Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union

This article has been the subject of controversy in the past. Please read relevant archived and recent talk before making substantial changes.

Archived talk

Archive 1 (before mid Dec 2004)
Democracy, secular state as preconditions to join!|, Other issues hindering Turkey's accssion, Does noone else see a problem with POV here?, Use of Language

Turkey - Armenia issue real

Well, finally, it seems that the addition of the Armenia dispute itself is to some degree valid. A news story this morning in the Irish Times, makes mention of France wanting to see Turkey apologise for the massacre as part of entry conditions. Free online version of story

I still say though that the Turkey issue be summarised in a neutral fashion and the full long piece moved to its own article.

zoney ♣ talk 11:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Armenia also wants their genocide claims to be recognized by Turkey", as the article currently states, is insufficient. The fact that France ( BBC story) and various human rights groups want Turkey to recognize the "Armenian genocide claims" should be mentioned somehow. Any idea on what to say instead? —Gabbe 17:15, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not only some countries demand it; officiel EU reports also indicate that Turkey's flat denial that anything at all was Turkey's fault is seen as inacceptable.

Controversy

There have been no major arguments for the best part of a month now. I am removing the disputed neutrality notice, adding a note to the top of the talk page mentioning past controversy, and archiving old (and a bit nasty) talk (still linked above).

Hope this is OK, after all, any remaining issues can be revisited with a calm and fresh approach.

zoney ♣ talk 12:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To seem more neutral this article could use a section on whether accession is likely as opposed to whether or not accession is a good idea.

Added. --CJWilly 16:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

European reasons for admitance?

I see on this page alot of reasons why the Europeans are hesitant to allow Turkey to join, but none as to why they would want (or even strongly consider) them to.

Can someone fill me in on the "Pro" side of this debate? Oberiko 15:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm converting the poorly named "Turkey's arguments for entry - for and against" to "Turkey and others' arguments for entry" and fill in. --CJWilly 15:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Structure

I think the 'overview' section should be destroyed as its more or less redundant now. Whatever bits not covered in the other sections can be moved to the other sections. --138.253.160.195 18:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Have merged parts of it to History section, parts of it to the concerns & opposition section. Aris Katsaris 00:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Update

If radio reports are accurate, Turkey has yielded on recognising Cyprus.

Your reports are not correct: Turkey would only sign an extension of the existing customs-agreement with the EU that extends that agreement to all news EU-members, including Cyprus. That however, is at best a partial and indirect recognition, as Turkey still refuses that any official recognition, trade, Cypriotic ships in its ports, .... Therefore, that recognition wouyld still not incldues even only 1% of what real reognition means. In short, Turkey wants to force the EU to someting absolutely unprecedented and hugely dangerous, being a de facto right for a brutal nationalistic (and military) strongman regime to habe its way, and not recognise the rules of the club. --Rudi Dierick 13:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

The article has nothing to do with this, why there is a see also for this? i think it should be removed.

Done. The link to Armenian Genocide exists properly where it should be, where the point is mentioned. Aris Katsaris 00:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree: the full details of the genocide on the Armenia sshould be left for the dedicated article. This articles on Turkey can then be restricted to the existence of the issue and the actual and still open official demand from the EU that Turkey should recognise its responsibilities in this genocide.

Some truly big restructuring

I've just done a series of some truly big restructuring. Please tell me if you think it's better -- I think it is. Aris Katsaris 23:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had started an article in french from the english version. But I did change the structure (in the french version). In particular, the fact/believe that Turkey is pro-atlantist is not an argument for Turkey; this just dependend whether you or your country is pro-atlantist or not...) 84.4.37.198 01:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An idee should be to give 3both3 points of view:

• from turkey,
• from europe,
• from american speaking countries.

.. American speaking countries?.... I believe the word you are looking for is English =D btw, don't you mean neutral /3rd party pov? I believe that would make more sense, because that also includes the rest of the world. --KrftwrK--

Well, I used "american speaking" for US and UK. I hope you don't believe points of view in english spoken countries are more neutral, even if on this article they are about the same (due to translation).

