Talk:Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese Title[edit]

I have inserted the Chinese title for this institution, The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, 亚洲基础设施投资银行, with the Pinyin pronunciation, Yàzhōu jīchǔ shèshī tóuzī yínháng, at their first appearance.

As a general rule it seems to me that we should evolve toward making this standard practice. The Japanese government have not yet admitted that Roman letters are one of their standard ways of writing, but they are. South Korea moves easily between Hangul, Roman, and Chinese writing systems.

This will become normal in the world, with or without English speakers going along.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map please[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.221.149 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is an asian country, but some people don't agree and want to put Turkey in non regional column, what are your views?[edit]

Turkey is obviously an asian country, but for some unknown reason, there are people who want to exclude Turkey from the asian column, making all sorts of nonsensical reasons for doing so, I am wondering how should we deal with this irrational problem? 116.88.54.57 (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is deeply cynical, because Wikipedia works according to a policy called verifiability. What you were talking about is called "original research", but even then if there is a source that can back it up, that would be okay. --Infinite0694 (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you disagree that Turkey is asian country? Then what is Turkey? From mars? Turkey is asian country. No one disputes that except for lunatic fringe. Don't try and confuse people.101.127.17.112 (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey should be in asian region (http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2009/03/31/69609.html). --Infinite0694 (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I have fully protected the article due to the edit warring for 24 hours. Editors involved in the dispute should discuss in the above section and try to reach consensus. If the edit warring resumes when protection expires then it will be re-imposed and/or editors blocked. Davewild (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Davewild. I welcome all people who have disputes on the Turkey issue to discuss the matter here and not to shift the issue to other areas. Thank you.116.88.54.57 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 29 March 2015[edit]

Change this

There are 45 members as of 28 March 2015. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, and Ukraine are under consideration of joining the AIIB.

to this

There are 45 members as of 28 March 2015. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Ukraine, Russia, and Denmark are under consideration of joining the AIIB.


sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/29/us-asia-aiib-denmark-idUSKBN0MP04P20150329

http://rt.com/business/244805-russia-join-aiib-china/


HamesMiller (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need reliable source for Argentina, Mexico, South Africa.Edisonabcd (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and New Zealand[edit]

They are usually thought of being in Asia. See the ADB page for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.69.21 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Turkey? Is Turkey in asia?101.127.17.112 (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is confirmed by the official webpage(in Chinese) of China's MOF and the report(in Chinese) by Xinwen Lianbo, CCTV. --G-Fly (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Membership World Map[edit]

I think in the membership world map, the "Rejected application, or no intention to participate" should be separated into two different legends/colors, as they are completely different things. -JesseW900 (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other applicants[edit]

Israel applied too, it announced > http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2015/Pages/Israel-joins-AIIB-31-March-2015.aspx < maybe someone can add it, I am not very familliar with editing Wikipedia Jasperwillem (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 30 March 2015[edit]

I want to edit the page. Egypt applies to join AIIB. G-Fly (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt should be in asian region or african region? Sinai is part of asia.101.127.17.112 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poland[edit]

Hello, the deputy Minister of Finance of Poland indicated the country's intention to join AIIB.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.234.89 (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What time is the Czech Republic want to join AIIB? Source?????[edit]

Please don't scare me........Edisonabcd (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

does the bank already exist?[edit]

From the article I understand an MOU was signed (and on one occasion the word Charter is used, but not cited); and the Articles of Agreement (which is multilateral convention/treaty) has evidently not entered into force with only one ratification. This makes me suggest the bank doesn't exist yet, only maybe a preparatory committee, or a provisional structure. Or does the MOU found the bank? Unfortunately the aiibank.org is slow/down, so I can't check the text of MOU or the draft articles.... L.tak (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the logo, it seems there is a "multilateral interim secretariat", so maybe that is the entity already in exisitence? L.tak (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a version of the articles, and have based on that implemented quite some changes... It seems signing the Articles, does not make one a Founding member... and indeed, the articles for the founding charter for the Bank, so if the articles are not in force, the bank does not yet exist... L.tak (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From a Bloomberg article written in March:
* When will it be up and running?
The final round of talks among founding members is scheduled for May and the AIIB is expected to be fully established by the end of 2015.
Although, as you say, there are probably a number of stages required to get 'up and running'.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in practice, that must be the case, and this strengthens my idea the bank will be formally established upon entry into force of the articles, which I would expect not to happen before 2016 (ratification procedures take time!) but we'll see... L.tak (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge lists[edit]

In view of the PFM status that requires knowing signature and ratification of the Articles, I added columns to the tables. This means in the near future in the PFM tables, the regional and non-regional members do not fit anymore besides each other. What about making a single table, with the regional members coloured in blue, and including the share amounts, so we have everything neatly in one (sortable by shares, vote%, name, date!) place? L.tak (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - that would make it easier to read. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness: I have gone ahead and made the table (already some days ago)... L.tak (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section discussion[edit]

@Dr achughes and L.tak: There seems to be a difference of opinion on what should go in the Reception section. Please discuss here rather than on user pages. Also, it is better discuss here than revert, especially without a comment.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, thanks for proding the right forum for the discussion. What the article was dearly lacking until now are concerns over the plans/ideas/projects for the environmental policy of the proposed bank. As the bank doesn't exist, we have no official documents, but there have been articles voicing concern and there have been answers from the Multilateral Interim Secretariat for Establishing the AIIB, which we can hold. user:Dr archughes added a subparagraph called "causes for concern", which can be read for example from this edit [2]. I think that it is a good start to add this content, but have several problems with that section as I am concerned it doesn't provide neutral point of view in accoridance with our neutral point of view policy. That has to do with the title: "causes for concern", which is an interpretation suggesting it is a fact there are causes for concern (I do share the conern by the way, but my concerns are not of encyclopedic interest). Furthermore, the paragraphs draws an implicit link between China's environmental record, and the suggested "easier procedures" to mean that there will be environemntal standards. That is ok to hold as an opition, and if reliable sources (identified via our reliable sources policy) would hold that opinion we could add it, but here that is not the case in my opinion.

