Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Useless section

Trolling removed

Trolling, political ranting, and other nonsense is not welcome anywhere on wikipedia and people had been blocked for doing so in the past. Talk pages exist strictly to discuss the articles content, it was never intended to be used as a forum. So use it accordingly. --Cat out 05:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Some problems of the article

In this article (Accession of Turkey to the European Union) there is no information on the actual negotiations, which are the essence of the accession process. In which order and when the 35 chapters will be negotiated, which ones are already completed, which ones are expected to involve rough discussions, etc.

Moreover there aren't any links to reports of EU organs and officials on negotiations.

The article is -very funnily- all focused on pro- and anti-membership opinions (anti: geographical location only 3% on Europe, the capital being on Asia, Islam as predominant religion, objections of Greek Orthodox church, Armenian genocide and diaspora's objections, etc; pro: Turkey's big, growing, large market for European goods, may prevent clash of civilizations, etc). The article reflects the fair or unfair "subjective" opinions of both sides, however, it is not encyclopedic in its content. All I see is fierce arguments that overshadow the main issues, which are mentioned merely tangentially. The arguments put forth do not correlate with the actual situation of the relations between EU, Turkey and member states. Rather than explaining the potential benefits and setbacks of Turkey's accession for both Turkey and EU and explaining the nature of negotiations and the likely caveats, the article is very bipartite, Turkey bashing part and Turkey advertising part. It's self-contradictory at several points.

Very disappointed with the article, I'd like to add that this shouldn't be an arena for Turks, Armenian Diaspora, Greek Chypriots to fight over dominating the article.

Now let's take a look at what it has to offer to the readers:

Contents 1 History 2 Arguments used for Turkish membership 3 Arguments used against Turkish membership 3.1 Inherent issues 3.2 Human rights, democracy, and other internal issues 3.3 Relations with neighbours 3.4 Effect on the future direction of the EU 4 Likelihood of accession 4.1 Official point of view 4.2 Public opinion 5 Individual opinions and quotes 5.1 Opinions 5.2 Quotes 6 See also 7 External links 7.1 For 7.2 Against

very 2-sided, all pros and cons, fighting one another

1 History Although this is the best part of the article, it still lacks references and links to EU report (2006). But still it's one of the finest in the entire article.

2 Arguments used for Turkish membership 3 Arguments used against Turkish membership

These two topics must be a joke. Besides very unprofessional language and poor narration: Turkey is

very dynamic: I guess it means growing and competitive market and entrepreneurship

rapidly modernizing economy: I have to guess again, probably means shifting investments and labour pool from agriculture and textile to higher tech industry

In 2004 and 2005, growth was above 7%, being far above average growth in the EU.: Instead of "far above", why not give the number for EU15 and EU25, so it doesn't sound advertising and subjective

Altough the current GNP per capita is still lower than all of the other new EU-countries, the current economic growth rate suggests that in a few years, Turkey will have overtaken several of these: Is this the fact? No. New member states are also growing fast, and probably it'll take time, if ever, Turkey overtakes them. This is a mere prediction, if not a personal expectation of the author.

In addition, Turkey has a young population.: Need to mention the percentage below 14, 15 to 65 and above 65, the average education level (around 5 years), literacy rate for men and women and unemployment. So the reader can get a grasp of the facts to make the decision whether this young population is an advantage or not. (Don't get angry anyone, I'm a Turk myself and I wish Turkey joins EU ASAP, but the fact remains that the article sucks in its current version, as of Aug 26, 2006) There could be more emphasis on the aging European population and an examplar of countries growing with immigration, as the US.

That, combined with the huge size of the country, and its growth rates, constitutes a major dynamism and a huge opportunity for the EU: The huge size actually scares the EU as explained in the Turkey bashing part. The investment opportunities for EU will indeed grow if Turkey joins EU, due to economic stability and improving legal framework and schooling.

There are alleged double standards in the requisites for Turkish membership. While some refuse Turkey's admission on the grounds of its territory being mostly Asian, Cyprus is also considered to be geographically Asian.: I think any discussion of geography should be entirely removed from the article. Geography comes into play in the initial application process, when Turkey was given the status of "candidate", this also involved the endorsement of Turkey's being geographically on Europe. (ex: Morocco's rejection by EU)

I neither have the will nor the time to go through the entire article, but just wanted to show what is wrong and how to make it more informative and less disputed.

Greek Cypriotes and Armenians need to give pro-Turkey authors a break, while pro-Turkey authors need to understand that this is not an advertisement board.

The very existing of pro and con parts in the article make is very unreliable. Those two parts should be blended together and contradictions, quotes (!!!come on people, it's so stupid) from anti or pro Turkish people removed, and non-sided attitude should be assumed in the phrasing of the text.

Hope this helps.. To the person who keeps deleting this:don't

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.12.172.93 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

I totally agree with your comments on the current state of the article and I find them constructive. In my opinion, the most important flaw in the article is the lack of information on the official negotiation process (started on October 3, 2005), which, I believe, should constitute the main part of an encyclopedia article on this subject. The closest such thing I have seen on Wikipedia is the nice looking table in the Enlargement of the European Union article comparing the situation of Turkey, Croatia (the two candidates with started membership negotiations), and Republic of Macedonia (which currently is not in negotiations) based on their progress on acquis chapters.

The second problem, in my opinion, is the structure of the article. I understand that the issue is highly controversial and people like to have an opportunity to express what they feel about the accession of Turkey (by contributing to the article with information usually in line with their view on the subject), but I feel that the article, with the exception of the history section, pretty much looks like a mere "pro / against list" of the country. I think the information gathered in this list is very useful and it should be maintained, but the article definitely needs to be restructured, because in its current state it somehow restricts any contribution to be either in the "pro" category or the "against" category. I think this restructuring issue was also agreed upon by User:A.Garnet and User:Lucas Richards, a few paragraphs above on this page.

I think you could use a more proper title for your comments here, though (Note: I edited the title because I do not want that to distract people, I hope you don't mind). Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, no problem. I didn't mean it to sound aggressive.XALP 06:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)XALP

In the article: "The Ottomans made key contributions to European culture."??? Like what "key" contributions???

I see there is no mention of the views of the Turkish Euroskeptics - I am writing a piece about why Turkish euroskeptics are against joinng the EU. When complete should I add to this site? Regards nicnewman editor@oxfordprospect.co.uk

Just to help nicnewman, I will give him some of the reasons why some Turks are anti-EU. Initially the prospect of joining a trading club and gaining new markets (or rather less restrictions in those markets) seemed a good idea - but when negotiations started and the time came to take a closer look it became apparent how far beyond being a trading bloc the EU has gone. If the question was suddenly asked 'do you want to join the EU tomorrow?' with a full outline of what sort of powers would be handed over to Brussels, Turks would possibly be too nationalistic in character for a majority to answer in the affirmative. Economically, the EU would have been good for Turkey 20 years ago, 10 years ago - but not so profound today. EU aid would not be anywhere near as generous towards Turkey as it has been to previous newcomers, this has been made explicitly clear - and the aid would not have the impact on a country the size of Turkey as it did on perhaps Ireland or Greece, for example. Joining the EU would give Turkey a short term spurt but being made to comply with all the quotas and regulations would soon have a negative impact on it. Western think tanks and economic groups are almost unanimous in stating Turkey would be a net economic gain for the EU within 10 years - but europe has not been willing to invest in Turkey and it has had to overcome its hyperinflation by itself. Turkey's main advantage is a very young population - whereas Europe faces a demographical decline. Turkey does not want its youngters leaving for Europe to work any more than some Europeans want them to arrive. There is also a feeling that Europe has peaked and tomorrows story is Asia - that Turkey should take advantage of its ties with other Turkic nations. They have gone some way towards this, making Ceylan a hub of energy pipelines from both Central Asia and the Middle East. Turkey is also building ties with traditional rivals, Russia and Iran. There is also a growing belief that as long as Turkey keeps growing, EU member states will find it harder to ignore the benefits of less restricted trade with it outside of the EU framework. Larger EU nations, afterall, frequently flout the EU rules.