Lets see... Turkey's POV, "Christian/Core Europe" (Holland, Austria, France, Bavaria) POV and Atlanticist POV? I think whatever POV groupings are made they are going to be flimsy. I think its best as it is. --CJWilly 23:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anti-adultery bill

Don't you think that Erdogan's anti-adultery bill (the one that was withdrawn after reactions from the EU) deserves a mention? Etz Haim 04:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) Added a small reference under the double-standards argument. --CJWilly 18:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must be included, alongside other governement politcy that breaches the rules of a secular democracy: political censorshop, de facto recognition of polygamous mariages, discrimination of other religions, recent strengthening of police instuctions against 'un-islamic' hbehavior (liking mane and woman holding hands in public, ...)! If this article is to be a honesdt, objective presentation of facts, then also the recent anti-adultery proposals from within Erdogan's party must be included.--Rudi Dierick 13:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Adultary bill according to The Economist was a rather ill thought our legistlation to stop a senior member of AK MP who was in Polygamous marriages. Although not agreeing with it it should be noted that the law applied equally to men and women. Sol

Censorship on the 'size & depth' of any possible integration & other ssues?

Recently, I added a few sentences on other issues. The problems that the hugesize of Turkey, doubled with the unprecedetned difference in actual level of economic development, make it purely economically an integration tasks of unprecedetned size. However, this issues was removed without any reason? This issues is mentionned in many articles in financial and quality press, so it is relevznt. This removal therefore appears censorship. --Rudi Dierick 13:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Similar for the issue of what constitutes the basis of the current EU's values, the christian vlues as the Turks and their sympathisers insist, of the secular values as the majority vote on the EU constitution says? Why that crude replacing of the neutral description that mentions the secular values. Given that ALL current Eu states (esxcept maybe for Greece, don't know details here) accept several religions, including Islam, makes it imprecise to asy 'predominantly christian', where the legislation is by far predominantmly secular! This is especially given that the Turkish claim that it would be secular is exposed as a shamefull lie by the fact of its massve privileges for islam! That is AGAINST all European definitions of a secular society. --Rudi Dierick 13:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why also the equally blatant removal of the reference to fears that any Turkish integration would make it even more difficult ever again to go for a qualitative strengthening of the EU and for maintaining a line indepdent of the USA? those removals are all very uch a partisqan pro-American and pro-Turkish censorship. This is inacceptable in Wikipedia! --Rudi Dierick 13:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eu predominantly secular and NOT christian

On striclty scientific grounds, it appears wrong and in accurate to state that the EU is predominantly christian: 1. christians have become a MINORITY in some EU members states (as the Netherlands); this is a recent changes over say 2 generations ago, but it is a act, backed by all scientific evidence; 2. the legal system of the current EU members states doesn't know any state religion anymore (except maybe for Greece, see our local expert on this); 3. the legal system of the current EU members states recognises AND funds also non-christian religions, including islam (e friend of mine is a Muslim, state-paid teacher of islamic religion in Brussels!); 4. the ongoing prtoject of drafting a European constitution has even removed any reference towards christian values; this means its text is now 100% secular!

Therefore, stating 'predominantly christian EU' appears outdated, and incorrect, partisan. What can be said is that the EU has a predominantly judeo-christian history, but the past is not the same as the preesent. --Rudi Dierick 13:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nonesense, the vast majority of Europeans are non-practising Christians. There's no such thing as a "secular" faith, there is atheism, but that is DIFFERENT. You misunderstand what secularism is, it is not a faith, Europe is not predominantly atheist, it is predominantly CHRISTIAN. A nation can be predominantly christian or muslim or jewish but still have a secular STATE. --CJWilly 22:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it looks as, we do agree on the key isse: the EU is indeed predominantly judeochristin, but its legal system is strictly secular. The problem ad issue about Turkey is that the current Turkish governement appears unwilling to respect the rules of secular democracy (as seen by the EU): it still privileges Musliums, does not accept equalt rights for women, .... This is, the opposition is not between christian values and islamic values, but between a certain interpretraion of islamic values (that is incompatible with the legal system in the EU) and with the secular principles that lie beneath those current EU institutions. Turkey's insistence on the christian aspect is therefore notr relevant, as nobody asks that it conforms to anyt christian value, whereas Turkey is positively expected to adhere to the secular values (but then not Turkey's own deviant definition of it). --Rudi Dierick 16:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Judeochristian? We are talking about the faith of population: 95% Christian overall. Is the state secular? What about the large religious subsidies in Alsace-Lorraine, the adherence at birth (and automatic tithing) of German citizens or the fact that Britain's head of state is also the head of the Church of England? Secularism is not clean cut and this article should avoid saying subjective. Turkey has in large part defined itself in opposition to the rest of the Islamic world, the fez was banned the the muslim headscarf is BANNED IN UNIVERSITIES. Turkey does repress certain minorities but not really on religious lines, far more on ethnic (language/racial) lines.

