Talk:Central European Free Trade Agreement
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Central European Free Trade Agreement Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell".
Relations w/ EU - Should we split two ideas?
In the Relations with the European Union portion, the first sentence requires a citation. However, I think this sentence is really two distinct ideas which would require their own citations. The idea that former countries had already signed association agreements with the EU, could have a reference and stand on its own. I do have a citation for the second portion of the sentence that may be relevant. "CEFTA has served as a preparation for full EU membership" But this is technically an opinion, not fact. The citation I would use is that the CEFTA "is viewed as a preparatory instrument for the future European integration of states." Is this an acceptable edit? Michaelscottuiuc (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)