included any country without Russian gas import in 2007. The UK started import Russian gas only in 2008 through the Interconnector and BBL pipeline. However, there was no import in 2007.

• If there will be consensus to add also the EU members without Russian gas import in 2007, we have to include all countries (inter alia UK, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus), not only the UK. Adding only one specific country without adding others may contradict the WP:NPOV.

• If there is no import, it is statistically correct to mark with "-", not with "0" as "0" means that there is a small import which became "0" after rounding.

I personally do not see any mean to add the countries with zero import. As the idea of including all member states was not supported during previous discussion, I remove it from the list. Please provide your arguments for inclusion before re-adding it. Beagel (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There has recently been import to UK again, by tanker, due to a pipeline dysfunction. But I cannot remember the details. Gas supply to Western Europe was a lot earlier than the 1980s. I remember getting it in Frankfurt/M in 1970/71. (We had to buy a new stove.) From memory: Mannesmann had invented pipes that could withstand the Siberian cold. The Soviet Union could not pay and it was a 'pipes for gas' deal. 2001:8003:A928:800:848C:E952:FBC3:53E9 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Inventory Levels in EU underground storage sites, 2016-2022.png
• Share of Russia in EU and UK gas demand 2001 2021 updated.png
• Year-on-year change in the EU and UK natural gas imports by source, October 2021-Jan 2022.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• European Union gas imports from Russia.png
• Monthly gas supply balance in the European Union, 2014-2021.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)