The pro-Turkey camp within the EU seems to be based on logistics - increased clout as a trading bloc, increased geopolitical influence, borders into emerging areas, access to a large military heavily involved in Nato/UN duties, better dialogue with Muslim nations, whereas the anti-camp concentrates on predominantly on culture. Previously pro-EU Turks are becoming disillusioned with the process as they read these reports, and there is an increasing view that a small but influential core of the EU is negotiating in bad faith, making unrealistic demands while ignoring its own commitments - with the sole aim of making Turkey walk away from the negotiations. Here are a few commentaries from Western newspapers about the current bone of contention, Cyprus:

Guardian, Peter Preston: "Papadopoulos says the Turks can't be trusted. To the contrary, they're delivering. It is the union they want to join which swallows its last promises before breakfast, which papers hard choices over with soft words, which oozes insincerity."

Brookings, Philip Gordon: "Villepin now seems to be imposing a new condition—the recognition of Cyprus even in the absence of a political settlement—which he knows is politically impossible for Turkey to meet. One wonders whether his true goal is to bring about recognition of Cyprus or to score easy points with French voters by scuttling the start of Turkey's negotiations with the EU... If anyone needs to adjust their policy toward Cyprus it is the EU, rather than Turkey... The EU enlargement commissioner, Gunther Verheugen, said he felt "taken for a ride" by the Greek Cypriot government. The European Commission vowed to ease the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots as a reward for their cooperation. To date, efforts to do so have gone nowhere, all thwarted by the government of a Cyprus that is now in the EU... While the Turkish government and Turkish Cypriots have nothing to show for their cooperation, the Greek Cypriot rejectionists not only paid no price but were rewarded with EU membership. Now Villepin is proposing that Turkey be the one to make new concessions. One can understand if Ankara is not exactly rushing to support the proposal."

IHT, Richard Bernstein: "The method by which Europe has continually made promises to Turkey that in its heart it never really wanted to keep have soured the mood."

MEP, Sarah Ludford: "Undertakings must be honoured if the EU is to be credible."

I hope one anti-EU Turk's brief view helps you complete your essay. And I hope you get this before it is deleted.

Neutrality

This article is way to Pro-Turkish, it really needs to be rewrited or closed.

Economics

WHAT!? Turkey will have over taken Ireland, UK, Spain, Italy... WHAT!? Theres no way, Ireland has like the 4th highest per capita in the world. This is total bull shit. Youre not supposed to go after GDP youre supposed to go after GDP per capita. --DerMeister 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The information in "economics" section is misleading. You can not use the level of minimum wage as an indicator of the state of economy!! It does tell you something about governmental policies, but nothing about the level of economic development!! By placing data about minimum wage after the sentence "Turkey's per-capita GDP places it among the upper-middle income countries." you are creating false impression that Turkey's living standards are above those of Czech Republic and other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.179.64.210 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Map

Oops! The map needs adjustment. Currently it does not show Slovenia as being part of the EU. Indisciplined 19:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

"Turkey also stresses its involvement in European history for about 1000 years, through the Ottoman Empire and as the seat of the Eastern Roman Empire. It considers itself a European state. A prevalent point of view in Turkey, echoed by its prime minister Erdoğan, is that the EU seems to be a "Christian club", although the foundation of the European Union never claimed to be on religious grounds. However, this argument appears less strong than the previous ones. Many EU-citizens regard this reasoning as suspicious."

What is suspicious? The Christian club claim or Turkeys involvement in Eruo history. This is ambiguous and needs redoing. Disco 12:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This 'Christian Club' notion is hardly reserved to Turkey - international observers and indeed European politicians themselves have expressed the opinion that it is, or in the case of the latter, that it should be. Given how almost every article and debate regarding this topic explicitly mentions Turkey's Muslim character as an important factor, it would be fair to say that 'Christian Club' is diplomatic speak for 'Do Not Want A Muslim Country Club'. This is often countered with the observation that Bosnia will probably be a member one day. It could be argued in turn that this is because a country of Bosnia's circumstances will have very little influence, but this would be POV.

The article uses a quote from Giscard d’Estaing mentioning that Turkey would be the end of Europe - it was at this time he coined the phrase 'Christian Club' when talking why Turkey should not join, and there is much by way of commentary to suggest this is a prevalent view in Europe. It is not a notion of Turkey's invent, as the paragraph would lead one to believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.175.240.82 (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree with you, although obviously parts of what you are are POV. The paragraph should be reworked. Disco 13:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I've taken a stab at it. I split the paragraph into two, one for european country and the other for christian club. Disco 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

reverting

User:Baristarim decides that the quote I added should be blanked [1], stating his opinion that Gaddafi is "not relevant". Also, I added a citation request for articles that clearly show Merkel supports Turkey's accession. From what I've read she does not want Turkey in the EU, and is a clear proponent of the "special partnership". I would appreciate if users such as the one aforementioned refrain from their POV motives.

Fact tags are ok, however Gaddafi quote is not relevant, he is neither a European or a Turk, nor is he involved in any way with EU-Turkey accession. This is not a sandbox. You also removed another quote and two sourced paragraphs, so I wonder who is doing the vandalism and POV-pushing. You have been hopping IPs, so be careful. Baristarim 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. I have been "hopping IPs, so be careful". Be careful of what, of you? My ISP is dynamic, I have no choice when I turn off my computer. *rolls eyes* You began by blanking my edits; I inadvertantly removed your edit, my apologies. I wonder if you are able to give an apology. Nonetheless, you began this by blanking my edits, that is clearly vandalism. Gadaffi is a major International figure who had an interview with the Italian media. This is arguably very relevant, even if you as a Turk may not want to hear it. Enough with the threats... be civil and assume good faith.

aha.. You are asking me to be civil? "Turkish-POV user Baristarim", "one aforementioned refrain from their POV motives"? I advise you strongly to watch for civility, otherwise you will be blocked. What is this: "even if you as a Turk may not want to hear it"? Gaddafi is neither a European nor a Turk. Giscard d'Estaing's quote is included because he happens to be European. Gaddafi is a joke, and there is no point in his quote being included. This is not a question of being a Turk or not, so cut down on the paranoia. I really don't give care what Gaddafi said or didn't say, if you think that his quote is going to make me uncomfortable, than you are clearly off-base :))) Baristarim 04:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You have issues, and it is obviously an issue of you being a Turk. You are extremely uncomfortable by this quote it seems and it is made more obvious by your actions, even though you like to put your little smiley faces everywhere. You are not the one who decides Gaddafi is a joke or that his quotes are irrelevant. You are not the one who decides that only European or Turk quotes may be included. Your actions which have instigated this petty edit war are indeed -- uncivil. You are definitely pushing a Turkish-POV. Myself making that claim is not uncivil, it is describing what I am witnessing! And watch you will blank them once again, even though they are properly sourced! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.101.153 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I am doing no service to "my people"? It is an extremely condescending way of talking, there are no "my peeps", got that? Turks are not some sort of gang. That page is about the EU-Turkey accession progress, not about the individual opinions of every single European or Turk, and definitely not the page of individual opinions of non-Europeans or Turks. If you share the feelings of Gaddafi, then there is nothing much I can do about that :) Baristarim 04:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This comment "-added quotes blanked by discusting Mongolian-Turk barbarians like Mustafa the Ataturk (what gay as names). you'll never be in EU.. pigs" is not acceptable. If you have issues, take it somewhere else. Baristarim 04:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From an Australian point of view (can I claim to be neutral here?) Gaddafi's quite had no place in the article. Although I am uncomfortable with the idea that it is only because he is non european non turk. The reason his quote had no place was because he was using the EU-Turk debate for other political means. Turks or EU can be quoted because their opinion is relevant. Non-Turk-non-EU personalities can be quoted, but only if they specifically bring something to the debate. At least, that is how I see it. Disco 11:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is not for us to say that Gaddafi's quote has or hasn't a place in this article. I saw that the user properly referenced the quote and it is an opinion on Turkey EU accession, like it or not. Also, this idea that only European and Turkish opinions can be included is one of the more ridiculous ideas I've heard yet on Wikipedia. I will re-add the quote unless someone finds a citation that says the quote was not made, or there is a consensus on removing the quote. Valid edits can't just be blanked because another editor disagrees with the opinion. regards. 192.45.72.26 00:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments used against Turkish membership - Occupation of supposed “Republic of Cyprus”