--CJWilly 16:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some facts (and sorry for repeating things already mentionned):

* Most EU states subsidise ALL recognised religions, including Islam; there is no EU-wide privileges for one religion over another;

* The majority of EU-citizens is indeed not religious anymore! Apparently, this isa fact that many proponents of Turkey's accension HATE, and fiercely deny;

* Secularism is indeed not exact science, but that shpould not allow anybody to do as if there is no secular state, and no equal rights for all religions that satisfy certain basic requirements (as not being contradictory to secular democracy!). --Rudi Dierick 13:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The claim at the top of this section is untrue. Religious surveys continue to show that in most EU countries, a majority of the population claims Christian affiliation. (Whether they attend church or not is another matter.) If I'm not mistaken, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic are the only EU nations in which self-identified Christians are a minority. If you don't believe that, just click on the "Demographics" section of any Wikipedia article on a European country.

Also, I don't believe that many (if any) EU nations subsidize Islam. Funnyhat 06:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy incompatible with equal rights for women!

Stunnung that weird claim from mr. katsaris. Apparently, he claims that polygamy is compatible with equal rights. Just look into any textbook, any law syllabus and any legal ruling on the issue: the polygamy aqs known in islamic countries is squarely incompatible with equal rights. In theory, polygamy could be comptible, but only on conditioon that both men and women would have to right to have multiple partners. However, in islamic countries, it is only men who enjoy this right. A woman is NEVER allowed to have several men as a spouse. So ....--Rudi Dierick 16:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

if this is mentioned on the idea that turkey allows polygomy and therefore should not be admitted to the EU you would be wrong. Polygomy was banned during Ataturk's reign and has never been allowed back into turkish society. this has nothing to do with islamic law as turkey is a secular state.

Why Turkey did not (yet) do enough about Cyprus!

The Eu clearly wants Turkey to withdraw its military forces from Cyrpus, and to stop refusing to recognise the Cypriotic state. Under EU legislation, it is NOT acceptable that one country occupies with military force part of another Eu member. That means Turkey must do much more then what it did already to help solve this issue. Turkey did already do something, being endorsing the latest plan (which was so in favour of Turkish cyrpriots that itwas no surprise that the greek cypriots rejected it). Therefore, this is not a personal point of view, but just existing agreements and the rles of correct relations between neighouring states. --Rudi Dierick 16:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem is much broader than you might think. Before you say this, you should ask different questions, not just to Turkey but also to Greece, Cyprus, UK and European Union. I suggest you to see [Cyprus_conflict] article and read a few books about the problem. You cannot just say "Turkey does not recognize a member of the EU". We were in talks with EU when Cyprus became a member of EU; we warned them; we wanted to solve this problem before the membership of Cyprus. Because there are some equilibriums and you should not break them like this. To be neutral and lawful, EU should have respect our concerns, and let these 2 nations fix their problems first. Emre Sokullu

Rudi! Why the hell did you remove the reference that the GREEK CYPRIOTS rejected the UN plan? It is FACT and had the Greek Cypriots accepted undoubtedly Turkey would have left North Cyprus. Ommission of important facts is blatant bias Rudi. You have to stop trying to square all the blame on the Turks.

Once again, Greeks rejected that particular plan (the Annan plan) because it was clearly unbalanced, and the result of a crude hack job, personal favors and background movements (there were even Greek parts involved in conceiving it as it finally appeared, willing to sell out the interests of Greece just for their personal gain). And, if Turkey doesn't get over its "national virility" and recognize Cyprus, any negotiations will be totally worthless and meaningless. The fact that the USA "pushes" Turkey into being accepted also doesn't help, and surely isn't "unbiased". EpiVictor 07:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unbalanced? This is not objective. I'm sorry but you just blame, don't say anyhing concrete. Emre Sokullu

is islam (in)compatible with secular democratic values?

Apparently, there is quite some confusion on this. In Western countries, many write literally that a muslim country cannot be a secular democracy. I think that is pure rubbish. As far as I see it, a muslim country can be a secular one. Everything depends of how it chooses to be, and how it acts. As soon as it abides by the universal human rights (thus including the equality of all human beings, regardless of their gender and religion), and when the state does not discriminate its citizens according ther creed, then is can be a perfectly secular state. However, what Turkey shows is several massive and large-scale infractions on these principles. Therefore, one cannot consider the Turkish state a truly secular one, nor a truly democratic one. --Rudi Dierick 16:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many would argue Turkey is as secular as France, IE they practically enforce atheism. I don't need to point out how french laicite is not the same as mainstream secularism. --CJWilly 16:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