Some examples using the first 2 refs:

  • The first ref says China has previously promised that the AIIB will follow the same international standards as other lending institutions like the IMF when it comes to environmental concerns and labor rights. China has also promised, however, to keep AIIB “lean and efficient” rather than weighted down by bureaucratic procedures. In other organizations, “some standards are harsh and even attached with political conditions,” Xinhua noted, saying that China founded AIIB precisely to get around those issues , which is used to substanitate the wikipedia text what is meant by this is that it is likely to reduce the amount of environmental safeguards required for the granting of loans. The Diplomat is however much more balanced
  • the second source may not be a reliable source (I am not familiar with the standing of eco-business.com), and states nothing about AIIB and nothing about the worst environmental standards. Yet it sources our text "The main board is likely to come from existing Chinese Banks, which have the worst global record for environmentally freindly or sustainable behaviour according to analysis by Banktrack and other bodies". The article is however about one specific project in which Bank of China and ADB were funding.
The section goes on to discuss controversial projects of China (a main shareholder and taker of the initiative).

Again, let's add info on env concerns, but not link the relationship with China to the env. policy of the bank, without having sources that are reliable and make that link directly (without us having to do it). My attempt makes a start, but it is welcome change of course. I do suggest however to remove the section added by Archughes alltogether for the reasons stated above. L.tak (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User L.tak's explanation is quite clear, reasonable and in line with wp policies and guidelines. The last sentence in the subparagraph that user:Dr archughes created "Without caution, and founding member countries taking up their responsibilities the consequences of AIIB loans for global biodiversity could be disastrous" is completely an original research/comment that is violating wp:OR. Support User:L.tak's edition "Environmental record" as it is more in line with wp policies. --Lvhis (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

founding members and prospective founding members[edit]

Whether a state is a founding member is determined in the Articles of Agreement "Founding Members shall be those members listed in Schedule A which, on or before the date specified in Article 57, shall have signed this Agreement and shall have fulfilled all other conditions of membership before the final date specified under paragraph 1 of Article 58." Therefore China does nog qualify, and surprisingly enough Myanmar does, as at this moment Myanmar is the only signatory who did ratify the agreement (see here)

I have therefore reverted the change from founding member China to prospective founding member China... L.tak (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the countries here not listed alphabetically?.[edit]

Why are the countries here not listed alphabetically?. Dont belittle245 (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of an error. Feel free to improve! L.tak (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$50 Billion is the beginning capital, not $100 Billion, according to the existing referenced source[edit]

$50 Billion is the beginning capital, not $100 Billion, according to the existing referenced source

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/11/economist-explains-6

"The AIIB will start with $50 billion in capital" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.176.2 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic track-record[edit]

I propose adding data on costs and benefits from the Oxford China Study. Please note I am a co-author of the cited publication. I therefore kindly suggest that another editor takes a look at my proposed edit to check and verify that it’s okay and to execute it if it is. If it is not okay, kindly let me know how I can improve it, many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atifansar (talk • contribs) 19:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As said in your other edit requests, content should not go into the article itself. Relisting here. Regards, VB00 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Economic track-record[edit]

AIIB does not yet have evidence on the economic track-record of its investments. However, it helps to consider contextual evidence from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB)-financed projects in China to benchmark AIIB's future performance. A 2016 study from University of Oxford's Saïd Business School argues that over half of the infrastructure investments in China have destroyed, not generated economic value.

The study – authored by Atif Ansar, Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier and Daniel Lunn – is based on an analysis of 95 large Chinese road and rail transport projects and 806 transport projects built in rich democracies, the largest dataset of its kind. ‘From our sample, the evidence suggests that for over half of the infrastructure investments in China made in the last three decades the costs are larger than the benefits they generate, which means the projects destroy economic value instead of generating it,’ comments Dr Atif Ansar, co-author of the study. [1] ---

This is a bit excessive. The purpose of references in Wikipedia is to support a claim, and that claim should be directly related to the subject of the article. There's no need to list out of the authors of the reference or give quotes in the body paragraphs. I am concerned that the proposed paragraphs do more to promote the cited work instead of supporting the Wikipedia article. Altamel (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Atif Ansar, Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier, and Daniel Lunn, 2016, Does Infrastructure Investment Lead to Economic Growth or Economic Fragility? Evidence from China, "Oxford Review of Economic Policy", Vol. 32, No. 3, Autumn, pp. 360–390. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2834326

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lending results and Criticism[edit]

Do we need a lending results section, that list each project? I'm not seeing this in similar articles like World Bank. Also, there is criticism of the bank in different spots in the article, but should we centralize, similar to other articles? Nfitz (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_Infrastructure_Investment_Bank&oldid=1205410385"