Why revert any explicit mention of Turkey’s military presence in Cyprus in the “Arguments used against Turkish membership” section? As stated, one country’s nonrecognition of another poses a logical barrier to political confederation between the two. The military occupation of one such nation by the other poses similar barriers of comparable gravity. In this case, an entity called “Republic of Cyprus,” whether legitimate or not, is an EU member State in the estimation of both itself, inasmuch as it exists, and the EU. The Republic of Cyprus claims that over a third of its territory has been occupied by the military forces of Turkey. Turkey’s military investment in Cyprus is maintained to prevent certain people on the other side of the line, who call themselves “The Republic of Cyprus,” from coming over and taking back the whole island, which they claim is their territory. The UN has sponsored a ceasefire, but no peace treaty has yet settled the dispute. As in similar situations (e.g., Korea) this is often perceived as a technical state of war. Despite this awkward circumstance, Turkey seeks to become an EU member State too. Despite talks, Turkey has stated it will not remove its military forces from the island of Cyprus. This issue poses a salient barrier to the proposed confederation of Turkey with the “Republic of Cyprus”—one that goes one major step beyond simple nonrecognition of the latter state by the former. 66.24.243.60 12:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100 percent, but today UK and US use propaganda so that we forget this "small" problem. They speak about religion so that nobody who think will be against Turkey entry because if person say something he will be fascist.rjecina 16:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, this article will be rewritten in two-three weeks, so I wouldn't worry too much about its mess at the moment. Btw, the problem with Cyprus (at the moment) is not Turkey's non-recognition of it, but rather Turkey's refusal to open its ports to Greek Cypriot traffic. Cheers! Baristarim 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Cyprus constitutes the whole island

I think that the reference to the Republic of Cyprus as "located in the South" is inaccurate. In fact, the Republic of Cyprus encompasses the whole island (as supported by Wikipedia's article on Cyprus). However, the island is occupied in the north. Therefore, I think that a more accurate description of the Republic of Cyprus is "unoccupied in the South". Ryanwiki 01:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Ryanwiki

With all due respect, the Cyprus issue is indeed an important one - because let's not forget if Turkey will not accept the persecution and genocidal attacks they perpetrated on the natives of the lands they conquered (1895-1955), how will they behave when they are not reprimanded for invading by military force a country that is a member nation of the EU? I don't understand why the EU ignores these matters. Let's not forget that they INVADED the area and were never peaceful settlers. Are they trully surprised that EU has it's reservations? I think this should also be added to the article because it's certainly a concern to nations closest to Turkey, perhaps not Britains.

Inaccurate content

I contend that the nuetrality of this article is dubious, which is impacting the accuracy of the content. Significant changes are being made without any reason given, and there is no discussion or agreement via the talk page (despite the instructions and intentions of the Wikipedia group). The content of this article should not be owned by any one individual, but by everyone as a whole through consensus. I feel this article is being hijacked by a self-declared editor/owner. Ryanwiki 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Ryanwiki

Request for Comment: Republic of Cyprus

This is a dispute about the borders of the Republic of Cyprus. 09:30, 08 January 2007 (GMT)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Turkey refuses to acknowledge the Republic of Cyprus (an EU member), located in the South, as the sole authority on the island...

Comments

• Because the Republic of Cyprus encompasses the whole island (source: [Cyprus]), it is not merely "located in the South". However, the island is occupied in the north. Here is one possible revision of the sentence:

Turkey refuses to acknowledge the Republic of Cyprus (an EU member), which remains unoccupied in the South, as the sole authority on the island...

-- Ryanwiki 08:30, 08 January 2007 (GMT)

Not relevant, the only problem in TR-EU relations is, at the moment, Turkey's refusal to open its ports to Cypriot Greek traffic. This RfC is irrelevant to this article, this dispute is for Cyprus related pages. If you ever find a European Commision official source asking Turkey to recognize Cyprus, then we can think about it. In any case, I don't understand what the rush is, this article needs to be completely rewritten in any case. So just chill... Whatever the version, they will be both deleted or merged to the point of non-recognition in an eventual re-write. As I said, this article is about TR-EU accession, not the Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 09:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the traffic issue is the only problem. Turkey's occupation and non-recognition of the Republic are two high-profile barriers to TR-EU accession. Therefore, the RfC is relevant. The article needs to have its basic geopolitical facts correct. If you are so chilled, let me make the change without overriding it. Ryanwiki 10:00, 08 January 2007 (GMT)

Well, if you find me an official European Comission demand for Turkey to recognize Cyprus, feel free to share it. The only issue in EU-TR accession is the ports issue at the moment. The resolution of the Cyprus dispute concerns fundamentally UN, not the EU. In any case, the bogus RfC that you called for is about the wording of one sentence. RfCs are not called that easily, it has been only one day since you put up your first post. Please learn how the wikiprocess works, RfCs are not called for one day after the statement of a user; they are called for after long disputes that have lasted for a long time. Nothing will happen, don't worry. This article will be rewritten in any case. You are beating a dead horse here I am afraid. Cheers! Baristarim 10:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your contentions about the "only issue in EU-TR accession" is just your opinion. You shouldn't deny the rest of us making contributions that we feel are relevant and important. The RfC indeed is about the wording of one sentence, but it is a fundamental point for many people. If you think this change is so minimal, why don't you let it through? Ryanwiki 10:30, 08 January 2007 (GMT)

• • According to [Wikipedia:Cyprus], the Republic of Cyprus is divided into 6 districts: Famagusta (Gazimağusa), Kyrenia (Girne), Larnaca (Larnaka), Limassol (Leymosun), Nicosia (Lefkoşa) and Paphos (Baf). These districts span the island of Cyprus (except the UK Sovereign Base Areas). Therefore, the claim that the Republic of Cyprus is "located in the South" is factually incorrect. I suggest that it is also inflammatory. For both reasons, the statement can not remain in its current form. Courtesy of Dhavlos, I have proposed the following re-write: "Turkey refuses to acknowledge the Republic of Cyprus (an EU member) as the sole authority on the island, but instead recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the north". I think that’s as objective as possible. Silo7 07:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute markers removed

I marked this article as having its nuetrality and accuracy disputed, and I also nominated it to be checked for its nuetrality.

However, someone rudely removed the markers from the article. May I refer that person to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

This was discussed before: the whole article is already riddled with POV tags where need be. If you are going to place one on top, then it becomes redundant, that's all. Baristarim 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, given the number of sectional POV tags, the article is in dire need to be checked for its neutrality. I've added a single POV-check tag at the top. Please leave it there. 220.233.224.46 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool.. What POV-check are you talking about? :) The article is a pure POV Frankestein sewn together from the wildest bits of information out there anyways! What is there to check? :)Baristarim 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

neutrality and reference markers

Gosh, do we really need to have these in EVERY section? Isn't the one at the top enough? 192.45.72.26 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And now someone even removed that. I've put one back at the top. Let's keep that there and avoid putting one at every section. Silo7 10:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree. The one in every section was actually laughable. :) If there are neutrality and citation concerns though, having this at the top, and only at the top, is reasonable. 192.45.72.26 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems opinionated: "The Turkish Armed Forces are the second largest standing armed force in NATO after the United States Armed Forces, and they are the strongest in the Muslim world[citation needed].