come on: do you believe that yourself? With polygamous mariages sanctionned at large scale? With thouszands of state-paid imams - which in itself can be compatible with a secular state, but ONLY on condition that the clerics of ALL eligiuons get same salaries- and with the impossibility for all non-muslms to have religious education in Turkey. And the some call that 'seular'. Sorry, but I cannot take that serious. --Rudi Dierick 19:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'm atheist, all of my friends know this, and I never had any problem. For instance, ff you ever watch European football cups, you'll see Turkish clubs with many foreigner players who express their reliegious beliefs very comfortably in front of Muslim people. We never feel bad about this, controversely we are a very open community and we like very much differences. That's why Jewish people could live happily in Ottoman territories for centuries; and that's why Serbian, Greek people came and became the rulers, grand viziers of this "turkish" empire. Emre Sokullu

Turkey as a signatory to the 'Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam'

Someone asked 'What does current Turkish government have to do with 1990 declaration?'.

Good question, with a simple answer: Turkey OFFICIALLY, by means of a ministerial signature, engaged to respect this declaration that is considered by all non-muslim legal experts (including the European Court of Human Rights) as squarely incompatible with the univeral human rights. --Rudi Dierick 16:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have not shown even the slightest interest in writing with a neutral point of view -- indeed you don't seem to even understand what is POV and what is not. For example you've still not shown how polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with equal rights for women.

Are you serious here? Do you really pretend that polygamous mariages as practices in the islamic world (and a bit outside) are incompatible with equal rights for women? So you really don't see that at least any single woman should then also have the right to marry several man!?--Rudi Dierick 20:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What does "not yet fully acted" mean? Your claim about different "ethic values" is just a claim. I *don't* believe that the variation of Turkey's ethical values is different than the average variation of the other EU nations -- that sentence is utterly, utterly unacceptable.

Well, I don't know ANY other European country

* thataccepts such scale polygamy,

* that maintains an internationally unrecognised military occupation of a neighbouring country;

* maintains such crude economic blokkade against another neighbouring country;

* has such horrible political persecution of ethnic and political dissidents

Polygamy is not accepted widely in Turkey, far from being so. Despite from being illegal, it is not even accepted by religious people in Turkey. Most people in Turkey will say polygamy was a must for early ages of Islam because of continuous wars made to spread the religion. Muslim claim this is a spritual law coming from Allah, non-Muslims claim it was a political decision, both coming to the very same result that it is a law for its own time. Besides these claims, polygamy is rejected by Turkish society, ironically for conservative reasons (remember the anti-adultery law). I also don't see polygamy (as an equal right for both genders, not like it is in Islam) as an opposing fact to human rights. In my opinion, monogamy should be accused of this instead.

....

Why do you keep wanting this war? Why can't you just *try* to show neutrality rather than push your own opinion again and again? Aris Katsaris 23:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, why don't you just keep repeatring the same political opinions, and neglecting objective and neutral facts? --Rudi Dierick 20:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I do agree that Rudi's attempts at introducing blatant POV statements into the text should stop, I cannot let it stand that polygamy should be compatible with equal rights. Why exactly *do* you think that something which is only possible for one gender, but not for the other, does not contradict equal rights? The question's already quite hazy and far from clear in arguments about civil service and military drafting, but in this case, I don't think you even want to attempt to make a point. Nightstallion 01:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we agree on the issue actually: Polygamy isn't *inherently* incompatible with equal rights. It's lack of polyandry that makes the thing unequal.

