[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
DASHBot (talk | contribs)
318,263 edits
m Removing fair use file(s), per WP:NFCC#9 (Shutoff | Log )
Line 273: Line 273:
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. [[User:Alinor|Alinor]] ([[User talk:Alinor|talk]]) 09:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
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. [[User:Alinor|Alinor]] ([[User talk:Alinor|talk]]) 09:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


[[Image:Turkish EU accession logo.svg|200px]]
[[:Image:Turkish EU accession logo.svg|200px]]<!--Non free file removed by DASHBot-->


[[Image:Turkish EU accession logo2.png|200px]]
[[:Image:Turkish EU accession logo2.png|200px]]<!--Non free file removed by DASHBot-->

Revision as of 05:06, 7 August 2010

Archive
Archives

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)[reply]

Archives:

Important note: This article has been the subject of controversy in the past. Please read relevant archived and recent talk on the right and below before making any substantial changes.


Status as member of the Council of Europe

In the article of the Council of Europe Turkey isn't mentioned as a founding member but in this article it still says "Turkey joined the Council of Europe in 1949 and is regarded as a founding member of the organization.". It is true that they joined in 1949 but not that they were a founding member (as I understand). Is this right or am I looking at this in the wrong way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomvasseur (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Turkey's Reforms

Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system. They amended the penal code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. It was a lengthy process that could have taken years, but Turkey chose to redress its shortcomings with the political criteria as quickly as possible. The revision of fundamental laws is an ongoing process that will continue during the accession negotiations. On October, 3rd 2001, The Turkish Parliament voted on the most comprehensive package of amendments that the Parliament has approved to this date, changing more than one fifth of the 17 articles of the Constitution. These amendments introduced new provisions, in line with the priorities of the 2001 National Program for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA), such as the freedom of though and expression, the prevention of torture, strengthening democracy and civilian authority, the freedom of communication, the freedom of residence movement, the freedom of association, and gender equality. Gender equality has been on the basic tenets of the Republic of Turkey. It is unique among Muslim countries, in so far as the 1926 Civil Code embodied the essential principles of gender equality. At an earlier date that in many European countries, women in Turkey obtained the right to vote and to be elected in the municipal elections in 1930. The new Civil Code, which entered into force January 2002, introduced significant changed in the areas of gender-equality, protection of the child and vulnerable persons, and the freedom of association.

[1] [2]

These are definitely steps in the good direction, but the gap between the EU's 'acquis communautaire' and Turkey's reality is still huge. So?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Severe vandalism and censorship

Many sections present a year ago, and critical of Turkey's bid have been removed. However, no justification was given for any of those removals on these discussion pages. This censorship is a very relevant indication that Turkey indeed has far to many non-democratic forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.9.65 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 81.240.9.65 is right. As good as all (or all?) of his contributions have been removed, without any single word of explanation. This is a rude and barbaric way of doing: Wikipedia manners suggest that before any removal of information, the person who thinks certain things have to be removed is to explain why on the Discussion page. Moreover the changes made by 81.240.9.65 appear quite Ok for me. Some wordings can be improved, and some references would make it more solid, but the core appears very much OK to me. The fact that Wikipedia rules are so blatantly broken here by Makimonaco, suggests that those who don't like a more balanced view are relevant for Turkish manners. Should we really have to believe that Turkish don't accept balanced information, this is, also less positive info? Rudi Dierick (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After more in depth examination, I'm horrified by the extent of the removal of relevant information?. This amounts to vandalism and censorship. I will try to restore the information that was removed by Makimonaco, and then I hope we can have a civilized discussion on these pages. Rudi Dierick (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pro-accession