Cleaning up external links

The external links section is a mess. I'm going to try to categorise them to make them more organised. Silo7 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing wikilinks as "factually incorrect", in "Relations with neighbours"? Unless this is a subtle hint that Republic of Cyprus is "incorrect".... EpiVictor 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I removed the wikilinks by mistake -- my apologies. My "factually incorrect" reference wasn't in regards to wikilinking, but to the substance of the statement. I think we agree on it's current form? Silo7 11:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

More or less, although the most obvious change in your edits was -at least for me- removing the wikilinks, which appeared strange, and removing the phrase "located in the South", whose controversial "value", if any, seems very weak to me. Maybe a statement about how Turkey hasn't yet normalized its commercial relations with Cyprus (opening of airports, ports) should be added EpiVictor 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've apologised for accidentally removing your wikilinks -- I'm not sure what else I can do for you. Removing the phrase "located in the South" was, indeed, the key change. Whether or not it is controversial (although look no further than this talk page for evidence), it was simply incorrect. Regarding commercial relations between Turkey and Cyprus, that's a different issue. If you want to add something, go ahead. Silo7 09:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Pro-Accession" links appeared clean, but the "Anti-Accession" links were messy. I've fixed the broken links and replaced irrelevant links with more suitable ones. I didn't yet look at the "Miscellaneous" links. 220.233.224.46 09:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed two broken links

I removed two links from the "Anti-Accession perspective". They pointed to general websites, whereas it seems the intention was to point to specific articles.

In addition, one of the links referred to the murder of Hrant Dink. I question the use of this disgusting incident as an argument against Turkey's membership of the EU, as it was openly condemned by the Turkish Government, and the Turkish police appear to be seriously hunting down the perpetrators. Silo7 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Accession of Turkey to the European Union

Administrator intervention needed - see edits by KhoiKhoi and/or Denizz I accuse KhoiKhoi and Denizz [This user comes from Turkey ] of being impartial. Their objectivity and impartiality are not obvious. Vandalism, including deliberate misinformation about Turkey and Ottoman empire and repeated violations of objectivity will not be tolerated any more.

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source"...

KhoiKhoi and Denizz: just one question : Are you working for the turkish embassy?

I am not, maybe for the consulate :) deniz 20:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Source please, not neutral at all

Administrator intervention needed ! - see edits by KhoiKhoi and/or Denizz I accuse KhoiKhoi and Denizz [This user comes from Turkey ] of being impartial. Their objectivity and impartiality are not obvious. Vandalism, including deliberate misinformation about Turkey and Ottoman empire and repeated violations of objectivity will not be tolerated any more.

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source"...

KhoiKhoi and Denizz: just one question : Are you working for the turkish embassy?

See WP:AWW. Khoikhoi 10:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The state of the article

The article is still like some wild zombie, I ran across only one or two articles in worse state in Wikipedia than this one.lol There is so much irrelevant information and tidbits that have nothing to do with the title - It doesn't mention even one piece of useful information about the current general state of accession, let alone the specific negotiations on chapters etc. The structure "for" and "against" is nothing but an invitation to edit-war, really.. The whole article should simply be re-written, and it shouldn't be the wailing wall either. Things that are not in the TR-EU accession protocole shouldn't be in here: bilateral relations of Turkey with other countries should be in their respective articles, and only their repurcussions on the accession should be mentioned. Please do not add random stuff like "all Europe will be Islamized by the end of the century" or "Greeks are persuing the Megali Idea" - it is more than simple trolling: none of these have much to do with this article... Baristarim 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably just saying "the whole accession idea is but a joke" would be closer to the truth but it would not be encyclopedic, either :-) EpiVictor 10:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nhahaha :) As is, we might as well rename the article to "Opinions about the accession of Tr to Eu"! Baristarim 07:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Marshall Plan poster

I don't see how this image serves any purpose in this article aside from the POV it attempts to push by showing a picture of European flags together with the Turkish flag. It makes the acrticle look more crude and unencyclopedic than it already is; it should be left out. Incidentally, and with no surprise, a Turkish national runs to put it back.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.180.194 (talk • contribs).

As I told you on your talk page, please don't attack people. Also I might agree that the article is unencyclopedic, but I think that the poster serves a purpose there, showing that Turkey has been part of the European community. It is not just a bunch of flags. It is surprising to me that you use "with no surprise" following your first edit. Are you an editor who forgot to sign in? deniz^T_C 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, you included on my talk page a warning not to "attack" people. Where did I attack anyone? You are a Turkish National, you list that on your page. You ran and put back that Marshall plan poster. Where is the attack? You running around accusing others of attacking people is what is an attack. It is no surprise to me that the poster is put there with an agenda, and not surprising that a Turkish citizen will put it back; as you have demonstrated to all of us. That is not an attack, it is a observation that turned out to be fact. You yourself should abstain from some edits that appear to be biased to a national POV. That is constructive criticism -- you need to learn to differentiate. 71.109.180.194 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"rv. you are letting your turkish nationalism get in the way of what belongs and doesn't belong in this article. you should abstain"

I am making some edit and you are accusing me of being a Turkish nationalist. Nationalist is often used for semi-racist or something like that, I believe. If you did not mean such a thing (if it is Turkish national-ism) sorry. We don't need to have any reasons other than improving on the article to make edits, you made your removal (which is a revert of an earlier edit), I reverted your removal. You checked my user page, and since I have that userbox there you came to the conclusion that I must have done it since I am such a nationalist. That's what I thought and that's what I have been objecting. Anyway, I won't be able to respond you swiftly, I am quite busy now. Bye. Next time, please "comment on content, not on the contributor". See WP:No personal attacks You can move all of this to your talk page. By the way, your user talk page is not for your eyes only. Another thing is that is the edit summary for your revert was after my removal, so your this sentence is kinda weird: " That is not an attack, it is a observation that turned out to be fact". Also reference does not support that "quote" by Wolfgang Boersen. deniz^T_C 01:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now to the poster. The Turkish Flag being on an old Marshall Plan poster isn't relevant to this article. It is trying to push a POV that Turkey is part of the European community. That is borderline original research and also the same as using weasel words, but graphically. We should not and can not use images to try and imply anything political; that is pretty basic. 71.109.180.194 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including the poster. By the way, you might want to consider registering instead of posting under an IP address.--Hemlock Martinis 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the article about Accession of Turkey to the European Union, it has been told that in year 2002, there were many constitutional reforms under Erdogan Government, however these constitutional reforms were amended during Ecevit's Governance, i hope this fault can be corrected immediately, thank you.

Despotism

"Until the end of the 19th century, this Muslim occupation detached European territories from the direct influence, cultural and economic, of the West and brought these territories directly under despotism." How were the territories under Ottoman rule any more under the yoke of despotism than those under the rule of Russia, Austria-Hungary, or Prussia? This argument is just another example of the same old double standard that Turkey has always faced from Europe. Turkey was no better than Europe in the 19th century, but it was no worse either. Ahassan05 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)ahassan05

Well, then Turkey has the option of joining the Arab League instead, where I am sure they will be welcomed. Koalorka (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Secularism

Since there has been much debate lately, maybe there should be a section concerning secularism (or not) in Turkey. This issue is being raised in BBC and CNN related articles as a European characteristic of modern Turkey. However, the treatment of the Greek Orthodox, the Gregorian Armenians, the Catholics, the Alevis, etc, could be presented in a section, before the analysis of each of the above. In all Turkey-related articles, "secularism" is presented as a basic characteristic of that state; however, reality reveals the opposite... Perhaps a tag that this section of article may contradict itself would do at the present moment. Hectorian 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Source

An analysis I stumbled over which may prove really helpful in solving the lack of citation issues of this article: [2] Hope you find it handy. NikoSilver 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

armenian relevance

i couldn't see the relevance of armenian issue with turkish accession to EU. i think it must be removed because neither is the resolution of armenian issue a condition in the accession talks nor is armenia memebr of EU. it would be more helpful in a section like "turkish foreign policy" or something like this.88.224.111.57 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)besa

French leaders have repeatedly stated that Turkey will need to recognize the Armenian genocide as another condition for Turkish accession to the EU.--Waterfall999 11:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Really officially Armenian border issue has nothing to do with Accession of Turkey to the EU. Armenia is not a member country besides as in the artice says Romano Prodi said that "Personally, I do not like that the Armenian-Turkish border gate is closed." As also Prodi states this is his personal view. This section must be removed or at least it must be stated that Armenian border issue officialy is not a pre-condition--85.103.38.136 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A POV point

"Yet this point is seen favourably by some, as the Turkish army is known to intervene only when political leadership risks plunging the nation into a religious Sharia state. In effect preventing a demoderisation of the state." This needs reworking. --Jammoe 08:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Add another against?