In current legal tought in democratic countries, polygamy itself is considered as severely against human rights (and not just the lack of polyandry). Check any law text book on this, or one of the hundreds of websites dedicated to this. And I'm quite sure that I can find UN reports saying the same. --Rudi Dierick 20:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But more to the point, I should note that both polygamy and polyandry are illegal in Turkey. Indeed only civil marriage is legally sanctioned in Turkey. What Rudi is objecting to is state-paid imams doing a religious ceremony on their own time, without to my knowledge actually being paid anything by the state to do it. So already it's a bit far-fetched to call that a violation of equal rights on the side of *Turkey*. The fact that the state-paid Greek Orthodox church in Greece doesn't allow female priests would probably be a much more noteworthy violation of equal gender rights. Aris Katsaris 03:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poor play of words. So imagine that policemen are torturing crimiansl, but just in their own private time. Shopuld the sate and the police authority accept that? No of course. human rights organisations call this vigilantes, private armies, police gangs and other names , and they CLEARLY condemn any authority accepting that state-paid persons in its service so severely break laws. that's why human rights organisations consider the attitude of the Turkish state as ambivalent and unacceptable. --Rudi Dierick 20:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aye, we do agree on the issue. And I was aware of the fact that Rudi seems to be mixing up some things there; it seems as if he's confusing the typical clichéd image of an predominantly islamic country (and as far as I'm aware of it, there's very few countries even among those that officially allow polygamy) with reality, which - to his credit - is something which quite many people tend to do, whether aware of it or not. (Especially here in Austria... But that wasn't my point.) Nightstallion 04:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aha, I'm mixing up things. Would you please, after having accused me of that, come up with clear explanations and PROOF of that: external references, official EU or UN reports contradicting what I said, ... --Rudi Dierick 20:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since you started the argument and want us to accept your view of things, how about you prove to us, for a start, that polygamy is a "wide-spread practice" or whatever you actually believe is true? I do agree that the occupation of Cyprus is something which has to be resolved. The Armenia/Azerbaijan/Turkey corner of the world seriously needs some work, too, but it's definitely not Turkey alone who is to blame here. Nightstallion 20:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Armenia/Azerbaijan/Turkey isses are not only Turkey's repsonsability, far from that. Nevertheless, please check the official EU reports I listed already in this discussion. They explicitely mention Turkey's active responsibility. For as wide-spread polygamous mariages, I don't have exact references on hand, but I read several articles on this, and got also confirmation from Turkish organisations in Flanders on this. By the way, do you have NEUTRAL reports that allow to ascertain that these practivces would be not-widespread anymore? --Rudi Dierick 13:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does wikipedia claim being an encyclopedia? If so, by definition, can any sentence in an encyclopedia start with the expression "A commonly unnoticed issue..."? Whether you are right or wrong is not the issue here, that paragraph is subjective, and that is all that counts. This stand point is highly marginal and does not reflect the general status of EU-Turkey relations regarding secularism. Yes, there is a powerful conservative camp in Turkey, like in many other countries including some members of EU. Turkish bureocracy and army are militantly secular and this is also challenged by most EU officials, although EU takes side with the secular bureocracy in Turkey in general. In both Turkey and EU, the common perspective is that Turkey's progress towards EU will secure secularism in Turkey. In the recent years, popular islamism in Turkey has also started openly supporting Turkey's EU process. These are the facts, these are the things you will dominantly find if you perform an unbiased research, so these are things that should be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Not the subjective opinions of individuals, but unfortunately the entire article is filled in with any kind of propaganda, everybody is trying to make their own interests visible, and this is just ugly. AldirmaGonul 17:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of my sanity

For the sake of my sanity, will you stop trying impose this ludicrous POV, Rudi? You are *so* very informed about Turkey that you don't have the slightest clue about the situation in other countries. Read up on Greece's "secularism" (where we have a state religion, where the public schools do the cathechism, where it's difficult to even get an alternate religious building without the Greek Orthodox church's approval) before you even *start* claiming that Turkey is less secular than the rest of the EU member states. Stop using "unsubstantiated" and "unconvincing" to refer to anything that you don't like. And for god's sake, do you have any actual reason to say that Ireland's EU membership has anything to do with its divorce laws and any change thereof? Where do you get off saying "contradicting"?

You use Wikipedia as your forum to pass judgement on Turkey and the EU. That's not what Wikipedia is about. JUST THE FACTS, RUDI! And you have a *very* limited perspective on what those facts are. Aris Katsaris 23:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aha, so you still pretend that my FACTS are not accurate. Well, I'm listening! The only thoing you repeat is that other states are not perfectly secular neither, and then that shpould passs as a justification for my larger infractions in Turkey. Stop ranting: indiacte rpecisely which of my facts pou object to, why and on what solid sources you rely. And, even tough you apparently don't like the Wikipedia rule in SUBSTANTIATINg what you write, it is indeed still on the Wikipedia book. --Rudi Dierick 19:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rudi you are being unreasonable. No country is purely secular, certainly not Germany or Ireland. You continue to claim the turkish definition of 'secular' is different from Europe's, you have not substantiated this. The only difference I can see is that Turkey is secular Islamic and Europe is secular Christian. I have news for you: France's definition of secular (laïcité) different from the rest of Europe's. --CJWilly 23:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry? Did I not clearly mention that nerly all EU-member states do recognise several religions, and subsidise them, including Islam and Judaism, and in France, as an exemple, also Buddism, and that Turkey (and apparently also Greece) contrasts this with massive subsidies for just ONE religion?

History has it rights and its objective facts!

Somebody apparently likes to portray Turkey as oh so cooperative with the EU: "Turkey also backed the latest EU-supported UN plan to reunite Cyprus in 2004, even though the later rejection of the plan by the Greek Cypriot voters meant the continuing military occupation of northern Cyprus."