True! It is subtle propaganda. Turkey shouldn't even be thinking about joining the EU, period. They're not a European people and <5% of the country is only in Europe. Turkey joining the EU will only raise current problems with the Islamification of Europe. They have no place in Western Culture. Let Europe be European! Europe was diverse enough already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.190.53 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's subtle propaganda. It's written to make it seem as if accession would be a good thing.--Deitrohuat (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. In particular the geography section, which reads like a tourist pamplet. "Turkey is home to two of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World", "where agriculture and civilization began in the 9th millennium BC" , what does this have to do with EU accession? How do the pretty images of random tourist attractions help readers understand the article?-AlexTG (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
totally agreed. I've removed some of the irrelevant tourist style promo pictures, the irrelevant statistics on no. of billionaires in Turkey. there are many critics of accession which this article has not highlighted. this article needs a lot of work LibStar (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EVERYTHING about Turkey is relevant, including its cultural heritage, geography, geology and economy. There are still many people who think that Turkey is a desert Arab country, which is not true. Turkey must "express itself" and images often help more than words - especially images which are supported by textual information. Pantepoptes (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the article is not intended to be a promotion to be given for EU Members so that Turkey can sell its accession. see WP:NPOV WP:NOT, WP:PROMOTION LibStar (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is a Wikipedia article, not a promotional brochure. Nobody in their right mind would describe Turkey as an "Arab" or "desert" country, but it is completely unclear how this has any bearing on the topic. Turkey not being Arab is established at demographics of Turkey, and Turkey not being a desert country is established at geography of Turkey. --dab (𒁳) 16:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the excessive pictures. However, I disagree with the view that the article is pro-accession. Just take a look at the "Official points of view" section at the bottom. There is not a single positive view for Turkey's membership. Everyone is opposed to it. If the "images of Turkey's new reality" (such as Levent, Maslak, etc) or the "images of Turkey's natural beauty and historical heritage" (such as Troy, Ephesus, Halicarnassus, Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, etc) are hurting you (you know, the ting... ting... feeling at the point where the sun never shines) well, that's an illness with no cure, and it's called jealousy. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with comments like "that's an illness with no cure, and it's called jealousy", it seems like you are pro Turkey. please read WP:NPOV, this is an encyclopaedia not a brochure to be handed to the EU. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it's obvious that you are "anti Turkey". It's good to have 1 "pro Turkey" fox among a pack of 10 "anti Turkey" wolves, don't you think? It's better to "balance" the things. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am pro WP:NPOV, this is an encyclopaedia we treat all topics with NPOV not writing to promote any subject or entity. I have no personal view for or against accession. simply doing major reverts without discussion is an indication of strong bias. Whilst you are be pro accession, you need to treat the topic carefully. If this was a company, WP:COI would apply here. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that story to my 92-year-old grandmother. Maybe she will believe. Pantepoptes (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how is it "anti Turkey" to be skeptical about Turkish accession to the EU? In Switzerland, people are called "anti Swiss" for suggesting Swiss accession to the EU. You can be "pro accession" or "anti accession", but that obviously is no indication of the presence of any "pro Turkish" or "anti Turkish" sentiment. Personally, I am neither a citizen of the EU nor of Turkey, and consequently any opinion I might have on this would be "anti EU" and "anti Turkish" on exaclty equal grounds. So, say I supported the accession, would that make me "anti EU and anti Turkish", "pro EU and pro Turkish", "anti EU and pro Turkish" or "anti EU and anti Turkish" in your opinion? --dab (𒁳) 12:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good point Dbachmann, the coverage seems to be generally anti accession from within the EU, and unsurprisingly glowing coverage from Turkish media, government. some EU leaders offer vague support but it's always with qualification. this is the general picture from coverage of the issue. and then is it no surprise that some Turkish editors have been editing this article with a completely biased manner and introducing things that would be better in a "You should invest in and visit Turkey" brochure? LibStar (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! The reverse is true. Almost ALL EU leaders and the entire EU establishment offer unquestioning support for Turkish membership, will not address any ofthe legitimate membership issues, refuse to consult with their electorate, and try to attack an marginalise any dissenting voices by calling them racists and religious bigots. And in Turkey there are serious questions being asked about the possible negative aspects of EU membership, as well as all the usual extremist rantings of the Turkish extreme right. Turkish TV is also being flooded by preachy liberal pro-EU propaganda, paid for by EU funds, and throughout the whole country there are EU-paid-for projects springing up everywhere (you can barely travel a mile along any road in Turkey without seeing a blue EU flag announcing yet another project). Meowy 16:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see a general consensus forming (Deitrohuat, AlexTG, LibStar, dab, Meowy, myself) that this article is POV, and I agree. I will remove the most blatantly POV-ish sections I see. --Athenean (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the most promotional, peacock passages from the article, along with some irrelevant stuff. Hope that is acceptable to everyone. --Athenean (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
How about the "let's all cut it out and give each other a hug" article? :) Pantepoptes (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Pantepoptes and Pipdebag are socks of the indef blocked User:Shuppiluliuma and have been indef blocked as well [1]. I propose rolling back the article to its original version, before this individual's edits. --Athenean (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

MK wiki

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

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

200px

200px

  1. ^ http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60278/wolfgang-schauble-and-david-l-phillips/talking-turkey?page=2
  2. ^ http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Argument:_Turkey_has_made_significant_reforms_to_gain_EU_membership
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union&oldid=377597972"