Just saw the pro/con list of notables... it ommits Durão Barroso, but then he is quoted opposing it. Shouldn't it be added? I'm not doing it myself just yet to gather some input, perhaps there's a reason for it--Bellum sine bello 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguments used against Turkish membership

The "Arguments used against Turkish membership" doesn't contain enough arguments. I propose including these arguments:

- The ongoing illegal occupation of 37% of an EU member's territory (Cyprus). Thus Turkey militarily occupies part of the EU which it wants to enter!!! I can't believe this isn't already there.

- Their daily violations of Greek and Greek-Cypriot airspace, ie they violate EU airspace on a daily basis.

- The refusal of Turkey to recognize the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides. The French president Sarkozy has insisted that Turkey must recognize the Armenian genocide.

- The imprisonment of many Turkish writers who research the Armenian Genocides and are jailed due to undemocratic laws whereby any criticism of the Turkish state, Ataturk and recognition of the genocides lands you in jail. Thus the state forces propaganda upon the Turkish masses.

- The lack of religious freedom for Orthodox Christians, most notably the Greeks and Armenians, and the refusal to reopen the theological school of Halki and the numerous Greek churches which have been converted into mosques. Also the non-secularist past where many Greeks were forcefully converted and Turkified in Ottoman times, as were many POW's during the 1919-1922 Greek-Turkish war, and the Istanbul Pogroms, where Greeks were forced to leave unless they converted. There is also a quote from the current Turkish PM Erdogan, where he says that "mosques are our barracks, the domes are our helmets and the minarets our spears".

- The dangerous extreme nationalism of the Turks, a recent poll found more than 65% of Turks consider themselves to be ultra-nationalist and this has been the cause of several killings such as the assassination of Hrant Dink, and the "bible murders" where 3 protestant bible printers were stabbed to death.

- The fact that Turkish culture is not European but central Asian, and the Turkish people originate from Turkestan (a region in Central Asia including Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Siberia and North-Western China), and are not native to Anatolia. This has been used as an excuse by the leader of the German "Bavarian Christian party". Many Turkish nationalists would also rather unifying with other Turkic countries such as Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and East Turkestan (in China), in a Pan-Turkic Turan type country, and thus don't see themselves as European in the first place.

- They have no European heritage, they merely occupy the lands where Europeans (Greeks, Greek Byzantines/early Christians, and Armenians) built numerous cities and buildings.

- Likewise, all of the ancient Greek ruins and cities in Turkey are never referred to as Greek, but rather "Roman" or "Ancient Anatolian" by the Turkish government, Turkish Tourism and any Travel shows or historical documentaries are obliged to refrain from saying these ruins are "Greek" for permission to film the locations.

These ALL NEED to be included, especially the first 5!--Waterfall999 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for these? --Hemlock Martinis 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I will include these since the article is horrifically biased. Koalorka (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a lovely opinion you have there, which you're entitled to, but, cough, is there a source? Otherwise has no place in the article, and just adds more bias.--Patrick Ѻ 09:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Has any definition of Europe ever been defined? I mean what is to stop the US applying for membership of the EU or the members of the Commonwealth? It seems to me though that geographic and cultural borders would preclude Turkey. It is not and has not been in any way shape or form part of Europe since the Byzantine period. Only during the Greeco-Roman period, and that in the broadest sense, has Asia minor and North Africa been part of Europe. 203.190.196.237 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• You nailed it. If my socialist apologist government ever votes in favour of Islamization, err... Turkish accession, I am tearing up my "Eurasian Union" passport and moving to Australia or Canada. Koalorka (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A possible solution?

It seems to me like we should be focusing more on the big picture (adding a brief overview of Turkey's history and interaction with Europe, the history of Turkey's application for membership, etc.) instead of the arguments for and against membership. This seems to be devolving into a debate of their membership instead of an article about their membership. Perhaps an "International response" section, where we can demonstrate the arguments for and against by using the words of the people advocating those positions. For example, demonstrate the U.S.-Turkey relationship through statements by U.S. and American politicians. Add a section mentioning Sarkozy's proposed Mediterranean Union. No matter how you organize it, we do need to get rid of the arguments section, then incorporate useful information elsewhere into the article and delete the rest. --Hemlock Martinis 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see that American opinion is relevant. I can see the logic of killing off the arguments section as it is very much just two POVs rather than NPOV but I wonder if it would not just return in a short while. But I guess it's worth a try. Dejvid 09:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If it returns, we'll just kill it off again, like we would any other POV statements. --Hemlock Martinis 19:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it then.

I still say that the Opinions section only makes sense as reflecting the debate within Europe and as such people from outside Europe don't logically belong there.Dejvid 13:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, politicians statements are relevant, to a great extent, because they often indicate opinion of their voters. American voters hav no say in what happens in Europe so what American politicians say is not very interesting. An American academic who has taken a serious study of Europe might well have something relevant to say,Dejvid 10:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! Idea! What if we merge the pro statements and the con statements into a section about Turkish membership factors or issues with Turkey's membership or something NPOV that would describe the actual topics (social, economic, political, legal, etc.) rather than the arguments? --Hemlock Martinis 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just did what I described above. Now although the article looks a bit rough at the moment, this'll enable us to go through one by one and fix each topic. --Hemlock Martinis 23:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Status of Discussions

Why the dicussions stopped by Sarkozy recently? It would be good to put down on the timeline section to explain the sudden stop.--Lionheart Omega 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA

How do people here fell about putting this to GA soon? Looking through I think it has a good shot, but will probably hit a few rocks so are their editors who will be able to respond to the GA comments? - J Logan ^t: 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Is expert attention still needed btw? Not sure there is going to be any, and there has been a lot of work now. Just a few cite tags left. - J Logan ^t: 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great! And yes, let's scrap the expert tag. One's not needed anymore. --Hemlock Martinis 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Membership issues

This article is starting to look very good, IMO, and neutral - congratulations to all who have worked on it.

I suggest, however that the Starting para on Membership issues should be baulked out a bit to explain the hurdles that Turkey must cross before it is to acceed. Can I suggest it here first as it's quite a big change.

The intro currently reads:

Turkey’s entry into the EU may have profound consequences on the future direction of the EU.

Support to Turkey's entry into the EU varies among the public of the current EU member states. The issues mentioned by some of those objecting to Turkey's EU candidacy can be divided among those inherent to Turkey's situation, those that involve internal issues about human rights, democracy, and related matters, and those concerning Turkey's open external disputes with its neighbours. There is much contention over whether some of these arguments are used by people more as a proxy against peoples true feelings about Turkish membership in the sense that the country is not culturally European and therefore should be denied entry at all.

This para from "official views" could be moved up:

EU member states must unanimously agree to Turkish membership for Turkish accession to be successful. A number of nations could oppose it, notably Austria, which historically served as a bulwark for Christian Europe against the Ottoman Empire, and France, which is fearful of the prospect of another wave of Muslim immigrants (especially given the poor integration of its existing, mainly Arab (i.e. not Turkish), Muslim minority).