Plainly silly of course; the Turkish occupation of northern Cyrpus precedes the 2004 rejection of the latest UN plan by the Greek Cypriots by 30 years! So preteznding that this rejection (of a fairly partisan plan that suddenly was much more favorable then all earlier plans over 30 years) is the cause of the continuing occupation is not credible. --Rudi Dierick 16:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some irregularities

Firstly, i thought the % of Turkey in Europe was more like 9%, not 3% as stated. You only have to look at a map to see 3% is way too small.

Secondlly, this sentence: "Possible differences in fundamental ethical values and culture between a predominantly Muslim country with the predominantly secular and democratic current EU members (where in most countries only a minority still claim to be Christian". Turkey is by constitution and has since 1923 been a secular and democratic country. This sentence does not portray this accurately. Also by this sentence are we meant to assume that the majority of Europe is atheist?

Thirdly, does France's calls to recongnise Armenian genocide represent the view of the EU, when many members of the EU themselves still do not recognise it? France is not the EU remember. Also, the wording of "Armenian Genocide" portrays it as an undisputed fact which it is not. This has to be reworded to be neutral.

Lastly, there is a substantial section on the negatives of Turkey joining the EU, but only a small section on the positive which on face value is not a balanced argument.

I hope these problems can be addressed by consensus --E.A 14:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It does look to me more like 3% but if you a have reliable source then go ahead. The real point is that it doesn't matter a fig how much is in Europe. The smallest toehold would do.

The official Turkish Government line now is that it should be up to historians to decide whether it was genocide in Armenia. In the past turkish historians who said there was got themselves into hot water. Free speech is on a much sounder basis now in Turkey but how those Turks, who raise the issue of the Armenian events during the first world war, are treated will be closely watched.

Finally, yes, the article is way too slanted towards the anti side. Especially given that the EU has already decided that in principle Turkey should join. Dejvid 22:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Race

I think the big elephant in the room here that no one is talking about is that a significant, even central part of the opposition to Turkey joining the EU is based on racial feeling. I think many or most Europeans, although they would never admit it openly because of the heavy social stigma and even legal sanctions they would suffer for "racism", believe that a key unifying factor for the EU is racial. "European descent" in other countries, particularly multi-racial ones, is, after all, usually a euphemism for "white", and whiteness is a unifying factor for Europe that transcends ethnicity, nationality, language, and religion. I think many Europeans see Turks as non-white, and therefore, inherently, genetically, and unalterably non-European. However, being unable to say this out loud for fear of being permanently expunged from polite society, high-paying employment, and cultural/political influence, they search for other ways to voice their anxieties that come near, but never quite hit, that central issue. Regardless of whether the factual assumptions underlying this viewpoint I am describing are accurate, and regardless of whether the viewpoint is moral and proper, I think the viewpoint exists and is a major driving force in the debate, and therefore, should be mentioned in the article. Quite probably, proponents of Turkey's accession are well aware of this factor and may have accused opponents of "racism" in order to taint their other arguments with the stigma attached to "racism". There may also be individuals on the far right in Europe who openly state their opposition on "racist" grounds. LeoO3 07:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too big, too poor, too muslim - thats the general view unfortunately. I believe Turkey should continue with the reforms anyway, will make it more a stable country in the end and attract more investment, then if they are turned down i think they should look to union with other Turkish countries. --E.A 13:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, how about actually addressing the specific point I made? LeoO3 14:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and address the points you made, though. Ukraine is big and poor, and yet polls have shown significant support in Europe for Ukraine's candidacy and eventual accession. Bosnia and Albania are poor and Muslim (or partly so), and yet everyone assumes that, over the long haul, they will become EU members as well. Certainly no one is anticipating that after 40 years they'll still be kept waiting. Poverty, size, and Islam certainly give Europeans pause, but they're not deal-breakers in and of themselves. No, it seems pretty clear that there's another factor putting the Turks in another category in the eyes of many Europeans, and it's also pretty clear what that is. LeoO3 19:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thing with Albania and Bosnia is they are relatively small enough to be accepted as muslims without upsetting the balance of power in the EU. Turkey however, will have the biggest population in the EU when/if it joins, and therefore the biggest say in what goes on. To have a big, poor and muslim country wielding the most power in the EU is threatening to France, Germany and other smaller states like Austria and Holland. I think like you say many people view Turks as different to western Europeans, but thats not to say its true. Turkey is a modern western country in a lot of ways. Its secular, democratic, educated, hard working and industrious. I think many people are scare mongering Europe that somehow large numbers of poor muslims are going to hijack the EU, im not sure if that fear is somehow based on race difference or more to do with political reasoning. --E.A 10:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biggest population in the EU? I don't think so. Turkey is barely 9million above both the UK and France, and way below Germany. Some how I don't think that they'd "wield power" over France/Germany or the UK.