I would expand it and reword along the following lines as follows:

In order to acceed to the EU, Turkey must first successfully complete negotiations with the European Commission on each of the 35(?) chapters of the EU's acquis and then the member states must unanimously agree to Turkish membership. Public opinion in EU countries generally opposes Turkish membership, though with varying degrees of intensity, although political leaders and politicians of the European Union generally support it. Some countries, notably France and Austria, have discussed putting the decision to a referendum.

Turkey’s entry into the EU may have profound consequences on the future direction of the EU. The issues mentioned by some of those objecting to Turkey's EU candidacy can be divided among those inherent to Turkey's situation, those that involve internal issues about human rights, democracy, and related matters, and those concerning Turkey's open external disputes with its neighbours. There is much contention over whether some of these arguments are used by people more as a proxy against peoples true feelings about Turkish membership in the sense that the country is not culturally European and therefore should be denied entry at all.

What do you think? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, that's greatly improved. I support it. --Hemlock Martinis 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The new template needs sources. Deniz^T_C 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Accession of only Turkey's European part to the EU

As I recall, there are several politicians that favor Turkey's European part to be admitted to the EU, but not the Asian part of it (the Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmara being the dividing line here). I believe that Sarkozy(Sarkozy in favor of accession of Turkeys European-part to the EU) was in favor for this, aldough I might be mistaken.

Also, within the EU-council, this topic and possibility was mentioned; see the Bosphorus Conference and Boat Trip

Please recheck this information and add it to the article as I believe this is quite valuable information therefore.

Thanks,

87.64.163.194 14:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't read the Sarkozy article as I don't have a Financial Times subscription. And the EU Council link doesn't mention it... --Hemlock Martinis 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this sounds like a crazy idea. You can only join but as long as you split your country in two and we'll only let the smaller bit in ??? Turkey would never agree. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Aldough offcourse this claim needs to be verified, I don't think the idea is crazy. This as it would open up similar possibilities with countries's enclaves (within Europe as without). Especially the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad is at the moment a economic disaster which could be adressed and the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta, Melilla, Canary Islands could finally be made African once again (which would be but right). Also, it would simplify the set up of the Continental Unions.

Iraq

Turkey's relationship with Iraq may soon become an issue here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.21.194 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, specifically with Iraqi Kurdistan. The EU has, after all, urged the Turkish government to be cautious and mentioned any invasion may impact on accession talks. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OECD

"Turkey is a founding member of the OECD since 1961." This is supposed to mean that it was a developed country since 1961. I need evidence for that. It seems pretty clear that its admission was allowed more as a reward for its joining NATO, which was important only because of its strategic geographic location. Backward Mexico was also admitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.0.50 (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't like biting, but I think this is one of those statements which seem to say something but don't. X is Y (a solid fact, can be proven just request a source). Then X is Z (a more abstract one, I just made up the connection, even if Y does not imply Z). I need someone to prove X is Z to believe the fact that X is Y. Oh, also, on an unrelated note, X became Y as a reward of being W (lets forget that X was y (which later became Y) years before W). Also when talking about historical things, please don't assume things were back then as they are now.

I'm inclined to agree. Membership of the CoE, OSCE are releveant as they are explicitly European organisations but the OECD is not exclusively european. There doesn't seem to be any relevance here so I suggest reference to it is droppped. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus is not European, but is in EU. I don't think we want to erase the whole article. Turkey was member of 'OECD, when it was European'. I don't mind dropping it, but I don't see the need to drop it. Deniz^T_C 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Economy section

This section is becoming too large in proportion and includes a lot of material that is not pertinent directly to the article's topic. What can we cut out of it? --Hemlock Martinis 23:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

EU Enlargement Commission 2007 report

Found in PDF here. Corresponding BBC article here. Let's use the EU report as the framework for the membership issues section. --Hemlock Martinis 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Data in this article are at odds with the 2007 progress report. The report clearly states that negotiations have been opened on 4 chapters (one of them has been provisionally closed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.179.64.210 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved "immigration section"

This is off-topic, so I moved it here:"===Immigration===

Main articles: Turks in Germany, Turks in the Netherlands, Turkish diaspora, and Immigration to Turkey

West Germany suffered an acute labour shortage after the Second World War and, in 1961, the Bundesrepublik officially invited Turkish workers to Germany to fill in this void, particularly to work in the factories underpinning the boom, the Wirtschaftswunder ("economic miracle") of the 1960s and 1970s. Turkish citizens soon became the largest group of Gastarbeiter — literally, guest workers — in West Germany. The perception at the time on the part of both the West German Government and the Gastarbeiter themselves was that working in Germany would only be temporary. As in the rest of Western Europe, though, most of the Gastarbeiter became settled permanent residents of their adopted country, bringing over spouses and relatives from Turkey and raising families.

The Merkel government has taken action to slow down Turkish immigration to Germany.

In 1964, due to a severe labor shortage, the Dutch government formally invited Turkish men and women to come and work in the Netherlands. Most of the guest workers ended up in those places where there was a labor shortage, mostly in low educated jobs." Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Resources

You might like to mine the following articles useful for citations:

• EU report on Issues arising from Turkey's membership perspective
• Foreign Affairs - Turkey's Dreams of Accession
• Greece's Shifting Position on Turkish Accession to the EU Before and After Helsinki (1999)
• Europe's reasons and Turkey's Accession (ARI)
• European Press Review: E.U. Snubs Turkey (Views about Turkish EU membership from London, Paris, Frankfurt, Athens, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, Hamburg, Turin, and Zurich)
• Turkey in Europe: More than a promise? from the Soros' Independent Commission on Turkey
• "Will Turkey be complicit in another war against another neighbour?". CASMII. 2008-02-24.
• Article by Secretary General of Council of Europe

• Failure of the talks 'would betray Turks and Europe'
• Time to talk to Turkey
• The case for Turkey
• We need Turkey
• We must not turn our back on our best Muslim ally
• "Middle East Needs Turkey's EU Membership", Ayse Hakim, JTW
• "U.S. Diplomat: Turkey's EU Aspirations Can Inspire Muslims", Vince Crawley, The Washington File
• Turkish illegal restrictive measures against Cyprus and European Union shipping
• Human Rights Watch on Turkey
• Turkishpolitix.com - the gateway to Turkish affairs (with up-to-date dossier on EU-Turkey relations)
• Regime change, European-style, is a measure of our civilisation
• Turkey and the European Union
• "Turkey-EU Relations: If Turkey Says No!"
• ZEI EU-Turkey-Monitor - Newsletter to monitor accession negotiations
• "Turkey Apprehensive Over EU Crises", by Jonathan Gorvett, Aljazeera

Please remove articles from this list that have been cited. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Adoniscik,

You seem to be the best person to do this, based on the articles you have found. Do you know you can do this by yourself? Do you need help creating references?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not making it clear. I removed this linkfarm from the EL section; I did not find these articles myself. I'm just presenting them to interested parties. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

map

I have just created a map illustrating the population of turkish people living in Europe. It may be quite relevant for this article

Turkish population in Europe

Photosofturks (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove sections that are irrelevant for the discussion of the aspects of accession or not

Many sections look like copies of the corresponding sections in the general discussion of Turkey. This doesn't add any information on the discussion of accession (or not, for the opponents). Shouldn't this articles be cleaned up in order to ensure that it only contains relevant information for the questions directly related with accession? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.9.65 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, a discussion of accession should not look like a tourist brochure, not like a propaganda leaflet. I'll help you with cleaning up the propaganda from this aqrticle. Rudi Dierick (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus dispute

Recently, User:Pantepoptes, as part of his drive to essentially re-write this article from scratch, has been expanding the Cyprus dispute section of this article way beyond the scope of this article. This [3] is the perfect example. Statements made by the Turkish PM from over 30 years ago have no place in this article, and such edits seem to me like naked attempts to justify the invasion. The section on the Cyprus dispute should only contain a very brief description of the origins of the dispute and should focus more on recent developments and how these impact Turkey's accession. Not go into excessive detail about the 1001 ways why the Turkish invasion was "justified". --Athenean (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Cyprus dispute is an ongoing and very serious issue which has profound effects on Turkey's membership talks. I only basically covered the events that lead to the conflict in a single paragraph. Solid and referenced facts should not be hidden under the carpet. I also wrote that Turkey breached the Treaty of Guarantee's Article 2 by supporting the island's division in 1983. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What does Ecevit's attempt to justify the invasion have to do with this article? Can you please explain that? Including such things is highly POV. And just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs to this article. --Athenean (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ecevit is the historical figure who ordered the military operation, so "whether it may reflect the truth or not", his view is important. Also, the Cypriot intercommunal violence of 1963-1974 is a "solid fact" and not something which Ecevit invented. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Such things are way beyond the scope of this article. Your edits are moreover completely one-sided in a naked attempt to justify the invasion. --Athenean (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am adding "every single detail" with "full nakedness" to describe in a single paragraph the events that lead to the current situation. But the truth often hurts, doesn't it? I also wrote that Turkey breached the treaty by supporting the island's division in 1983. As you can see, I can stomach the errors of my state, but most Greeks and Armenians (with the psychological reaction of "feeling defeated") like to see the things as "we are 100% angels, they are 100% devils." Pantepoptes (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, it is quite clear from the above that talking to you is a waste of time. You are not interested in collaborating, and are now resorting to personal attacks. Goodbye. --Athenean (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. Pantepoptes has shown no indications that he understands, or wants to understand, what this article is about. The cyprus part of the article is a subsection of the section titled "Turkish membership issues" - but the content that Pantepoptes is adding has nothing to do with "Turkish membership issues". In fact, almost nothing that is in the "Turkish membership issues" section has anything actually to do with Turkish membership issues! Forexample, nothing that is in the religion subsection has any connection to "Turkish membership issues", and the main "religion" issue that is connected to it isn't mentioned at all (Turkish laws that are intended to enforce secularism, such as the headscarf ban issue). Same for the economy section - it reads like a PR handout from a Turkish embassy, but has nothing to do with Turkish membership issues! Issues that are connected to it, such as the convergence of quality control standards, work conditions and hours, and so on, aren't mentioned at all. Nor is the issue of agricultural subsidies mentioned (based on its output, Turkish agriculture is more heavily subsidised that in the EU and there is a question if this can be continued after membership), or any of the many other real issues. Meowy 16:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For the Cyprus issue, all that is needed is a sentence to the effect of: In 1974, Turkey invaded the Republic of Cyprus in response to a coup intended to annex the island to Greece. Full stop. Everything thing else, such as trying to cram as many excuses and justifications as possible is superfluous to this article and also POV. Consequently, I will remove any such superfluous passages. Also agree about the economy: It might as well have been written by the PR section of the Turkish embassy.--Athenean (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence on "Ecevit's view". However, the rest is well-referenced, neutral and important data which have links with both sides of the dispute and do not represent only a single side's view. One of the references (on the Treaty of Guarantee) is actually the "government website" of the Republic of Cyprus (the Greek side). Pantepoptes (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Text removed

I don't see how the following text is relevant to this specific article. it should be in Economy of Turkey

And, despite a global economic slowdown in 2008, real GDP growth for the year was a respectable 4.5%.[39] Turkey's economy is no longer dominated by traditional agricultural activities in the rural areas, but more so by a highly dynamic industrial complex in the major cities, mostly concentrated in the western provinces of the country, along with a developed services sector. In 2007, the agricultural sector accounted for 8.9% of the GDP, while the industrial sector accounted for 30.8% and the services sector accounted for 59.3%.[40] The tourism sector has experienced rapid growth in the last twenty years, and constitutes an important part of the economy. In 2008, there were 30,929,192 visitors to the country, who contributed 21.9 billion USD to Turkey's revenues.[41] Other key sectors of the Turkish economy are banking, construction, home appliances, electronics, textiles, oil refining, petrochemical products, food, mining, iron and steel, machine industry and automotive.

LibStar (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

indeed. A general essay on how Turkey is doing well isn't relevant to this article. I mean, Japan is doing well too, and isn't going to join the EU anytime soon. Stick to the article topic. --dab (𒁳) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

the article should focus on how Turkey meets criteria for membership and reasons why it can't join or why others think it shouldn't join. glowing statistics about the number of visitors, billionaires, pictures of Turkish cities and tourist sights...really is nothing to do with the topic and is covered adequately elsewhere in WP. LibStar (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkey has made great progress towards a prosperous modern state with rule of law, democracy and very little torture, corruption, international stand-offs or nationalist embarassment. That's undisputed, and it's very good for them. It doesn't however mean that Turkey is going to join the EU anytime soon. It's not going to happen, the EU governments would have a revolution on their hands if they were seriously pushing this. Anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe is just too strong for this to happen. Perhaps in 50 years, if the Eurabia fear-mongery turns out to be justified, things will look different, but at this time, the EU is just trying to wiggle its way out of this accession business without losing face. --dab (𒁳) 17:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose everyone in Europe must apologise for not wanting to slit their own wrists! I agree with an earlier poster who said that this article is pro-accession, I disagree with his characterisation of it as subtle propaganda - the propaganda is actually thick and heavy. Meowy 19:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Meowy, but I agree not because I have an agenda but because you are right in this case because the situation coincidentially corresponds to your anti-Turkish agenda. Pantepoptes is out of line and will be sanctioned. In the meantime, we can proceed like adults and try to clean up this article.

obviously, the opposition to Turkey's accession isn't just based in murky anti-Islamic xenophobia, it is also based in real economy. viz. Turkey is too large. The EU can hope to absorb states like Bulgaria with its 20 million people and $200 GDP (although there are serious concerns whether this was such a wise move), but the accession of Turkey with its $800 billion GDP and 70 million people is simply more than the EU can stomach. And geostrategically, the EU must seriously ask itself whether it is really dying to have boundaries with Syria, Iran and Iraq. I suppose that "slitting their own wrists" isn't very far from the truth after all. --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkey's GDP-PPP is $1.028 trillion, and Nominal GDP per capita is higher than those of 2 EU member states, Bulgaria and Romania. The minimum wage in Turkey is higher than the minimum wage in 9 EU member states. "Economy" is not a problem - the real problem is that Turks are Muslim. Pantepoptes (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria's GDP is $51 billion by the way. Pantepoptes (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't actually know what GDP-PPP means, do you? These "$1.028 trillion" are imaginary money, sort of "the money the Turks would make if they were Americans". But you are driving home my point that Turkey's economy is too large for the EU. Germany is already a monster within the EU, and if Turkey joined the EU, it would immediately account for 12% of EU population and 4% of EU economy. I.e. Turkey would immediately be calling the shots within the EU with some help from the Germans, French and British. This is probably not something countries like Greece will be very thrilled to see happening. --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Most Turks have become anti-membership within time, including myself. My only aim is to show that Turkey is actually a very beautiful country with a very bright future, nothing more. The EU can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned. Pantepoptes (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone in the EU will be happy to live in that "hell", however I doubt if Turkey will be happy to live in that "bright future". All the substantial and positive reforms - economic, political, and social - that Turkey has undergone in the last decade were mosty done as a result of the continual prompting of Europe, and not through the initiative of Turkey's leaders or even through internal pressure from its population. Free from that external prompting, do you think those reforms will be maintained? But this discussion is as off-topic as your aim to show Turkey as a very beautiful country. BTW, Turkey is not a particularly beautiful country - it is an ecological and enviromental disaster-zone. Meowy 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

if your aim is "to show that Turkey is actually a very beautiful country with a very bright future", then why the hell are you even editing this article, which is entitled "Accession of Turkey to the European Union"? --dab (𒁳) 08:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note top of page "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject 210.56.73.237 (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