Turkey: 69,660,559 (July 2005 est.) Germany: 82,431,390 (July 2005 est.)

- FrancisTyers 21:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

All estimates show Turkey will overtake Germany. By 2050 it is estimated Turkey will have 100 million population out of 500 million EU. Therefore 1/5 of Europeans will be Turkish, this is what makes EU quake in their boots. --A.Garnet 00:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think what Leo says is spot on. It is the anti-imigration parties that are most strongly opposed. However just to write this without sources would conflict with the Wikki "no original research" rule.Dejvid 21:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, let's face it, if turkish were blonde and christian they would have more chances to get into the EU even if they are like 70 million people and poor (still being that populous and poor doesnt make it easy). Then why dont we accept Europe is based on white and christian culture? That's what Europe is about, and therefore Turkey is not Europe. There are loads of non white and non christian europeans but when someone asks you to think of an european you dont think of a black or a muslim. I am not trying to be racist, I am just trying to be honest. I couldnt care less about religion, but after two thousand years christian heritage in Europe is everywhere, from the holidays to the laws or the behaviour, even if most people is not religious at all. I lived in Turkey (Ankara) for some months, and I rarely thought I was in Europe, lots of people dont look like the turkish cliché but still most of them look clearly turk and non-white (besides the mosques, the arabesque music, the women walking behind their husbands, the shop owner trying to bargain the price of an item and all those things that makes you feel like in the middle east and not in Europe).

Poor? When Spain and Greece were accepted, their economy were not different than Turkey's economy. Spain was almost as populated as Turkey. I don't believe Europeans can reject Turkey because we're muslim; the essence of Europe is their secular, open-minded, liberal structure (which is a direct result of Revolution movements). If you will reject us beause of our religion, please do so... Emre Sokullu

Firstly, the discussion area should be confined to discussing what should be in the article; we should not use it to debate the issues of the article. Secondly, you should be aware of some flaws in your logic, namely: 1) you claim a religious identity for Turkey while also citing secularism as a reason for permitting Turkish entry into the EU; and 2) your claims rather absurdly imply that Europe was somehow not European before the Enlightenment or French Revolution (were Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, and Henry VIII African perhaps? Asian?) LeoO3 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's not about race or religion. Everybody knows that it's a part of a huge plan to rule the "fertile crescent" (southern anatolia, palestine, syria, lubenon, mesopotamia), where are the cradle places of ancient civilisations and religions. If the 'freemason' presidents of western Europe and US want Turkey in, She's in it within 5 or 10 years... Who's with me? --JohnEmerald 23:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

EU constitution

We should mention how the perspective of Turkey entering the eu influenced constitutional referenda (especially in France).

Reported Turkish torture of mentally disabled

Added this article to the external links section: "Turkey accused of torturing mentally disabled," AFP, 9/28/2005. The timing of this report is not good for Turkey's E.U. bid. -- James

European hypocricy is being validated by the article

Honestly, I believe that this article is hopeless. Like many other about Turkey in Wikipedia. The entire language of the article is owned by the view point of anti-Turkey camp, which is mainly hypocritical by itself, thus making the article totally Euro-centered. This is not surprising since not only the anti-Turkey camp, but also the pro-Turkey camp is biased by the traditional Turkophobia exercised in Europe. Not to mention the sound of the article that tries to invalidate the points raised by the pro-Turkey camp, while pretending to acknowledge those views. On the other hand, the opinions of any kind of fanatic that is anti-Turkey are always welcomed, regardless of them being relevant or fundamental.

I will provide two obvious examples European hypocricy that is well-coded in this article. I know my point will be rejected by many mainstream Europeans without even trying to understand it. I understand this since the history is written from the perspective Europeans see it, so we don't get the chance of looking it from a different point of view. I also understand that wikipedia is at the end an "encyclopedia" that has to be written with a European language. But I reserve the right to challenge this Euro-centric or orientalist standpoint without being marked as a Turkish nationalist (I indeed believe that Turkish nationalists are also hypocritical about the same issues).

- As always done in European media, the article labels the minority problems in Turkey as "Turkey's mistreatment against its minorities", while those in Western Europe are labeled "Integration problem of minorities". I am not saying that the two situations are exactly the same, but I want to clarify fact that it is natural for the European view point to always put the blame on the "eastern guy".