right, sorry. The point is that the tendencious stuff turning this into an advertisement for Turkey in general needs to go. We need to restrict this article to referenced content directly relevant ot the accession thing. It isn't immediately clear how a "cruise ship and seabus in Istanbul", or the "Armada Tower in Ankara", or a view of "Izmir from Konak Pier" are supposed to be relevant to this. We aren't the bleeding Turkish tourism board for crying out loud. This article can very well have "economy" or "religion" or "demographics" sections as long as these sections are strictly confined to referenced discussions on how these aspects have been taken to influence the accession process. They are, instead, chatty discussions of Turkey in general. This needs to be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 12:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Pantepoptes has just removed a lot of legitimate content, such as the deleted "Turkish membership issues" section, and most of the deleted "Effect upon the EU" section. Disputes that are connected to the accession talks - such as the Cyprus dispute and the Article 301 law - are obviously legitimate content, yet they have been erased. So too has the "Public reactions" section, which, although rather POV as currently written, contained some valid content. Meowy 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Pantepoptes hasn't yet chosen to understand that this is the "Accession of Turkey to the European Union" article, not the "1001 things I like about Turkey" article. Obviuosly, material discussing the relation of Turkey and the EU is on topic. General discussions of the 1935 elections in Turkey, the view from Izmir harbour, or the charms of Turkey's landscapes are off topic. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above users that the article in its current form needs cleanup. There is absolutely no need to mention the Ottoman Empire and the election of 1935. The article as it is now focuses too much on the past and providing background rather than the accession itself. --Athenean (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the "let's all cut it out and give each other a hug" article? :) Pantepoptes (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that Pantepoptes and Pipdebag are socks of the indef blocked User:Shuppiluliuma and have been indef blocked as well [4]. I propose rolling back the article to its original version, before this individual's edits. --Athenean (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Best to look at what he/she has added rather than just removing it all because of the sockpuppet status. Having looked at it, I think it all should be removed based on its content. BTW the Queen Elizabeth quote ("an asset for the European Union") is not a quote by her at all - looking at the cited source it is actually the words of whoever wrote the source article. Meowy 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:TRNC_location.png

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:TRNC_location.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:TRNC location.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Support / Against

Can we create list of countries supporting accession of Turkey to the European Union? Also for groups of EU Parliament... --195.110.6.24 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Queen Lizzy

Elizabeth II is the Queen of 16 different countries, not just the UK. She has no real political power and she has to always remain neutral between the opposition and ruling parties. I really don't think a quote from her is worth enough to put into this article. -AlexTG (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Queen is giving the official UK government position. If you want to hear it from the Foreign Secretary, here it is: from UK Foreign Office website:

On arrival in Istanbul Mr Miliband said: 'I am pleased to be back in Turkey for my fourth visit as Foreign Secretary. Turkey is a key partner for the UK. And it's a European partner: I am very clear that Turkish accession to the EU is important and will be of huge benefit to both Turkey and the EU.'

EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think sourcing the UK position from David Miliband and the UK Foreign Office website makes perfect sense. --Athenean (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, much better to hear it from a member of the government. The above quote would be a good replacement-AlexTG (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it though, shouldn't we remove the quotations all together and just state the official view in prose form? Readers don't need to see specific quotes in the article, that's what references are for.-AlexTG (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I know I don't like quotefarms. --Athenean (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Genocide Section Removed

The section "Recognition of Genocides in the Ottoman Empire" was recently been removed.

I did a search for "genocide turkey EU" and found quite a few articles which suggest that the Armenian genocide has in the past been an important factor in Turkey's bid. So I think there needs to be a section on this (even if officially it is no longer a factor, it should be there for historical purposes). I have therefore reverted the removal. The section currently doesn't explain how the genocide is to linked with EU accession though so it needs to be fixed up.

The relevant news articles I found:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531079/Turkeys-EU-plans-threatened-by-genocide-dispute-with-the-French.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1530056/Turkey-must-face-up-to-past-says-EU.html
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1056400.html
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5814748/Armenians-EU-wrong-on-Turkey.html
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1470603.htm
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Brussels-to-decide-Turkish-bid-to-join-EU-2127.html
http://www.asbarez.com/52115/eu-to-press-turkey-on-recognizing-armenian-genocide/

-AlexTG (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

MK wiki

{{editprotected}} Please add an interwiki link for the Macedonian version. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Тиверополник (talk • contribs)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

New logo

I uploaded this: Image:Turkish_EU_accession_logo2.png I propose that we show both logos in the article - maybe only one in the infobox, but somewhere in the history section to show the initial variant too. Alinor (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

200px

200px

"Religion" section

Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a Muslim-majority nation as claimed here. It is a Muslim-plurality nation. Please correct. InArm (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

chapter frozen

There is a note about part of the chapters (these blocked by veto of Cyprus itself), but the others are frozen by the EU - because Turkey does not apply fully the protocol regulating Association Agreement & Customs Union to the new EU members admitted in 2004. "Not fully" here means - not to Cyprus (I think it was that Cypriot ships, aircraft and maybe trucks are still not allowed to enter Turkish territory/facilities/etc.) - the decision for these was taken by the Commission (or Council) of the EU - a short explanation and source link in the text would be welcome. Alinor (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the Turkish government wants EU membership?

This is the real question when Turks don't want EU membership. China and Japan do fine without EU membership. It's basically unnecessary. Look at the EURO. Look at Greece. The EU may be breaking up because of debt that weaker states built up. --Ericg33 (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested assessment

I responded to a request here.
I think this article is of high importance to the EU (but not top).
Also I think it is currently a strong B class article but not quite ready for GA, A, or FA because:

• Introduction/Lede section. Should be longer and more a summary, see WP:LEAD. Also the image in the lead is not informative, and the two foreign relation templates are a bit unweildy.
• Timeline. Layout is not very nice (minor remark)
• Status of acquis chapter. This section is merely a table and needs an introduction, explanation.
• Foreing relation: Greece - Too short a section, remove or expand
• Religion - very short subsections. Rewrite.
• Public reaction - same, too short subsections.
  

I think with all these issues to be solved before you have a chance at GA review, I think this article is in its current state a definite B (no more, no less). Good luck with the improvements Arnoutf 12:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

come on!Turkkey will never join the European Union, the whole article is just a joke and should be permanently deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.32.125 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkey's motivations

I just went through the article and couldn't find any obvious reasons why Turkey wish to join the European Union. We have the opinions of european countries and leaders as to why it should or shouldn't join the EU, but nowhere is it stated Turkey's motivations. Unless I'm missing something here, I think this should be mentioned brieftly in the introduction, and then we could have a section talking about it. Laurent (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what struck me after reading the article too. It's not clearly explained why Turkey is seemingly willing to jump through so many hoops to join the EU. This seems like important background information to me. --Joey Roe (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have heard the view that the drive does not come from Turkey but from those who do not favour a strong EU and hope that the inclusion of Turkey will weaken the EU. I only bring this forward as an aspect to explore and lay no claim as to whether this is actually true, or who these people might be. It is very hard to see how Turkey could be a member as long as their border to Iraq remains porous, through Kurds on both sides and possibly in the non-Kurdish border areas as well. 121.209.49.198 (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkish politicians do not express the true reasons - the prospect of EU membership is being used as a way for them to avoid attempting to solve Turkey's pressing economic and social problems (caused by massive over-population and under-employment). "It will all be solved by EU membership", they just say, "so we don't need to do anything longterm to solve it ourselves". Meowy 19:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkey cannot join EU because it doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide; and it should be stated in this article--Martin (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of the genocide is definitely not a precondition to joining the EU. It probably is true however that lack of recognition could cause problems in getting the support of some EU countries. If someone can find a reliable source which discusses this then I would think it could be a good addition. -AlexTG (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on, this is ridiculous, Turkey is never going to join the EU, this is never gonna happen, this is just a Joke. None wants Turkey joining the EU, Turkiey is NOT Europe and Europe can't exist though Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.32.125 (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)