- The position of Turkey in Cyprus is very similar to that of Armenia in Nagorno-Karabagh, with most differences being in favor of Turkey (Turkey was given the right to intervene by international treaties, a third country (Greece) was involved etc.). But, it is not only natural for the anti-Turkey camp and Greek and Armenian nationalists, but also most pro-Turkey Europeans to put the blame on Turkey in both situations. TIt is Europe to penalize Turkey for its position in Cyprus, it is the same Europe that does nothing to penalize Armenia for its position in Nagorno-Karabagh, and it is the same Europe that blames Turkey for penalizing Armenia for that issue. This is reflected in the article's stand point as well. Not only in this article, in all articles in Wikipedia, Cyprus dispute is referred to as "Turkey's occupation of Cyprus" whereas Nagorno-Karabagh conflict is always mentioned as "Conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan".

Most pro-EU, as well as anti-EU, not necessarily being nationalist, people in Turkey have a similar view about European hypocricy, and at least this can be reflected in the article. AldirmaGonul 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does have an anti Turkish bias but don't assume it is "European" bias and edit it before slapping on a NPOV notice.Dejvid 17:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I prefer not to edit controversial articles for several reasons, some of which I note on my user page. AldirmaGonul 00:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To be perfecly honest, if there IS European bias against Turkey, then the article should probably reflect it, whether we like it or not. The article shouldn't, of course, be biased in its portrayal of the issues, but given that the decision of Turkish accession lies with EU member-states, if the perceived oppression of minorities in Turkey is a given reason, then we should include it, even if it's not substantiated. --Nema Fakei 21:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

article is quite good IMHO

i just read the whole article and didnt find so controversial stuff in it, i must admit.

Fast

What does 90% of people in Turkey fasting during Ramadan have anything to do with its 'religiousness'? Over 90% of just about every country in the EU (except maybe Cyprus) is Cristian. Does that mean that they should be denied from the EU? Or is it just because Turkey is Muslim? ςפקιДИτς 14:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

While EU countries tend overall to be christian-dominated, such things as church attendance being very low, results in a categorisation of cultural secularism. Religion just doesn't play so big part in many people's lives. How many EU christians observe lent, for example? That said, I do think the phrase it perhaps too bold. It should either more clearly explain the link from evidence to argument, or be removed, perhaps to be replaced with a more appropriate fact.--Nema Fakei 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"secular europe"

I find this notion a little dubious. I'm presently looking for an apartment in Germany, and I've seen plenty of ads looking for a nice catholic or evangelical roommate. Well count me out of those places. Just my 2 cents. Dsol 16:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Article 301

I heard this on BBC news, is this still around?:

Article 301/1 of the Turkish Penal Code under which Orhan Pamuk will be tried is a case in point. PEN sees it extraordinary that a state that has ratified both the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which see freedom of expression as central, should have a Penal Code that includes a clause that is so clearly contrary to these very same principles. To quote Article 301/1: "A person who explicitly insults being a Turk, the Republic or Turkish Grand National Assembly, shall be imposed to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of six months to three years." To compound matters, Article 301/3 states: "Where insulting being a Turk is committed by a Turkish citizen in a foreign country, the penalty to be imposed shall be increased by one third."

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4205708.stm

- FrancisTyers 01:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights

I am very sceptical about what this paragraph insinuates, especially when it starts "A largely unnoticed issue..." (usually meaning someone is trying to introduce a little known POV). Is the paragraph suggesting Turkey in some way supports Sharia law (which it banned over 80 years ago)? Unless someone can provide a reason for it to stay, i'm going to remove it. This article has to deal with the big issues concerning Turkey's EU entry and must remove issues which are of little significance. --A.Garnet 17:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Garnet it seems that you can not find an immediate link between historic events that happened in the recent history (aka causes) and the results that these events have brought in the present European societies' perception about the subject of Turkeys EU-succession. For your information the systematic genocidal policy of a "modern" state like mid 20's Turkey which led to the extermination & expatriation of more than 3.5 million people from their ancestral homelands (most unfortunately to the underworld!) is not such a "minor" issue, in my humble opinion. And Yes! it is definately affecting our European societies' stance against the subject of Turkey's EU-succession within our civilised societies. Is it also such "minor" issues according to you: a. the illegal military occupation of part of EU soil (in Cyprus) & b. the ongoing genocidal policy against a (Kurdish) nation of 20 million people, by the state of Turkey? I urge you to try and be more informed and sensitive when you decide to edit whole paragraphs in disputed articles, concerning national histories, like this one here. Astavrou 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)